posted May-04-2007 08:19 PM            

I just did a half marathon for fun nothing major and I took a midpack start. I really just wanted to get a feel of what a bigger race is like. I took note of the people that were running around me. One thing I noticed is the terrible joggers form on most runners. I listened as their feet slammed the ground, arms all over the place. It was then I realized my patience had paid off. Now for my first marathon that I will run in the fall I'm looking at a boston qualifer. I wonder where I would be if I stuck to marathon training rather than work on shorter distances for the last few years. My gut tells me not even close to where I'm at now.

Now I'm not saying everybody should do what I did but it is still my belief that many people are neglecting the other aspects of training. I mean when you are out plodding around for hours on end who has time for anything else?

IP: Logged

posted May-04-2007 10:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryt:

b]

---

I would not worry at all about whether the long runs were "only" 15 miles or even 12 miles, as long as I was getting run of 2 to 2 1/2 hours REGULARLY. Many people have run very well at 50 miles without running more than 20 at a shot. You need to develop your ability to use fat when you run and runs of 2-2 1/2 hours will do that without draining you so much that you can't do much on the other weekdays. You can have an easier week here and again and still have consistent training. You really can't run well at any distance by giving away 4-5 days per week.
In the late 70's a British runner called Chris Stewart was twice third at New York with successive 2:13s. He did one of those with no runs longer than 8 miles. But he did 120-130 mpw. Jim Pearson ran a US record for 50 miles with few runs beyond 12 miles and none beyonf 18. Cavin Woodward ran a world record for 100 miles on a track with a 16 mile long run.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 04:53 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
I would not worry at all about whether the long runs were "only" 15 miles or even 12 miles, as long as I was getting run of 2 to 2 1/2 hours REGULARLY. Many people have run very well at 50 miles without running more than 20 at a shot. You need to develop your ability to use fat when you run and runs of 2-2 1/2 hours will do that without draining you so much that you can't do much on the other weekdays. You can have an easier week here and again and still have consistent training. You really can't run well at any distance by giving away 4-5 days per week.
In the late 70's a British runner called Chris Stewart was twice third at New York with successive 2:13s. He did one of those with no runs longer than 8 miles. But he did 120-130 mpw. Jim Pearson ran a US record for 50 miles with few runs beyond 12 miles and none beyonf 18. Cavin Woodward ran a world record for 100 miles on a track with a 16 mile long run.

---

If you look at a lot of the training programs out there especially from people who have worked with novice or slower runners (Hal Higdon even has one for the opposite end of the spectrum - senior runners like myself who are now slower and/or need more recovery than did in their 30s), you'll find that alternating long run weeks with not so long run weeks is pretty much the norm. I seriously doubt any one who routinely works with slow runners, TNT runners, seniors, etc. who would be completing their marathons in the 4-5 hour range, would advise them not to worry whether the long runs were "only" 15 miles or even 12 miles, as long as they were getting runs of 2 to 2 1/2 hours consistently.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 11:33 AM            

Here is what Hudson has to say

Hudson recommends introducing hills into your training as soon as you know you’re strong enough to handle them. Use short, fast hills that build explosive power every week from the beginning to the end of the program

Here is the link

http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=10509&page=4&c=130

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 12:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned that hills should be [b]continued after the 2nd phase of Lydiard's program. The explosive bounding should be kept up until about 2 weeks out before race day.

Here is what Hudson has to say

Hudson recommends introducing hills into your training as soon as you know you’re strong enough to handle them. Use short, fast hills that build explosive power every week from the beginning to the end of the program

Here is the link

http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=10509&page=4&c=130

[/B]

---

What's the result is he getting?

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
What's the result is he getting?

---

Ritz 10k - 27:35 Debut Marathon 2:14

Ritz said that he's moving to sea level from altitude, and that he may be
bumping his mileage to 130-140.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/04/26/d3.sp.tracknotes.0426.p1.php?section=sports

[This message has been edited by fredurie (edited May-05-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 12:32 PM            

Hall and Ritz.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 12:36 PM            

I did 3 x 20 miles but ran the first 2 at mp (approx 3 hours). The third was at "easy" pace and I hated it.

Reading this thread probably justifies my "gut feel" that I should not run more than 3 hours in training.

I think everyone's experience is different and different training plans work for different people.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 12:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
Ritz 10k - 27:35 Debut Marathon 2:14

Ritz said that he's moving to sea level from altitude, and that he may be
bumping his mileage to 130-140.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/04/26/d3.sp.tracknotes.0426.p1.php?section=sports

[This message has been edited by fredurie (edited May-05-2007).]

---

Are you talking about Ritz or Hudson's hill training?

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 01:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryt:
[

[/b]

---

If you look at a lot of the training programs out there especially from people who have worked with novice or slower runners (Hal Higdon even has one for the opposite end of the spectrum - senior runners like myself who are now slower and/or need more recovery than did in their 30s), you'll find that alternating long run weeks with not so long run weeks is pretty much the norm. I seriously doubt any one who routinely works with slow runners, TNT runners, seniors, etc. who would be completing their marathons in the 4-5 hour range, would advise them not to worry whether the long runs were "only" 15 miles or even 12 miles, as long as they were getting runs of 2 to 2 1/2 hours consistently. [/B][/QUOTE]

I ran 2:35 with nothing beyond 17 miles. Lydiard shifted from miles based training to time based training because he found that slower runners were out for 4-5 hours doing the 22 mile runs he'd put into his original schedules and he didn't want them doing that becuase he thought they needed to go too slowly to cover that distance. I'm not surprised that you struggled in that one marathon but I'm more inclined to see the 45-50 mile weeks as the problem. I generally think that you need to be around 65 for a reasonable length of time to run a decent marathon. I also think you could manage a decent one off of 50 or so if you've done 50 for a long time. How many of those 45-50 mile weeks had you done?
Most slow marathoners today seem to train on those programs you've mentioned. I don't see that as an endorsment of those programs. It tells me that the programs produce slow runners.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 01:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopak:
A mate of mine simply ran an hour/16km mon-fri and a race or races on the weekend. He was able to run 2.31 with his longest runs 20-25km races. His brother ran a similar time running 13km/50min mon-fri. and regular racing. The brother actually ended up running 2.26 off a more typical program with speedwork and more long runs. Neither were particularly gifted runners.
Garry Henry ran a series of fast times in 1980 culminating in his 2.10 for 4th at Fukuoka. Henry's longest runs were 21kms but he was running up to 250kms per week.
Yiannis Kouros at one stage had the 26 or 27 best 24hr performances of all time. I believe he seldom went further than 25km at a time in training.
But of course the Soh twins ran about 126km around Mt Egmont in NZ in 1983 (at about 4.00 per km).

---

Isn't Henry the guy Steve Moneghetti said spent more time in bed than anyone he knew? I think he said Henry got up at 3:00pm each day.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 01:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
It tells me that the programs produce slow runners.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 01:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Are you talking about Ritz or Hudson's hill training?

---

Talking about Brad Hudson. Ritz is coached by Hudson.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 02:00 PM               

All due respect, it seems to me (I may be wrong) what you are trying to say is, in order to run 26 miles in 5 hours, you need to run 26 miles in 5 hours (I'm exaggerating here). Training is like putting a jibsaw puzzle. You work on what you need to work on and on the race day put them all together. Sometimes the unknown be revealed in the actual race; of course, as a coach, I'd like to have a pretty good idea where my athlete would be and in more cases than not, I've been pretty close (except for that Mexican guy--he did unexpectedly better than I thought but it was probably because of the behind-the-scene help he was getting from Rengle! ;o)). You don't need to run 4-minute-mile in training to run 4-minute-mile. You might do 3/4 of a mile and by then you should have a fairly good idea whether you can maintain that pace for another 1/4 of a mile. That "show-and-tell" should wait till the race day.

I'm a little bit different, however, with Rengle in terms of training approach for the "marathon survivor". As I always mention my wife's exapmle, I think one can run a "decent" marathon, whatever decent means to the individual, off one long run a week with sporradic rest-of-the-week training. I know I can't do it that way; but I found out more females seem to be able to handle this approach than men. When my runner wanted to run Chicago marathon last year, which I wasn't too excited about, I put her a long run on weekend plus hill training mid-week. She kept active most of the rest of the week but I don't think she ran a lot. She was a complete novice and didn't run much for 10 years at all. The longest she ever ran before she came to me was 1:20. After 5 months, she ran her first marathon in 3:41 (I actually thought she could do 3:30 but that was too damn cold and windy). She did one 3-hour run, just like my wife did.

I feel men seem to behave better with total mileage. Lopes, Salazar come to mind. Chugoku Team in Japan would do 3 times a day training of 60 minutes + 90 minutes + 60 minutes during the abse building period. Of course, Ma's Army used to do 20~30k in AM and 20k in PM almost everyday.

Fred:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic (the Lydiard Way ;o)). I don't think year around hill sprint is what made Ritz especially his 2:14 debut. If anything that actually DID make his 2:14 debut. I don't think doing hill sprints year around is particularly good idea--I know Hudson got that idea from Canova but I think he is dealing with totally different type of people with different back ground. It might help middle distance runners (a. la. Vassala) but not for preparation for the marathon.

Hudson shares the same passion as I have and I admire his enthusiasm tremendously. But for what talent he's got, his program has not quite impressed me. I think Dennis Barkar at Team USA MN or Hanson brothers, in my opinion, are doing a better job developing athletes. If year around hill sprints help so much, why Ritz moving to Oregon? Don't give me that altitude crap; he could have easily move down somewhere lower altitude in CO and continue to be coached by Hudson.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 03:16 PM               

Word has it Ritz is doing more mileage than ever before (something like 130+ per week), so that probably will correct mistakes made before. And, he is getting Nike therapy, so that will help him.

Note: It won't be sea-level training in Eugene that takes away the injuries. Maybe Ritz thinks it was altitude that caused him the injuries, but that's fishing in the dark. More likely, it has been training errors - like running too fast on a daily basis that caused the problems. I have no doubt, Ritz is Ritz's problem - meaning he is like a wild stallion who runs on emotion and can't be controlled. Talented but tough to tame!

The one thing good about Ritz upping his mileage is the simple fact that he'll have to slow down to do it. And, that will possibly help him get rid of those structural breakdowns he's had before. If he tries to run 130-140 miles per week fast, he'll be out with an injury again. It won't take long for him to figure out that he'll have to slow down!

And, one more thing, Brad, like Nic Bideau, has only copied training ideas from other coaches. Sure, most coaches do that, but for anyone to think Brad or Nic is revolutionary is simply wrong. Both have very talented runners who they got lucky to acquire.

Ritz, Torres, Hartman and the like were fast distance runners before Brad dealt with them. Same goes for the athletes Bideau has acquired - heck, Mottram ran 4:04 in the mile off his triathlon training - his first track race, ever.

Both of those coaches have contacted me for training information. They sure aren't doing anything that a coach like Wetmore, Lannana, Schumacher or McDonnell couldn't do if they had similar talented runners show up at their doorstep. Bideau uses almost exclusively Alan Storey's training method (the coach of Paula Radcliffe) and Hudson uses Renata Canova's method.

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 05:19 PM               

I know Bideau well and I've been very impressed with the way he peaks his athletes. He shared with me how he peaked Mottram last summer and that was text book approach. I shared that with Steve Plasencia at U of MN and he wanted to distribute it to his runners as well. Bideau never claims he has some special training that he developed. He has always stated, as has your friend, Kvalheim, that the follows the basic principles of Lydiardism. Yes, Mottraim seems to be very very talented already but it's how he peaked him that I give a lot of credit for.

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 10:37 PM               

I think your observation about women doing better off of lower miles and a longer run than men do is a good one. But I still would rather train someone like your wife did, a 2 hour run each week than a 4 hour run every other week, especially if you;re going to put something like a hill session into the middle of the week.
I'd like to go back to these training programs that produce a lot of five hour marathon runners by having people do four and five hour runs. In the early 80's, Ron Hill's wife, that's Ron Hill's wife, not Ron Hill, ran the London Marathon in 4:11. Her biggest week was 18 miles and her longest run was eight and a half miles. In the late 70's, I used to know a guy who ran 3-4 miles a day 4-5 times per week for his health. He was bitten by the marathon bug. He had NO apparent athletic or endurance gifts. He was a pudgy little guy with a stomach that got everywhere about a minute before the rest of him did. He ran a 5:35 marathon on his first try doing nothing more than his usual 3-4 mile routine with three runs of seven or eight miles.
Ok, if "normal" people have done marathons in 4-5 hours on routines of under 20 miles a week and with no double digit long runs, how much improvement do these programs with the really long runs erally produce?

IP: Logged

posted May-05-2007 11:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Nobby,

I think your observation about women doing better off of lower miles and a longer run than men do is a good one. But I still would rather train someone like your wife did, a 2 hour run each week than a 4 hour run every other week, especially if you;re going to put something like a hill session into the middle of the week.
I'd like to go back to these training programs that produce a lot of five hour marathon runners by having people do four and five hour runs. In the early 80's, Ron Hill's wife, that's Ron Hill's wife, not Ron Hill, ran the London Marathon in 4:11. Her biggest week was 18 miles and her longest run was eight and a half miles. In the late 70's, I used to know a guy who ran 3-4 miles a day 4-5 times per week for his health. He was bitten by the marathon bug. He had NO apparent athletic or endurance gifts. He was a pudgy little guy with a stomach that got everywhere about a minute before the rest of him did. He ran a 5:35 marathon on his first try doing nothing more than his usual 3-4 mile routine with three runs of seven or eight miles.
Ok, if "normal" people have done marathons in 4-5 hours on routines of under 20 miles a week and with no double digit long runs, how much improvement do these programs with the really long runs erally produce?

---

Which brings me full circle back to my comment (opinion) that I do not consider a 5 hr marathon to be a success. It is not all that hard to do. A four hour race is much tougher to achieve, although it appears there are people out there who can do it on minimal preparation.

As a point of interest I was looking at last year's results for the Vancouver HM last year. The stragglers came through in about 5 hrs 40 minutes. That's a HM folks. Not a full monty. Average pace of about 2.3 miles per hour.

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 06:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

As a point of interest I was looking at last year's results for the Vancouver HM last year. The stragglers came through in about 5 hrs 40 minutes. That's a HM folks. Not a full monty. Average pace of about 2.3 miles per hour.

---

Okay, okay, I'll step off my usual "it's relative" claim and say holy crap, that's kind of slow

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 07:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Mary:

All due respect, it seems to me (I may be wrong) what you are trying to say is, in order to run 26 miles in 5 hours, you need to run 26 miles in 5 hours (I'm exaggerating here). .

---

Running no more than 3 hours does, on the other hand, sounds like a good way to train someone like my husband who would normally be a 4:15 hour finisher with 22 mile long runs to complete a marathon in 5 hours - staggering the last 6 or so if all if was allowed to run was 3 hours, which would be about 17 miles for his training pace, not his usual 3 1/2 to 4 hours in training. You and rengle don't train a lot of 4-5 hour marathoners. Some, like myself, have real problems with hydration and fueling and need practice on those longer runs to train the body to tolerate anything, even sports drinks after 3 hours. 2 hours just doesn't give you that experience. I don't think it's just for the psychological factor that you find a lot of "professional" trainers of slower runners - like the Galloway groups, like the TNT goups, or in our area the Dana-Farber group coached by Jack Fultz (he won Boston when it hit 100 degrees back in the mid-80's) - rather than having their runners stop after 2-3 hours, regardless of distance, train their runners instead to complete a longest run of 22+ miles, regardless of time.

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nobby:
[b]It just doesn't make sense to me to say, if you're slow, just run for 2-3 hours and let it go at that, and expect to finish 26.2 in 5 hours without staggering to the finish.

---

Mary:

That's not quite what I'm saying either. Rather, it's like "If you're slow, let's make you faster." I understand that's not everybody's goal. I completely understand some people are totally content with 5-hour marathon. I don't have any intention of making their goals or dreams for them. But I know you can do better.

Thanks for a valuable lesson though. I'll consider it when I coach slower people next time.

Say hi to Jack and Jeff next time you see them. By the way, I think Jack won Boston either 76 or 77.

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 09:37 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 02:05 PM               

For the girl who did a hill session mid-week (my wife didn't even do a hill training), we were going to do another medium long run mid-week but the summer got way too hot to do that. So I prescribed a hill training (original Lyidard hill circuit) up to an hour (with 15-mintue warm-up and cool-down). The reason for that is; I figured by strengthening her legs, her endurance would improve. I see running a marathon, or any distance for that matter, not simply a test of endurance. By working on sprints, your technique would improve and now, instead of running 80% of your all-out speed, you can manage to run at 65%--this would conserve energy; helping them to go through that unknown final stage. Same with hill training; this would give them strength to carry on. We also combined lots of hilly terrain. I always tell them that, with tons of hills, running 16 miles is worth 18.

I may not have dealt with too many 5-hour marathon runners; but I sure as heck dealt with quite a few complete novices and they all seem to have come through fine.

IP: Logged

posted May-06-2007 02:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
I was just catching up with the thread and reading Rengle's post and it occured to me... Now to clarify; my wife or my girl didn't run 2 hours every weekend either. They weren't even that level. We did a progression-alternation program where they would run 1:30 one week, then down to 1:00; maybe do 1:45 and down to 1:15... Something like that. I usually give 10~15 weeks because anything beyond that gets too long to keep focus. We usually bring it up to 3:00 3 or 4 weeks before the marathon.

For the girl who did a hill session mid-week (my wife didn't even do a hill training), we were going to do another medium long run mid-week but the summer got way too hot to do that. So I prescribed a hill training (original Lyidard hill circuit) up to an hour (with 15-mintue warm-up and cool-down). The reason for that is; I figured by strengthening her legs, her endurance would improve. I see running a marathon, or any distance for that matter, not simply a test of endurance. By working on sprints, your technique would improve and now, instead of running 80% of your all-out speed, you can manage to run at 65%--this would conserve energy; helping them to go through that unknown final stage. Same with hill training; this would give them strength to carry on. We also combined lots of hilly terrain. I always tell them that, with tons of hills, running 16 miles is worth 18.

I may not have dealt with too many 5-hour marathon runners; but I sure as heck dealt with quite a few complete novices and they all seem to have come through fine.

---

Reading this and looking at runawayjesse's comment at the top of the page. I too feel that if training is consistent ans 'balanced' then a Marathon should be completed at quite a good pace. I have never Coached anyone at the 5 hr level but have helped many who wanted to run "reasonably" well. Usually I get the people wanting to break 3 hrs but have had a few wanting the 31/2 barrier broken. We have always been successful,

I have noticed many in this country do not prepare well for the marathon and thus turn it into a survival test.
A 5 hr runner who 'attacks' the training well (balanced !!) and consistently MUST improve. I am talking people who do not have 'afflictions' or have been struggling with some sort of serious illness, But even then there must be improvement if they have complete a Marathon and want to take it further.

I still believe that old Lydiard adage. "Once you have run 20 miles, you can always do it again."

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged