| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
 posted May-16-2007 06:10 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Another way to put it is that if everyone agreed with Mary she wouldn't be so disagreeable!That's true!!
I don't believe what you've said is the same thing as what I said. Here is another way to say it that is accurate - don't insult her. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 09:06 PM
I've been thinking about the Rengle/MaryT debate, which got a little emotional but has been enlightening. As i understand it, MaryT believes that you have to regularly run up to 80% of the distance of the goal race, regardless of how long it takes. For her, it was 4 hours, which was so draining she only did it every other week. She found at long distances, she threw up gels, suffered electrolyte imbalances, etc and needed to learn how to adjust. At the same time, she found that she needed more rest than she was giving herself. Mary repeatedly refers to her experience, those of her friends, and what she reads in the "newbie" threads. I have some questions/comments. First, am I correct that the benefits of the long run kick in around 90 minutes - 2 hours? If so, then it seems that up to 3 hours should be sufficient to gain that particular long run benefit. Second, would you not benefit moreso from repeatedly stressing yourself in this regard by doing, say, two long runs per week (say 2-1/2 to 3 and maybe 90-120 minutes). Second, it doesn't seem to me that you can physically train yourself to keep gels down or run w/o electrolytes, etc. Mary said at one point that slower runners "need practice on those longer runs to train the body to tolerate anything, even sports drinks after 3 hours." You can psychologically prepare yourself for the distance by running for the same amount of time (I think 20-22 miles at marathon pace - 20% would be comparable, no?) but I don't think you train your body to tolerate foods. In some ways, I think people's emotions got the best of them and Mary and Rengle talked past each other. Mary said her concern was about "the advice to run no more than 2 hours or even 3 hours in training for a first timer who might be expected to finish in 4-5 hours or even 3 hours." Rengle & Nobby were clearly more concerned with those who had run a marathon, however slow, and wanted to get faster. Their view is that one superlong run beat the body up too much to permit the extra quality runs that would build endurance. Makes sense to me. Mary, I got lost in your history. Correct me if I'm wrong. You ran one marathon in the 80s, hated it, and quit the distance until 98-00. Then you ran three marathons and improved your time from [what?] to [what? - 30 minutes]. It's hard to draw conclusions from that.
Looking back at Mary's posts, she talks about trying harder and harder in the 70s during her first go round but had problems with injury, getting slower rather than faster" and "I couldn't seem to train as many miles or as fast as many of my comtemporaries without breaking down." I wonder (Mary please feel free to answer), whether she chased too hard by failing to include enough easy days? Another coach has sais that most endurance issues are the result of running too fast and/or not enough. Rengle's advice in that regard coincides with the problems Mary claims to have experienced. That she got 30 minutes faster w/her superlong run strategy sounds good, but who knows whether it could have been better? I think that's a fair question. So let's take a step back. MaryT suggests that for some group of people, the best training plan is to run up to 80% of the distance, no matter how long it takes, at least every other week. How long is this supposed to go on? What other runs can you do during the week? How long should the alternate week be? Rengle and others suggest that this doesn't make sense for the very slow runners who would burn their reserves to do other quality running on this kind of regimen. They suggest limiting long runs to 3 hours. By definition, then, this only applies to those runners who cannot cover 80% of the mileage in about 3 hours (and many of them will improve to the point where they don't fit in that category either). FWIW, since Mary keeps touting her experience, I'll provide mine. I ran my first marathon 20 months ago, following Higdon novice to a "T" (one 20-miler). I've never run longer than 20, but over time have added quality work mid-week and included a generous portion of ez runs. I ALWAYS run better on race day and BQ'd last time due to a variety of quality runs. I could not have done it with the ultralong plan that Mary touts. Of course, that's just me. Finally, with regard to the name calling, Mary I think you need to accept your share of the blame. Your tone was at times over the top and you were the one who called somone "offensive" and mocked their training suggestions just because they disagreed with you. One of the things that I like about this thread is the civility. I respect your experience and viewpoint and, honestly, usually enjoy your posts. Quoting Rodney, can't we all just get along?
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,Your training & performance, so far, seem to be very close to the training/performance guidance in the power running training guide. I hope you continue to keep us up to date on your training and performance over the next 5-10 years or so.
Because your views are really very mainstream you Lydiardite you.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 09:56 PM
All I can say is that I truly benefited from 22 mile runs in marathon training, even though it took more than 4 hours to finish them. Is it for everybody? I don't know. What I do know it that it makes you humble very quickly. But, I have already stated that I could run a 4 hour run every weekend if I wanted, I did this while training for my first marathon. It appears that type of thing is not typical in most people. I don't understand why I am capable of recovering so quickly, but I am. I run everyday and have not been ill in quite a while (knock on wood).I will tell you that I am happy that my long runs are no longer in the 5 hour range (this was a 20 miler back in the day, in high heat). I like to be able to have the time to do other things on my long run days. I am hoping that my long runs continue to get shorter in duration. At the same time, I want to try a 24 mile long run before my next marathon. Why? I guess what does not kill me will make me stronger. I am game for a new long run challenge this season. That is part of my view in training; I feel that I need to push to the next level, and I push by adding distance. Does it work? I guess I will find out in a couple of years. Let's face it, most of my improvement right now is coming from running consistently and adding mileage as I get faster. I will say, as the heat has reared it's ugly head here recently, that I do not worry about time at all in the heat. I also refuse to do any type of speed work beyond striders in temps above 80 degrees F. This was fun back in high school track, but I was young and dumb then. Now I am older, and have the will to live. This is probably why I had 4 and 5 hour long runs last summer. This might be what has turned me into the recovery animal I am today. At the same time, it might just prove that I am crazy. I do appreciate the discussion here though. It is one of the best threads in which I have ever participated. ------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 01:19 AM
I've said before in this thread that I don't necesarily see anything wrong with doing very long runs assuming you can be back running normally in a day or two. But if you need to "taper" for a couple fo days to be rested for that really long run and then need to recover for two days after it the run is counterproductive. That's really been the point I've been making for a few pages here now.
If you need to do 12-13 minute miles to cover 20-25 miles in a single run, and then all you do for the rest of the week is two or three runs of 30-45 minutes at a more "normal" pace, then roughly 65-70% of your running is done at 12-13 minute pace. Therefore it shouldn't surprise you that you're running your marathons at that speed. If you want to race faster you need to find a way to get in more mileage at faster speeds and the only way you'll be able to do that to any significant degree is to do some shorter runs, say runs of two and half hours or less.
Therefore, I would advise someone wanting to perform decently in the marathon to start with short "long" runs, maybe 90 minutes or so, at reasonably faster paces, say 7:00-10:00 or so depending on your ability and then extend those runs to the 20 mile mark or thereabouts rather than being dead set on getting to the 20-25 milers as soon as possible and doing them at extremely slow paces just because you want to cover that distance as soon as you can.
If you choose to work up to the long runs at faster paces, you'll need to do a reasonable amount of running on most other days at something resembling that pace. It's those routine, middling length runs that will provide the fitness you need to increase your longer runs.
I've found that running for an hour a day on normal days does wonders. I'm not alone Van Aaken asked athletes who trained with him to commit to a minimum of an hour's training each day. I recently read an article about Nic Bideau where he said that if you just ran comfortably for an hour each day with a two hour run once a week and perhaps a ninety minute run on one other day each week you'd get very fit even if you did nothing else. I also have read more than one thing that Tinman has written advocating runs of an hour.
I really am sorry if I was overly harsh toward MaryT. Honestly, if someone wanted to run a marathon and was fine with running it in over five hours I might even tell them she's a better adviser than I am as I've never run a marathon in that time nor has anyone I've advised. I really am writing for people who want to run faster than that and the harshness comes in because MaryT seems like she's advising people who want to run faster than she has to train like she did and honestly, I don't know why she thinks she's qualified to give that sort of advice.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 06:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
I really am sorry if I was overly harsh toward MaryT. Honestly, if someone wanted to run a marathon and was fine with running it in over five hours I might even tell them she's a better adviser than I am as I've never run a marathon in that time nor has anyone I've advised. I really am writing for people who want to run faster than that and the harshness comes in because MaryT seems like she's advising people who want to run faster than she has to train like she did and honestly, I don't know why she thinks she's qualified to give that sort of advice.
rengle
rengle - I've said this before but you don't seem to get it so I'll say it again. It's not my program - it's Hal Higdon's program that I followed and would recommend to others! Do you think he's not qualified to give advice? I think his programs work best for the majority of runners not just myself - granted I'm probably not typical - but also my husband who runs about 4 hours, and many of friends who run anywhere from 5+ hours+ for some of the over 60s to 3 hours or faster. http://www.halhigdon.com/marathon/Mar00index.htm What does gets me going is the assumption quite a few seem to make that someone who runs slower than "x" or fewer miles per week than "y" must not have been interested in improvement or must have been pampering themselves, etc. or surely they would be faster - regardless of how much they have improved since they started. I've seen quite a few runners in my time of all speeds from one who tried to run a 5 minute mile without any training whatsoever on a bet - and did - but never trained much consistently and I guarantee never ran up to his potential - to others who had problems with once around a track but stuck with it, trained consistently, but never reached close to the speed on the first runner. You should not assume a slower runner is not training anywhere near up to their potential or is not interested in improvement compared to a runner who is faster.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 07:10 AM
I took a while to look at Hal Higdon's Marathon Training schedules. I looked at the novice schedule and then also the advanced.
A couple of things stood out to me that I know would not work for me. He says not to run fast during your long runs. I do a progression run of 18 - 20 miles during my base period on a weekly basis. The last 5 miles are at MP. This is a very difficult run for me but I do not feel I overtrain by doing it. The idea is to get myself tired at a pace and try to run the last miles fast on tired legs. Training has to be specific to the task. When you hit the last 10k of a Marathon how do you feel? I feel horrible but my body and mind both know that I can still run fast because of these workouts. The volume in his program is also too low for me. I'm with Rengle on this. The one long run per week with little of substance in between would send me backwards. On a positive note I liked the tempo runs.
I've trained on a program similar to this and the result was a relatively slow Marathon that was very painful.
Do I possess talent for running? Like Rengle my first marathon was over 4 hours. When people see me they assume I can't even qualify for Boston. I'm a 190lb construction worker. I've since beat my Boston Qualifier by 35 minutes under a Lydiard based schedule. Is Hal Higdon qualified to write Marathon schedules for runners? I can say his advanced program doesn't measure up if you want to do your best. Had I not taken up a Lydiard based schedule with my coach I might have thought the best I could do was to break 3 hours.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 07:14 AM
martinjames
I think I've already answred some of your post, and I don't have a lot of time, but I did want to address some of your questions/concerns.
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
As i understand it, MaryT believes that you have to regularly run up to 80% of the distance of the goal race, regardless of how long it takes.
That's the way it was for me and my husband at every level. That's not the way it was supposed to work, and we were both surprised when we really slowed down in the last couple of miles of a half-marathon despite starting out at a reasonable pace (10 mile training pace rather than 10 mile race pace) having been running 10 milers consistently every week for several years and on more than 40 miles per week total. Same thing happened earlier way back first starting out running - had problems with slowing down late in a 10K after running just 5 milers in practice, etc. Most coaches and runners do advise overdistance for shorter races - you normally run farther than 10K if you're training for a 10K race, etc, but I never expected to have so much trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
For her, it was 4 hours, which was so draining she only did it every other week.
Not entirely true. I had some good midweek runs and some midweek races, the same weeks I had run a 4 hour run, but found I performed better if I held the very long runs to every other week - allowed me to get in some races on the alternate weekends rather than just the same old same old boring moderate long run every single week. Also, most of the plans that I had seen like Hal Higdon's had the longest runs on alternate weeks, not every week. His was the plan I followed, not something I made up out the air. If you have looked at his plans and followed them, you'll see his longest runs alternate once they get to 20, and he says nothing about lmiting oneself to a certain time for a run. Look at his intermediate or novice plans - that's what I would recommend for the majority of runners doing their first. There's lots of detail there, I don't need to repeat it. Many of the runners I know who are experienced have one of the longest runs be 22 or even 24, but otherwise follow a very similar program. http://www.halhigdon.com/marathon/Mar00index.htm quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
It doesn't seem to me that you can physically train yourself to keep gels down or run w/o electrolytes, etc. Mary said at one point that slower runners "need practice on those longer runs to train the body to tolerate anything, even sports drinks after 3 hours." You can psychologically prepare yourself for the distance by running for the same amount of time (I think 20-22 miles at marathon pace - 20% would be comparable, no?) but I don't think you train your body to tolerate foods.
Sure can. With practice it was truly an amazing diference in how much and what I could tolerate without having my stomach rebel. Several ultrarunners I know have said the same thing. Practice helps a lot to learn how to eat on the run.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 07:29 AM
Another thought. I have read virtually every book about running. I can say with confidence Lydiard was the only one who wrote his books with no intention of having them sell in quanitities. His ideas do not appeal to the masses. It's hard work.
I get insulted when someone who used to be an elite runner assumes that I can't handle the kind of training schedule that they used to do because I lack the talent they had.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 07:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Still....this is specific to running and you have to admit that maryt described someone extremely unusual in terms of improvement ability. But it was someone who went from merely yards per day to regularly running 50 miles per week. (Let me also add that I think 50 miles per week is pretty impressive for a weekend warrier. I have never averaged that much for more than a few weeks, and so I know how hard it is to maintain.) If that isn't improvement I don't know what is. And even at 50 miles per week, do you think she could have increased her distance just a little bit more....say another 50 yards per week?
Why, tigger, I do think there was a compliment in there, so I thank you.  I wouldn't really call myself a weekend warrior, having trained every day, and for a few weeks even trying two-a-days, but a nonprofessional for sure. In my case, the 50 was really the push, and my consistent week after week was 47.5 - the odd distance because of a 2.5 mile loop. It took a few years to get to 5 miles at a 12 pace, going from that to a 10-pace seemed to be pretty quick, then slower bringing it down from 10 to a 9 pace and then to 8:30, and to 8 with rest days but I was able to keep it about 8 for quite a few years with 45 miles per week or so. I believe the rest days and doing a longer run every other week really help as you get into the 50s, more so than for younger runners. Older runners need more time for recovery. Thank heavens for age groups and age-grading! Really makes it easier to keep going, even if the times do start to get slower as the decades pass.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 07:37 AM
This thread has now passed the latest incarnation of Maffetone as the longest on the board. woohoo
IP: Logged |
piobaireachd
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 08:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
The volume in his program is also too low for me. I'm with Rengle on this. The one long run per week with little of substance in between would send me backwards. On a positive note I liked the tempo runs.
I've trained on a program similar to this and the result was a relatively slow Marathon that was very painful.
I like Higdon. I like his articles. I applaud his Kids Running program. And I respect his experience and accomplishments. And his training plans aren't bad. I just don't think that they're the best out there and I think that they may limit a lot of folks. My experience with Higdon's plans is basically as Brian describes. I followed them for them for several marathons and eventually ditched them as I learned more about what sort of workouts best worked for me. I really feel that his plans trained me to finish marathons, but ultimately held me back. Even the advanced plan. Why didn't they work for me? - Low mileage. You barely break into 50 mpw territory at peak. Sometimes with work and family I'm lucky to get 50 mpw, but I now know that I'm at my best when I do much more mileage. - Intervals throughout the plan. The Higdon plans mirror the normal running club routines of track Tuesdays. And I found that these sessions left my legs worn out the next day and I'd scratch workouts or run them poorly for the following couple of days. I'm not opposed to track or speed work I just don't know if once-a-week every week is the best way to do it. I eventually took my father's advice and threw in fartleks during my normal and long runs and my body really responded to that. - Only one long run per week. This set me up (and other runners I know and/or trained with) with the wrong sort of mental game or focus: the long run becomes a hurdle to tackle at the end of the week. It becomes the focus of each week and ultimately it's the only benchmark of progress throughout the program. - Long runs peak at 20 miles. My first "breakthrough" (more mental than physical) and when I realized that Higdon wasn't for me, was when I decided to just train in what I thought was a "half-assed" way for a marathon... by throwing away any sort of plan and just running. This turned out to be phenomenal for me and I fell into a pattern with multiple 23+ mi runs, an additional long run during the week, and middle distance runs the rest of the week. No speed work, just distance. And yet my pace improved. - It's too darn slow. He advises slow long runs and you learn to not push yourself. The long run's mileage is the sole goal, not how you're doing it. And I find this just plain wrong, a deal breaker when you're out running 26 miles at race pace and you've done no more than 10 at any sort of hard tempo. But that's just my experience and the experience of a handful of other I know. I truly and deeply feel that his and similar plans hold a lot more runners back from their potential.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 09:03 AM
One of the criticisms Lydiard receive is his schedule. It's too hard, it's too rigid, it's too specific... What else did I miss? I will bet he just sat down and wrote them. You check various sources ALL written by him and they might be slightly different because it doesn't matter. So if you run follow the exact schedule (10 on Monday, 15 on Tuesday, and so on and so forth) or you run 15 miles everyday and 22 on Sunday... It really doesn't make that much difference (of course, as we all know, Lydiard always said it's "better" to alternate longer day and shorter day). I just picked up one of his books last night ("Distance Training for Young Athletes") and opened a page and the first line that jumped to my eyes was "...schedules are only a guide..." No matter how many time he says that (in the same book!), people still try to follow the schedule to the tee and, if it doesn't work out, they blame on the one who wrote the schedules. One guy wrote to me and said, "In Lydiard's schedule, it says to do some sprint work between hill training days; but that's too much speed work for me and my legs get beat." (it's not one of you guys, is it?). So I said, "...then don't do it!" People LOVE schedules. I think it was Pfitzinger who said something like he really didn't want to put schedules in his book but publisher demanded them...because that's what the readers demand and that's what makes it sells. In the end, it all comes down to $$$; so they play a piper and we all dance...unless we use what we've got between ears. I don't know what intention really Hidgon had when he put those schedules together but NOTHING works out like a cookie-cutter. Why drop the distance every 3rd week? Why not 2nd...or 4th? What if the day to run 20-miler falls on the Thanksgiving weekend and you have to drive 6 hours to the in-laws place? Do you still get out and run 20? (well, one way to stay away from the in-laws!) You'd be already stiff and tired from sitting in a car for 6-hours... Surely Higdon says somewhere that his schedules are ONLY a guide as well. Unfortunately, he is very very popular. Of course, being popular doesn't necessarily mean being the most-suited. Same thing with any of website or us intenet-worriers; we post something and people fell in love with you for whatever the reason; you use some fancy terms or sounds sophisticated, etc. Maybe you sound like an expert. You become "popular"; doesn't necessarily mean you know Jack! Lydiard got criticized by being very blunt at times; he would be challenged by saying, what about so-and-so's program? He would say, "How many Olympic champions has he produced?" Well, there's some truth to that. "What have you done for me lately?" He/she doesn't necessarily have to have run fast or anything; but surely the first thing I would check is "Does it make sense?" It's been a long time since I last checked his schedules but I see he has changed things quite a bit. I'd have to admit; he deals with MASS. He needs to make it very simple, spoon-feeding, or simply, "idiot-proof". He also HAS to make it appealing to MASS. And he does do a good job. I think Runner's World does do a great job getting people interested in running. I really do praise that. In fact, I picked up RW England a month ago because there was a great article about plyometrics in it. I made a copy and gave it to my runner. I haven't done that with our RW for the longest time (of course, I don't check it every month either). If my runner wants to read it, I have no objection to it but I won't necessarily encourage her to do so either. It's like looking at a picture of a house. Pretty, you may want to live in a house like that; but you have NO idea what kind of foundation it has underneath. Pretty pictures and tips and recipe and all but those are not the core of things, are they? Now I've already written a book here (again) but one thing I'd like to clarify. Some people may think I only think of running fast. You've got to remember; Arthur Lydiard was THE father of jogging. Without him, Bill Bowerman's accomplishment may not have existed. By the time Jim Fixx came around, Lydiard had his Auckland Jogging Club going for more then 10 years. He's the one who coached Andy Stedman Kim was talking about. I've taught MN Beginning Women's Jogging Class for 3 years where we have people who might run 18 minutes for the mile (ONE mile). Every year we check the improvement of each and every one of them. So far, EVERY one of them had improved. Some within 8 weeks moved on and participated a 5-mile race and I usually run along with them...with a camera in hand (against their protest!). I see accomplishment and improvement in their own terms and I think I understand that. What I don't buy is being satisfied with mediocracy.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 09:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
Why, tigger, I do think there was a compliment in there, so I thank you.
You're welcome! It was intended as such and also to show respect for perservering when things weren't all going your way. I had it much easier when I started. I was a 250 lb rumble pig who did 3k his first time out and then jumped up to 5k and never looked back. It seemed easy enough to do it that way, but looking back I now realize some people cannot adjust as quickly. I also was making a point to R99, who in the past has talked about low responders and no responders. My point to him was simple....all of these esteemed coaches have not seen someone like you before, so you must surely be one of those low responders. And you managed to get up to consistent 50 mile weeks, which puts a bit of a damper on R99's theory. Nobby, I read your last post very carefully. It was quite interesting, as I am one of those people who wants the schedule laid out for him. Daniels doesn't do it that way and I get frustrated trying to set up a schedule based on his suggestions. I like John Molvar's weekly mileage distributions because they give you a good range of possibilities to pick from, based on ability and inclination. But they too are pretty specific on miles, wheras I tend to run more on time, using Molvar's suggested pace for my daily running times. I will also vary the schedule to accomodate life's other priorities by moving an important run, like a long run or a threshold run to a different day and then either doing a recovery run or no run on the day when another priority intrudes. You gotta do what you gotta do! Thanks for all your insight into Lydiard running programs.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 10:30 AM
MaryT,More bluntness from me, but this time it's about Hal Higdon. I ithink that he is qualified to offer good advice but I don't think he does it. He tells people what they want to hear so they"ll buy his program.
In the late 70s I had just run the Maryland Marathon. Ron Hill was in his late 30s at the time and had just finished third or fourth in about 2:20. Higdon was there as well, not running, but "experting." I was sitting with some friends at a table in the high school cafeterian that was race headquarters aftet the race and Higdon was talking with that group in his expert's role. Someone asked him about the number of miles you need to run in order to do well at the marathon.
"You don't need nearly as many as people think you do," was Higdon's response. He pointed up the table to where Hilly was chatting with people.
"Look at Ron Hill. Thirty eight (or so, I forget the exact year this happened) years old and he just did 2:20 (or a couple minutes either way) and he only averages about 65 mpw.
Ok, there are TONS of problems with that answer. One is that Hill may have AVERAGED 65 mpw but he rarely RAN 65 mpw. His build up to marathons at that stage in his life went to about 90 or so. Then he'd have rest periods of 30-40 which brought down the average miles. But it would be very incaccurate to believe that Hill was running 2:15-2:20 when he was 40 or so on 65 miles a week.
The other problem with what Higdon said was that while Hill had averaged 65 or so in recent years, he'd regularly hit 120-130 from about 1962 to 1974. As Nobby has pointed out when referencing Bill Rodgers, all of those miles just don't go away. They have some residual effect for quite some time afterward.
Knowing that, I pointed out to Higdon that Hill had done big miles for over a decade and wondered if Higdon thought there was any residual benefit to Hill from running those miles that would allow him to run well later in life on less volume.
He stared at me for a long, long, time. I was waiting for a very well thought out answer from him, given the time he was taking to form it. But he just got up and walked away without saying anything.
Hal Higdon has created a product that he hopes you'll buy and that's what he's selling. It's aimed at a particular market and it's a good program in the sense that it serves the market for which it's intended. It's a far, far cry from what Higdon did to make himself a 2:23 marathoner and first American at Boston in 1964. If anyone wants to see what Higdon really did so they can compare it with what he now tells people to do I can put a sample of a week of his training here. [This message has been edited by rengle (edited May-17-2007).]
IP: Logged |
piobaireachd
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 10:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
Hal Higdon has created a product that he hopes you'll buy and that's what he's selling. It's aimed at a particular market and it's a good program in the sense that it serves the market for which it's intended. It's a far, far cry from what Higdon did to make himself a 2:23 marathoner and first American at Boston in 1964. If anyone wants to see what Higdon so they can compare it with what he now tells people to do I can put a sample of a week of his training here.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ka-ching! What he said. Rengle, I'd love to see that comparison.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 10:45 AM
It seems to make sense to limit my longest run to 3 hours (for a 3:45 goal). I'll do that for New York and report back.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 10:52 AM
Heck, nobody needs to train to finish a marathon. Just sign up and scratch and claw your way to the finish line. There, you finished!
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 10:57 AM
It really does boil down to "training to finish" versus "training to race," doesn't it?
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
Just sign up and scratch and claw your way to the finish line.
I tried that once. No one would talk to me after the race. So I don't do it anymore. Though I did scratch and claw my way through the mob at the number pick-up at the mega disorganized Philly Marathon expo last year.
Sometimes, it's okay if everyone else is doing it. --Jimmy
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
I took a while to look at Hal Higdon's Marathon Training schedules. I looked at the novice schedule and then also the advanced.
A couple of things stood out to me that I know would not work for me. He says not to run fast during your long runs. I do a progression run of 18 - 20 miles during my base period on a weekly basis. The last 5 miles are at MP. This is a very difficult run for me but I do not feel I overtrain by doing it. The idea is to get myself tired at a pace and try to run the last miles fast on tired legs.
According to his wife and training advisor, Sandra, Khalid Khannouchi always runs negative-split long runs, warming up for several miles, and then running just 15 to 20 seconds slower than his marathon pace. The last three miles, he goes for broke. "He tries to run them at about his 10-K race pace [4:30 to 4:40]," she says.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
Heck, nobody needs to train to finish a marathon. Just sign up and scratch and claw your way to the finish line. There, you finished!
I've never trained to finish. I've always had a goal time. I missed my goal time in Chicago simply because I started training late due to injury.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by piobaireachd:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ka-ching! What he said.Rengle, I'd love to see that comparison.
I'll try to get it posted this evening.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Nobby, I'm sure you're in a better position to know the specifics than me. I just read the press releases. As memory recalls it said that after they Olympics she began adding a ton of jogging and even walking to push time-on-feet to ridiculous levels. However we all know how accurate such articles are....they're the same type that people quote to claim Coe never ran more than 35 mpw.
People posting here who lived where she was training said that they saw
her running all day long. Whenever they left the house, she was out there.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-17-2007 11:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
People posting here who lived where she was training said that they saw
her running all day long. Whenever they left the house, she was out there.
Though Coe did claim (according to Kenny Moore) that he never ran more than 50 mpw prior to setting his 3 world records in the 800m, 1,500 and 1 mile (1979?). Bloody hell, I can't believe that was 28 years ago. [This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited May-17-2007).]
IP: Logged |
 |
