|
Dec 2012
11:13pm, 30 Dec 2012
23,618 posts
|
Nellers
On that I can't help you. I'm definitely in the "guesswork" phase of things myself.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:17pm, 30 Dec 2012
49,739 posts
|
Gobi
Nellers - no the HR logic is pretty sound. Just had a look at your PBs and in reality you should be looking for between 3.20 and 3.30 really.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:19pm, 30 Dec 2012
13,341 posts
|
DeeGee
I'm thinking back to the 2x 20+ per month deely at the minute. I could handle that sort of mileage - and we'll just ignore that fact that this base phase which is running from now to June contains more than a handful of runs of 26.2 miles.
Now, do we reckon that it would make any difference if it were to be, for instance 16-20-18-26, instead of, say 16-18-20-26?
The only reason for the marathons is to give me a long, catered training run, they will not be raced apart from, perhaps Brighton, and are unlikely to be any faster than PMP+90.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:23pm, 30 Dec 2012
23,620 posts
|
Nellers
Gobi, so people keep telling me but my (limited) experience in 2011 suggest that caution is more valuable than a gung-ho death-or-glory blast at a distance I'll only now be racing twice a year at most. If brighton works out to be a sub 3.45 then Leicester or Abo will be a sub 3.35 attempt and so on, and from there we'll see where it takes me.
But yes, get the 3.45 done and dusted first to get my confidence up.
DeeGee, I want to say something helpful but I don't think my expertise will allow it.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:27pm, 30 Dec 2012
13,342 posts
|
DeeGee
I think a comfortably-paced 3:45 could open the door to a far more exciting time later in the season, if confidence is an issue.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:31pm, 30 Dec 2012
4,298 posts
|
katypie
It's so hard picking a schedule isn;t it. I need to follow one so that me and my other half know what I am doing and when but there is so much choice and when you haven't got a clue it's really hard. Not answering your question DeeGee but where my thinking has got to following the thread
|
|
Dec 2012
11:36pm, 30 Dec 2012
49,740 posts
|
Gobi
Running 26.2 is NOT needed. A long run of the time you expect the marathon to take is more than adequate
Nellers - my concern is that in aiming low you risk cocking it up. If you keep getting the base where you are but do some speedwork in the 3.30 area you may change your mind
|
|
Dec 2012
11:38pm, 30 Dec 2012
23,622 posts
|
Nellers
It's bloody got to, DeeGee. Have you seen the "GFA 2016" thread?:-0
|
|
Dec 2012
11:41pm, 30 Dec 2012
49,741 posts
|
Gobi
Just seems a pointless step if you ask me. You have the time to train now and nobody should really know what MP is until much closer to the race.
Open your mind as they say.
|
|
Dec 2012
11:47pm, 30 Dec 2012
23,624 posts
|
Nellers
Gobi, that's half the problem. Last time round I started out thinking 4 hours was fine, trained well, got persuaded (OK, wanted to be persuaded) that 3.45 was on, ran 3.56 and change after blowing out between 16 and 18 and struggling through with significant help from ogee.
Genuinely think 3.45 is within me this time but I thought that last time too. If all does go well in training and I hit the start line fit and healthy I'd rather set off on 8.30s (3.43ish) and be able to hold it or build from it than go off for a 3.30 and fade. The process (neg or even split, finish strong) is probably more important to me this time out than the time, within certain bounds.
Does that make sense?
|
Myth of the 20-mile long run
May 2018