|
Oct 2017
8:50pm, 12 Oct 2017
769 posts
|
Daz Love
I think Joe is right! I hit my target on about 25 per week, but believe I could do loads better on 50 per week (I always seem to get injured doing that much though!)
|
|
Oct 2017
10:02pm, 12 Oct 2017
5,250 posts
|
Joe Hawk
It is a balancing act , the more miles you do the more you have to pick your hard sessions and your easy runs.
Also when you start getting over 50M doubles are a must. (P&D / JD say 70 ish)
And when you are building mileage take the hard sessions easy.
|
|
Oct 2017
10:07pm, 12 Oct 2017
25,078 posts
|
SPR
I went from circa 25 mile weeks to 40 mile weeks last winter, and even though I was never a speed merchant in training, slowing down was key.
|
|
Oct 2017
7:58am, 13 Oct 2017
1,153 posts
|
DrDan
JH ... but you can have low run mileage within a high(er) training volume. And that can enable higher intensity.
|
|
Oct 2017
8:29am, 13 Oct 2017
1,154 posts
|
DrDan
... the higher training volume coming from x-training rather than "filler runs".
|
|
Oct 2017
9:36am, 13 Oct 2017
13,761 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
"I think Joe is right! I hit my target on about 25 per week, but believe I could do loads better on 50 per week (I always seem to get injured doing that much though!)"
There is nothing more to say 
|
|
Oct 2017
10:53am, 13 Oct 2017
61,706 posts
|
Gobi
Interesting thread.
Disagree with lots of the views around pacing but then again I'm not a Furryman fan although i train bike and run.
|
|
Oct 2017
11:20am, 13 Oct 2017
3,046 posts
|
larkim
So, apart from the taper mileage, it seems to me that the P&D plan I followed was right down the middle in between "extreme" training plans such as "just lots of slow mileage" (not sure if there is a name for it), Furman / FIRST, 80:20 etc.
Given that my experience with the middle of the road, modest-to-average distance plan was successful (in terms of measuring an acceptable outcome delivered without excessive on the day trials and tribulations), I wonder what "extremists" from any side of the debate would argue my outcome might have been had I been a disciple of their preferred training approach from, say, 6 months ago.
And what that might tell me about where I could go from here on. The safe bet would be to assume that P&D would be successful 2nd time out too, and I think self evidently doing "more" (to a point) would bring more benefits in terms of the approach of P&D.
Whither my training approach?
|
|
Oct 2017
11:28am, 13 Oct 2017
13,771 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Ok my view. All plans need to be tailored to the individual. We are all at different developmental stages, physically and mentally.
I would only advocate FIRST for a small subset of athletes. Mainly restricted to those runners that have marathon experience. And unlike the book I wouldn't recommend it year in year out.
I strongly advocate Periodisation.
In my opinion the athlete needs a break and also different challenges to keep fresh. If you keep going back to the well and not allowing time for it to refill it will soon be empty.
|
|
Oct 2017
11:30am, 13 Oct 2017
1,168 posts
|
Uyuni
For your first few marathons I’m sure that you’ll improve no matter what you do (within reason) provided that includes plenty of miles. Since my first marathon (London 2015, 3:32) I’ve been much less diligent in following plans to allow for more club races/family commitments etc but just by vaguely hitting the P&D mileage amounts from the 18/55 plan with a similar mix of sessions I’ve improved each time.
Doubtless I could have improved quicker if I’d been more disciplined, but then I wouldn’t have enjoyed the build up as much each time. Probably by the time that you get to a Baz/WW number of marathons and are trying to shave off an all important minute or so then the fine detail of the plan matters far more.
|
