| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
 posted May-03-2007 10:11 AM
   
If there IS (and actually I think there is) any genetic differences, it's NOT if you are genetically gifted or not; but WHAT genetic advantages and disadvantages you might have. Some are fast; some can go far... Basically that's that for distance running (okay, there are things like running form and all...). And this is why I never like to generalize things in numbers. So Seko ran up to 50 miles and ran 2:08. Runners like Lopes or Jones hardly ran 18 miles or longer and ran 2:07. Takahashi ran 70km a day (not all the time, thank God!) and ran 2:19. Chiba ran 30k but faster and she ran 2:21. Both Takahashi and Chiba were coached by Koide, by the way... There are different types of runners.Soh brothers, at one time had 5 sub-2:10 marathon runners on the team, once said that there are runners who gain endurance and stamina by running far; but there are runners who "use up" their endurance and stamina by running far. Naturally, training far is not a good idea for the latter. There are muscle types and all that we now know but I don't think it's that clear-cut either. What training is all about is evaluation of exercises to your own reactions. Mary seems to already know that she needs to do a long run of more than 3 hours. But some others might react better with shorter "long" runs and perhaps more strength type of workout. My wife can handle long runs very well; she can just do nothing and steps out and runs 2-hours on weekend with very little problem. I can't. I need to have some continuity of exercise during the week or my run on weekend will be like crap. Having said that (individual differences), what intrigues me as a matter of fact, Mary, is the amount of running you do (4 hours every other week or thereabout) plus some "speed work" and, pardon me if this sounded arrogant which I seriously don't have ANY intention at all, seemingly lack of or very minimal "dramatic" improvement. Usually, and here I am emphasizing "general" term here, we run a lot and our fitness level improves and now we can run further AND faster. In the beginning, you may go out this particular course and run it in, say, 2:45. As you get fitter, your time will come down to 2:25, then 2:10...It's hard to cut 10 seconds off your 800m time; but it's fairly easy to cut 10, 15, 20 minutes off "a long run". All you need to do is to "get in shape". If that's not happening, you might want to re-evaluate your program. This is the thing about some workouts (and this is what I thought you thought, Tigger, which I thought you might have misinterpreted...man, this is getting confusing!) like Yasso repeats. Bart himself told me that he questions value of doing those 800m repeats at, say, 5 minutes (10-minute-mile pace). It's probably not quite fulfilling the purpose of the workout. Might be better to just go out and run 1:30 or 2-hours instead... If your goal is simply to run for a long, long time, that's perfectly fine. Again, I'll have no argument for that. I personally see it as "improvement". I can feel it when I start to get in shape (besides how may pants fit). You start to feel stronger and you start to "fly". Doesn't happen too often but that's my "runner's high". Rengle, I forgot that we are "co-coaching" Benjamin! We need to do something with our Mexican friend... Arthur would have dropped him ages ago! The thing is; we don't know actually whose program he's following! (although, knowing you and me, I'm sure they are pretty similar...) Tigger, yeah, I thought you might have checked roughly how many posts there are on each page... Well, at least you're smarter! (or had more time at hand) ;o)
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 10:17 AM
Top of the page on two pages in a row...! I need to get a life...
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 10:51 AM
Nobby,
Let's start sending Benjamin really different schedules and see what he does.
Thanks to all who chimed in about what they do between long runs. What I've noticed is that people with faster times seem like they're doing more with the in-between runs which is exactly what I suspected.
MaryT,
I prefer to think in terms of a seven day week. I think that if you have a run so long that you can only do it once every two weeks and have to spend several days recovering from it you'd be better off shortening that run significantly and not needing all those easy days in between.
DanMoriarty,
You improved your half marathon by about 11 minutes and your marathon by 2 minutes,I forget what happened at 10km, when you did the "shorter" long runs and balanced out your mileage somewhat. Everything got better that way but what you seem to notice is the small marathon improvement realtive to the other distances. Let's think about that for a minute or two.
There are so many variables when you race that you can't simply take one race and draw firm conclusions. If you didn't have your best day when you ran a marathon you can't do one the next week to see if it can be better. Maybe you had a "bad" day with the 3:08 and still improved slightly. Maybe your previous focus on the marathon had gotten your marathon performances to the high end of your personal performance curve and left less room for improvement than you had at other distances. It's probably personal perspective, but I think your change in training was quite successful. improvement is improvement and three hours is a significant time. You aren't far away from it and may get it with a "great" day. But as you approach it improvements will come in smaller increments.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 11:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
This is the thing about some workouts (and this is what I thought you thought, Tigger, which I thought you might have misinterpreted...man, this is getting confusing!) like Yasso repeats. Bart himself told me that he questions value of doing those 800m repeats at, say, 5 minutes (10-minute-mile pace). It's probably not quite fulfilling the purpose of the workout. Might be better to just go out and run 1:30 or 2-hours instead... If your goal is simply to run for a long, long time, that's perfectly fine. Again, I'll have no argument for that. I personally see it as "improvement". I can feel it when I start to get in shape (besides how may pants fit). You start to feel stronger and you start to "fly". Doesn't happen too often but that's my "runner's high". )
Actually, I think I'm pretty much in tune to your thinking Nobby. I run daily and miss occasionally when I'm travelling. I try for one quality run around 90 min mid week. I run up to 3 hrs on the weekend, but most are closer to 2 hrs than 3. Typically I run 25% of my hours in my long run. Recovery days are usually about 30 to 35 min. In deference to my older legs I avoid intervals. The fastest work I do is at threshold, which nowadays is around once a week or so. My biggest improvement recently has come from higher miles and lower weight. For the last 18 months or so my miles are up by about 15%, and my weight has dropped about 8%. (2006 average running time was just over 8 hours per week) I still have potential improvement in the weight department, but mileage wise (or time wise) I think I am close to maxing out. Peak weeks have been in the 11 to 12 hr range, with peak miles in the 70 mpw range. This has resulted in a new 10k PR this spring, coming within 7 seconds of my 5k PR (set 6 years ago) and hopefully a new PR at HM distance this weekend. I am satisfied that Lydiard training is most appropriate for me as long as I adjust it for speed during the sharpening phase. And I think I mentioned a few (maybe 50) posts ago that I run hills every day due to my location, so that aspect of Lydiard's approach is well covered.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 11:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dg12:
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.
You have taken a quote by someone else (runfastcoach) and attributed it to me. I did not say that. I merely repeated what runfastcoach said waaay back a ways. If you choose to quote somebody please ensure it's clear who said what. [This message has been edited by tigger (edited May-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 12:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Brian beat me to the punch. That was my point.
Thanks. I agree that it's all relative but I think an important part of his response was the phrase "but I realized that he was not running to his potential."
Simply finishing a marathon is not a great feat for many people. Most reasonably fit people (alright, perhaps not 70yr olds, handicapped people or cancer victims!) can walk a marathon in around 6 hrs, so maybe finishing in 5 hrs is enough improvement for them to be thrilled. On the other side of the point, I know someone who finished one a few years ago. He decided to enter several weeks before the race, managed a single long run of 10 miles, and slipped in a few shorter runs before galloping off from the start at a sub 4 hour pace. He finished in about 5 hrs. I don't think he came anywhere near his potential, although he probably did the best he could on that day. Was it a success? I don't think so and neither did he.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Thanks. I agree that it's all relative but I think an important part of his response was the phrase "but I realized that he was not running to his potential." Simply finishing a marathon is not a great feat for many people. Most reasonably fit people (alright, perhaps not 70yr olds, handicapped people or cancer victims!) can walk a marathon in around 6 hrs, so maybe finishing in 5 hrs is enough improvement for them to be thrilled. On the other side of the point, I know someone who finished one a few years ago. He decided to enter several weeks before the race, managed a single long run of 10 miles, and slipped in a few shorter runs before galloping off from the start at a sub 4 hour pace. He finished in about 5 hrs. I don't think he came anywhere near his potential, although he probably did the best he could on that day. Was it a success? I don't think so and neither did he.
I ran my first marathon with zero training on a whim (LA circa 1988). I did not run at all except for an hour of basketball every day. My knee broke down like an old Chevette @ mile 18 and sufferlimped the last 8 miles, finishing in 5 hours flat. At the time and for a while afterward, I considered it a success and turning point in my life (you can will your way to anything and all that). Really. My whole outlook changed. Of course, now I think it was stupid. Such is age.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
He finished in about 5 hrs. I don't think he came anywhere near his potential, although he probably did the best he could on that day. Was it a success? I don't think so and neither did he.
5 hour marathon runners don't annoy me. people that commit to a marathon and don't train, they annoy me.Then they take satisfaction in finishing a marathon despite the fact they didn't train. The average finishing time in the New York marathon is 4:45. My sister runs 5Ks at about 12 minutes a mile so anything under 5:30 would be an achievement for her.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 06:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Having said that (individual differences), what intrigues me as a matter of fact, Mary, is the amount of running you do (4 hours every other week or thereabout) plus some "speed work" and, pardon me if this sounded arrogant which I seriously don't have ANY intention at all, seemingly lack of or very minimal "dramatic" improvement. Usually, and here I am emphasizing "general" term here, we run a lot and our fitness level improves and now we can run further AND faster. In the beginning, you may go out this particular course and run it in, say, 2:45. As you get fitter, your time will come down to 2:25, then 2:10...It's hard to cut 10 seconds off your 800m time; but it's fairly easy to cut 10, 15, 20 minutes off "a long run". All you need to do is to "get in shape". If that's not happening, you might want to re-evaluate your program.
Nobby
I probably should have posted more detail, because when you put it that way, it does sound like I was only running a little over 4 hours per week. Back when we were in our 30s/40s we were averaging about 45-50 miles per week The week we would do a very long run approaching 4 hours (18-22 miles), we needed recovery so wouldn't do anything fast, but still put in several very easy runs from 3 to 8 miles. The next week would have a long run of only 10 miles or a race (usually 10K or so), plus another 8-10 mile run midweek and some track work or some kind of faster run if there wasn't a race, and some easy 5 mile or so runs. The week after that, back to the very long long run, and so on. I can't run that kind of mileage now, and have turned to shorter races - the marathon never was my distance.One of the reasons I worry about advice to stop at 3 hours (or even shorter) and expect to then be able to run a 4-5 hour marathon and finish OK, is that I found I had a really hard time when I started to go over 3 hours, and not just with my legs getting tired or cramping. My digestive system would shut down, I couldn't keep liquids down - they would just slosh or come up, even if they did have electrolytes. I had many shortened runs or runs turned into walks before I was able to build up the distance of my long runs and gradually taught my body, yes it could share the blood flow with muscles and gut, digest Gatorade and not go into severe muscle and stomach cramps. I can imagine what would have happened if I had stuck with just doing 2-3 hour runs and then not find out how poorly my body handled longer distance until cramping up and throwing up at mile 20 or so, if the first time I hit that distance was in my first marathon and I had never trained my body to handle the time gradually over several longer runs. My husband never had that kind of problem, but both of us have always found we do much poorer than predicted from our training and shorter races, if we ran any race longer than 10-20% more than what we have been running in training. The year he ran only 18 miles for his longest runs (just about 3 hours), he did great for the first 20 miles, then died around 21, and had to limp/stagger in the last 5. When he ran 21-22 miles in training he always finished much better, even if those longer mile training runs were well over 3 hours. He ran about 4:15 his last marathon at age 61, not super, but solidly midpack.
[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-04-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 06:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
He ran about 4:15 his last marathon at age 61, not super, but solidly midpack.
Actually, for a 61 yr old man, that's pretty solid time. About 3:30 equivalency if I'm not mistaking...
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted May-03-2007 08:18 PM
I do long runs on the weekend and med-long runs mid-week. The 3 hour thing seems to be total BS to me. I know my body needs more simulation than most. My med-long run would hit 3 hours at times. This last time around, my longest run was over 4 hours. I finished my marathon in 3:48. Not a spectacular time for a 34 year old woman, but it was a PR by an hour. I don't know many people that have had PRs that huge in six months. Now, I just have to figure out if I can pull that one off again. ------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 05:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
I do long runs on the weekend and med-long runs mid-week. The 3 hour thing seems to be total BS to me. I know my body needs more simulation than most. My med-long run would hit 3 hours at times. This last time around, my longest run was over 4 hours. I finished my marathon in 3:48. Not a spectacular time for a 34 year old woman, but it was a PR by an hour. I don't know many people that have had PRs that huge in six months. Now, I just have to figure out if I can pull that one off again.
That's a solid, solid improvement. Amazing what mileage can do...
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 06:56 AM
Here is another example of what happens when mileage goes up and weight goes down. http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022650.shtml
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 10:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
DanMoriarty,
You improved your half marathon by about 11 minutes and your marathon by 2 minutes,I forget what happened at 10km, when you did the "shorter" long runs and balanced out your mileage somewhat. Everything got better that way but what you seem to notice is the small marathon improvement realtive to the other distances. Let's think about that for a minute or two.
There are so many variables when you race that you can't simply take one race and draw firm conclusions. If you didn't have your best day when you ran a marathon you can't do one the next week to see if it can be better. Maybe you had a "bad" day with the 3:08 and still improved slightly. Maybe your previous focus on the marathon had gotten your marathon performances to the high end of your personal performance curve and left less room for improvement than you had at other distances. It's probably personal perspective, but I think your change in training was quite successful. improvement is improvement and three hours is a significant time. You aren't far away from it and may get it with a "great" day. But as you approach it improvements will come in smaller increments.
Thanks for the comments and I agree with you on all points, I'm certainly not suggesting I should go back to running 3-4 days a week. I just think I need a few more 20+ milers next time in addition to what I'm doing now to help me get through the last few miles without slowing down dramatically as has been the case in every marathon I\ve run except that 3:10 five years ago.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 11:43 AM
I think that this time you might benefit even more from some 20+ mile runs than you have previously because, and this is sort of my central thesis here, your other training will have prepared you better for them.
My problem with packing so much training into one weekly or bi-weekly run is that you aren't running enough at other times to be ready for such a long run. So they become survival tests. If you improve your fitness with some consistent running at other times those long runs become runs rather than survival tests.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 12:04 PM
I am totally intrigued by all these responses about the long run for the marathon... I really am!Now, I'd have to clarify this; David asked me this before; I AM one of the main torch-bearer of Arthur Lydiard. I AM working to restore the Old Man's teaching and I AM a big proponent of mileage (or kilometers, whatever you want to call it). When I was younger, I went up to 125 miles a week; ran 90~100 regularly. When I became a coach in Japan, our runners, young girls between 18~23, ran regularly up to 2 hours (we only had one marathon runner). This girl I'm coaching right now, she just started her career as an 800m runner and she ran up to 3 hours run with 1:45~2:00 regularly throughout the winter with me. As a Lydiard man, we emphasize pursuit of exellence; improvement of one's performance; and we promote health, fitness and personal well-being through aerobic exercise. Remember, Lydiard was THE father of jogging as well as a maker of champions. We continue Lydiard tradition of helping out elite runners as well as beginning joggers equally. That being said; I am quite intrigued by the fact many people train so much and hovering around 4~5 hour range! I've talked to many people who are running marathon and more often than not, they'd say "I'm shooting for 4 hours." Why? They have no idea. It was quite comical a few years back when Coach Squires came to Twin Cities Marathon as a guest speaker; this young man raised his hand and said, "Do you think I can run 4 hour tomorrow?" Coach asked a few questions and he said, "I ran 20 miles last week." Coach said well, running 20 miles a week before may be a bit too much... Well, it turned out, he ran 20 miles last week PERIOD! Coach said, "Well, if you ran 4 hours, let me know. I want to write a book about it!" I think this is because so many people run 4-hour marathon, people think it's attainable. Well, my neighbor ran 4:12, I think I can do 4-hour... That's great! Really, it is such a healthy endevour anyways that this marathon-craze movement is NOT a bad thing at all... But at the same time, I think FAR too many people also just settle for 4-hour marathon. Everybody who finishes is a winner! Well, yes. But anybody who ONLY settles for just finishing, in my opinion, is not necessarily a winner. Maybe...you can do hell of a lot better than that. Lydiard came up with this time-based training (I'm not going to claim him as the first to do so). That was based on his experience that, when slower people, not as fit as his runners who would easily run sub-7 pace aerobically, started to run 100 miles a week, they were spending too much time and they started to run them too slowly (just to survive). They'll become too stiff, develop too much muscle viscosity, and you lose that supple strides, light on your feet; not landing hard on your heel... There IS such thing as "too much training". The previous poster, as a 34-year-old female, to run 3:48 cutting an hour off her previous PR really is admirable. It really is a decent time! But let me also tell you; my wife ran 2+ hour on every other weekend or thereabout, did one 3-hour run (her pattern for marathon preparation), maybe another 1:30 mid-week...and ran 3:47 as a 40-year-old. I don't want to bring up this "talent" crap here but, I believe it was Tinman always said something like, there is such thing as OPTIMAL (or is it OPTIMUM???) training. You think 3-hour limit (though I didn't mean it as the upper "limit") is BS; fine, maybe your optimal training is to do 4 hour run. Others may be better off with 2. If anything, I don't buy that three 22-mile to run a marathon--people will most likely run out of time and end up doing three 22 miles in the final month! (don't laugh, I knew of a guy who tried to do and ended up hurting his knee!) [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-04-2007).]
IP: Logged |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 01:28 PM
It is interesting about the long run. I am one of those that regularly cruises beyond 3 hours, and usually one 3:30 run a month. It is about 30 miles for me. My first and slowest marathon was 2:55, and I've seen some good improvements since then while doing over-distance long runs.So - I think it can work. In my small group, everyone who's tried it has set PR's by doing this kind of work. But it's certainly not for everyone. If you can't run the next day, and can't hit the hills, track, or some kind of workout in 2-3 days, you are not recovering quickly enough and it's not for you at this point. If you try it and recover and see good results, then why not? I have heard it said that it produces no physical benefit that can be proved by physiology. That it makes you slower. That perhaps the only benefit is psychological. I would say - so be it! A psycological benefit is a benefit. But if you can get faster at the marathon by doing this kind of work, why not? Incidentally, my times have improved accross the board - from 200m to Marathon - by doing this training. Interestingly, I have not run measurably faster in 50k over the last 3 years, even as my 5k dropped about 70 seconds, HM by 3 minutes, and Marathon by 11 minutes. Of course - long runs are not the only training I do. I would hardly say it's even the most important run, and if you can't do the other training because of your long-run, you are not doing your long runs right for you. So, I am convinced for my own part. Though it may be nothing more than a mental boost.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 01:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
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).]
Some people aren't meant to run marathons. Maybe they don't have the
right fibers for it. Were you not a sub 2 minute 800 meter runner at one time? What if people have limited ranges, ie., 400 meters to 10 miles?
IP: Logged |
aurang
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 03:16 PM
Dan, out of curiosity, what were your long marathon-specific workouts like before Boston this year?
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 03:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Some people aren't meant to run marathons. Maybe they don't have the
right fibers for it.Were you not a sub 2 minute 800 meter runner at one time? What if people have limited ranges, ie., 400 meters to 10 miles?
Yes, I ran 1:57 for 800m in university about 17 years ago. I suppose it's possible ( actually likely ) that the marathon just isn't my best event, but I still come back to the fact that I ran 3:10 on such limited training while only being in 40 minute 10k shape and now with twice as much training and 5 minutes faster at 10k, I can't break 3 hours? I just think that while I've been in good shape ( for me ) I just haven't been prepared to run the full 26 miles. In Boston this year the whole race felt like a comfortable training run up until 30k and then I just couldn't move my legs anymore. And last year in Ottawa it was the same story when I faded to a 3:07 after going through 30k on 2:55 pace.
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 03:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by aurang:
Dan, out of curiosity, what were your long marathon-specific workouts like before Boston this year?
I ran marathon specific workouts approximately once a week starting with 10x800m, then 5x1200m+5x600m, then 10x1200m, followed by 10x1200m+5x600m, then 5x2000m+5X1000m. All with 400m jog recovery and all at the marathon pace I thought I could run (4 min/km). My long runs ( normally I do 90 min once a week if I'm not building to a marathon ) started 12 weeks out and consisted of one 2:00 easy run, 2 runs of 2 hours with the last 30 min at MP, 2 runs of 2:15 with the last 30 min at MP, one run of 2:30 with the last 30 min fast and one easy 22 miler in just over 3 hours. So all in all, 1 run of over 20 miles and one just a bit under 20, and the rest 15-17 miles. The rest of the running was all easy runs usually 60-75 minutes ( 7-10 miles ), I ran 6 days a week, total mileage was 60-70 ( I think I hit 71 or 72 miles once or twice, most weeks were 60-65 ). [This message has been edited by DanMoriarity (edited May-04-2007).]
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 05:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,
I prefer to think in terms of a seven day week. I think that if you have a run so long that you can only do it once every two weeks and have to spend several days recovering from it you'd be better off shortening that run significantly and not needing all those easy days in between..
Sounds good, but then what happens when you come to your marathon and you've never run longer than 15 miles in training? There is no "magic" in a 7 day training cycle. If 14 days works, and allows one to get in those 4 hour long runs in order to run 20-22 miles or so in preparation for what's going to happen in your goal race, so what if you need a few more days recovery and do them only every two weeks? If you can still get in some good training, some speedwork and short races on alternate weeks in addition to those long runs every two weeks, what's the advantage of forcing yourself into a 7 day cycle just because that's a week? In fact there several training programs out there that alternate long run weeks with not so long run weeks - Hal Higdon's comes to mind. Even Pfitzinger's advanced has some "recovery" medium long run weeks after some of the longest long run weeks. So, it's not that novel a concept to have an easier week after one with a very long run.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 05:50 PM
I go over 20 miles on my long runs very seldomly, maybe once a month, however during my base period I average around four runs in excess of fifteen miles per week. I come out around 100 per week. The only day I will do a double is when I'm really beat up or the day before a hard MP run, so most of my mileage is in singles but I don't often venture over twenty miles and I don't have any problem finishing a Marathon strong. I think it is along the same thought as what Rengle had said, it is consistency that really matters. If I go out and do a 20+ run it usually knocks me down for a few days and during those few days I'm not getting those supplemental miles that are so important to my training. I figure four 15+ runs a week are way better than one 20+ run per week. When I do run 18-20 miles they are mostly workouts where I am increasing my speed in five mile blocks. The last one at MP.
The thing I noticed that is different from my training then others is that it is extremely difficult for me to run at MP in training. Other people it seems can run at their Marathon pace all the time. I'm able to run comfortably at MP during the Marathon after a long taper but in training it takes a great effort and concentration.
IP: Logged |
Abadabajev
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 06:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by obsessor:
Of course - long runs are not the only training I do. I would hardly say it's even the most important run
Don't kid yourself obsessor, the long run is the most important run.
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-04-2007 06:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I am totally intrigued by all these responses about the long run for the marathon... I really am!Now, I'd have to clarify this; David asked me this before; I AM one of the main torch-bearer of Arthur Lydiard. I AM working to restore the Old Man's teaching and I AM a big proponent of mileage (or kilometers, whatever you want to call it). When I was younger, I went up to 125 miles a week; ran 90~100 regularly. When I became a coach in Japan, our runners, young girls between 18~23, ran regularly up to 2 hours (we only had one marathon runner). This girl I'm coaching right now, she just started her career as an 800m runner and she ran up to 3 hours run with 1:45~2:00 regularly throughout the winter with me. As a Lydiard man, we emphasize pursuit of exellence; improvement of one's performance; and we promote health, fitness and personal well-being through aerobic exercise. Remember, Lydiard was THE father of jogging as well as a maker of champions. We continue Lydiard tradition of helping out elite runners as well as beginning joggers equally. That being said; I am quite intrigued by the fact many people train so much and hovering around 4~5 hour range! I've talked to many people who are running marathon and more often than not, they'd say "I'm shooting for 4 hours." Why? They have no idea. It was quite comical a few years back when Coach Squires came to Twin Cities Marathon as a guest speaker; this young man raised his hand and said, "Do you think I can run 4 hour tomorrow?" Coach asked a few questions and he said, "I ran 20 miles last week." Coach said well, running 20 miles a week before may be a bit too much... Well, it turned out, he ran 20 miles last week PERIOD! Coach said, "Well, if you ran 4 hours, let me know. I want to write a book about it!" I think this is because so many people run 4-hour marathon, people think it's attainable. Well, my neighbor ran 4:12, I think I can do 4-hour... That's great! Really, it is such a healthy endevour anyways that this marathon-craze movement is NOT a bad thing at all... But at the same time, I think FAR too many people also just settle for 4-hour marathon. Everybody who finishes is a winner! Well, yes. But anybody who ONLY settles for just finishing, in my opinion, is not necessarily a winner. Maybe...you can do hell of a lot better than that. Lydiard came up with this time-based training (I'm not going to claim him as the first to do so). That was based on his experience that, when slower people, not as fit as his runners who would easily run sub-7 pace aerobically, started to run 100 miles a week, they were spending too much time and they started to run them too slowly (just to survive). They'll become too stiff, develop too much muscle viscosity, and you lose that supple strides, light on your feet; not landing hard on your heel... There IS such thing as "too much training". The previous poster, as a 34-year-old female, to run 3:48 cutting an hour off her previous PR really is admirable. It really is a decent time! But let me also tell you; my wife ran 2+ hour on every other weekend or thereabout, did one 3-hour run (her pattern for marathon preparation), maybe another 1:30 mid-week...and ran 3:47 as a 40-year-old. I don't want to bring up this "talent" crap here but, I believe it was Tinman always said something like, there is such thing as OPTIMAL (or is it OPTIMUM???) training. You think 3-hour limit (though I didn't mean it as the upper "limit") is BS; fine, maybe your optimal training is to do 4 hour run. Others may be better off with 2. If anything, I don't buy that three 22-mile to run a marathon--people will most likely run out of time and end up doing three 22 miles in the final month! (don't laugh, I knew of a guy who tried to do and ended up hurting his knee!) [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-04-2007).]
I just spent ½ hr trying to reply to Nobby’s post and the whole deal went Cyberspace !!!!!!!!!!!
Here is attempt 2 !!
Amen Brother Nobby!!!!!!
I was thinking about a response when you posted this one. Could not have said any better myself. Seeing I am the “old story” advocate here. I will throw in another I don’t know how many of you read the letsrun thread on where I mentioned how Arthur came upon 22 milers for his long runs. It was not some “magical” figure he discovered but the distance from his house around the famous Waiatarua course.
I too, wondered about 22 milers and got caught up with the distance until I ran Waiatarua’s from all sorts of places from Lynndale Club rooms (19 –20 miles) to Bill Baillie’s old house (22 miles), His current house (23 miles) and then a group ran from Arch Jelley’s , 3 doors from house ( 24 miles). Nobby knows that I feel that one of the, if not the major key to Arthurs’ ideas is the Long run on the weekend.
With marathon running these MUST be carried out and over a long period of time, regardless whether you are a 2:10 or a 4:10 runner.
One of the first lessons I learned from Arthur was to set up runners programme by looking at what they want to do (race Aim) and then work backwards from then.
I already have a plan of action for my High School kids who want to run well in December.
For those who want to run say the Chicago marathon. Have you done that ?
Are you long runs progressing towards that day ?.
I would be so bold to say that if they are not you could be getting a little late if you are wanting to run well. I made a Statement earlier about being able to run an 800m in March and then a marathon in April. I was not special in this regard, many runners from my era in this country were doing just that.
The key was our long runs on the weekend.
Many years ago some mates and I decided to run a Marathon at the start of Track season and one at the end. No great ‘philosophical’ reason for that, except maybe the ‘free beer’ offered afterwards !!.
It worked fine for us. I was the ‘slow poke’ amongst that group and yet I did not run any slower than 2:50 in any of them.
Whoops ! I just checked. I ran a 3:09 in one but that was 2 months after a dose of shingles !!!!.
One year I ran 22 weeks of 21/2 hr runs in a row and yet I had given up “Racing’ and was just a training hack and Coach for others. That is how important I felt this long run idea is. I mentioned Trevor Ogilvie on here a while ago. Trev has never run a Marathon and yet he runs 2 to 21/2 hours every Sunday. Has done consistently for the last 8 years Nobby is right. If you have 22 milers (or whatever !!) planned it is pointless running them all in the 3 weeks leading into the race. Cheers everyone; Keep it coming ------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
 |
