Lets be realistic (Read 2307 times)


Prince of Fatness

    Just trying to keep you in the game.  Of course, I've got your best interest at heart.

     

    I'm still in the game, barely.  Speaking of realistic, is it realistic to think that I can BQ in October if I get back to reasonable training by mid July?  I wonder.  The alternative is to come to Baystate, run the half, and taunt you.

    Semi-retired.


    Prince of Fatness

      And to the OP, I agree with the others.  If you string together a bunch of 200+ months I love your chances for sub 4 late this year.   Race along the way just to gauge your progress, and also add some fun.

      Semi-retired.

         

        I like this.

         

        Here's two metaphors that may be helpful.

         

        Marathon training is like watering a plant. You want constant, regular stimulus. That's how you get the plant to thrive. Not by dumping a ton of water in the pot and then hoping the plant can drink it all. You might think you are "toughening up" the plant by doing this, but really you're just drowning it. I've found that mental toughness--and confidence--comes from being able to look back over the bulk of my training and find a long sequence of steady improvement. It's pretty cool to toe the line and know that you don't have to be tough to PR. You can step to the line with confidence in your physical abilities, turn off your mind, and let your body do what it's been trained to do.

        Many folks misunderstand the sort of toughness required to run your best. It's rare that this happens (at least for me), but the very best races don't hurt--or at least the "hurt" isn't even relevant. You're like a gymnast on the bar. Totally focused on what you're doing. Not thinking about falling off, just executing. The pain is there, but it's sort of like the mat below the bar. You're not thinking about it. There's just the bar, just your race plan, just the running. That's the kind of toughness and psychological strength that you want as a runner. This sort of toughness is very different from pushing through the pain at the end of a long run in which you've gone out too fast. That's the pain of falling off the bar and hitting the mat. While it happens in training and is probably unavoidable, it's not something that a gymnast is going to set out to do, just to toughen herself up.

         

        Damn, Jeff... when are you going to write a book, already?

        "Because in the end, you won't remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn.  Climb that goddamn mountain."

        Jack Kerouac

          I'm curious how folks would spread that mileage over the week, and especially if taking into account that the runner is older or isn't built like an elite.

           

          I agree that a strong(er) distance base can't do anything but help.  Does the "how" of those 200-mile months (i.e., 45 mpw) make a difference?  Assuming the average person can sustain 45mpw without breakdown, does it matter how those 45 miles are distributed?  6.4 miles each day means no long runs and -- more importantly to some -- no rest days.  If you want to incorporate rest days, then you have to start shuffling the miles around on the days you do run.  Is it "better" (however that's defined) doing 6 days of 7.5 miles with 1day off (or 5 x 9 miles with 2 days off), or should the distances vary over the course of each week?

           

          Not trying to be ace4dave about it -- I'm pretty sold on the notion of a weekly/biweekly long run, so long as it isn't too prolonged.  (Happily, 20 miles shouldn't take me three hours, and I don't intend to go farther/longer than that.)  I'm down with what Nobby and others have written about not getting hung up on a mileage number and/or beating yourself up with super-long-duration long runs.

           

          (I don't know Sean, but taking myself as an example: I don't have perfect skeletal structure and connective tissue for a distance man.  Not brittle ... but flat feet, Morton's toe, and a little bit of residue from ankle and knee injuries past.  (OK, and maybe 10lbs to lose.)  If I tried to run 7 days per week, I'd get injured; even 6 days might find my limits.  So I'm always interested in how training can be modified to accommodate the masters or imperfect runner.)

          “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

          Scout7


          CPT Curmudgeon

            I think the whole reason most runners think they need rest days is because they are running far too hard.


            Kill

              I'm curious how folks would spread that mileage over the week, and especially if taking into account that the runner is older or isn't built like an elite.

               

              In the past I've been very hung up with canned plans, obsessing over the details. I always thought I needed a rest day or two per week and have had trouble staying consistent.

               

              There are many ways to spread the mileage around, but this is what has been working for me....

              I've recently (2 months-ish) shifted over to a time-based program. It started out with the goal of "just an hour a day". Then when I could do that, I moved over to something I read in one of Nobby's Lydiard posts that mentioned a base building program like: 60, 90, 60, 90, 60, 120, 60 (minutes per day). This has been working excellent for me, no injuries, and I haven't found an excuse for a rest day yet.

              Passion is a rather frightening thing because if you have passion you don't know where it will take you.

               

              When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?

                 

                I like this.

                 

                Here's two metaphors that may be helpful.

                 

                Marathon training is like watering a plant. You want constant, regular stimulus. That's how you get the plant to thrive. Not by dumping a ton of water in the pot and then hoping the plant can drink it all. You might think you are "toughening up" the plant by doing this, but really you're just drowning it. I've found that mental toughness--and confidence--comes from being able to look back over the bulk of my training and find a long sequence of steady improvement. It's pretty cool to toe the line and know that you don't have to be tough to PR. You can step to the line with confidence in your physical abilities, turn off your mind, and let your body do what it's been trained to do.

                Many folks misunderstand the sort of toughness required to run your best. It's rare that this happens (at least for me), but the very best races don't hurt--or at least the "hurt" isn't even relevant. You're like a gymnast on the bar. Totally focused on what you're doing. Not thinking about falling off, just executing. The pain is there, but it's sort of like the mat below the bar. You're not thinking about it. There's just the bar, just your race plan, just the running. That's the kind of toughness and psychological strength that you want as a runner. This sort of toughness is very different from pushing through the pain at the end of a long run in which you've gone out too fast. That's the pain of falling off the bar and hitting the mat. While it happens in training and is probably unavoidable, it's not something that a gymnast is going to set out to do, just to toughen herself up.

                 

                This is very helpful, thanks, especially the distinction between the pain of running fast at a pace you are trained for and slogging through a race for which you are unprepared.

                What a great site this is.

                Have you qualified for Boston? I want to interview you!

                Message me!

                 

                www.miloandthecalf.com

                 


                A Saucy Wench

                  I'm curious how folks would spread that mileage over the week, and especially if taking into account that the runner is older or isn't built like an elite.


                   I find that the more consistent I am the less running hurts.  Rest days do nothing for me.  Short days at a pace so laughably slow that I have to pretend not to notice help.  

                  I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                   

                  "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                    I think the whole reason most runners think they need rest days is because they are running far too hard.

                     

                    I thought this too when Clive said that he can't run 6 or 7 days without getting injured. 

                     

                       

                      is it realistic to think that I can BQ in October if I get back to reasonable training by mid July? 

                       

                      My vote is yes.  You will get it back quicker than when you first got it.  Plus you are an old guy.

                       

                        I'm curious how folks would spread that mileage over the week, and especially if taking into account that the runner is older or isn't built like an elite.

                         

                        I agree that a strong(er) distance base can't do anything but help.  Does the "how" of those 200-mile months (i.e., 45 mpw) make a difference?  Assuming the average person can sustain 45mpw without breakdown, does it matter how those 45 miles are distributed?  6.4 miles each day means no long runs and -- more importantly to some -- no rest days.  If you want to incorporate rest days, then you have to start shuffling the miles around on the days you do run.  Is it "better" (however that's defined) doing 6 days of 7.5 miles with 1day off (or 5 x 9 miles with 2 days off), or should the distances vary over the course of each week?

                         

                        Not trying to be ace4dave about it -- I'm pretty sold on the notion of a weekly/biweekly long run, so long as it isn't too prolonged.  (Happily, 20 miles shouldn't take me three hours, and I don't intend to go farther/longer than that.)  I'm down with what Nobby and others have written about not getting hung up on a mileage number and/or beating yourself up with super-long-duration long runs.

                         

                        (I don't know Sean, but taking myself as an example: I don't have perfect skeletal structure and connective tissue for a distance man.  Not brittle ... but flat feet, Morton's toe, and a little bit of residue from ankle and knee injuries past.  (OK, and maybe 10lbs to lose.)  If I tried to run 7 days per week, I'd get injured; even 6 days might find my limits.  So I'm always interested in how training can be modified to accommodate the masters or imperfect runner.)

                         I'm over 50, one knee is bone-on-bone, and I have miscellaneous other things wrong that really aren't ever going to get better. Even so, I'm able to always get more than 50 mpw except for times I'm backing off to let an injury clear. Max weeks are over 80mpw.

                         

                         Consistency over many many months has been key for me, trying to drive up the number of sessions per week, even if a couple of days are just easy 3 milers, and when I go over 70mpw I have a few days of two runs per day. That and the obvious: slow down.

                        HCH


                          Since I put my foot in my mouth and said, if trained correctly, you – or anybody for that matter – should be able to run sub-4 marathon.  I also said that I’m not the one to go Rah-Rah and be a cheerleader.  To say “you should be able to go under 4” is cheerleading. 

                          Hey Nobby,

                           

                          I have a question for you regarding the sub-4 goal.  When you say that anybody can run sub-4, does that include first-timers, or is a better goal for a first timer to cover the distance in a conservative time? 

                           

                          I ask because sub-4 seems like a pipe dream for me at Twin Cities.  I can give you a million excuses as to why:  it's my first, I'll be a masters runner in October, I'm a female, I just had a baby, I'm built more like a Norse war goddess than a svelte Kenyan, and even though I've been running for 5+ years I am just plain SLOW. 

                           

                          I was thinking 4:15-4:30 would be realistic, IF I train right and have a good day. If I can't run sub-4 or put that as a goal for this race, do you think that means I'm not ready for a marathon?

                           

                          Thanks in advance!!

                          - Holly

                            Hey Holly,

                             

                            You would need to have speed enough

                            to run around 23:30 or better in a 5k,

                            then some solid aerobic endurance to back it up.

                            Be able to do about 49 minutes or better for 10 k,

                            and 1:50:00 or better in the  half. If you are doing

                            numbers like that then beating 4 hours might be possible.

                            The best thing you can do to improve it all is develop

                            your aerobic system (avoiding killing it with over-training).

                            Good luck!

                            --Jimmy

                            log   prs      Crusted Salt comic #142

                             

                              +1 to Jimmyb's recommendation.  I run those times mentioned,but I know I die in the last 5K of  HM, so to achieve an equivalent time in the marathon, I need to improve my stamina.


                              Starting this week, I plan to do a 2 hour weekend long run  and a midweek 75-90 min run, and hope to manage 40 MPW minimum and see where that gets me by the end of the summer.  A sustained 8-12 weeks of running at 35-40MPW seems to improve my pace 10-15 seconds/mile by the end of that cycle.  I am sure that improvement wont be linear and further gains will be harder to get, but I am not there yet.


                              A Saucy Wench

                                I don't think that is actually Holly's question.  I might be wrong. 

                                 

                                 I don't see that there is necessarily anything that requires you to wait until you are ready to run a sub 4 before attempting the distance.   Why are you running it?  I imagine it is something you want to do. 

                                 

                                There are reasons not to run a marathon on inadequate training, but if you train reasonably well and are not injured then I dont see a particular reason NOT to do it.  It really depends on goals.  Will it be the next best step in your running career?  Probably not.  The distance and the recovery can distract from a lot of other running you might want to do to improve.  Doesnt mean it isnt ok to do it anyway. 

                                 

                                I also dont think I would have mentally been prepared for a sub 4 hour attempt until I ran a marathon once at a slower pace.  There are some people who can actually RACE a marathon the first attempt.  I'm not one of them.  If you think IF you have a good day you can run 4:15-4:30 then sure as heck you dont want to set your goal (expectation, initial pacing whatever) faster than 4:30. 

                                 

                                I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                                 

                                "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7