Forums >Racing>Goal of sub 1:40 half.
Arrogant Bastard....Ale
By the way, regarding your 200-mile month of July, I think you were expecting too much from that one month. These physiological adaptations take time, and they are cumulative as well. Now, if you were to run 200 miles a month for six months, without any runs shorter than 4 miles, then we're talking! I am pretty sure you would demolish all of your PRs, including your 5k PR, if you would just do that.
That is my training in a nutshell right now. I haven't been doing the tempo/interval stuff though lately. Had a very poor race day (mostly mentally) and still got the 1:40 half.
Michigan, looking at your log, you were running lots and lots of 3-mile days, 2-mile days, and even 1-mile days! You're right, those types of days aren't going to do you much good. I think you are confusing "more miles" with "running every day." You were running nearly every day, but you really weren't running a lot of miles. At 30 miles per week, I'd much rather be running just 4 days per week than 7. At 7 days per week, you might do something like 2, 3, 3, 7, 3, 2, 10. By the way, regarding your 200-mile month of July, I think you were expecting too much from that one month. These physiological adaptations take time, and they are cumulative as well. Now, if you were to run 200 miles a month for six months, without any runs shorter than 4 miles, then we're talking! I am pretty sure you would demolish all of your PRs, including your 5k PR, if you would just do that.
Michigan, looking at your log, you were running lots and lots of 3-mile days, 2-mile days, and even 1-mile days! You're right, those types of days aren't going to do you much good.
I think you are confusing "more miles" with "running every day." You were running nearly every day, but you really weren't running a lot of miles. At 30 miles per week, I'd much rather be running just 4 days per week than 7. At 7 days per week, you might do something like 2, 3, 3, 7, 3, 2, 10.
I felt I had to get out there every day and run to get the miles in.
I did not run five 3 mile days in one week however maybe you are looking at individual runs on my log.
I may have averaged one 3 mile day per week at the most.
I did a lot of one mile runs in the basement, take a rest for a minute then run another mile.
Not many runs longer than a mile at one time during the week. That may be the biggest problem.
I would run about 5 miels a day but only a mile at a time.
I was afraid taking 2 days off per week would hurt my fitness level.
But I am figuring that if I run 35 miles in 4 days it probably is better than 35 in 7 days.
Plus I get 3 whole days off from running.
I ran 7 days because I was trying to log as many miles as possible.
200 miles in a month...I am not ready to string together a bunch of 200 mile months yet.
That month was a bugger. We will see how I feel about it by 2010...maybe 4-5 days running will really be my cup of tea. Thanks for your thoughts!
Right on Hereford...
I did a lot of one mile runs in the basement, take a rest for a minute then run another mile. Not many runs longer than a mile at one time during the week. That may be the biggest problem. I would run about 5 miels a day but only a mile at a time.
Whoa! Yeah, I didn't realize that's what you were doing. I looked at your highest-mileage week in July, where you hit 60 miles. You ran at least doubles every day, with two triples and two quadruple-run days! All in one week. In the whole month, you only had three runs longer than 6 miles, even though you averaged 6.5 miles per day that month.
Dude, no wonder you thought that was a bitch. Don't run doubles unless you're around 70 miles per week, and then only one or two doubles per week, tops. By splitting your miles into tiny little segments throughout the day, you are robbing yourself of the endurance gains you could be getting if you just ran all of your day's miles at once. Plus, it takes a lot of time and mental energy to run doubles, not to mention triples or quadruples.
At your weekly mileage, running just once per day is a hell of a lot easier than doing multiple runs per day. And you'll be way fitter from it. Trust me on this.
I can attest to this. I am training for a relay on Sep 11 and 12th, and running an occasional double is recommended (to train to run on tired legs as we run 3 -4 times within about 20 hours). That second 4 mile run and the next morning's 4 miler are way harder than a single 8 -9 miler. Not to mention extra laundry and time to shower etc.
I read somewhere here that there is no need for doubles below 50 MPW and then do the second run at a pace that it does not interfere in anyway with your normal runs without the double.
Prince of Fatness
By splitting your miles into tiny little segments throughout the day, you are robbing yourself of the endurance gains you could be getting if you just ran all of your day's miles at once.
I agree with this, not only for the reasons that Dakota mentions, but just from a time management perspective I couldn't manage that.
Michigan, have you given thought to just running by time? That is what works for me. My typical easy day is 50 - 70 minutes. When I run tempos it's minutes. Long run when I am not marathon training is in the vicinity of 2 hours. Some workouts are mileage based but most are time. This has helped me become less fixated on pace and miles, and I feel that I am more consistent week to week doing it this way. Everything else seems to take care of itself, the pacing, the mileage, and most importantly the race times.
Just a thought.
Not at it at all.
Mr. PH.... I love the watch and I love to tabulate all my distances. I am a numbers guy through and through.
Today I ran 6 miles at 7:20 pace. My goal was to run at 7:30 pace or better to simulate half marathon pace. Well I hit the 1st mile in 7:24 and that seems like an awfully fast pace for starting a half marathon. But I kept the pace hitting miles 2 through 5 in 7:25, 7:19, 7:22 and 7:27. The last mile I breezed through in 6:58.
6 miles in 43:55.
So that is probably the 1st time I ran 6 consecutive miles outdoors at under 7:30 pace.
It would be hard to keep that up for another 7 miles but it seems possible in race conditions.
7:30 pace is around 1:38:22 give or take a few seconds. I would be very happy if I could do that.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't sure.
Best of luck at your HM Michigan. That last mile in 6:58 makes would make me feel very confident.
Books I Have Read
Last Race: Portland Maine Half Marathon October 5 2014
The Limping Jogger
Mr. PH.... I love the watch and I love to tabulate all my distances. I am a numbers guy through and through. Today I ran 6 miles at 7:20 pace. My goal was to run at 7:30 pace or better to simulate half marathon pace. Well I hit the 1st mile in 7:24 and that seems like an awfully fast pace for starting a half marathon. But I kept the pace hitting miles 2 through 5 in 7:25, 7:19, 7:22 and 7:27. The last mile I breezed through in 6:58. 6 miles in 43:55. So that is probably the 1st time I ran 6 consecutive miles outdoors at under 7:30 pace. It would be hard to keep that up for another 7 miles but it seems possible in race conditions. 7:30 pace is around 1:38:22 give or take a few seconds. I would be very happy if I could do that.
Dude, you can run faster than you think. Don't over think it and limit yourself by the numbers game.
"Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin, unless this is the action, which it is."
SMART Approach
If you ran this in training you will have no issues in my opinion breaking 1:38. Remember, race day is race day. You are on a different level of energy and adrenaline. I would probably not go out faster than 7:30 - 7:40 for first mile though in HM race and then ease into your pace of 7:20-7:30 and hold until last 3 miles and kick it in.
Run Coach. Recovery Coach. Founder of SMART Approach Training, Coaching & Recovery
Structured Marathon Adaptive Recovery Training
Safe Muscle Activation Recovery Technique
www.smartapproachtraining.com
Suspect Zero
6 miles at slow tempo pace 5 X 200 hard
It's official. I've found my least favorite workout ever - the long tempo. Did 14 miles with 6 at LT, right around 7:40. I didn't have enough left in the tank for the 5 x 200s.
I'll admit that I don't do the 200's but the long tempo is the workout to die for. Find a place between HMP and MP and let her rip. 20 minutes easy on each side and you've got yourself a great workout.
Shouldn't HM pace be at the slower limit of the tempo range? I know that the definition of LT deals primarily with blood chemistry stuff, but when talking about what constitutes LT, the terms that get used the most are "15k-HM race pace" or "A pace you could race for about an hour" or "comfortably hard". I think once you get slower than HM pace, you're slipping out of that range.
This is my interpretation of tempos, and it works really well for me.
It depends on the time. If you are running 20 minutes then yeah, 15K - HM pace is OK. I don't run the short ones. When I am training for a half I'll run 45 minutes right around HM pace or a hair slower. I've been training for a marathon this summer and am running 60 minutes in between HM and M pace. Sometimes when I am feeling good I'll drop the pace down a hair the last mile or so. I always feel like a million bucks after this workout, not beat up. That's the key indicator that I ran it right. It may seem slow but believe me, doing this workout has been a big part of bringing my half time down.
When I am training for a half I'll run 45 minutes right around HM pace or a hair slower.
Got it. Looks like that's exactly what I did yesterday without realizing it. I figured my tempo pace and looked in Running Formula to get an idea as to what a longer (45 min) tempo run pace and went with that. Turns out that's just a hair slower than HM pace.
I did feel quite beat up though.
One thing about the long tempo runs is that I feel they do an outstanding job of teaching pace control and running by feel - something I've been focusing on a lot lately. My splits were quite even.