| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
 posted May-02-2007 05:58 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
I do not consider a 5 hr marathon to be a success.
Now now, that wasn't necessary. I wouldn't call that a failure either though. I definitely wouldn't think Runner's World a good source for training information but at the same time, I would very much comend them for getting some average Joe/Mary off their butts and out running. I know at least 4 or 5 of our neighbour's ladies started running after they read Runner's World. In that respect, I'd have to say that they are doing a great job!
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 06:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
I do not consider a 5 hr marathon to be a success.
Not even for a 70 year old man? A disabled veteran? A cancer victim?
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 07:11 PM
Tiger,If we were to think like you, some here would not consider whatever it is you run for the Marathon not to be a success. I think it is great that people are getting out and challenging themselves no matter what their level.
My friend who coaches me has told me many times that he gets just as much satisfaction out of seeing me realize my potential as some of the Olympians he has coached and I am no where close to their level. Those five hour Marathoners may someday become three hour Marathoners. If they dont ever break five hours so what. In my first marathon I did not crack four hours. Out of all of the Marathons I have done the first one sure felt like a success to me.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 07:49 PM
Success is a pretty subjective and individual thing and I'd think it would be best defined by acheiving a goal. But I'd cavaet that as saying the goal should at least be a challenge or challenging to the individual. I never consider finishing a race as much of a goal unless it's the sort of event where finishing it really is a challenge of it's own. I'd not put marathons in that category. Technically I've finished something like 420 marathons over the 11 thousand miles I've logged, and a few that actually had start and finish lines, but I only consider one of them a success because I achieved goals that I set for those that were challenging for me.Anyway, neither here nor there, just side stuff.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nobby:
[b] I wasn't quite sure of the tone whether you were being sarcastic or serious...;o)
No I was serious. I ran 3:56 aged 44 on less than 27 mpw 8 months after I started running and followed that with a 3:48 7 weeks later. Both were within a minute of my target and on each occasion I ran negative splits. I realize that I need to build a solid base to improve and suspect that I could run 3:20 with optimal training. Thanks for all your input Nobby. I've actually copied a lot of it in to a word document for future reference.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sounds very much like me, so I know you can run 3:20 even off suboptimal training.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Then don't run one...
I wouldn't.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
Tiger,If we were to think like you, some here would not consider whatever it is you run for the Marathon not to be a success. I think it is great that people are getting out and challenging themselves no matter what their level.
My friend who coaches me has told me many times that he gets just as much satisfaction out of seeing me realize my potential as some of the Olympians he has coached and I am no where close to their level. Those five hour Marathoners may someday become three hour Marathoners. If they dont ever break five hours so what. In my first marathon I did not crack four hours. Out of all of the Marathons I have done the first one sure felt like a success to me.
First of all, it's tigger, not tiger.
Second, I don't consider any of my marathon attempts (all but one of five were well under 5 hrs) to have been a success, so feel free to join me on that point. Third, I think it was Nobby, about 200 posts ago who said people who cannot run faster than 25 minute 5k races should probably not attempt marathons. That 5k time suggests a marathon time approaching 4 hrs, if properly trained, so 5 hours in that context would be a disappointment, not a success. Lastly, there are many ways to challenge yourself and feel successful without slogging around a marathon course in a time closer to the cutoff than to the leaders. But if you feel someone is successful because they made it under 5 hrs, well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to feel that way.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Second, I don't consider any of my marathon attempts (all but one of five were well under 5 hrs) to have been a success, so feel free to join me on that point.
Not trying to be inflammatory, but what were they? I beleive McN has a 2:4x under his belt. For the record, I am not a marathoner...
IP: Logged |
dg12
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 09:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
people who cannot run faster than 25 minute 5k races should probably not attempt marathons.
Everyone is entitled to have and express their opinions but do you want to disappoint someone of their goals and dreams? These types are a dime a dozen but it's the inspirational and instructional people that count. Nobby didn't mean to discourage those that will run a slow marathon because it's a free country, ls keep it that way. Nobby meant it for the purists sake that would want to "race" their best. Their tends to be a lot of sensless bashing here. I used to be that way in the good ole Corps. It's best to be civilized and diplomatic though. Nobby interjected that in this thread, I appreciate that.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 09:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Not even for a 70 year old man? A disabled veteran? A cancer victim?
Nope. OK, maybe for a 70 year old disabled veteran with cancer.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 11:06 PM
Tigger:I didn't mean to put you on a spot; I really didn't. But I'm a bit bothered by this. When did I say about that 25 minutes 5k or no marathon thing (not by you, Tigger)? I mean, it is unlike me (people who know me personally can tell you this) to give these numbers unless as some examples. I can't recall doing it. I might have said something that was taken wrongly??? I don't think 5k time is a good indication for the marathon anyways. Here's how I honestly feel; I have a picture here (I took it too) of an old lady finishing the Grandma's marathon in 7+ hours. She's hugging with her daughter(s), crying... Now that's a triumph. I actually wanted to write a story about her for RunMinnesota magazine. My wife's friend ran that same Grandma's in 5:05. She wanted to finish the marathon and she did best she could. I was very pleased that she did, thought it was a "success". Now that she's done, she may never do it again and she's fine with it. But I guess I do see it as a form of personal challenge and, to me, challenge means setting slightly higher goal than previously or than something you feel already "comfortably achievable". Some may have a goal of running a marathon every weekend and some have done it. To them, running a marathon itself is a great acoomplishment and the end result (time) does not bear much weight. I personally would like to improve the time--if you've run 4:30 and felt you could have done better, come back and try to run 4:20; then 4:10 or even sub-4. That would be satisfying to me. To me, running a marathon for the sake of running one wouldn't turn me on. If I try to run one, I'd like to run one well (considering my age and situation). I've run 2:44 (20 pounds ago) and consider that as a failure because I feel like I didn't fulfill my potential. I see some people running 2 or 3 marathons a year, all within like 4 hours and 5 hours. I mean, if they train up to 4 hours and running 4~5 hour marathons, I'd think they'll start to get better (whatever this vague term means...). If they like to run marathons just for the sake of running marathons, well, then I have nothing to argue. I still think it's great--heck of a better thing to do that sitting on a coach, watching football with beer in hand. So Tigger, how do you know how many posts there are? How do you count? Oh, well... At least I fulfilled my goal by becoming the first post of the new page! ;o)
IP: Logged |
runbei
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 12:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Here we go...
What in the world did he mean (Lydiard "hurt" runners)? Lydiard's training was responsible for successive waves of Olympic champions from New Zealand and Australia, Finland, and Mexico. I like Peter Snell's wry comment about those who put down Arthur Lydiard "Where are the results?" Periodized training works. 100-mile weeks work. Balancing effort and rest works. (Lydiard: "You should finish each run feeling 'pleasantly tired.'") How in the world was AL wrong? ------------------
George Beinhorn
Fitness Intuition
IP: Logged |
runbei
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 12:37 AM
Well, shucks, that's really basic stuff. David L. Costill, the world-famous exercise physiologist, observed that the difference between the average jogger and a world-class distance runner is not merely incremental: it's vast. Another study, of older unfit subjects who were put on a basic training program, found that just 10 percent had bodies that were "extremely trainable," while 10 percent were, in the researchers' words, "not trainable at all." The rest fell somewhere in the broad span of average trainability. The study was reported by NY Times science reporter Gina Kolata, in her book Ultimate Fitness. But this has been known for a very long time; at least, it was talked about in the early seventies, when I was starting. It sounds like the researcher you quote is saying that Lydiard tempted runners to do 100-mile weeks and "ruined" them. But that isn't true; a runner with a poorly gifted body breaks down long before he/she reaches that level. It's so common as to be a cliche: the hordes of runners who've tried to average 60-70 mpw and finally had to concede that they simply didn't have the bodies for it, so, if they were sufficiently wise, they accepted reality and trained at a level they could handle. I know a runner who very quickly worked up to 100 to 120 mpw: Catra Corbett, a local, comprehensively tattooed and pierced, electronically accessorized ultradistance runner. See Dirt Diva. Catra will fly to Vermont on Thursday, Run the Vermont 100 Saturday and Sunday, and be back at work at Whole Foods on Tuesday, not much the worse for the wear. I'd be on my back for a week, as would most runners. She chose her parents well. ------------------
George Beinhorn
Fitness Intuition [This message has been edited by runbei (edited May-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 01:08 AM
Wow! You take a day off and come back and the thread has grown like America's collective midsection. It's time to acknowledge formally here that Nobby and I seem to be coaching the same Mexican and that we have to decide which of us gets credit for that three minute half marathon PR he just ran.
I also want to agree with Kim about my admiration for five hour marathoners. I can't imagine being on my feet for that long and I've never coached one. But if I did I'd be inclined to try to get them on a schedule of one run a week of 120-150 minutes and another two runs in the 60-90 minute range. I'm not at all a fan of this business of having one "monster run" a week and then doing relatively little over the next six days. I think that as time goes on you'll get fitter and cover more ground in your runs and I'd have them pay attention to some faster paced running and also to regular striding as a way to improve turnover or form.
I see several folks have posted here about how their marathons were better when they had the real long runs as part of their training. I'd be interested in seeing what they did with the other six days.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 06:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
I wouldn't.
Again, how long were you on your feet?
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 06:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
I'm not at all a fan of this business of having one "monster run" a week and then doing relatively little over the next six days. I think that as time goes on you'll get fitter and cover more ground in your runs and I'd have them pay attention to some faster paced running and also to regular striding as a way to improve turnover or form.
I see several folks have posted here about how their marathons were better when they had the real long runs as part of their training. I'd be interested in seeing what they did with the other six days.
The key is to think in longer terms than a week cycle. So it's not a real long run and then what do you do for the 6 days. Think a real long run and then what do you do for the next 13 days. Business may run on a 7 day cycle, but there's no reason for runners to do the same. You can think in terms of 14 day "weeks." You do need longer recovery time for a 4+ hour run than a 2-3 hour run, so you don't do them every 7 days, you do them every 14 days or maybe even every 21 days if you're getting to your longest long run in preparation for a marathon. It's been a while for both my husband and myself since we've really been marathon training, but the basic idea is you may need to have fairly easy runs the week you run very long because you need more time for recovery, but if you only do that every other week, you'll still be able to get in faster paced running, short races, etc. the weeks you don't run the very long runs. A 3+ hour run one week, just 60-90 minutes the next week for your longest run, etc. or maybe a 10K race.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 07:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Tigger:I didn't mean to put you on a spot; I really didn't. But I'm a bit bothered by this. When did I say about that 25 minutes 5k or no marathon thing (not by you, Tigger)? I mean, it is unlike me (people who know me personally can tell you this) to give these numbers unless as some examples. I can't recall doing it. I might have said something that was taken wrongly??? I don't think 5k time is a good indication for the marathon anyways. Here's how I honestly feel; I have a picture here (I took it too) of an old lady finishing the Grandma's marathon in 7+ hours. She's hugging with her daughter(s), crying... Now that's a triumph. I actually wanted to write a story about her for RunMinnesota magazine. My wife's friend ran that same Grandma's in 5:05. She wanted to finish the marathon and she did best she could. I was very pleased that she did, thought it was a "success". Now that she's done, she may never do it again and she's fine with it. But I guess I do see it as a form of personal challenge and, to me, challenge means setting slightly higher goal than previously or than something you feel already "comfortably achievable". Some may have a goal of running a marathon every weekend and some have done it. To them, running a marathon itself is a great acoomplishment and the end result (time) does not bear much weight. I personally would like to improve the time--if you've run 4:30 and felt you could have done better, come back and try to run 4:20; then 4:10 or even sub-4. That would be satisfying to me. To me, running a marathon for the sake of running one wouldn't turn me on. If I try to run one, I'd like to run one well (considering my age and situation). I've run 2:44 (20 pounds ago) and consider that as a failure because I feel like I didn't fulfill my potential. I see some people running 2 or 3 marathons a year, all within like 4 hours and 5 hours. I mean, if they train up to 4 hours and running 4~5 hour marathons, I'd think they'll start to get better (whatever this vague term means...). If they like to run marathons just for the sake of running marathons, well, then I have nothing to argue. I still think it's great--heck of a better thing to do that sitting on a coach, watching football with beer in hand. So Tigger, how do you know how many posts there are? How do you count? Oh, well... At least I fulfilled my goal by becoming the first post of the new page! ;o)
My turn to apologize. It was not you Nobby. It was runfastcoach. "A marathon for a person who runs 28 minute 5ks is quite a stretch. In my opinion, anyone running slower than 25 minutes in the 5k probably should participate in the half-marathon. To me, that is REALISTIC! There is no shame in running half-marathons. It is still a long distance." It was in response to stealthrunner's questions back around Page 19 or 20. I guess I created a stir with my comment and I should clarify a bit. I was thinking about this comment and more about myself than others when I said I would not be satisfied. I run about 25 min for 5k and That translates into about a 4 hr marathon. For those who asked...my best was between 4:40 and 4:35. Not a good result for my ability, in my opinion. That was a few years ago, and I still have 25 min 5k speed, at least I did about a month ago. And yes Nobby, I think you have a fine definition of "challenge." A reasonably fit person could probably walk a marathon in about 6 hours, so yes, maybe someone who had walked one could feel successful by finishing a second one in 5 hrs. That is certainly an improvement. The only thing I might consider adding to your definition is that the challenge should take one close to their ultimate potential, be that 4 hrs or 2:10. It is difficult to imagine someone (excepting the aged, disabled, etc.) being close to their ultimate potential at 5 hrs. Ultimately what counts is how the person him/herself feels, and not anyone else. I will be running a HM this weekend with a target in mind. If I miss my target I will be disappointed, even if I PR, which is likely.
[This message has been edited by tigger (edited May-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 08:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Not trying to be inflammatory, but what were they?I beleive McN has a 2:4x under his belt. For the record, I am not a marathoner...
I have answered your question, but (and I too am not trying to be inflammatory.) what was the purpose of quoting someone else's time if all you wanted was mine? I don't understand.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 08:16 AM
It's all relative. I have a friend who ran a 2:37 marathon last year and I felt bad for him because he was looking for fifteen minutes better and had all the indications that he could do that. I would have been thrilled with what he ran but I realized that he was not running to his potential. To him the 2:37 was a bad race. To me it would have been a great race.
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 09:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
I see several folks have posted here about how their marathons were better when they had the real long runs as part of their training. I'd be interested in seeing what they did with the other six days.
I was running 3-4 days per week with a long run building from 2 to 3 hours ( 3 hours being roughly 22 miles for me ) and one or two days of 70-85 minutes of running with fartlek surges of say, 6x5 min fast, 2 min jog or 4x7 min fast with 3 min jog, once I did 2x20 min fast with a 5 min jog. Occasionally I added one or two 5 mile recovery jogs in there. I was nursing a thigh muscle strain for about 5 months prior to the marathon and so couldn't run faster than about 10 km pace on my fartlek runs ( that's also why I was only running 3-4 times per week ) but it finally disappeared during my taper for the race. Compare that with now, I'm running 6-7 days per week, about 60-65 miles a week with two faster sessions ( intervals or fartlek ) and a long run of 90 minutes most of the year and 2 to 2.5 hours in the last 8-10 weeks before a marathon ( I did do one 3 hour run in prep for Boston this year ). Here are the results : 2002 10k - 40:36
1/2 - 1:32:26 ( tough course )
Mar - 3:10:58 2006/2007 10k- 35:37
1/2 - 1:21:50
Mar - 3:07:06/ 3:08:00
So, now I'm running twice as much, I'm 5 min faster at 10k about 10 min faster at the half and only 3 minutes faster at the marathon. The only difference I can see is that in 2002 I did more long runs and further long runs. Ideally of course I'd prefer to do higher mileage in addition to the longer runs which is the plan for my next attempt.
If there's a flaw in my logic I'd love for someone to point it out because if the difference is not attributable to the long runs, I'm out of ideas. [This message has been edited by DanMoriarity (edited May-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 09:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dg12:
Everyone is entitled to have and express their opinions but do you want to disappoint someone of their goals and dreams? These types are a dime a dozen but it's the inspirational and instructional people that count.Nobby didn't mean to discourage those that will run a slow marathon because it's a free country, ls keep it that way. Nobby meant it for the purists sake that would want to "race" their best. Their tends to be a lot of sensless bashing here. I used to be that way in the good ole Corps. It's best to be civilized and diplomatic though. Nobby interjected that in this thread, I appreciate that.
I wish you would have included the entire sentence for context. Your selective slice makes it appear as if I said that, and I didn't. I merely was paraphrasing what someone else said, and which I wrongly attributed to Nobby. I have since clarified the original source.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 09:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tigger:
[B] My turn to apologize. It was not you Nobby. It was runfastcoach."A marathon for a person who runs 28 minute 5ks is quite a stretch. In my opinion, anyone running slower than 25 minutes in the 5k probably should participate in the half-marathon. To me, that is REALISTIC! There is no shame in running half-marathons. It is still a long distance." It was in response to stealthrunner's questions back around Page 19 or 20. I guess I created a stir with my comment and I should clarify a bit. I was thinking about this comment and more about myself than others when I said I would not be satisfied. I run about 25 min for 5k and That translates into about a 4 hr marathon. For those who asked...my best was between 4:40 and 4:35. Not a good result for my ability, in my opinion. That was a few years ago, and I still have 25 min 5k speed, at least I did about a month ago. And yes Nobby, I think you have a fine definition of "challenge." A reasonably fit person could probably walk a marathon in about 6 hours, so yes, maybe someone who had walked one could feel successful by finishing a second one in 5 hrs. That is certainly an improvement. The only thing I might consider adding to your definition is that the challenge should take one close to their ultimate potential, be that 4 hrs or 2:10. It is difficult to imagine someone (excepting the aged, disabled, etc.) being close to their ultimate potential at 5 hrs. Ultimately what counts is how the person him/herself feels, and not anyone else. I will be running a HM this weekend with a target in mind. If I miss my target I will be disappointed, even if I PR, which is likely. How do I know how many posts there are? Roughly 20 to 25 per page. More if they are short. Less if replies include quotes.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 09:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
I see several folks have posted here about how their marathons were better when they had the real long runs as part of their training. I'd be interested in seeing what they did with the other six days.
I don't think any of my longs were 'real long' on my one good marathon. Of the 4 marathons I did, 3 were in the 3:45-3:55 range, the one good one was 3:27. I'd done about 23 miles on my final long run on that one, I was on my feet, coincidentally or not, for 3:27 on that long run. I had 4 weeks between 50-55 miles (scattered over the period), the rest mid-high 40's. Either 1 or 2 rest days a week depending. Most weeks had a midweek midlong around 80-90 minutes length, and one solid 'monster' week exactly one month before race day that had 3 consecutive runs of 75 (mara pace), 80 (tempo) and 120 (long run) minutes. I also ran my 10k PR 6 weeks prior any my 30k pr 8 weeks prior. Ya know, looking back, that was a pretty good sequence of runs I did leading up to that race. Not massive mileage but I sure didn't mind putting back to back tougher runs together. [This message has been edited by JimR (edited May-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
dg12
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 09:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
In my opinion, anyone running slower than 25 minutes in the 5k probably should participate in the half-marathon. To me, that is REALISTIC!
In my opinion people SHOULD run what they want to run and not be hindered in their mind by the limitation police. Many, many people REALISTICALLY finish way slower than you run but they ran according to their dream and goals and not someone elses. Some people are not satisfied stealing others dreams, they're not happy in their own lives apparently. Worrying about others is not healthy and can lead to mental obsessions.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 10:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
It's all relative. I have a friend who ran a 2:37 marathon last year and I felt bad for him because he was looking for fifteen minutes better and had all the indications that he could do that. I would have been thrilled with what he ran but I realized that he was not running to his potential. To him the 2:37 was a bad race. To me it would have been a great race.
Brian beat me to the punch. That was my point.
IP: Logged |
 |
