|
Feb 2013
1:29pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,468 posts
|
Gobi
I never ran a 20 miler at mp + less than a minute and would call doing so regulary as stupid.
Binks - ran a 5km pb the week before my 100km pb 
|
|
Feb 2013
1:40pm, 27 Feb 2013
13,746 posts
|
DeeGee
Numbers is an aim, Binks. But not "at all costs". Hence the conundrum. At the minute I'm on one course of action - amass the numbers steadily while having fun. If I was 30 minutes slower that would be it.
However, I'm full of self-belief at the moment, coupled with some very positive feedback, and I'm just trying to see whether I can set myself an exciting target without removing too much of what I really enjoy.
|
|
Feb 2013
1:45pm, 27 Feb 2013
13,747 posts
|
DeeGee
Taking 7:52 as current MP, I am possibly running them a little fast, then?
|
|
Feb 2013
1:49pm, 27 Feb 2013
511 posts
|
Canute
DG in response to your query as to whether decreasing volume and increasing intensity might sacrifice endurance, I think that if you want to achieve your fastest marathon it is probably most efficient to adopt a periodised approach, including periods when you focus on building up speed even though endurance might suffer temporarily. You can recover that endurance again over a period of a few months. Ed Whitlock, who provides perhaps the best illustration of a runner who runs very good marathons on the basis of high volume low intensity training trains mainly at a pace less than 1 min/mile less than his MP. Furthermore, for many years, he focussed on high intensity training.
I think it is possible to run fast marathons based on low intensity high volume running though I think that approach works best after retirement when time is freely available. I sometimes wonder whether he fact that I ran some fairly fast marathons with based largely on 5000m track training with few long runs was because I was at the time more devoted to mountaineering than running. A combination of high volume low intensity training with a modest amount of high intensity training can work. However, if your gaols is to run your fastest possible marathon, I would be very dubious of the value of high volume moderate intensity training. In effect treating multi-marathoning as training is high volume, moderate intensity training.
|
|
Feb 2013
2:11pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,475 posts
|
Gobi
Canute - what is clear is we both think moderate intensity is the wrong approach
|
|
Feb 2013
3:20pm, 27 Feb 2013
512 posts
|
Canute
Gobi
Yes we agree
|
|
Feb 2013
9:18pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,478 posts
|
Gobi
To be a multimarathoner and make progress requires a discipline that is lost on many people who cannot help but just boot it.
|
|
Feb 2013
10:10pm, 27 Feb 2013
14,106 posts
|
hellen
Lots of ingesting comments
I got to 100 last year and set a lot of PBs along the way but I was increasing my milage as well. I did get to the over raced stage at the end of oct and am still learning.
You do need to be doing the marathons slowly apart from the ones you selectively choose to hammer.
Ingesting gobi that you said you got a marathon PB while training for 100km. I don't think that is going to happen for me sadly. My run all day pace has got faster but I think I have lost my marathon sharpness , part of that I think is due to putting on weight and part because I perhaps haven't done enough speed work.
If your marathons are not easy enough then you will compromise your speed sessions, this is my problem and the problem I find with having multiple goals ( I want 24 hour, 100km and marathon PB). Whilst 26.2 miles is not much more than 20 it is still almost an hour and is going to mean you are less fresh for your hard session ( my problem with all the long runs I am doing for ultra training )
|
|
Feb 2013
10:27pm, 27 Feb 2013
513 posts
|
Canute
Gobi,
I am not sure who you think is ‘booting’ multi- marathoning. I certainly have great respect for people who run large numbers of marathons and can understand why people set the achievement of 100 marathons as a major goal. As SPR implies, those who achieve 100 marathons are a select band. (Though on account of the established increased risk of atrial fibrillation and the more controversial evidence of increased risk of coronary atheroma in males, who engage in very extensive endurance exercise, I think that it is a probably a safer undertaking for woman than men).
However, I think the crucial question that DG was asking was about the impact multi-marathoning is likely to have on his potential to achieve a sub-three hour marathon. The crucial issue I raised is that running the marathon distance at a moderate pace (eg the pace that DG runs his easier marathons) places stress on the body that might interfere with the ability to train optimally for a fast marathon.
|
|
Feb 2013
10:40pm, 27 Feb 2013
13,754 posts
|
DeeGee
Is it that "moderate pace" has no effect, or that the effects of "moderate pace" are outweighed by the physical stresses? And does that mean if I run with a HRM at 70% Max it would be better training?
|
