posted May-08-2007 09:10 PM               

Actually it's getting rather interesting. Reading your post remind me of many runners, myself 25 years ago included. Many would try the Lydiard program and run up to 100 miles a week. Some high school kids might try up to 70 or 80 miles and complain they don't run fast (just check out letsrun message board!). "I followed Lydiard program and I got slower. It's no good," they'd say. That's only a part of Lydiard program. If you cover those 80 miles or whatever at, say, 7-minute-mile pace and try to run 1600m in less than 5-mintues, it's going to be a bit tough. If you're not used to running at that speed, you cannot expect run that fast in the race. Amazing how many people (again, myself included 25 years ago!) don't realize that simple logic.

Now in regards to running 26 miles; yes, you're right. It would be scary to go 26 miles when you haven't seen that unknown territory. I think, as a coach, you flirt with a fine line between what Peter Snell said and what Dave Martin said; both of which I would say are correct. You either find the maximum amount of training without breaking down and still improve; or find the minimum amount of training while still improve. In the olden days, it was more the former. Lately, everybody seems to seek the latter.

While being a dreamer (not what you meant, Kim, but in a sense that he thought BIG), Lydiard was also a very much realist (really!). When I say "defy the rules" and "prove scientists wrong"; it does not mean some 40-year-old has-been plodder (like me ;o)) can go out and try to make the Olympic team in 100m dash. I would not hesitate to say, "No way!" Lydiard said to find out your basic speed by running 200m (mind you; you need to hone your speed as much as possible before you determine where you stand). If your best 200m time is 24 seconds or slower, it would be very difficult to run 1:45 for 800m. Same thing; if someone like Doubell or Marsh try to run a marathon, it would be very difficult to go the distance while constantly getting injured. So, yes, there are some limitations. Or rather, Lydiard would probably say, not limitations, but "to know your strengths and weaknesses." You can develop endurance to hold that pace...well, perhaps up to a point.

Now, reading through your story, I couldn't help but think today's trend and, in a way, this sort of reflects why middle distance and distance running in this country is in trouble. I'm not saying Ryan Hall's recent performace is not good or Meb and Deena winning Olympic medals are no good. I'm talking about the fact that millions of people running around all over the place in this country, yet, that doesn't seem to push the top of the pyramid upward; everything stays low; or worse yet, the times are getting slower (check avarage time at Boston or NY or Chicago). Why do you run a marathon? What is the fascination in running a marathon, pardon me for saying this again, so slow year after year after year? I mean, you improved your 10k time from over an hour down to 50 minutes--now that's a significant enough improvement. I would love that myself and would most likely try to see if I can get it down further. I ran my first marathon a notch under 3-hours (I was young and crazy; I ran 3-hours a week before followed by 2:30 on Tuesday and 2:45 on Thursday and the marathon was Sunday! I was VERY fit!!!). I brought it down to 2:44 eventually but I never really enjoyed the marathon. I always loved 5000m on track and I wish I ran more of it. I like to run fast (though I never even broke 2 minutes for 800). I like to go the distance; love to run up to 3-hours here and there. But I'm quite a big-built guy and never felt like I'm "racing" a marathon. Plodding along a marathon at 7-minute-mile pace never excited me (I can't even do that now!). I was watching Boston marathon with coach Sakaguchi. One of his young runners was running it. He bonked. Sakaguchi said, "He just can't hold the pace. Some people just can't hold the pace regardless of their training."

Not everybody can become a 100m dash sprinter. Same thing; perhaps marathon is not for everybody. Improving your pace from 12 to 8 for 10k, I would not say you're "untrainable" or even "slow". Not fast (;o)), but certainly it's a quite a bit of improvement. But the fact you are stuck at 5-hours for the marathon for all these years; it's either, again, I'm sorry to say this but, your program is wrong or marathon is not for you. Why does everybody have to run a marathon? Because of the distance to conqure? But if you know you can go through that in 5-hours "comfortably", what's there to conqure any more? I guess what I'm trying to say is; maybe you're right. You would HAVE to run 4-hours every other week to survive the marathon. I've never had anybody who had to do that (though I have not "coached" tons of beginners either); so far, my principles worked just fine (up to 3 hours). But I would still NOT going to apply YOUR method to everybody; nor will I expect any of my runners to spend that much time for training just to "survive" a marathon. It is honestly an interesting case; I really do think so; and I shall keep that in mind when I help beginning marathon runners in the future.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 09:12 PM               

I'm not so much interested in advising someone who expects to run a five hour marathon as I am someone who wants to get faster and shuffling along at a 12 minute pace for four to five hours is not going to do that, as you have demonstrated.
I ahev a friend in Australia who ran 4:10s-4:20s for the marathon on nothing longer than 20km single runs and 80-90 km, kms, not miles, per week. He's a big guy, started late in life and was in his early to mid 60s as he did that. I know, he's yet another great talent as is anyone who can do better in a marathon on training that's different than yours.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 09:25 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 09:49 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 11:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
Hey tigger, nice job in the race. And your daughter snagged first in her a/g, that's purdy good running.

Yes, you need some racing to get that leg speed up. I've found that speedwork helps a lot, but there's no substitute for some well-timed races.

---

Thanks Jim!

I see Richard99 is still following this thread and I hope he took note of my comments. This is the second year I've improved race results and given him feedback. I realize I am only an experiment of one, but nevertheless still a true experiment.

And Richard, In one respect I agree with you that training needs to suit the individual. That's the beauty of Lydiard's program, particularly the time based approach for slower runners. It's not "If it's Tuesday it must be intervals and they have to be 95 sec with 60 sec jog break." It's flexible enough to allow anyone to train in an individual manner at their comfort level. What' that you say? You don't like bounding? Then don't do it. It doen't mean you don't follow Lydiard's principles any more than not going to confession means you aren't Christian.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 05:41 AM               

Yes ! I believe Arthur felt you needed to set your sights high. As has been said before. He got his original guys to think 'National titles' rather than Provincial titles and then when the guys like Halberg, Baillie, Magee and then Snell and Davies came along it was "Think International titles" not National Titles.

That thinking too can be interpreted as "Dream Big"

Cheers : Kim

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

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 07:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,

I'm not so much interested in advising someone who expects to run a five hour marathon as I am someone who wants to get faster and shuffling along at a 12 minute pace for four to five hours is not going to do that, as you have demonstrated.
I ahev a friend in Australia who ran 4:10s-4:20s for the marathon on nothing longer than 20km single runs and 80-90 km, kms, not miles, per week. He's a big guy, started late in life and was in his early to mid 60s as he did that. I know, he's yet another great talent as is anyone who can do better in a marathon on training that's different than yours.

---

My husband, on the other hand, is probably more typical. His worst marathon ever was the one when he had NOT gotten in runs over 3 hours in training. That's the one he finished staggering in the last 5+ miles. He sounds very much like your friend in age and times (about 4:15 at 61), but found those runs longer than 3 hours, the runs of 20+ miles, were extremely important for him.

There's a lot of talk about training and various plans in March-April as many gear up for their last long runs for Boston. I'm just one person, and admittedly am not typical, so maybe I'm not the best example, but by far the majority of the marathoners I know say they do much better when they can get in runs over 20 miles, and even for those who run marathons under 3 hours, those 22-24 mile runs certainly take longer than 2 hours, for most longer than 3 hours. I'm not talking about just 5 hour marathoners or 4 hour marathoners or even 3 hour marathoners, for that matter. Even a 2:20-2:30 marathoner - have known a few of those - takes longer than 2 hours to complete an easy 22-24 mile training run. Would you limit them to 2 hours as well?

For that matter, would you advise Nobby's wife to cut back on her long runs next time around? Stick with 2 hours, and not run 3 hours?

What do you have against Higdon's plans? Have you trained anyone using longer runs than 2 hours or runs on alternate weeks if necesary and compared the differences? Your 2 to 2 1/2 max would undoubtedly work great for all 2:30 or faster marathoners. Nobby allows more time - uses 3 hours, which would probably work quite well for a 3 hour marathoner. But if you're going to be training someone to run a marathon who is running slower than say 25 minute 5Ks, they're likely to be on the road over 4 hours, and most marathon coaches would train them for the distance regardless of time - not stop at an arbitrary time for everyone. Match the training to the person and the distance they will need to go, and if that takes alternate weeks for some to allow for more recovery, so what? Nobby didn't seem to have a problem with alternating longer runs with shorter runs on alternate weeks for his wife and her friend, and that seems to be the norm in many of the programs I've seen. What's your problem with it?

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 07:22 AM            

I'm not saying that this applies to you. However, there are many reasons why people bonk that have nothing to do with the maximum length of their training runs.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 07:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
And Richard, In one respect I agree with you that training needs to suit the individual. That's the beauty of Lydiard's program, particularly the time based approach for slower runners. It's not "If it's Tuesday it must be intervals and they have to be 95 sec with 60 sec jog break." It's flexible enough to allow anyone to train in an individual manner at their comfort level. What' that you say? You don't like bounding? Then don't do it. It doen't mean you don't follow Lydiard's principles any more than not going to confession means you aren't Christian.

---

tigger,

Then we agree on a principle that I suggest is the most important thing of all - training must be tailored to fit the individual. In my opinion there isn't anything more important than that - each person must find what works best for them. I believe this principle is so important that it is the cornerstone of my training advice.

The implemention of this principle in real life does seem to be a bit challenging. It seems to me that when someone makes up their mind that one particular training method is best they tend to believe it is best for everyone and then reject anything that disagrees with that belief. The current discussion going on between MaryT and rengle about the necessary length of long runs appears to be an example of this. One is convinced that shorter long runs of about 15 miles/2 hours are sufficient for everyone despite the other noting that years of experience have taught her that 15 mile long runs are not even close to being sufficient for her.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Mary:
Now in regards to running 26 miles; yes, you're right. It would be scary to go 26 miles when you haven't seen that unknown territory. I think, as a coach, you flirt with a fine line between what Peter Snell said and what Dave Martin said; both of which I would say are correct. You either find the maximum amount of training without breaking down and still improve; or find the minimum amount of training while still improve. In the olden days, it was more the former. Lately, everybody seems to seek the latter.

Why do you run a marathon? What is the fascination in running a marathon, pardon me for saying this again, so slow year after year after year? I mean, you improved your 10k time from over an hour down to 50 minutes--now that's a significant enough improvement. But the fact you are stuck at 5-hours for the marathon for all these years; it's either, again, I'm sorry to say this but, your program is wrong or marathon is not for you.

---

Also, there seems to be the impression that I was stuck at the same marathon time year after year after year. I'm not sure how people got that impression, but that was not the case. I ran one marathon back in the early 80s, decided it wasn't my distance - it didn't feel like racing, just surviving and I always liked the feel of running hard and competing, not completing, if you get the difference. I stuck with the shorter races and didn't run another marathon for 15 years - turning 50 mid-life crisis, if you will, plus the millennium was approaching and we signed up 3 years in advance to go to New Zealand for a trip of a lifetime with Marathon Tours to the Millennium Marathon. This second round (1998-2000) I completed 3 marathons and improved 30 minutes from my first of round #2 in 1998 by building up gradually again, and running long runs alternate weeks.

So that's it for me. The marathon never was my best distance, for sure - I think that was the 10K. My husband on the other hand still thinks he may have one more marathon in him at 65+; we'll see. He never had the problems I had with GI distress, electrolyte imbalances, or hypothermia (in the winter), but he did find like me, he ran much better if he could gradually build up to get in those longer runs of 4 hours or so, needing to alternate with shorter runs every other week once he was over 50 years old, and he never did so well if he didn't get in the long runs. In talking with lots of other older runners, as well as some of the younger folks who run around 3:30 to 4+ hours, that seems to the same for them as well. Mot train by distance not time, and in fact 22-24 works better than 20miles for many to avoid slowing down in the last few miles.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 08:25 AM               

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 09:41 AM               

The problem I have with 4-5 hour runs is that they seem, in many cases, to leave people too drained to do adequate running in between. You can only get so much milk from any one cow.The Soh brothers and their 80km, or whatever it was, runs have been mentioned here and I would not criticize that because the Sohs also managed 150 mile weeks as they did that sort of thing. Kenny Moore, Jon Anderson, Ron Daws, Steve Hoag all did 25-30 mile runs as part of their marathon preparations. But they all got in 80-130 miles a week as well and none of them were out for more than three hours. I have no problem with 3 hour runs but I think that really should be the top of the scale more or less.
So if you really need those 20 plus mile runs, I'd recommend starting at 12-13 miles at a much faster pace than you're doing on the 20 plus runs and building up at that pace until you're at 20 or beyond. Or if you you really want to keep the 4-5 hour runs, do a two hour run at a faster pace on alternate weeks and do something like Nobby's wife did, i.e. some sort of hill or pace session at midweek or do a second moderately long run then.

[This message has been edited by rengle (edited May-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 09:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Maybe I'm weak, but the idea of racking up 4 hour runs or longer in training is just too painful to contemplate. I'd rather run a 2-1/2 Sun and a 90 min Wed at easy/moderate pace.

---

true dat. I like the idea of working on my speed over the longer midweek run and leaving the long run easy although I was doing a cycle for a while of imbedding a moderate tempo portion of an hour or so in my long runs on alternate weeks. That seemed to hold some promise as I had a good race New Year's day after a couple of cycles of it.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
working on my speed over the longer midweek run

---

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 10:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JimR:
[b]working on my speed over the longer midweek run

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

It's usually the whole thing a bit faster than MP, but I might do imbedded tempo for 30-40 minutes of it, or progression. If it's MP paced, then I'll do tempo or progression some other day that week. Almost always this is run on tired legs cuz the day before is either hills or track.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 10:35 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 10:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
gracias

---

I was very consistent with that run when I got my BQ. If I couldn't get it in during the AM, I did it right after work. It's the most difficult one for me to fit in but I give it the most credit in getting my BQ.

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
It's the most difficult one for me to fit in but I give it the most credit in getting my BQ.

---

edited - spelling

[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited May-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 07:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Mary you remind me of a friend who has had similar experiences. In her case she puts way too much pressure on herself and always starts off way too fast. Her PR is 4:40 but instead of trying to knock 5 or 10 minutes off her she tries to blow it away. She ran the first 5 miles of her last attempt in 45 minutes and got upset when she blew up at 16 miles. The only way I am going to get her to acheive her goal is to pace her the whole way.

I'm not saying that this applies to you. However, there are many reasons why people bonk that have nothing to do with the maximum length of their training runs.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-09-2007 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,

So if you really need those 20 plus mile runs, I'd recommend starting at 12-13 miles at a much faster pace than you're doing on the 20 plus runs and building up at that pace until you're at 20 or beyond. Or if you you really want to keep the 4-5 hour runs, do a two hour run at a faster pace on alternate weeks and do something like Nobby's wife did, i.e. some sort of hill or pace session at midweek or do a second moderately long run then.

[This message has been edited by rengle (edited May-09-2007).]

---

Actually the training you describe above is not that far off from what worked for us. Part of why we were training for a marathon in 1998 and 1999 (in addition to having signed up to run in New Zealand) was to run in our local USATF series, which consists of 7 races of varying distances, including a marathon, and we also tried to get in other local races as well. So a couple of those alternate weeks included half marathons, or at the least, 10Ks to keep the speed up, and one 25K. I couldn't do much hill work after 1993 - at least not anything that included a downhill portion - had back surgery for a ruptured disc caused at least in part by a genetically malformed spine, and never could take the pounding of downhills after that. However, we did have weekly track workouts with our running club, and did try to get something moderately long in midweek, sometimes just a couple of 5's, sometimes up to 10 depending on how we felt - not spring chickens any more. A couple of summer weeks there were midweek 10 mile races, so that was a way to take care of a longish midweek run.

I haven't run a marathon since 2000, started having some knee problems the year after that, and they just can't do the training I would need to do either in total mileage or in distance at this point, so I'm sticking with the shorter races now. Truth be told, we have literally hundreds of races each year in my area, and I used to get frustrated that I needed to skip some of the ones I really liked in order to get in those long runs when I was marathon training, so giving up the 3-4 hour runs and the marathons isn't really a hardship for me.

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-10-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 08:56 AM               

I think a lot of people would enjoy running more if they spent more time doing the shorter races....I know I do. Marathons used to be reserved for the more accomplished, and while I'm not against people running them I think many bow out of the sport due to the demands of trying to run marathons when they're really only at the level of 5K/10K training.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 10:33 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 10:56 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 11:08 AM            

Within a few months I was addicted. Look at my September/October 2005 schedule

Sep 24 5th Avenue Mile 1 mile PR
Sep 25 Susan G Komen 5K 3.1 mile PR
Oct 1 JPMC Challenge Championship 3.4 mile PR
Oct 2 Grete's Great Gallop 13.1 mile PR
Oct 8 ING Long Training Run 20 mile (MP) PR
Oct 16 Staten Island 1/2 13.1 mile PR

A month later I was in to my first marathon. 7 weeks later I needed another fix.

Short races lead to hard marathons. Just say PR!

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 11:11 AM               

Shorter stuff is different. Most can get through those distances easily enough. For beginners that will usually and regularly PR on shorter distances for the first few years of training, just PR'ing becomes not such a big deal.

The reality is that, after the initial growth and improvement stage gained by just running is over, actually improving on this shorter stuff is definitely a bigger challenge than just being able to run a longer race. It ain't easy work actually getting faster at the shorter stuff, but maybe folks aren't so keen on working that hard at training.

IP: Logged