Forums >Racing>Sub 1:30 Half Marathon in 2018
Hot Weather Complainer
JMac - wow, wow, wow. Very impressive, congratulations.
Mark - Refer to the comment for JMac. With a week of a bug that is an amazing effort. I've run up North Head on an easy run a few years ago...can't imagine doing it in a race.
I've slowly come back int running this week - did an easy 40 mins Wednesday to see if all was okay and then 70 mins on Saturday on the walking track around Mangere in Auckland - I think it's called Watercare? It was quite warm and I couldn't imagine trying to push hard, but it confirmed to me that the disaster in April at the Waterfront was all down to weather - that damn Kiwipoint.
Today I did 10km easy out in Titirangi which included some killer hills which smashed me (easy pace was not easy). Possibly not helped by a less than healthy weekend of drinking.
5km: 18:34 11/23 │ 10km: 39:10 8/23 │ HM: 1:26:48 9/23 │ M: 3:34:49 6/23
2024 Races:
Motorway Half Marathon February 25, 2024 1:29:55
Christchurch Half-Marathon April 21, 2024 1:27:34
Selwyn Marathon June 2, 2024
Dunedin Half Marathon September 15, 2024
Steve- those Titirangi hills are brutal! I had a mate who lived out that way back in the day.
Speaking of temps - I got the last leg of the road relay down your way this Saturday, which is likely to be around 2-2:30pm. Thinking I might try and do at least one of my runs at lunchtime this week to try and acclimatise to it! I haven't run in the middle of the day since Auckland Road Champs.
3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)
10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)
* Net downhill course
Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!
Up next: Still working on that...
"CONSISTENCY IS KING"
JMAC nice race awesome time congrats! all the hard work you have been doing is paying off. Nice report too.
Mark another nice race! Nice Report too.
I always like reading everyone's RR
PIWI nice week
Watson congrats on the house hope, the final weeks of construction all come together.
Bro nice week Good luck at Chicago! you can do it!
for me after suffering through some lower leg pain and then the pain starting on the inside of my left knee, (I cut Monday's run short and skipped my Wednesday run altogether) I decided to give up on the Altra's...I traded them in for another pair of Brooks, I got the Ghost 11 this time, I also got a pair of Books Launch for another 25$
I got back on track Thursday, knee pain has subsided and am feeling much better. I got in a good MP workout on Saturday and a good long easy run on Sunday.
Weekly SummaryMonday, Sep 24, 2018 thru Sunday, Sep 30, 2018
PR's
1m 5:38 (2018)
5k 19:59 (2019)
HM 1:33:56 (2018)
FM 3:23:07 (2018)
Intl. correspondent
Steve - careful there, it should be easy effort, not easy pace (I'm sounding like a broken track haha)
Corey - I'm sorry to hear that, perhaps running fast on the Altras was too much too soon, or perhaps they're not for you after all.
I know of people with narrow feet that can't get them to work as their feet splashes around, and also of people who are too used to high heels and don't have the time or will to transition, which is perfectly understandable (sort of my current stand on barefoot running as well).
I've switched to them due to the wide forefoot and tall midfoot area, zero drop was an extra benefit.
PRs: 1500 4:54.1 2019 - 5K 17:53 2023 - 10K 37:55 2023 - HM 1:21:59 2021
Up next: some 800m race (or time trials) / Also place in the top 20% in a trail race
Tool to generate Strava weekly
RIP Milkman
Mark - Great RR. If you remember, I joked specifically about you talking about "Billy Bob" in your RR. I can't believe there actually is a guy named Bob. Anyway, I definitely want a crack at breaking 6:00 in a half now as part of my progression. I have the NYC Half scheduled in March, which will be a tune up race for Boston. I'm not sure I'll get anything in earlier though. You know how races go after marathons: you think you'll crush it with your fitness but it takes a long time to recover to race properly. Maybe I can squeeze one in during January, but it's very unpredictable with the weather that time of year and you can easily face a -10C morning with wind, or just straight up cancellation from snow. Also, I'm glad someone else has experienced that weird feeling, I was convinced I wasn't going to shake it!
Watson - Thanks, and good to see you running a bit.
Piwi - Thanks Piwi. Running through those awful Kiwi Points all summer seems to have paid off! Also nice week, always happy to see when you crack 50.
Steve - how's the rolling coming along?
Corey - thanks. What's the profile of the Altras? I wonder if they were too different from your current shoes.
Flavio - Thank you! I know, I know, it's all about effort but it's pretty disheartening when you can't get through 6 miles of LT work at 6:20 in the summer when you're trying to go sub 6:00 for a full 10 mile race. You made an interesting point though: training through the heat allows you to get the same effort but lower injury risk. Never thought of the injury aspect of it. And yeah, I think even with this 58:30, sub 2:50 will be challenging at NYC with all the bridges and hills.
Me - Okay, given almost everyone pointed out in an indrect way my bitching about Kiwi Points, I will stop! I know Piwi probably will go through withdrawal though. Anyway, I ended up placing in the top 100 for the race, which is a huge accomplishment (there were 12.5K people running it). I always think about my races as placing in the top 1%, so I'm glad I did it. Anyway, here's my week for completeness.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
Cobra Commander Keen
Piwi - Congrats on hitting 50+ (miles). Hopefully you won't be adding 50+ pounds (or Kg!) thanks to all the baked goods coming home.
Bro - How's the taper going?
JMac - Awesome race, and great RR too. I agree with Piwi - next-level running right there.
Mark - You lost your appendix to a bad diagnosis?? If it were me, saying that I "didn't take it well" would have been an understatement. Awesome HM, especially after the food poisoning.
Pretty good, though tiring, week from me. Super-early day Saturday, and installed a new dishwasher Sunday (the old one died months ago). SO nice to not be hand-washing everything anymore!I'm planning on a bit of a down week in terms of mileage (after 3 at 80-82-ish). With a HM this Saturday I'm wanting to front-load mileage and have a bit of a mini-taper Thursday and Friday. Really looking forward to this race, and to the celebratory bratwurst afterward.
5k: 17:58 11/22 │ 10k: 37:55 9/21 │ HM: 1:23:22 4/22 │ M: 2:56:05 12/22
Upcoming Races:
OKC Memorial 5k - April 27
Bun Run 5k - May 4
Not bad! Sticking with the 3:20 pace group and hopefully smashing the last 4 miles of the marathon on my own. Super conservative based on my training but I'm still testing the waters with the marathon and the goal is to not hit the damn wall.Such big mileage for you! Very inspiring to see those 80+ mpw come in every week. I'm excited to see what you will accomplish!
This could be a bit of a controversial post. I want to have a discussion about training volume and maximizing performance. There are three runners I'm going to discuss here and all of them are relatively lower mileage/higher intensity. I’m not going to post their names because I don’t want them to be scrutinized.
Runner #1 - Male, 24 years old. PR's are 3:09 Marathon, 18:09 5K, 1:25 Half. This guy averages roughly 36 miles per week and most of his runs are between 4 to 8 miles at a 6:25 to 6:50 pace. Almost no days above 7:00 minute pace. He will typically do one track workout a week, something like 4x1000m and that’s it. Long runs - if not in marathon training - are 12 miles at sub-7. Runner #2 - Female, 30 years old. PR’s are 2:56 Marathon, 18:40 5K, 1:24 Half.
Topped out at 65 mpw but many weeks are in the low 40 range. Very inconsistent training. Likes to do very short easy runs during the week (8:20’s pace) with a one faster fartlek thrown that tops out at 8 miles. However, she goes big on the weekends, with 20-23 mile runs that work down to 6:35 pace near the end.
Runner #3 - Female, 20’s, PR’s at 3:01 Marathon, 18:55 5K. All runs are under 7-minute pace, even the 18 milers. Not a single day above 7:15 pace. Mileage at 50mpw during training, very rarely at 60. Endurance machine with slow top-end speed. All three runners are guilty of several things that we preach for runners NOT to do. 1. 2 of these runners smash themselves everyday with short “easy” runs that are by no means “easy”. VDOT states they should be running almost every day about 7:50-8:15 pace but they do not follow these rules. 2. 1 particular runner goes well above the 20-25% long run rule almost every week. She should not be running 20 mile runs on the weekend after accumulating just 25 miles the entire week, but she does so anyways. 3. None of these runners have periodization. There are no 6 to 12 weeks of base building, followed by a long threshold period, or any type of taper until the week of the race. They are GO from the start and do not let up until the goal race is over.
A common opinion between two these runners (based on social media posts) is that they have worked themselves to the point where sub-7 just feels comfortable to them. I find this hard to grasp when I have a 5K PR nearly a minute faster than all of them and low-7 pace does not feel “comfortable” to me at all. Even with an indoor mile PR of 4:57 at age 33, I need to push a bit to get below 6:50 pace on any given run. All three runners absolutely maximize their one to two workouts where they focus on race pace and don’t really bother going very long on easy days. Finally, all three runners, if you were able to generate their average mileage per week in a year, are not above 45 miles. I see runners out there who are running much more, averaging 65-75 miles per week at 8:10 pace or slower and running similar times. Conversely, there are runners out there running similar mileage (like myself) who do well at shorter distances but cannot run sub 1:30 for a half, despite doing the required threshold training. Of course, there are the results that are almost a given. 90-120 miles per week and running sub-16 and sub 2:35 for a full. These results are usually talent or hard work of just a combination of the both. But I will say that each runner I mentioned above has a bit of talent to accomplish those times. Maybe not in speed per se, but the ability to log a lot of their volume at a quick pace (I am admitted shocked, however, that one particular runner listed above has not broken 18 for a 5K yet based on her training).
So this leads me to the question.
Lower volume, higher intensity = increasing returns?
Higher volume, lower intensity = diminished returns?
To be honest, I hear more about the lower volume types in recreational running having more success than the recreational runner logging big miles and yielding almost similar results. Why is this? This seems to be trend now, in the world of social media running, to share your blistering easy pace for public approval, as opposed to going the practical route of "more is more + easy days easy + hard days hard".
Bro - Good to hear the taper is going well. I think with your "speed surplus" sticking with the pace group for most of the race and then burning down the last miles if you feel up to it is a solid decision.
I agree with your assessment of runner #3 - PRs line up really well. Everyone else (especially #1) has a big drop-off between 5k and M results. Not at all unexpected given the lack of truly "easy" aerobic runs. I'd certainly say they're a bit out of touch with reality if they say sub-7 min/mi feels easy, then they can't run a marathon at that pace (or faster). There's a definite lack of aerobic conditioning, and proper easy run paces likely do feel uncomfortable because they aren't used to actually using the aerobic system completely. I've known several people who felt this way when starting training by HR - forcing themselves to run slowly felt difficult and unnatural for a while (months at times), but eventually the aerobic system develops to the point at which it's much easier to run with.
To an extent, and particularly with regard to shorter distances, higher intensity work leads to greater returns than higher volume/lower intensity work in the short-term.Over time, however, I'd expect the low volume/high intensity runners to burn out and/or get injured before reaching their true potential, while the higher volume/lower intensity may take longer to reach their potential, but have a higher chance of actually doing so. Once the high-intensity only runner burns out you're never going to hear from or about them. And when I say "lower intensity" I'm meaning comparatively - someone who does true easy runs, then the usual 2, maybe 3 hard workouts per week. Some one who exclusively does low intensity is never going to reach their true potential in terms of speed, but may end up as an awesome ultra-runner.
Looking at my own training (if I were to break my actual workouts apart from the rest of the easy miles I usually attach to them) I have a couple workouts per week that would be well under 6:30/mi, but then my easy miles are almost all 8:20/mi or slower.High volume, even with proper intensity, takes time to show real benefits. I've been logging some massive (for me) mileage this training cycle, and while I expect that to really help with my goal race in November I know the real benefits will be next year and beyond. High mileage now will allow me to more easily handle higher volume later on, with the corresponding increase in volume of speed work at will go along with it. Training cycles aren't isolated events, they are cumulative.
Hopefully this wasn't too rambling and incoherent.
Doubletap!
To an extent, and particularly with regard to shorter distances, higher intensity work leads to greater returns than higher volume/lower intensity work in the short-term.Over time, however, I'd expect the low volume/high intensity runners to burn out and/or get injured before reaching their true potential, while the higher volume/lower intensity may take longer to reach their potential, but have a higher chance of actually doing so. Once the high-intensity only runner burns out you're never going to hear from or about them. And when I say "lower intensity" I'm meaning comparatively - someone who does true easy runs, then the usual 2, maybe 3 hard workouts per week. Some one who exclusively does low intensity is never going to reach their true potential in terms of speed, but may end up as an awesome ultra-runner. Hopefully this wasn't too rambling and incoherent.
Nope! I totally understand you. There was a trend, at least the US, in the 90's to do low volume and higher intensity. Most people feel that this was terrible way to train and thus we didn't have a lot of success in the Olympics. The higher mileage trend picked up in the mid-2000's, but I'm wondering if we just found better ways to recover, the shoes got better, more people started running, thus collectively competition started getting tougher, thus faster times.
And yet, there is all this scientific data that supports higher mileage training. I don't think a majority of recreational runners really see the benefits or their higher mileage training either because they get burnt out and quit, or just get injured. I used to work for a university that had several sub-15 runners on the XC/Track roster, but most of them don't even race anymore or even run. 4 to 5 years of running 80-100mpw and racing at a high level is only sustainable for a short amount of time. I think a majority of them never got to see the ROI. I think about runners like Cam Levins who logs tons of miles and I wonder if he truly hit his potential by overdoing things. Finally, there is the great article about Michael Stember, a former US lympian in the 1500, who by his own account overtrained at Stanford and didn't have success at the world stage until took his foot off the gas a bit. In someways, I think the jury is still out what yields the best results. When I see the above three runners running respectable times it always makes me rethink everything we are told.
Keen's post was pretty spot on, I guess that's why he posted it twice
I know a lot of this is you trying to justify your training style given the back and forth we've had before. But I think Keen is right: lower volume and higher intensity can work. Mark can attest to that: he was running all of his runs way faster than his times would indicate. Of course, his PRs eventually caught up, but there was a lot of back and forth on these boards about whether his training was appropriate. However, he was able to justify it with HR data that pointed to the fact that he could handle those kind of paces. He is one of the only people I know that ran his marathon slower than his average pace for his workouts, yet broke 3 hours. Especially at the marathon distance, that whole plan falls apart. He has the potential to be a sub 2:40 runner, but not with his current training approach (not picking on you Mark, just stating what I think you've sort of stated in the past since you stated that's what you think you could do with "proper training").
With all of that said, I guess I'd be curious for what distances you're talking about here. Marathons high intensity training does not work, end of story. For halfs, it's questionable. Definitely can work for 5ks and 10ks.
Runner #1 has respectable short distance paces, which is where high intensity stuff can work. But I would not find his half time respectable given what he's running 5ks at. I bet if he ran a marathon, he couldn't break 3:15. So yeah, he's out, do not follow that plan
Runner #2 is completely fine. The whole 20-25% rule is thrown out the window for marathon training. I am completely fine running 22 mile long runs, but I'm running 70mpw, not 88-100 like that rule would state. I've found that 33% rule is probably more accurate for marathon training, but you can even go higher. The thing with her training is though that she could probably OTQ with her talent. 2:56 is unbelievable for that kind of volume.
Runner #3 is...odd. No comment on that one
I'd say Runner #2 is the most important lesson here and here's why:
It's IMPOSSIBLE to look at someone's training and go wow, look at those times, that means it's working! I bet if you put Kipchoge or any other top marathoner on a 50MPW high intensity program for 3 years instead of their actual training, they could all break 2:20 still.
Do what you want with your training. If you want to run lower mileage and higher intensity, do it. But you'll never run your potential at half and fulls. But that may be fine, you're out there to enjoy it, and if higher intensity training makes you happier, nothing wrong with that.
I know a lot of this is you trying to justify your training style given the back and forth we've had before. But I think Keen is right: lower volume and higher intensity can work. Mark can attest to that: he was running all of his runs way faster than his times would indicate. Of course, his PRs eventually caught up, but there was a lot of back and forth on these boards about whether his training was appropriate. Runner #1 has respectable short distance paces, which is where high intensity stuff can work. But I would not find his half time respectable given what he's running 5ks at. I bet if he ran a marathon, he couldn't break 3:15. So yeah, he's out, do not follow that plan
I know a lot of this is you trying to justify your training style given the back and forth we've had before. But I think Keen is right: lower volume and higher intensity can work. Mark can attest to that: he was running all of his runs way faster than his times would indicate. Of course, his PRs eventually caught up, but there was a lot of back and forth on these boards about whether his training was appropriate.
Actually, I've seen both sides. In 2012, I built up to a 5 week span of 60-70mpw of nothing but easy miles at 8:00 pace and after that 4 weeks of hard intervals at 40-50mpw and ran 16:58 (short course), 17:32 (certified), and 17:58 (long course) 5K's in a span of two months. High volume, with appropriate workouts got me decent 5K times and sub-5 mile.
After a long break from running (I'm talking about 2 years of just fitness running and gaining 15 lbs) I upped to just 40mpw and ran a 18:53 5K and tempo'd a 39:20 10K which was very surprising to me considering such low volume. Some may say it was acculumated base mileage...but damn...I did not expect to break 40 minutes at all.Runner #1 actually ran a 3:09 marathon...and qualified for Boston. I think his half time also aligns with traditional BQ formula for a lower mileage runner (1:25 x 2 + 20 minutes = marathon time).
Bro - Just to cherry pick some data that shows the high intensity thing doesn't always work, please allow me to highlight a local runner whom I can't decide if I should consider a rival or not. This guy is about my age (has been running longer), and is a triathlete. His "easy" runs on Strava are almost all faster than 8 min/mi, and frequently around 7:30/mi. He does a lot of LRs with the local fast guys (read: sub-2:30 marathon), usually 15-18 miles at a bit under 7 min/mi (about what his Daniels M pace should be). I've run 3x races against him this year: a 15k in March in which I severely underestimated my capabilities. He finished about 30 seconds ahead of me. A 10k in April, in which I beat him by ~30 seconds, then a HM in April in which I finished 7 seconds ahead of him. He ran another HM ~6 weeks later (that I unfortunately missed) and ran 1:25:3x. He followed up with a (net downhill, good weather) marathon in 3:08x a month ago, with a hard crash after mile 18 after having been on sub-3 pace until that point. Speedy running looks to have helped for HM and under, but lack of aerobic conditioning was a severe limiter at the marathon distance.
Oh absolutely. One of my running buddies did a marathon last year and he was aiming for sub-3 and came in at 3:01. During the race, he encountered a team of college runners in front of him who decided to run the race for fun, and all of them blew up at mile 21-22 and finished at 3:10-3:30. These are 19-21 year old kids who run 15-16 minute 5K's. If you are not prepared to cover that distance, even with decent speed, it can be a terrible experience. I think my original post alluded to very specific training under a lower-mileage plan. For example, Runner #2 goes very hard for her 20-22 mile runs thus why she has success at marathons, but not so hot times at shorter distances because she does not do hard, shorter intervals at all.