posted May-10-2007 01:13 PM            

I did much better in my second marathon, as I stated earlier, and my longest run was 22 miles. I knew that run was probably going to last longer than my marathon, but for me that was the key. I wanted to be sure that I could stay on my feet longer than needed. It was good for me mentally, and I will do it again for my next marathon. My main problem right now is trying to figure out what plan to use this time around for the last few weeks of marathon training.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 02:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Back in the 80's when marathoning was getting popular and people were jumping into them in their first year of running, Jack Foster wrote a piece in "Running" Magazine that was called "Moderating the Mania." He said he couldn't undertsand the rush to the marathon and that people would do better in it and enjoy them more if they spent some years concentrating on shorter distances that actually can be raced and then moved up.
I think one of the reasons why many of the people I mentioned who did failry well at the marathon without the 4-5 hour runs is that they were distance runners for years before they became marathoners. If someone who's never run came to me today and asked me to coach them so that they could run a marathon I'd refuse to do it unless they were aiming for a marathon that was a couple of years or so in the future. I know that people run them today on far less lead time than that, but I don't think they're laying a good foundation for their running futures that way.
On the other hand, I think a lot of top runners wait too long to move to the marathon.

---

In addition to that article, many years later Jack expressed somewhat of a dislike for Marathons. The dislike was not the race itself but the preparation. He started to find the "longer runs" were becoming "too tough, too long and boring". He only did 3 hr runs to prepare for marathons. He prefered a 'quick 2 hr ramble over the country'.
He ran his last marathon at 50 when he ran 2:20 (That disappointed him)
He loved his cross country running and last year was Inducted into the NZ Sports Hall of Fame as a member of the 1975 Team that won the World Cross Country.
After that last marathon he continued to run less and less frequently, but was still outstanding over a 12k Cross Country course. Gradually he returned to his Bike, but I had the privilege of running with him a few tiimes in the 90's and he just "flowed along".
If his pace did not kill you his sense of humour did !!!
Marathons were discussed many times over the years with Jack and he still held the view that he wrote about in the 80's.

There is not a day goes by when I run in our forest or look at the farmland behind my house that I do not think of Jack. When I took Rengle and his son on a run up one the famous sections Jack was the first guy I mentioned.

Cheers

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

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 02:34 PM               

I must wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. As a decently speedy marathoner, I cannot imagine going out every week and spending 4-5hrs on my feet; my legs would be too trashed to train well. And that's at 80-100mpw to support it. Now you're saying someone that is probably maxing half that supporting mileage is going to be able to handle that kind of time-on-feet?? Mental toughness means nothing if the runner is physically broken down.

If they are investing that kind of effort in their long run, they likely try to make up for it by running even less during the week in an attempt to recover for the next 4-5hr death march. This encourages the over-emphasis on the long run that, IMHO, is one of the banes of popular marathon training.

I know of an individual lamenting about their marathon bonk and wondering why it happened. They ran long runs up to 26 miles, having difficulty finishing them. They supported these runs with 2, 3 mile runs during the week. So some weeks 80% of their mileage was in their long run! Doesn't it make more sense to put that effort into greater consistency during the week?

I have no problem if someone wants to do this once, maybe twice, during their training schedule just to prepare themselves mentally. However, on a regular basis as a training tool, there are much better ways to spend the effort.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 03:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
"To stop their running at 3 hours would be equal to setting them up for failure. "

I must wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. As a decently speedy marathoner, I cannot imagine going out every week and spending 4-5hrs on my feet; my legs would be too trashed to train well.

---

That reminds me of a couple years ago. I was training for Niagara and was finishing up a 20 miler when I came across an older couple doing their long runs in prep for the MCM. I asked them how long they were out on their run, they said it was about 4 1/2 hours at this point. They would run a little bit, then walk, then run a bit, then walk...not even a gallow thing, just shuffling some running in there until they couldn't go, then they'd walk a while. That was not a long run and that was not really 'training' for a marathon, it was more like practicing the death march before they got to do it officially. People doing this are not ready for a marathon.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 03:57 PM            

I am very sorry your long runs beat you up. I really don't have that type of problem. I can do a 4 hour run weekly if I wanted. I have a feeling I am going to end up doing ultras.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Andy,

I am very sorry your long runs beat you up. I really don't have that type of problem. I can do a 4 hour run weekly if I wanted. I have a feeling I am going to end up doing ultras.

---

But why? I still can't get my arms around this one. So you get up at what, 7, 8? Lace up the sneaks, head out the door, and that's it until the afternoon? And then you're OK for the rest of the day? Maybe a snack, some tennis and clubbing? Someone with that kind of strength deserves a Saturday morning cartoon.

It it works for you, gei gezundeheit. But for the life of me I have a better chance of figuring out cricket before I grasp the joy of that kind of "training." Even after reading Mary T's posts, I still don't understand the physiological benefits. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but it sounds like -- after one hits the 2-1/2 to 3 hour mark, the benefits are psychological and psychosomatic.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 05:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Andy,

I am very sorry your long runs beat you up. I really don't have that type of problem. I can do a 4 hour run weekly if I wanted. I have a feeling I am going to end up doing ultras.

---

You've answered it yourself....you're treating it like an ultra. Ultras are beyond aerobic limitations, once you're out there that long you must move slow enough that you are running on fat and not glycogen. You're never going to train yourself to run a faster time following such a training plan. All you're doing is training yourself to survive a shorter-than-ultra race at ultra pace. That's why it's so common for people to train like that, then go out and try and run faster based on a chart prediction from a shorter race, and blow up.

To some extent, I will agree that a 4-5hr marathoner has different training requirements as they are out there almost 2X longer than me. But unless you want to run it like an ultra you should not treat it like an ultra.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Even after reading Mary T's posts, I still don't understand the physiological benefits. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but it sounds like -- after one hits the 2-1/2 to 3 hour mark, the benefits are psychological and psychosomatic.

---

I think for the former problem, hypothermia in the winter, it may something similar to what Noakes talks about in his Central Governor theory - in this case perhaps the brain refusing to send signals to continue to go to more fat burning to keep the body temp up when the glycogen reserves run low. You would think just a 2 hour to 2 1/2 hour run would do it, but in my case it seems like it's willing to go to fat burning for just a certain amount of time - as little as possible - then figures it's time to stop, and can only be "taught" to continue if the whole process is approached very gradually. Sounds crazy, and it's not anything you can control consciously, but as a neuroscientist by trade, sounds like something a sneaky brain would try to do to make sure its body doesn't get too depleted and maybe run low on the sugars the brain wants. Never trust a sneaky brain.

For the latter, learning what your stomach and gut will and won't tolerate, and how much if any extra electrolytes you might need during the later stages of a race - some people have no problems, others have a lot - no way to tell which you are unless you run the distance and see what happens.

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 05:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
"If they are investing that kind of effort in their long run, they likely try to make up for it by running even less during the week in an attempt to recover for the next 4-5hr death march. This encourages the over-emphasis on the long run that, IMHO, is one of the banes of popular marathon training.

I know of an individual lamenting about their marathon bonk and wondering why it happened. They ran long runs up to 26 miles, having difficulty finishing them. They supported these runs with 2, 3 mile runs during the week. So some weeks 80% of their mileage was in their long run! Doesn't it make more sense to put that effort into greater consistency during the week?

I have no problem if someone wants to do this once, maybe twice, during their training schedule just to prepare themselves mentally. However, on a regular basis as a training tool, there are much better ways to spend the effort.

---

I agree you would be pretty much trashed if you tried to do 4-5 hour runs evey week, and wouldn't do a whole lot else. However, if you do those very long runs (over 3 hours), only every other week or even every third week if you are running over 4 hours, you can still have time on the "off" weeks to get in some decent mileage, some faster runs, some good 10K or half marathon races. I know quite a few who do just that and still keep up with their series racing for the shorter distances from 5K to half marathon, for example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
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..

---

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

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 07:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
You've answered it yourself....you're treating it like an ultra. Ultras are beyond aerobic limitations, once you're out there that long you must move slow enough that you are running on fat and not glycogen. You're never going to train yourself to run a faster time following such a training plan. All you're doing is training yourself to survive a shorter-than-ultra race at ultra pace. That's why it's so common for people to train like that, then go out and try and run faster based on a chart prediction from a shorter race, and blow up.

To some extent, I will agree that a 4-5hr marathoner has different training requirements as they are out there almost 2X longer than me. But unless you want to run it like an ultra you should not treat it like an ultra.

---

Um, I hate to break this to you, but I took an hour off of my marathon time in six months so somehow I am training myself to be faster. I almost qualified for Boston. I am not training for an ultra yet. If I was, I think I would work up to running for 6 hours at a shot. For marathoning, I ran 22 miles as my longest long run this time. If it takes 4 hours, fine. I also used one of Pfitz's plans to peak with, I don't think ultra runners do speed work (I could be wrong here though). I am going to run Steamtown again this year, If I remember right, you ended up hating the course as it beat you up badly. For me, it's my back yard. I not only deal with those brutal downhills, I also do the grueling uphills in training. You walk outside your house here and your choice is either uphill or downhill. The fact that I have to deal with the uphills is what adds time to my training, but at the same time, it makes me strong.

The biggest thing people don't seem to understand is that I started running again in February of last year. A person like you may look at my times and think that I am awful. I look at my times and wonder where they will be in two years, four years, or even ten years. Coaches will not touch the likes of me right now. Oh, they talk out the side of their mouths saying that someone should look at the big picture, but they usually will not take on some one as slow as I am right now. So, I am left with books, internet forums, and observations from my own training.

I had to treat my first marathon as an ultra though. I was out there for almost 5 hours and I knew it was going to take that long. The longest runs for that one were right around the 5 hour mark.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-10-2007 08:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
I look at my times and wonder where they will be in two years, four years, or even ten years. Coaches will not touch the likes of me right now. Oh, they talk out the side of their mouths saying that someone should look at the big picture, but they usually will not take on some one as slow as I am right now.

---

You are not talking to the right coaches. I think anybody who has the goal to perform better, especially somebody who has some patience with the desire to become better, is somebody a coach would be happy to work with.

With the new marathon boom, coaching runners seems like a rapidly expanding field. At times it seems like every ex-collegiate runner now has a coaching website! You could try joining a local running club where a fellow member may be willing to coach you or be self-coached with the help of a group that you train with.

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 08:43 AM               

If you restarted last February you haven't been at it awfully long now, you're bound to see improvement based on dedication and consistency alone. This doesn't mean your long run strategy is optimal. And I didn't say your entire training was ultra-type, I said your long run strategy was.

I have a friend who has comparable 5K/10K times to me. He decided to do ultras, but wanted to stay fast for the shorter races. So, basically, he did ultra-type long runs but continued to do 5K/10K speed training. The first thing he found was that he really had to slow down those 4+ hour runs. Then he found that he could no longer get as much quality elsewhere in the weeks he did them. When racing time came, he found out he was still "ok" in the 5K/10Ks, really decent in the ultras, but the 2 marathons he ran were relative busts. Now, it's a different animal in that he was a sub-3 runner doing 4+ hour runs not a 4 hour runner doing 4 hour runs. The real point is that the long runs had to become the focus of his week and it hurt his ability to train to go faster over the marathon distance. If a 15:00 5K guy had problems recovering from and maintaining quality throughout the week (and I've never seen one who trained like that and could), I remain unconvinced that a less trained runner can do it.

I started out very slow too, and I saw dramatic improvements over they years despite the fact that I am sure my training was more sub-optimal for years than what we are discussing here. What I am saying is, at some point you will get to where the gains slow or stop and the flaws in training will be exposed. You'll need to change strategies to continue to improve. The thought that 4+ hour runs and 23+ mile regular runs are somehow required (I've heard of people on 30 mpw doing 26 mile long runs) bugs me a bit. I've found I am more dependent on volume and longer runs than most marathoners I compete with yet I've found 20-milers in 2:10 to be about optimal for me, with 1-2 22-23 milers at the end.

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 08:51 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 09:20 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 10:50 AM            

As it happened I beat my goal for the target marathon and was able to adjust my expectations accordingly. I am thinking of running New York as a training run for either Houston or Austin in January.

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 11:36 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldtimer19555:
Hey Nobby: when will the Lydiard Foundation website be updated and what is the status of the certification classes?

---

To piggyback on oldtimer's question: in coming years, can we expect any lecture tours along the lines of the ones that Lydiard himself did?

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I am thinking of running New York as a training run for either Houston or Austin in January.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 05:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by piobaireachd:
To piggyback on oldtimer's question: in coming years, can we expect any lecture tours along the lines of the ones that Lydiard himself did?

---

Well, my smart a$$ answer to that would be; "When we have enough money that we don't have to worry about fund-raising and paying-off all the website development!"

Seriously, we have never stopped working on it. In fact, I have so much ready to be posted; from reproduction of old magazine articles, interviews, etc.; to chronicles; to audio libraries; to video footages; and I guess most importantly, message board/forum with our advisory staffs. I know it's taking a lot more time and money to do all this but we are still working on it.

In regards to certificate program and lectures; we are planning on having Part I and Part II presentations in LA in June. Once it's done, we will be having them (still working on Part III) around the country more often. Right now, it's only me and Lorraine Moller and we have to take care of everything ourselves. Fundraising is a big headache and, without contribution of Jennifer and the late Brian Maxwell and a gentleman by the name of Bruce Johnson (inventor of Breathe Right), we wouldn't have been able to do any of this. Seriously, I don't mean to make a commercial out of this message but their contribution has been immense!

Like everything else, folks, "No buck, no Buck Rogers". It is a cold fact; so if you know any millionair or big company's CEO who's interested in running, introduce them to us! By the way, when we do these clinics, we will try to bring at least one of our advisory staffs that include Peter Snell, Dave Martin (surprised?), Steve Jones (more surprised?), Rod Dixon...among others.

By the way, just to clarify; I'm not necessarily "against" people going beyond 3-hours for training. After all, even my girl whom I'm training to become an 800m runner wet up to 3-hours (though it was for her preparation for Chicago marathon). I see many Japanese go waaaaaay beyond 3 hours; Seko 5 hours, Soh brothers, I'm not quite sure how long it took them to run 125km but I'll bet it was way beyond 6 hours; coach Sasaki and Eriko Asai used to do an extreme LSD and went something like 9-hour cross country! (had a wonderful visit when them before coach Sasaki passed away and he treated me with soft-shell turtle dish with mixture of its blood and red wine--a real delicacy in Japan!). Japanese call that "leg-building" training. Naoko Takahashi sometimes go up and down the foothills in Boulder up to 3, 4, 5 hours of cross country running/hiking. Somebody mentioned something about "that beat up my legs." Well, that's why you do training like that and that's why training like that helps you. While I will still not prescribe such workout to a beginner, there certainly a merrit to that type of workout even for fast guys. Even Halberg ran something like 30~35 mile run and he was a 5000m guy. I'm sure van Aaken runners did longer than that and Rengle can chip in better than me in that respect.

IP: Logged

posted May-11-2007 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
You've answered it yourself....you're treating it like an ultra. Ultras are beyond aerobic limitations, once you're out there that long you must move slow enough that you are running on fat and not glycogen. You're never going to train yourself to run a faster time following such a training plan. All you're doing is training yourself to survive a shorter-than-ultra race at ultra pace. That's why it's so common for people to train like that, then go out and try and run faster based on a chart prediction from a shorter race, and blow up.

To some extent, I will agree that a 4-5hr marathoner has different training requirements as they are out there almost 2X longer than me. But unless you want to run it like an ultra you should not treat it like an ultra.

---

Yes, Yes agree!! When I fist started running I decided to train for a marathon. To get in any real kind of mileage I had to be out running for 15 hours or so per week because I was so slow. If the duration isn't too high for you I still can not see how one can committ that much time to running unless you are dead single and unemployed. It only made sense to train to get FAST first rather than subjecting myself to such nonsense. A few years of work and now I can run higher mileage in a reasonable amount of time. Long 20 milers are 2.5-3 hours as opposed to 5 like they were. I don't feel running 15 hours per week jogging around worring about fat uilization would have brought me to this point. This is just another reason I feel the marathon is totally overkill for a beginner trying to develope. They are spending too much time on that one aspect of running while ignoring everything else. Consistant base work followed by bits of middle distance or 5-10k specific work hit all areas of fitness. Just MHO.

IP: Logged

posted May-12-2007 09:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Japanese call that "leg-building" training. Naoko Takahashi sometimes go up and down the foothills in Boulder up to 3, 4, 5 hours of cross country running/hiking.

---

As a running/hiking workout, it sounds like an exercise in keeping effort on the feet and not just a pure running experience.

IP: Logged

posted May-14-2007 06:02 AM            

These runs are probably useful if used occassionally outside the specific race prep.if you are already in extraordinary shape from years of solid conditioning.

IP: Logged

posted May-14-2007 09:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
As a running/hiking workout, it sounds like an exercise in keeping effort on the feet and not just a pure running experience.

---

These types of "runs" were described as additions to her training AFTER she won the Gold. Look at her accomplishments (or lack thereof) since.

IP: Logged

posted May-14-2007 09:50 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-14-2007 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
This thread is called "The Truth About Mileage" and the real simple truth about mileage is that doing more of it will make you faster until you reach the point where the returns have diminished so much that you're either hurting yourself all the time or shuffling along so slowly to get the miles in that they aren't of much benefit. That's true whether we're talking about miles run in a year, a month, a week, or in a single day.

---

IP: Logged