Forums >Racing>2024 Advanced Training and Racing Thread (still competitive jerks)
Hot Weather Complainer
Merk - I would try that. The 10M + 5K@LT is so hard you can only do it during a race, but it's such an awesome workout if you can: it pushes you to the limit at 10M, and then asks you to find a way to run even harder. It's such a great way to teach your body to enter what the end of a marathon feels like.
I had a long run in summer (about 2.5 hours) which included 30 minutes MP, 20 minutes HMP then 30 minutes MP after an extended zone 2 warm up (about 60 mins). No recoveries between each block. It's probably slightly less stress on the body than the 10 + 5 but that last 30 mins was a really good test of holding the pace when hurting. I did it on a hot day which helps with that hurt. Could be another option.
5km: 18:34 11/23 │ 10km: 39:10 8/23 │ HM: 1:26:48 9/23 │ M: 3:29:54 6/24
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 DNF
Wellington Marathon June 23, 2024 3:29:54
Foster Park Run July 20, 2024 19:02
Dunedin Half Marathon September 15, 2024
Timaru Ten October 26, 2024
Mmmm Bop
I've never understood this debate that happens every year (every few months?) in this thread. A separate jerks thread was created, and then people get up in arms about people being jerks. Maybe I don't know what the point of the two separate threads are then.
Yep, I brought it up previously and it fell on deaf ears, so you just have to accept that there are now 2 Waltons threads and need to start behaving yourself.
Steve - I’ve just realised you’re running a marathon shortly….what’s the goal time and how’s your training been in one paragraph?
I love Cal and the whole AG% debate! The Moose Mug was my only real goal and running over 80% or winning an AG award never really did it for me. I’m not really sure why I was so fixated on it.
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
Age Grading - have stated many times I think it's a complete scam meant to make old people feel good about themselves. So there's my jerky comment of the day - anyone who uses Age Grading to compare to times of younger people are fooling themselves (although it's fair to compare yourself at similar ages across similar distances). Yeah, I'll try to run a Moose Mug at some point when I'm older, but unless I somehow blow that number out of the water, I highly doubt I'll be a better runner than I was when I ran my PR at a lower AG. The sample bias in AG is too great to ignore when you have so many people running as professionals in their 20s and 30s and effectively none in their 50s.
Here's a guy talking about how easy it is to run in your 50s, when his body's already broken down in his 30s.
Did I do the jerk thing right?
Dave
Here's a guy talking about how easy it is to run in your 50s, when his body's already broken down in his 30s. Did I do the jerk thing right?
JMac will not even be able to put his foot on the accelerator pedal on a golf cart properly when he’s 50.
Yep, I brought it up previously and it fell on deaf ears, so you just have to accept that there are now 2 Waltons threads and need to start behaving yourself. Steve - I’ve just realised you’re running a marathon shortly….what’s the goal time and how’s your training been in one paragraph? I love Cal and the whole AG% debate! The Moose Mug was my only real goal and running over 80% or winning an AG award never really did it for me. I’m not really sure why I was so fixated on it.
Maybe there's an optimal level of jerkiness, definitely more leeway in this thread.
It's hard not to love Cal and his Russian bluntness As long as he keeps delivering in races...
There's a post on the previous page where I talked about my training. In short, I'm fitter than I've ever been, addressed some things that may have been lacking on previous blocks. My Training Peaks fitness score, which can be taken with a grain of salt, is currently 84. The week before my last marathon it was 71. I've been training with a "marathon pace" of 4:30/km, so about 3:10. I'll go out slightly slower than that, but I don't have an exact target except getting through without big issues like the c word. If that happens and I don't have a big fade, 3:10-15 is what I expect which of course I'd be happy with.
Strava's "fitness" score and the VO2Max one that Garmin spits out are both pretty flawed. IDK the TP one might be more useful as there is a bit more science behind their analytics. Either way, I'd take much more confidence from the fact that you've put in a ton of work, and have hopefully nailed the previous 'c' issues. All the best man.
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"
Cheers. Yep, it may be slightly relevant in the relative score but what 84 means in terms of a result, who knows.
I think there's a difference between being a competitive jerk and just randomly swearing at people who disagree with you. If you and JMac are going to return to being this thread's equivalent of Statler and Waldorf, at least make it amusing.
RIP Milkman
Oh I never claimed running in your 50s is easy, that's always the straw man the olds make. I said age grading is a terrible metric to compare older runners to younger runners, in that an 80 percent age grade at age 60 is in no universe the same as an age grade of 80 percent at age 25, because there are almost no professional runners at age 60 and there are thousands at the younger levels
Put another way, the current marathon record is not equivalent as the marathon record for age 50-55, or 56-60, etc. The pool of runners is not the same and never will be unless marathons start offering 50K for age group winners and Nike starts sponsoring them with contracts. I'm sure there are SOME people doing that, but it's not the same.
It's like watching a bunch of 60 year olds playing basketball, finding the best guy in the world at that age, and saying he's the equivalent of Jokic in the NBA. It's absurd.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
Have always said I'll be dead by 65 at the latest so this sounds about right.
This is another great option Merk - have seen many successful runners do this type of work.
Oh I never claimed running in your 50s is easy, that's always the straw man the olds make. I said age grading is a terrible metric to compare older runners to younger runners, in that an 80 percent age grade at age 60 is in no universe the same as an age grade of 80 percent at age 25, because there are almost no professional runners at age 60 and there are thousands at the younger levels Put another way, the current marathon record is not equivalent as the marathon record for age 50-55, or 56-60, etc. The pool of runners is not the same and never will be unless marathons start offering 50K for age group winners and Nike starts sponsoring them with contracts. I'm sure there are SOME people doing that, but it's not the same.
You can only race the people that show up. Same principle applies here. I'm personally not that fussed on AG times one way or another, but some people are. Of course there are not as many people running in their 60's as in their 20's/30's. But one of the most respected athletes you'll see at a meet here in NZ is Sally Gibbs, who has set a bunch of world AG records in the 5k and 10k, I think first at 50-55 level, then 55-60, now 60+. Like, she was never ridiculously quick when she was younger, she's just kept working and not really slowed down much. That's pretty damn cool IMO.
Anyways, we know runners slow down as they get older, and I really can't see a better way of allowing runners to gauge how their times sit, relative to their age. If that's the sort of thing they care about.
Yeah I get why people do it. It's a cool way to track yourself through time, as long as one recognizes there's a bias upwards as you get older. Its like the Moose Mug. I love the idea of it. But I'm not under any illusions that if I run a 2:45 at 46 that I'm somehow better than my 2:36 at 32.
I also was specifically commenting on some comparisons of age grading across distances across ages. For example, I don't think you can look at your AG at age 25 running the 800 and compare it to your age 65 AG running the marathon.
It's a sampling issue that I don't think a lot of runners appreciate. Winning your age group is a fun little thing to chase in a race, or trying to increase your AG. No issue with that - it's when you compare to your younger self especially across distances that people are making big mistakes in their conclusions.
Are we there, yet?
I also was specifically commenting on some comparisons of age grading across distances across ages. For example, I don't think you can look at your AG at age 25 running the 800 and compare it to your age 65 AG running the marathon. It's a sampling issue that I don't think a lot of runners appreciate. Winning your age group is a fun little thing to chase in a race, or trying to increase your AG. No issue with that - it's when you compare to your younger self especially across distances that people are making big mistakes in their conclusions.
I don't think sampling is really an issue. They've been gathering data for well over 20 years now, which gives many thousands of data points. As for making mistakes in their conclusions, that's more often a misunderstanding of what age grading means. Nowhere in age grading is it asserted that a runner should be able to achieve the same age rating across all distances regardless of age. It's a means of comparing relative performance. Among conclusions that may be reached with some validity is which distances are your best and which are your worst. To some extent you can also make valid comparisons across the years for the same events. Is my 2:17.2 800m at age 46 better than my 2:07.2 at age 22 or my 4:49.5 1500m at age 44 vs my 4:45.9 mile time at age 24. Unfortunately for my drifting into running ultras, the AG tables break down because of the weaknesses you mention. The world record for 24 hours barely rates a 93%. It's useless at multi-day races.
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour, 35.82 miles 10/12 - Hainesport 12-Hour
Personally I would think it would be harder to run a high AG% 800m at age 25, if only because I would think the sample is primarily elite and recreational track runners so times would likely skew to the faster side. Whereas all sorts of people run marathons. Probably just highlights your comparability point though.