Harpeth Hills Flying Monkey Marathon

12

Probably not a tempo run...but hey. (Read 572 times)

    I planned a 10 mile run with a couple of 3 mile faster pace intervals...we'll call it that since I'm still not sure exactly what qualifies as a tempo run. From what I've read, this was probably a HM specific tempo run, not a marathon tempo run. Anyway, I had planned to run 1 warmup, 3 faster miles, 2 slower, 3 faster, then a cooldown. So I did the first mile warmup then ran 3 at a faster pace, but tried the "run by feel" thing and didn't look at my watch, trying to run hard, but hold back a little. After 3 I thought that if I wasn't running too fast, I should be able to just run all 6 faster miles together. So that's what I did. My splits were: 9:37 7:48 7:45 7:54 7:50 7:58 7:58 9:14 9:11 8:53 9:04 My HM pace is 8:20, and I thought I was running 8:15-8:20. I may have ran the 6 too fast, but it didn't just kill me, although I was ready to slow down after the 6 faster paced miles. I decided to run 11 because at 10 miles I hadn't quite been running 1:30. I have a HM on Oct 11 and I'd like to beat my PR of 1:49. Should I do any more faster paced runs before the HM or just focus on getting the miles in?
      My splits were: 9:37 7:48 7:45 7:54 7:50 7:58 7:58 9:14 9:11 8:53 9:04 I have a HM on Oct 11 and I'd like to beat my PR of 1:49. Should I do any more faster paced runs before the HM or just focus on getting the miles in?
      Nice run, Tony. It wouldn't hurt to do something like this once a week. This is a solid workout; but I wouldn't expect good things like this to happen every week; some days you'll feel worse and run closer to those 8:20's. If I were your coach, I would have been happier to see the 7:58's at the beginning of the 6 miles and the 7:48's at the end. A well-run workout (unless you're doing something weird) is always negative split. The fact that you are slowing down (though you didn't, much) means you are probably pushing just a bit too hard. Otherwise, great job. I can tell you are improving.
        Thanks Jeff - the first 4 of the faster pace was pretty flat. I hit some hills on the 5th which may explain part of the slowdown, but there was uphill AND downhill. On the 6th I think a lot more was downhill than uphill, so I think you're right, I probably started a little too fast. It may help me to look at my pace on my watch for the first mile or 2 next time to make sure I don't go too fast at first. The last 4 miles felt pretty comfortable - I was surprised to see how close to 9 I was running because it was sort of a "rest while you run" pace. How is the achilles? Hopefully no news is good news.


        The Greatest of All Time

          If I were your coach, I would have been happier to see the 7:58's at the beginning of the 6 miles and the 7:48's at the end. A well-run workout (unless you're doing something weird) is always negative split. The fact that you are slowing down (though you didn't, much) means you are probably pushing just a bit too hard.
          Nice Run Tony! But I agree with Jeff here. Always finish strong. I don't know how many other people do this, but when I get into fairly long runs, i.e. >15 miles or so, I typically save my fastest miles for the final 5k of the run. Look at my last two long runs for an example of what I am talking about. Maybe it's just a mental thing for me, but I always like to know I have a hard 5k left in me at the end of a race. There is no worse feeling than slugging through the last few miles of a long race because you haven't trained your legs to run hard when fatigued. There is an argument to be made that rather than saving a really hard 5k for the end I could have run the preceeding miles a bit quicker and therefore had a consistent pace throughout. But this is such a fine line of maybe 5-10 seconds per mile and I find it impossible to calculate that one way or the other. I just prefer to finish really strong. And the only way you can do this is by training on fatigued legs. I think doing a lot of brick workouts back in my triathlon days is where this principle comes from. YMMV. MTA: As per Jeff, when in doubt shoot for a negative split. MFTA: I am not implying you skip cool down miles. I just never log mine.
          all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be

          Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.
            How is the achilles? Hopefully no news is good news.
            It's doing great, knock on wood. Good stuff by Marcus, too. FWIW, I do log cool downs. Gotta keep up with the mileage-whores. Wink
              Jeff - glad to hear the achilles is good! Marcus - Thanks! I checked your 20 mile run...ddaaaaang - that's a ridiculously fast 5k at the end of 20 miles! I had planned on running the last 3 of my 17 mile long run faster, but I just didn't have it in me. (Here come the excuses) 3 weeks ago I was running ~20-25 mpw and last week I worked up to 45 46 so hopefully with a couple of weeks of higher volume I'll have something left at the end of my long runs.


              The Greatest of All Time

                Tony, it's not the mileage per week in this case. Look at my very low mpw since I started running again in early August. I just barely hit 50 for the first time since April (before knee injury) and I am planning on doing Chicago in less than 2 weeks. It might kill me, but WTF. I truly believe, and some may argue against me, that for non-elites (like most of us) one can get by running less miles per week if they make the miles they do run count. In other words, no junk miles. Beginners, however, just need to run more no doubt. But once you have been doing this long enough to know how to train yourself, you can get by with less. If you have a race you are seriously training for, every run should have a purpose. During the off season just run and run some more. But when you have a race dialed in on your calendar I think structure is very important. Ideally for marathon training you need one long run, one mid-week longish run, one faster run like a tempo run and maybe one recovery run. Now everyone else around will run 6-7 days a week and that's cool but don't feel you have to run that much to consider yourself seriously training. More is not always better and I personally would rather see you cross train two days a week, run four, and take one day off. Following that type of schedule will likely keep you injury free and less prone to burn out because like it or not, too much running does get old at some point. MTA: The point I was trying to make is that if you want to have something left at the end of a long run, I am not sure simply adding more mileage is the ticket. You need to train fast on tired legs. That's the only way and how you accomplish that is up to you. Maybe end a run at a local track and run some 400's and go from there. Just my $.02
                all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be

                Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.
                  I truly believe, and some may argue against me, that for non-elites (like most of us) one can get by running less miles per week if they make the miles they do run count. In other words, no junk miles.
                  True if you are a fast beginner with a well-developed aerobic system and experience with endurance sports and are interested in racing 5k-HM. If your goal is to complete a marathon without walking (like Tony), then there really is no such thing as "junk miles," because everything is already MP. In fact, you may want to add walking into the mix.
                  runforthehills


                    I agree; check out http://www.furman.edu/first/ (Furman Institute of Running & Scientific Training). I've run several marathons running no more than 4 days per week, but all quality runs. And no walking.
                    Tony, it's not the mileage per week in this case. Look at my very low mpw since I started running again in early August. I just barely hit 50 for the first time since April (before knee injury) and I am planning on doing Chicago in less than 2 weeks. It might kill me, but WTF. I truly believe, and some may argue against me, that for non-elites (like most of us) one can get by running less miles per week if they make the miles they do run count. In other words, no junk miles.


                    The Greatest of All Time

                      Jeff, I didn't know this was Tony's first go at the marathon distance so my advice might not have been appropriate, and likely was not. I admit I have not taken much notice to anyone's training in particular or what their running history is. I have just read several of his posts that touched on topics I never worried about as a new distance runner so I assumed, and probably incorrectly, that he was more advanced. If this is true Mr. Tony, just run brother. Don't worry about all of this tempo run bollocks. You must master the distance before you can attempt to master speed at that distance. I won't even go into detail about how basic my first marathon training was but I will say I never timed one single run. I knew distance and nothing more. I just ran. I had no clue what a tempo run was or things like this. I did NO speedwork at all and came out with a 3:09 while losing like 60lbs in the process. Granted I was 25 at the time, but you get my point. This is not a knock at you, but an observation in general, but at some point during the last 10 years, newer runners have gotten too focused on minutia. I blame the internet. Or Trent. Well both actually since they are the same thing.
                      all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be

                      Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.
                        Marcus - this will be my 3rd marathon, but the first 2 my goal was to break 4 hours and at mile 17 on the first I crashed and burned, then at mile 21 or so on the 2nd I crashed and burned. I ran my first a year & 5 months ago after 8 months of "training" with probably not enough miles. Also I found that I had this annoying tendency to throw up when I ran hard in shorter races...which obviously bothered me and I tried to figure out WTF was going on. Whether all the theory about it is true or not, I read about Lactate Threshold and started doing some of my runs at what I thought/think is LT for me. It worked and I was able to run fast (for me) without throwing up. I think there's a lot to learn from people like you and Jeff about what generally works, and I appreciate the input, but I really don't have "natural talent" when it comes to distance running, so this whole process is an experiment for me. With all that said, for this one I'm trying more miles,tempo runs, and shorter long runs (I may not go over 18 miles) and see how that works. Of course the Monkey will be a dramatically different "test lab" but maybe I'll learn something. Before my first marathon, my 3rd to last long run was a 21 mile run at a 9:15 pace, so I felt good about running 26.2 at a 9 minute pace. For some reason it didn't happen. Maybe it was the 23 mile run that took me 4:09 (my next to last long run), followed by a 21 mile run 6 days later two weeks before the marathon...I'm not sure, but whatever happened I felt like I significantly underachieved...throwing up at mile 17, and walk/running a miserable 9.2 to "finish" in 4:24...feeling like death. Anyway - thanks for the input and we'll just see how it goes this time.
                          Also I found that I had this annoying tendency to throw up when I ran hard in shorter races......throwing up at mile 17
                          I see a theme here. An awesome theme. I expect excellent pukage at the Monkey. See if you can save it for the finish line. That'd be sweet.
                          E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
                          -----------------------------

                            Marcus, just check his log. 50mpw would be very high mileage for Tony: at his pace, it would be like 80mpw for you. My preparation for my 2:50 in my first marathon at the Monkey was similar to the First program: I probably averaged running 5 days a week. My long run was 17, and almost everything was at MP or faster. So, I am not unfamiliar with the value of harder running. However, if I want to read my goal of 2:29, 50mpw will not cut it. I'm going to have to develop my aerobic system at 80-100 mpw, and in order to do that, I'll have to run easy some or maybe even most days. It all depends on whether you are looking to "get by" (as you put it in your first post, Marcus), or whether you're looking to take it to the next level. Speaking philosophically and outside of the context of Tony's training, I think that runners often get stuck drawing a false dichotomy between quantity and quality. Quantity is a type of quality training--just run 100+ miles in a week; you'll find that out quick. So, the question is what type of quality work does the runner in question need to reach his potential. Well, the answer is simple: all kinds of quality. The difficulty comes in figuring out how to blend these kinds, and this is where it's helpful not to be dogmatic about any one type, but to look to your own strengths and weaknesses as a runner and how they line up with the event that you are running. If you look at the log of any elite marathoner, they do most of their volume at 6:30 pace or so. That's MP+1:30. They don't do that because they are lazy or afraid of quality work. They do it because it works.


                            The Greatest of All Time

                              I understand Tony. There was a thread about a month ago about throwing up either during or immediately after races, but in that context almost everyone was talking about 5k's. In fact, I think there was some nice video of a Nashville lady, who shall remain nameless, hurling after a 5k. I, myself, have never thrown up but 5k's hurt my abdominals like hell. I guess that's how I know I am running hard enough. I am sure you're not the only person who has thrown up late in a marathon. My mother was a volunteer at a HM in April. She was stationed at the finish line to assist runners when they finished. She got barfed on 3 times and I saw them all. You crashing at the end of a marathon is not unique but rather typical. You bonked. Hit the wall. Whatever you want to call it. You were probably dehydrated too, which may have caused the nausea. In my first marathon I was well, well inside sub 3 pace until I, too, bonked at around mile 21 and sucked ass for the last 5. Why did I bonk? Simply, I didn't take in enough energy during the race. I ran through gatorade stations and spilled 1/2 the cup when I grabbed it and then 1/2 of the rest when I tried to drink it while running. There were no gels at that time so gatorade was pretty much it. I imagine you bonked for the same reason, you just ran out of gas. Miles 18-22 seems to be where that demon lives. Before CMM I advised Candice to walk quickly through the gatorade stations, especially in the last half and she had great results. The extra 10 seconds it takes you to walk through and chug 2-3 cups will yield overall time dividends when you don't bonk. If I remember correctly, Jeff jumped in and ran the last 6 with Candice and she finished strong as hell. And yes, LT training is great. In fact I think LT training yields the best results if done correctly. LT training will raise your LT, and LT is where you want your race pace to be for HM and if you're really in shape you should be able to run a full marathon at LT. And the only way you can accomplish this is by training at LT or a little higher. I can't tell you how to determine what your LT is. For me, I can feel it. When I am there I just know it. Also, please don't throw me in with Jeff as being "naturally talented". While I appreciate the compliment it's entirely misplaced. When you meet me in November you will see for yourself. You're at least 1-2" taller than I am and as of this morning I weighed 182. Not exactly an ideal weight for this distance running shit, but I won't stop lifting and just dedicate myself to running alone. I don't make money racing and having good overall fitness is worth more to me than faster times at my age.
                              My preparation for my 2:50 in my first marathon at the Monkey was similar to the First program: I probably averaged running 5 days a week. My long run was 17, and almost everything was at MP or faster. So, I am not unfamiliar with the value of harder running.
                              This sounds a lot like how I am training currently or close to it.
                              However, if I want to reach my goal of 2:29, 50mpw will not cut it. I'm going to have to develop my aerobic system at 80-100 mpw, and in order to do that, I'll have to run easy some or maybe even most days. It all depends on whether you are looking to "get by" (as you put it in your first post, Marcus), or whether you're looking to take it to the next level.
                              Very true Jeff. People like you who are capable of a 2:29 marathon simply have to put more miles in. There is no way around it or Kenyans wouldn't be doing 140 mile weeks. That's why I wrote in my original post that non-elites can often get by with less if it's quality. But of course easy is relative.
                              all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be

                              Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.
                                I disagree with almost everything written in the above post except forthe part about the benefit of walking through the aid stations. (And, I appreciate the shout-out for running with Candice to the end.) MTA: Okay: I'll be more specific. I don't think that Marcus and I really disagree, so let me just put it my way. 1. Most people "bonk" because they are undertrained not because of "energy" reasons. 2. Running at LT is not the only way to raise LT. And a good LT is not the most important quality of a marathoner. 3. Just because you are big doesn't mean that you have no "talent." That's an insult to every runner that is slower than you that trains harder than you. Talent comparisons are odious, anyhow.
                                12