2020 Marathon Training and relevant COVID 19 discussion echo chamber (Read 700 times)

JT- I see now. You have TM on Saturday for treadmill? I thought you ran tempo @marathon pace.

 

Wow!!! Just noticed and that's hilarious (put sarcasm here). So, Black Canyons 100K is a WS100 qualifier and it has 5200 ft of elevation ascent and to get qualified for WS100, you should finish under 17 hours. OK. What I find puzzling is that the race I am going to run is Quicksilver 100K in May. It's also 100K, but it has 13,500 ft of ascent and you have to run under 16 hours to qualify. What I am missing? Why such a huge discrepancy? Anybody who runs ultra will certainly understand the difference between 13.5K and 5.2K ascents - it's like day and night... Obviously, not throwing any stones at OMR - that has nothing to do with him. But puzzled nevertheless (because I struggle with that 13.5K elevation all the time, BIG time )

Any significant differences in how the vertical ascent is distributed? Also how technical the trails are.  No idea how WS makes its decisions, but lots of smaller ascents and descents are easier for me than a couple big ascents and descents.

This has really spiraled.

 ...

 

It was more that I am shocked people would run 100-120 MPW unless there was something bigger at stake vs. just improving times.

I didn't really think it had spiraled too far. And it certainly didn't strike a nerve. It was just a difference in opinion. I was also just trying to point out why I thought you got the reaction that you did--we all (or most of us) know you and know that you're not going to come out pat yourself on the back and brag about being better than the rest of us. But I wanted to point out how what you said could easily be interpreted way far from what your message was.

But despite knowing you weren't trying to be a jerk, I disagree with your point. I think you have it a little off. From what I've seen over the years is that people that run that kind of mileage generally do it because they enjoy running that kind of mileage. The gains in marathon (or any distance) time is secondary. They don't need something bigger at stake to want to run that mileage--maintaining that mileage is a big part of the reward (while still enjoying being able to run fast marathons). My guess is that the people that do it solely to try to get a fast marathon time don't last too long running that kind of mileage.

Any significant differences in how the vertical ascent is distributed? Also how technical the trails are.  No idea how WS makes its decisions, but lots of smaller ascents and descents are easier for me than a couple big ascents and descents.

Oh boy... Big ascents and big descents. It has it plenty... Quicksilver has a lot of pretty steep ascents and descents - just check miles 17 to 31 - two ascents of 2000+ ft, each with corresponding equal descent. Plus one 1700 ft ascent/descent combination miles 8-17. And then there is this huge descent (~2500 ft) from mile 31-32 to mile 41 that, if not careful, totally destroys your already very tired quads. Most of the times I ran that race I am losing interest in everything by mile 36-38 

Re: time dedicated to training.  I'm reluctant to judge too much how much or little time someone dedicates to training.  Should someone with a 28 minute 5K PR just quit running?  Does the Olympian think I'm wasting my time?

On the other hand, I know a guy who ran 1:05 for the half and 2:22 for the full a few years ago (on record eligible courses).  He's now running pretty much the same times I am, because he's got other interests in life, and doesn't really feel like training hard right now.  Should I judge his choices?

I'm also reminded of how, more than a decade ago, I was a 22 minute 5K runner.  I trained with pretty much the same dedication I show now, and thrived off the progress I saw.  Hard work, all the little things.  Drills, strides, foam rolling, PT.  The structure of my training has changed; the focus has remained constant.  And I got the same joy from it then that I do now.  I just run faster now, is all.

I actually get bummed when people who are currently at that level (~22 minute 5K) tell me that they aren't good enough to justify doing drills and strides and all the little things.  For one thing, it's not about being good enough, it's about whether you get fulfillment and joy out of it.  If you don't get joy out of doing the work, or all the little things, then that's fine and legit, and I respect that.  But don't avoid them because you think you're not fast enough to be worth them.  If I didn't work as hard as I did back then, I don't think I'd be where I am now.  And I don't think I'm any more or less deserving of investing in myself now than I was back then.

Re:toughness.  I think hammering at toughness is an awful way to develop it.  Toughness is about just showing up and doing what you came to do; no drama.  Hammering and trying to constantly train it are counter productive.  It's always the people who go on and on about how hard they fight their mental battles (and post umpteen motivational phrases) that are the headcases, I find.  The truly tough just do it.

If you do workouts consistently, race regularly, and try not to whine too much, you're getting all the mental toughness training you need.

Cal:  Here's Black Canyon's elevation profile for a comparison.

 

Wow. I would love to run that course - basically 35-40 miles mild downhill with some rollers Awesome! But for the total ascent - 5200 ft - I just ran 21 miles yesterday with 4300 ft of ascent - so, I definitely know what 5200 ft would feel like 

OMR: Nice to have someone on here doing a 100K!

Weatherboy:  Missed this earlier...thanks, but I'm not the only one doing a 100K this year.  Rumor has it cal is running one, too...and I think there are a couple of others out there...

Brew:  Well, just to be clear (and I know you know this), qualifying for WS only gets you into the lottery, not into the actual race.  Qualifying (to me) isn't that difficult if you can get into a race.  Being persistent enough (or lucky enough) to actually get selected is a different matter.  Imagine if Boston only accepted 264 runners, chosen by a lottery system with "Golden Tickets."

Doubles:  I'm curious about other high-mileage runners' experiences with doubles.  The highest weekly mileage I've ever run is around 101, and for a while I was averaging 80+ pretty regularly.  I tried doubles once, and doing something like an 8/4 double was a lot harder on me than just doing a 12-miler and resting until the next day.  Maybe I was running the 4 too fast, but it just seemed to interrupt rather than aid my recovery.

Running high mileage:  Interesting to read others' perspectives on this.  I'm still working my way back into shape, but I have to say, I was much happier with my running when I was in the 80+ range.  In the 50s, I just feel like a slug, and if I didn't think it could get any better than this, I would probably turn into a hobby jogger who hobby jogs as a hobby.  Or a potato that sits on couches.