Marathon last weekend, lsr tomorrow...

Was pretty wrecked after Tralee Marathon last Saturday, set out too fast, suffered for last 10 miles.

Anyway, want to do a 3 hour trail run tomorrow and a friend said I should leave it as recovery for a marathon is longer.

Is there a train of thought that, even though I feel fine, I should leave it, or would people say run away if the body allows? Is one more injury prone or something for a while?

Enduro

It's an individual thing, with loads of "it depends".

Yeah, kinda figured there was no prescribed period and would just have to try it and see.

Myles Splitz

Deleted User wrote: »

Was pretty wrecked after Tralee Marathon last Saturday, set out too fast, suffered for last 10 miles.

Anyway, want to do a 3 hour trail run tomorrow and a friend said I should leave it as recovery for a marathon is longer.

Is there a train of thought that, even though I feel fine, I should leave it, or would people say run away if the body allows? Is one more injury prone or something for a while?

Was Tralee a target race?

What sort of events do you usually train for?

What sort of training did you do in build up to that race (and what is your running background? )

Unless you have experience with back to back running and Tralee wasn't a race effort IMO there is plenty of risks to doing this run to be honest and alot more to lose than to gain - not just injury and illness risk but also effects on a cellular level.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, kinda figured there was no prescribed period and would just have to try it and see.

General consensus would be low intensity running for 2-3 weeks (I would include runs over 90 minutes to be included in high intensity for this purpose also)

demfad

If it was only race effort for 16 miles and you have no DOMS, and you really want to do it then may be OK to do but have a contingency plan for cutting it short or walking some.

Remember though, the fact that your marathon wasn't a full effort means that you would probably get a better training adaption from it than if the marathon had gone to plan. You will get a lot of strenght gains from Tralee. The trail run will scupper a lot of it (3 hr duration and esp. downhills).

If your not sure I would advise taking the good training adaption from Tralee and pushing the trail run out a week or so.

Tralee was a target race insofar as it was the focus for about 3 months. Was doing 3 or 4 outings a week, 2 x 10kms, hill repeats and anything up to 20 miles on Saturdays. Prior to that was training for the Mournes Skyline, then before that the regular IMRA season so was an event every couple of weeks towards the end of the summer.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

If it was only race effort for 16 miles and you have no DOMS, and you really want to do it then may be OK to do but have a contingency plan for cutting it short or walking some...

No muscle soreness at all now. Was aiming for something in the 3.20s, first 16 miles were at 3.15 pace...didn't realise how much that injection of pace would affect me, had faster training runs than the event itself!

Yeah, think I will have a back up plan. Though one of the group returning from injury so pace won't be too hard.

Myles Splitz

Deleted User wrote: »

Tralee was a target race insofar as it was the focus for about 3 months. Was doing 3 or 4 outings a week, 2 x 10kms, hill repeats and anything up to 20 miles on Saturdays. Prior to that was training for the Mournes Skyline, then before that the regular IMRA season so was an event every couple of weeks towards the end of the summer.

Avoid.

You are only gonna do yourself more harm than good running it, no if's and buts about it.

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

No muscle soreness at all now. Was aiming for something in the 3.20s, first 16 miles were at 3.15 pace...didn't realise how much that injection of pace would affect me, had faster training runs than the event itself!

Yeah, think I will have a back up plan. Though one of the group returning from injury so pace won't be too hard.

OK. A few more things to consider. Were you able to run with OK form for the last 10 miles or were you all over the place? You slowed by 1:30 a mile. It could have been a gradual decline due to tiring muscles or you may have run out of gas. Because of the Mountain running your legs will be strong but if you were shuffling for 10 miles you'll have been working muscles in a way they wont be used to and that could cause you trouble in along trail run.
Lack of soreness is a good sign though.

Remember though that with full recovery in 2-3 weeks time you'll be in PB shape for races like 10m - HM or indeed if there was a hill race in taht time frame you coudl target. Youll sacrifice some of that. I know its hard to keep a hill runner from the hills but be honest with yourself and genuinely have a contingency plan if youd ecide to go.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

It could have been a gradual decline due to tiring muscles or you may have run out of gas.

It was almost like hitting the wall, it just became a real slog.

Strange feeling, but then again knew I was slightly outside my comfort zone from the off, but thought I'd be able to push on through or gradually wind down and just try and stay ahead of the 3.30. Didn't think I'd just collapse so quickly and thoroughly, even letting the 3.30 pacers pass by with about 3 miles left and not being able to hang on. Now that was dispiriting!

Just a really badly thought out one!

Change of plan, we went up Carrauntoohil via the Zig Zags.

Felt good for first 45 mins, bounding along, but last few hundred metres to summit were a bit leggy and we all just walked up from the top of the Devil's Ladder. Coming down was a nice trot all the way, couldn't run flat out as winter weather had loosened a lot of the surfaces.

Nice outing, felt good. I guess the walk broke it up a bit so not really a lsr and had a bit of variety.

Myles Splitz

Myles Splitz wrote: »

IMO there is plenty of risks to doing this run to be honest and alot more to lose than to gain - not just injury and illness risk but also effects on a cellular level.

General consensus would be low intensity running for 2-3 weeks (I would include runs over 90 minutes to be included in high intensity for this purpose also)

As it happened, turned out to be low enough intensity, but mentioned this to the other runners and we were wondering what cellular level really means. Took it to mean not allowing cells replenish themselves and being drained, but another runner thought it might be micro tears in muscles at cellular level, and the risk of aggravating them.

Myles Splitz

Deleted User wrote: »

As it happened, turned out to be low enough intensity, but mentioned this to the other runners and we were wondering what cellular level really means. Took it to mean not allowing cells replenish themselves and being drained, but another runner thought it might be micro tears in muscles at cellular level, and the risk of aggravating them.

Micro-tears would only be one element and would be the more apparent one (muscle soreness would be a fairly obvious indicator here) there are other elements which are more subtle to recovery from a marathon

Cellular level refers to more subtle aspects which might not be apparent. Basically these factors can actually impact your fitness to an extent and actually result in excessive mitochondrial cell death and many other biochemical changes.

This coupled with compromised immune system leads to a trifecta of issues which make recovering from a marathon important not just from an injury risk perspective but also from a performance and illness perspective also.

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

As it happened, turned out to be low enough intensity, but mentioned this to the other runners and we were wondering what cellular level really means. Took it to mean not allowing cells replenish themselves and being drained, but another runner thought it might be micro tears in muscles at cellular level, and the risk of aggravating them.

This type of cell death occurs naturally anyway. On the one hand vigorous prolonged exercise can increase this rate but the paradox is that it also seems to reduce it. I think this even holds true after a full effort marathon. The danger would be doing back to back all out prolonged efforts.

As your marathon wasn't quite all out (only for the first fast 16 miles) the risks were greatly reduced. Stioll performing a similar effort in back to back weeks wouldnt be wise.

During the marathon you're mountain running training protected your legs from excessive microscopic tears due to adaption to all those downhills. The fact that your soreness cleared pretty easily also meant that you maintained OK form for the rest of the marathon.

You didn't seem to be over tired and crucially you wanted to do teh trail run which is another good sign .Presumably your immune was also recovering pretty well. Once you were restrained in your training run it was probably pretty safe.

That said training wise you will still have a window in 2-3 weeks for a very strong road race. I would consider doing a couple of sessions (once recovered) to focus on a 10k around then. You should run strongly and it will give your fitness a very positive wallop for whatever your Spring/Summer plans are.

Even a session of controlled 200 reps and one specific 10k session and youll be ready to hammer out a good one. You'll be super strong from the marathon so you wont slow in second half and will record a good time.

EDit: Also if you were to target another marathon in 2 months you would blow 3:20 even 3:15 out of the water IMO.

El Caballo

demfad wrote: »

This type of cell death occurs naturally anyway. On the one hand vigorous prolonged exercise can increase this rate but the paradox is that it also seems to reduce it. I think this even holds true after a full effort marathon. The danger would be doing back to back all out prolonged efforts.

As your marathon wasn't quite all out (only for the first fast 16 miles) the risks were greatly reduced. Stioll performing a similar effort in back to back weeks wouldnt be wise.

During the marathon you're mountain running training protected your legs from excessive microscopic tears due to adaption to all those downhills. The fact that your soreness cleared pretty easily also meant that you maintained OK form for the rest of the marathon.

You didn't seem to be over tired and crucially you wanted to do teh trail run which is another good sign .Presumably your immune was also recovering pretty well. Once you were restrained in your training run it was probably pretty safe.

That said training wise you will still have a window in 2-3 weeks for a very strong road race. I would consider doing a couple of sessions (once recovered) to focus on a 10k around then. You should run strongly and it will give your fitness a very positive wallop for whatever your Spring/Summer plans are.

Even a session of controlled 200 reps and one specific 10k session and youll be ready to hammer out a good one. You'll be super strong from the marathon so you wont slow in second half and will record a good time.

EDit: Also if you were to target another marathon in 2 months you would blow 3:20 even 3:15 out of the water IMO.

Cell lifespan is around 120 days but they don't all due at once, it's more like a conveyer belt whereas during a marathon, they all get damaged at once and if not given enough recovery time, will not repair properly. It takes 3-4 weeks post marathon for mitochondria to repair fully. Conor hit the wall so he actually done more damage than he would have if he ran a perfectly paced marathon, even though the last 10 Miles were slower, the damage is much more severe from those 10 slower miles than the faster first 16. this also has an effect on the heart tissue which can show scarring after a marathon. Much like a cut, if you don't let it repair by picking at the scab, that scarring becomes a bigger issue. Long runs should definitely not be on the cards a week after a marathon, especially not 3 hour runs. It's all about recovery and letting your body heal. Microtears are only a small issue compared to everything else that's going on.

Enduro

El Caballo wrote: »

Cell lifespan is around 120 days but they don't all due at once, it's more like a conveyer belt whereas during a marathon, they all get damaged at once and if not given enough recovery time, will not repair properly. It takes 3-4 weeks post marathon for mitochondria to repair fully. Conor hit the wall so he actually done more damage than he would have if he ran a perfectly paced marathon, even though the last 10 Miles were slower, the damage is much more severe from those 10 slower miles than the faster first 16. this also has an effect on the heart tissue which can show scarring after a marathon. Much like a cut, if you don't let it repair by picking at the scab, that scarring becomes a bigger issue. Long runs should definitely not be on the cards a week after a marathon, especially not 3 hour runs. It's all about recovery and letting your body heal. Microtears are only a small issue compared to everything else that's going on.

Surely your missing out on a huge ammount of "it depends" type syuff there with such a definite assertion. Eg. the pace of the potential long run. If it was extremely relaxed it would surely be a muche aier session than a more intense shorter run (And therefore less harmful). Does the whole thing not depend entirely oin the overall fitness and background of the individual runner. Surely the adice wouldn't be the same for a newby runner doing their first marathon versus (say) an international class endurance runner with years of experience?

demfad

El Caballo wrote: »

Cell lifespan is around 120 days but they don't all due at once, it's more like a conveyer belt whereas during a marathon, they all get damaged at once and if not given enough recovery time, will not repair properly. It takes 3-4 weeks post marathon for mitochondria to repair fully. Conor hit the wall so he actually done more damage than he would have if he ran a perfectly paced marathon, even though the last 10 Miles were slower, the damage is much more severe from those 10 slower miles than the faster first 16. this also has an effect on the heart tissue which can show scarring after a marathon. Much like a cut, if you don't let it repair by picking at the scab, that scarring becomes a bigger issue. Long runs should definitely not be on the cards a week after a marathon, especially not 3 hour runs. It's all about recovery and letting your body heal. Microtears are only a small issue compared to everything else that's going on.

Not wishing to start a Scientific study ping pong but this study of amateur marathon runners seems to indicate that the net value of cell death rate (apoptosis) is actually reduced after a marathon.

Conclusion

These data suggest that the physiological load imposed in amateur runners during marathon attenuates the extent of apoptosis and may interfere with sirtuin expression.

I dont know what you mean by 'all the cells get damaged at once'?
Presumably you mean all the localised cells involved in the particluar exercise?

I thought when a muscle fibre used its store of glycogen it was disused and other fibres were used to take up the slack. This happens on many fast training runs. Also if muscle glycogen is completely depleted (hitting the wall) then fibres that are better capable of using Fat oxidation take over.

Ive hit the wall in 4-5 pre-marathon training runs. Contrary to what your suggesting, I can assure you that the damage done was far greater in the full effort even paced marathons.

The rate of cell death may increase in proportion to more cells being used. But thats not the same as "all cells" being damaged and a drop of on average 1:30 per mile in the last 10 miles shows that this was not maxiumum effort for the last 40% of the race. The parallel evidence of little muscle tearing and psychological recovery seems to bear this out. The net reduction in cell death due to the benefits of the exercise bout seems to negate this anyway.

As Enduro said the pace of the proposed training run and the experience of the runner is all important, (even if an all out effort was produced for the marathon.)

EDIT: Also to note a trail run is using a variety of different muscles in different ways. It does not involve the chronic hammering of muscles in the same running action that a full effort marathon achieves. It is actually a good fit for recovery for marathons for this reason providing restraint is shown (low intensity).

Myles Splitz

demfad wrote: »

Not wishing to start a Scientific study ping pong but this study of amateur marathon runners seems to indicate that the net value of cell death rate (apoptosis) is actually reduced after a marathon.

Without getting too deep into the science it should be noted that that paper acknowledges its limitations due to the very small sample size used and states that results are by no means conclusive while also highlighting the fact that despite increased SIRT1 the RNA contents of SIRT 3 and 4 were found to decrease. Given that these enzymes occur in the mithochondria this could actually lend to support that after strenuous bouts such as marathon can impact negatively the cell metabolism and reactivity to stress. Don't know enough about this enzyme and research doesn't seem to be there regarding SIRT3 and SIRT4 to make any inferences based off this.

Aside from all that taking the OP for the sole purposes of this advice I think your lower aerobic base doesn't lend itself to support benefits outweighing risks and I think people would be irresponsible to advocate otherwise.

Myles Splitz

Enduro wrote: »

Surely the adice wouldn't be the same for a newby runner doing their first marathon versus (say) an international class endurance runner with years of experience?

Anecdotally many of the top elite marathoners will take 2-3 weeks of completely and 2 weeks of light running. Similarly most generic marathon plans would advocate a recovery/regeneration phase of 2-4 weeks after a marathon.

Personally speaking as a coach I have observed runners come back from marathons at varying lengths from Multimarathoning to traditional one race peaks. many can achieve PB's off the back of a marathon but IMO it's always off borrowed time from the next training cycle and its about evaluating where best the recovery comes in the following 2-6 weeks after a marathon effort.

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Without getting too deep into the science it should be noted that that paper acknowledges its limitations due to the very small sample size used and states that results are by no means conclusive while also highlighting the fact that despite increased SIRT1 the RNA contents of SIRT 3 and 4 were found to decrease. Given that these enzymes occur in the mithochondria this would actually lend to support that after strenuous bouts such as marathon can impact negatively the cell metabolism and reactivity to stress. Don't know enough about this enzyme and research doesn't seem to be there regarding SIRT3 and SIRT4 to make any inferences based off this.

Aside from all that taking the OP for the sole purposes of this advice I think your lower aerobic base doesn't lend itself to support benefits outweighing risks and I think people would be irresponsible to advocate otherwise.

Yes, exercise can possibly impact negatively on cell death, but the key finding of the study is that the positive effects greatly outweigh this and the net effect was positive and cell death was actually reduced.

"A key finding was that the ratio of Bcl-2 to Bax shifted in favor of Bcl-2 from the before to the after measurement. In other words, there was an anti-apoptotic effect, which countered the pro-apoptotic effects of ROS molecules produced by vigorous exercise."

Myles, if this is the only relevant study and you don't know enough to 'make any inferences' then how did you come by the bolded conclusion below?
Isn't it irresponsible to try and scare the living be-jaysus out of committed hill-runners with little basis?

Cellular level refers to more subtle aspects which might not be apparent. Basically these factors can actually impact your fitness to an extent and actually result in excessive mitochondrial cell death and many other biochemical changes

He had fully recovered from minimal DOMS, little physical or psychological fatigue and rumours of his imminent cellular death seem to have been at best greatly exagerated. He planned and executed a pretty controlled hill run. I dont see any issue bar the training one that he was made aware of.

demfad

Enduro wrote: »

Surely your missing out on a huge ammount of "it depends" type syuff there with such a definite assertion. Eg. the pace of the potential long run. If it was extremely relaxed it would surely be a muche aier session than a more intense shorter run (And therefore less harmful). Does the whole thing not depend entirely oin the overall fitness and background of the individual runner. Surely the adice wouldn't be the same for a newby runner doing their first marathon versus (say) an international class endurance runner with years of experience?

As always it depends on the runner and the marathon they raced. For example an elite marathoner who has a very efficient light cadence will not do much damage. If they ran close to maximum they might have damage (creatine would be present for 4-7 days). They could be recovered in as little as 7-14 days and wouldn't need to take much time off. If you are a driving type of runner you'll do more damage. Although John Lenihan could run sub 63 for a half his PB for the marathon was only 2:29 because he couldnt actually sustain his heavy forceful stride pattern for that long. Great to have those strong strides going up a hill and in medium lenght races. But not as efficient for the longer stuff.
I assume his legs were in bits after and he would have 'needed' substantial recovery. Wouldn't bet he took it though

Many runners would gain a lot of strenght from the actual marathon run. Depending on recovery, and with a little tweek to speed they should be able to blast out a very strong race once muscles have recovered. So instead of a runner having to train for another sizable block for a target half marathon, for example. He/She can actually nail this off the marathon. They would need a weeks recovery after that, but that is very efficient use of time to get a PB, or do well in an important race.

El Caballo

demfad wrote: »

Yes, exercise can possibly impact negatively on cell death, but the key finding of the study is that the positive effects greatly outweigh this and the net effect was positive and cell death was actually reduced.

"A key finding was that the ratio of Bcl-2 to Bax shifted in favor of Bcl-2 from the before to the after measurement. In other words, there was an anti-apoptotic effect, which countered the pro-apoptotic effects of ROS molecules produced by vigorous exercise."

I.e Cell death rate is actually reduced after a marathon.

Myles, if this is the only relevant study and you don't know enough to 'make any inferences' then how did you come by the bolded conclusion below?
Isn't it irresponsible to try and scare the living be-jaysus out of committed hill-runners with little basis?



He had fully recovered from minimal DOMS, little physical or psychological fatigue and rumours of his imminent cellular death seem to have been at best greatly exagerated. He planned and executed a pretty controlled hill run. I dont see any issue bar the training one that he was made aware of.

I'll be honest, I have no idea about the intricacies of the above study bar the overall picture so it's best I leave that to physiologist and biochemists to debate.

When we get down to the basics of it all, what do you think is a better approach to marathon recovery? Conservative or not? The first thing that my gut tells me is that when recovery is the goal, it's much better to do too little than too much. What is your basis for saying that there is no physical or psychological fatigue in Conor one week after a marathon? We all know there is physical side effects after running a marathon and as we are making asumptions without actual testing, how can you be sure he has got beyond these affects seeing as saying how long it takes to recover is a guessing game in both science and individual perception as it differs massively. What about CNS fatigue, myoglobin levels, tissue and cellular damage and God knows how many other issues that can be going on far beneath the skin that the person can barely interpret themselves, Nevermind someone guessing from a few posts on a forum.

In these situations, it's better to stay and advise someone to keep it conservative as the risk is much larger by underestimating recovery time than it is to overestimate it. Would you not agree?

Myles Splitz

demfad wrote: »

Myles, if this is the only relevant study and you don't know enough to 'make any inferences' then how did you come by the bolded conclusion below?
Isn't it irresponsible to try and scare the living be-jaysus out of committed hill-runners with little basis?

I see you referenced my post before edit it to say could rather than would

My point is you are backing up your hypothesis with a study that has highlighted it's own limitations and even states the fact that there is not enough research done on the enzymes which were negatively impacted for the researches to comment on

In the absence of such in depth and comprehensive research into this aspect of biochemistry I went with my own experiences as a coach, a therapist and also the general consensus of spectrum of people within the sport of marathon running. I think making the OP aware of the possible drawbacks based off there background.

If you wish to recommend a person running approx 30-40 mpw per week to do a three hour run of any kind flat or on hills the week after a marathon go ahead but for what its worth OP, it's not the conventional approach and the people like demfad would be in the minority in their view.

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I see you referenced my post before edit it to say could rather than would

My point is you are backing up your hypothesis with a study that has highlighted it's own limitations and even states the fact that there is not enough research done on the enzymes which were negatively impacted for the researches to comment on

In the absence of such in depth and comprehensive research into this aspect of biochemistry I went with my own experiences as a coach, a therapist and also the general consensus of spectrum of people within the sport of marathon running. I think making the OP aware of the possible drawbacks based off there background.

If you wish to recommend a person running approx 30-40 mpw per week to do a three hour run of any kind flat or on hills the week after a marathon go ahead but for what its worth OP, it's not the conventional approach and the people like demfad would be in the minority in their view.

Myles, I quoted directly and exactly from your post to the OP. As far as I can see you haven't edited it in any way.

It was actually your hypothesis that Conor may experience "excessive mitochondrial cell death" by running a training run. I used the study to simply refute this.
You admit your assertion has no scientific basis yet you seem to be claiming that your coaching ability can detect this cellular level activity. You also are now claiming as substantiation that a "general consensus of spectrum of people within the sport of marathon running" agree on this 'mithochondrial cell death' theory. I would very much doubt that.

As the OP pointed out, it wasn't a full marathon effort, he slowed very significantly for the last 10 miles. He said he felt fine and had no muscle soreness.
It would be misleading of you to say that I made a recommendation for him to run it. I pointed out that if he was careful, in his case (didnt run a hard marathon, little leg soreness) the injury risk was relatively low. I pointed out that it would hinder his recovery, but enjoyment is also a priority for runners and he made his choice based on the advice presented.

demfad

El Caballo wrote: »

I'll be honest, I have no idea about the intricacies of the above study bar the overall picture so it's best I leave that to physiologist and biochemists to debate.

The bottom line is that a full effort marathon might actually reduce the rate of cellular death from normal.

When we get down to the basics of it all, what do you think is a better approach to marathon recovery? Conservative or not? The first thing that my gut tells me is that when recovery is the goal, it's much better to do too little than too much. What is your basis for saying that there is no physical or psychological fatigue in Conor one week after a marathon? We all know there is physical side effects after running a marathon and as we are making asumptions without actual testing, how can you be sure he has got beyond these affects seeing as saying how long it takes to recover is a guessing game in both science and individual perception as it differs massively. What about CNS fatigue, myoglobin levels, tissue and cellular damage and God knows how many other issues that can be going on far beneath the skin that the person can barely interpret themselves, Nevermind someone guessing from a few posts on a forum.

Did you read the OP? Recovery wasn't the goal. To do a trail run without getting injured was the goal. I pointed out that recovery would be impeded, but that he would most likely get away without injury if he was careful.

As the marathon wasn't a full effort for 26 miles (only 16 miles) the amount of potential issues arising must surely diminish.

He didn't display any lethargy, no DOMs, cell damage I believe is normally cleared within a week and he was feeling good and up for the run.

You seem to believe that anyone who 'hits the wall' has in effect ran a full marathon. Many runners actually 'hit the wall' during training runs as a training objective.

The trail run was not ideal for recovery but injury risk fairly low I would have thought. And I believe that was accurate. The get the benefit of an enjoyable trail run with friends he decided it was worth the risk.

Enduro

El Caballo wrote: »

When we get down to the basics of it all, what do you think is a better approach to marathon recovery? Conservative or not? The first thing that my gut tells me is that when recovery is the goal, it's much better to do too little than too much. What is your basis for saying that there is no physical or psychological fatigue in Conor one week after a marathon? We all know there is physical side effects after running a marathon and as we are making asumptions without actual testing, how can you be sure he has got beyond these affects seeing as saying how long it takes to recover is a guessing game in both science and individual perception as it differs massively. What about CNS fatigue, myoglobin levels, tissue and cellular damage and God knows how many other issues that can be going on far beneath the skin that the person can barely interpret themselves, Nevermind someone guessing from a few posts on a forum.

Equally I could ask how are you sure that he hasn't recovered? It's good to see you agree that its a guessing game. You are simply making a very firm guess that he hasn't recovered, without any evidence on that side either (although I will agree that the probabilities are on this side of the fence, there is nothing definitive about that).

El Caballo wrote: »

In these situations, it's better to stay and advise someone to keep it conservative as the risk is much larger by underestimating recovery time than it is to overestimate it. Would you not agree?

Your language went beyond conservatisim. You were very definitive in the language you used, leaving no room for any other possibilities.

And I also agree with Demfad's point that the uneven terrain of hillrunning is a major factor into fatigue effects. Very few people would have the experience of observing the relative impacts of this over the distances/time I've raced, but my experience is that it is a massive massive factor (And flat/road running is far more damaging, in case that's not clear).

Must go through the points from all later, thanks for the replies.

I should say that after no effects on Saturday my thighs were sore yesterday and are just loosening up now. I'm putting that down to the descent, which was about an hour of downhill running. Had almost forgotten that I had quads during the road running, in a strange way it feels good to get that feeling back.

El Caballo

demfad wrote: »

The bottom line is that a full effort marathon might actually reduce the rate of cellular death from normal.



Did you read the OP? Recovery wasn't the goal. To do a trail run without getting injured was the goal. I pointed out that recovery would be impeded, but that he would most likely get away without injury if he was careful.

As the marathon wasn't a full effort for 26 miles (only 16 miles) the amount of potential issues arising must surely diminish.

He didn't display any lethargy, no DOMs, cell damage I believe is normally cleared within a week and he was feeling good and up for the run.

You seem to believe that anyone who 'hits the wall' has in effect ran a full marathon. Many runners actually 'hit the wall' during training runs as a training objective.

The trail run was not ideal for recovery but injury risk fairly low I would have thought. And I believe that was accurate. The get the benefit of an enjoyable trail run with friends he decided it was worth the risk.

Did you read the OP? Just before the question about injury was one asking of there was any line of thought as to why he shouldn't do it. Even if he didn't ask that, I feel the implications of recovery should always be brought forward, to not mention it would be irresponsible when it plays such a huge bearing post marathon. It should always be the goal.

Cellular death or not, the cells are severly stressed after a marathon. Cell damage actually generally takes 3-4 weeks post marathon to fully repair, not a week. Even from just training, mitochondria generally takes 10 days to 2 weeks to adapt back to baseline levels. As you probably know, volume is a much bigger stressor of the organelles than intensity so if you are putting a large quantity of time on your feet in when these cells are already damaged, they never get a chance to recover properly. Instead of having a progressive overload, you get an over training effect because you are loading on top of an already highly stressed cell. It will substantially alter recovery time.

As for training depleted, there's a big difference between someone running a training run depleted than running 16 Miles above AeT and then slogging the last 10 miles of a marathon. We arent talking about a mega mileage Kenyan here. This difference is exacerbated even more when a runner is coming from a lower base. To compare a training run to a marathon in physiological damage is pure folly especially when a runner aim to be depletedin training has progressively built up to the point of tolerating that stress. Not just jumped in and run 26 miles with the last 10 completely dried up of glycogen.

Gotta go for now, I'll reply to Enduro later.

demfad

El Caballo wrote: »

Did you read the OP? Just before the question about injury was one asking of there was any line of thought as to why he shouldn't do it. Even if he didn't ask that, I feel the implications of recovery should always be brought forward, to not mention it would be irresponsible when it plays such a huge bearing post marathon. It should always be the goal.

Cellular death or not, the cells are severly stressed after a marathon. Cell damage actually generally takes 3-4 weeks post marathon to fully repair, not a week. Even from just training, mitochondria generally takes 10 days to 2 weeks to adapt back to baseline levels. As you probably know, volume is a much bigger stressor of the organelles than intensity so if you are putting a large quantity of time on your feet in when these cells are already damaged, they never get a chance to recover properly. Instead of having a progressive overload, you get an over training effect because you are loading on top of an already highly stressed cell. It will substantially alter recovery time.

As for training depleted, there's a big difference between someone running a training run depleted than running 16 Miles above AeT and then slogging the last 10 miles of a marathon. We arent talking about a mega mileage Kenyan here. This difference is exacerbated even more when a runner is coming from a lower base. To compare a training run to a marathon in physiological damage is pure folly especially when a runner aim to be depletedin training has progressively built up to the point of tolerating that stress. Not just jumped in and run 26 miles with the last 10 completely dried up of glycogen.

Gotta go for now, I'll reply to Enduro later.

When we talk about the effects of a marathon we are talking about the effects of a full effort surely? In that case then please describe the recovery affects of a hard 16 mile run followed by 10 miles easy pace. Because that is what Conor did. The observable evidence (DOMS, mood, tiredness, eagerness to run) points towards a sub-max marathon effort. The pace of the last 10 miles is key. And this was 90s per mile slower than MP. At a full effort and fully trained, he should be able to grind it closer to MP than that.

Either he wasnt well trained for the glyco/Fat mix or else he conciously or subconciously took his foot off the gas (who would really run themselves into the ground when things go bad after 16 miles? I wouldnt anyway..would you?).

The after- effects look closer to kilomarathon than marathon to me.
Ergo, a training run poses less risk.

(Note: Youve already stated you dont know much about the cellular stuff so please desist there.)

Murph_D

demfad wrote: »

When we talk about the effects of a marathon we are talking about the effects of a full effort surely? In that case then please describe the recovery affects of a hard 16 mile run followed by 10 miles easy pace. Because that is what Conor did.

Would it not be more like a hard 16 followed by a 10-mile slog having run out of steam? OP describe this as suffering for the last 10. Don't know for sure but I wouldn't think this is the same as 10 easy miles, when you're running comfortably within yourself, feeling strong. I'd imagine there's a drop in form and possibly some stresses and strains?

Dubgal72

Murph_D wrote: »

Would it not be more like a hard 16 followed by a 10-mile slog having run out of steam? OP describe this as suffering for the last 10. Don't know for sure but I wouldn't think this is the same as 10 easy miles, when you're running comfortably within yourself, feeling strong. I'd imagine there's a drop in form and possibly some stresses and strains?

Oh kerrist, thanks Murph! Flashback to my last 8 miles....running out of steam with 8-10 miles to go is not pretty and the last miles are the furthest thing from easy :eek: From my experiment of '1', I'd go as far as saying that proceeding with/slogging through the last eight miles caused more damage [to me] through fatigue, loss of form etc.

Curious, OP, your mileage was quite low for such an ambitious target and did you do any marathon specific sessions? Do you think your aerobic base was strong enough and will you do things differently next time?

demfad

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Oh kerrist, thanks Murph! Flashback to my last 8 miles....running out of steam with 8-10 miles to go is not pretty and the last miles are the furthest thing from easy :eek: From my experiment of '1', I'd go as far as saying that proceeding with/slogging through the last eight miles caused more damage [to me] through fatigue, loss of form etc.

Curious, OP, your mileage was quite low for such an ambitious target and did you do any marathon specific sessions? Do you think your aerobic base was strong enough and will you do things differently next time?

I guess there are a couple of ways to be fatigued. If you lack muscular endurance but have not run out of beans you'll still be able to apply force mainly by compensating from tired muscles and you may well end up injured by the race or at least experience extreme DOMS for many days after.
The OP actually ran out of glycogen...fell off a cliff as regards pace. He was not able to apply much force as his pace attests, and his lack of DOMs seems to confirm this. Just as you must have both muscular as well as 'energy' endurance to run a good marathon, you only need to lack one to fail.
IMO failing with muscular endurance but retaining the energy to keep flogging yourself is a far worse outcome.
Thats not what happenned to the OP by the looks though.

Dubgal72

demfad wrote: »

I guess there are a couple of ways to be fatigued. If you lack muscular endurance but have not run out of beans you'll still be able to apply force mainly by compensating from tired muscles and you may well end up injured by the race or at least experience extreme DOMS for many days after.
The OP actually ran out of glycogen...fell off a cliff as regards pace. He was not able to apply much force as his pace attests, and his lack of DOMs seems to confirm this. Just as you must have both muscular as well as 'energy' endurance to run a good marathon, you only need to lack one to fail.
IMO failing with muscular endurance but retaining the energy to keep flogging yourself is a far worse outcome.
Thats not what happenned to the OP by the looks though.

I reckon I did/had both: didn't have enough muscular endurance and went off too fast on the day. Didn't suffer too badly from DOMS as far as I remember. You seem to have personal knowledge of Conor's fitness and background so probably better placed to assess however, from my perspective, I see a lot of similarities between my background at the time and Conor's and I know I was under-trained for what I was attempting. I reckon I would have pulled off a more successful marathon by pulling back my target by 10 minutes.

I had included a mid week mlr in my training and don't see any evidence of that from Conor's post on the first page. I'd also be interested to hear about his hill repeat sessions. Did these replace tempo runs etc? He also mentions that some of his training runs (long runs?) were faster than MP. Was this MP at target pace or fall off pace? If it was target pace, would this not suggest that his training runs were too fast for his level of experience? His lsrs were 'up to 20 miles', how long did these take...I'm just really curious to why he would attempt a three hour outing the week after a marathon because that sounds like an outing that was longer than his lsr?

demfad

Dubgal72 wrote: »

I reckon I did/had both: didn't have enough muscular endurance and went off too fast on the day. Didn't suffer too badly from DOMS as far as I remember. You seem to have personal knowledge of Conor's fitness and background so probably better placed to assess however, from my perspective, I see a lot of similarities between my background at the time and Conor's and I know I was under-trained for what I was attempting. I reckon I would have pulled off a more successful marathon by pulling back my target by 10 minutes.

I had included a mid week mlr in my training and don't see any evidence of that from Conor's post on the first page. I'd also be interested to hear about his hill repeat sessions. Did these replace tempo runs etc? He also mentions that some of his training runs (long runs?) were faster than MP. Was this MP at target pace or fall off pace? If it was target pace, would this not suggest that his training runs were too fast for his level of experience? His lsrs were 'up to 20 miles', how long did these take...I'm just really curious to why he would attempt a three hour outing the week after a marathon because that sounds like an outing that was longer than his lsr?

Just to answer the last point first. The 3hr outing on the hills has absolutely no resemblance to a 3hr LSR on road. The former you are literally changing stride pattern per stride, the latter you are pounding out 30,000+ identical strides which would be crucially similar to the 35,000 strides he took a week earlier in his marathon.
I don’t know much about Conors history bar that he is a mountain runner and ive kept an eye on some of his runs as that genre is of interest to me. What he said here was that his previous big race was the Mourne skyline which is 35k and 3200m in height gain/loss. Better to think of his recent hillrun/walk as less than a third of that race at a much much easier intensity. Quite easy for Conor.
Ill use the old chesnut of the car chassis and engine to clarify what I believe happened to Conor based on what he said about his race and how he was feeling after.(apologies Conor)
So you have a sportscar that can move at a fair lick. It has only enough Turbo diesel for 2/3 of the race though but luckily it is a hybrid and can burn rapeseed oil also. Overall it will complete the race fastest by consistently burning 2/3 turbo and 1/3 rapeseed. If it does the chassis should be strong enough to take him most of the way. The car needs many practice runs at this combination otherwise it prefers turbo and grinds to a crawl when the turbo runs out (assuming the chassis has not already disintegrated). Conor may have trained at a pace that was too fast. PMP or faster. Even PMP is too fast because in the middle of heavy training it may be a greater effort than true marathon effort. Also if the body is not used to the fuel combination it may be a bit greedy for glycogen at marathon pace.(key paces IMO for fuel adaption are 90-99% MP)
So roll on race day and Conor makes a slight error and goes out a little fast. He is burning his glycogen up. Very early at 16 miles its gone. His pace drops quickly and irreversibly. No matter how hard he presses on the pedal the car won’t move beyond a crawl. It is running on rapeseed, there is no turbo diesel left. The chassis has held up and will hold up because he cant generate enough speed to do it damage on the rapeseed.
In the few days after only slight DOMS (chassis damage), a fuel tank that needs filling. He doesn’t feel too tired physically or mentally. In fact he knows his mates are heading on a trail run and he actually likes the idea of heading out.
That’s more or less what I think happened he seems to have gotten more DOMS on his hill outing than in the actual marathon race which seems to bear out that he had strength left when he ran out of fuel.
Would be interesting to hear about his actual training. I think when he said that he had run faster runs in training he was talking in comparison to his average race day pace. That’s the way I read it at least.
Apologies for long winded reply.

Myles Splitz

Murph_D wrote: »

Would it not be more like a hard 16 followed by a 10-mile slog having run out of steam? OP describe this as suffering for the last 10. Don't know for sure but I wouldn't think this is the same as 10 easy miles, when you're running comfortably within yourself, feeling strong. I'd imagine there's a drop in form and possibly some stresses and strains?

Yes drop in form would be a big issue. Funnily enough relatively new marathoners and hill runners commonly experience the issue with hip stabilization causing issues further down the kinetic chain and can be one of the primary causes for issues and injuries. The glute medius and piriformis muscles would be heavily involved in both actions (in particular on ascents in hill running)

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Yes drop in form would be a big issue. Funnily enough relatively new marathoners and hill runners commonly experience the issue with hip stabilization causing issues further down the kinetic chain and can be one of the primary causes for issues and injuries. The glute medius and piriformis muscles would be heavily involved in both actions (in particular on ascents in hill running)

Form wouldn't be as big an issue if glycogen depletion occurs before a muscular endurance issue which seems to be the case.
with the OP. As pointed out, once the pace drops as significantly as it did, muscular endurance will probably not be found out. If the muscles are not strong enough to maintain the pace you have a slow decline in pace with increasing form issues. If it is an energy issue the runner still has muscular endurance, he/she just doesn't have any fuel to run faster and test that endurance. Having muscular endurance balanced with energy expenditure at race pace for 26 miles is a challenge of marathon preparation.

Glutes are used in hill running, as are thighs and calfs depending on gradient. As it happens, for the particular 45 min jog that Conor described it would mainly be calfs. The subsequent walk up to the summit of Carrauntoohil (most of an hour I guess not including breaks) would tend to hit the hamstrings. The downhill would hit the quads. All these muscles used in different ways to a flat road run.

As hillrunners well know, the downhill when forces are greatest tends to be the destructive phase of hill running. Care must be taken there.

Myles Splitz

demfad wrote: »

Glutes are used in hill running, as are thighs and calfs depending on gradient. As it happens, for the particular 45 min jog that Conor described it would mainly be calfs. The subsequent walk up to the summit of Carrauntoohil (most of an hour I guess not including breaks) would tend to hit the hamstrings. The downhill would hit the quads. All these muscles used in different ways to a flat road run.

Avoided responding to the last response you made as there is no winning with you however I would ask you to do an experiment of one. Try walking or running without using glute medius or TFL for hip abduction and single leg stabilization. You will soon see that these muscles are crucial to any sort of movement so whether its calves, hamstrings or the major gluteal muscles.

Whether you are hill running or marathon running these muscles are fundamental to movement and have a huge impact on form so it is very much an issue especially if you are spending an additional 70-80 minutes (last 10 miles of the marathon) in this state.

Anyway I will leave you to your argument consider me out.

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Avoided responding to the last response you made as there is no winning with you however I would ask you to do an experiment of one. Try walking or running without using glute medius or TFL for hip abduction and single leg stabilization. You will soon see that these muscles are crucial to any sort of movement so whether its calves, hamstrings or the major gluteal muscles.

Whether you are hill running or marathon running these muscles are fundamental to movement and have a huge impact on form so it is very much an issue especially if you are spending an additional 70-80 minutes (last 10 miles of the marathon) in this state.

Anyway I will leave you to your argument consider me out.

In fairness, your argument was not that these muscles etc. were fundamental to movement (we all know this) your argument was that they were used 'heavily' for uphill running. I just pointed out IMO the muscles most likely (relatively) heavily used in Conor's hill run.

Avoided responding to the last response you made as there is no winning with you ...

I don't think that's a fair comment. Ive tried to make reasonable arguments and have explained (and substantiated when possible) these as best I could. If I see an argument is weak or unfounded, I will challenge it. Remember, earlier you implied that I was "irresponsible" because my approach was different to yours. Perhaps the "no winning" comment would sit better with yourself.

Myles Splitz

demfad wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair comment. Ive tried to make reasonable arguments and have explained (and substantiated when possible) these as best I could. If I see an argument is weak or unfounded, I will challenge it. Remember, earlier you implied that I was "irresponsible" because my approach was different to yours. Perhaps the "no winning" comment would sit better with yourself.

For balance to your previous comments

demfad wrote: »

It was actually your hypothesis that Conor may experience "excessive mitochondrial cell death" by running a training run. I used the study to simply refute this.

As I have stated the study you show is from a very small sample size as well as the authors admitting in the paper that no conclusive opinion can be drawn from this due to the limitations

demfad wrote: »

You admit your assertion has no scientific basis yet you seem to be claiming that your coaching ability can detect this cellular level activity. You also are now claiming as substantiation that a "general consensus of spectrum of people within the sport of marathon running" agree on this 'mithochondrial cell death' theory. I would very much doubt that.

My statement of no scientific basis was based on the effects of SIRT-3 and SIRT4 and their impact however as shown in paper there is plenty of research on the effects of ROS on cells and metabolism and increasing possibility of accelerated cell death.

My comments regarding coaching and general consensus were not based upon my superpowers of sensing cell activity within the human body but rather on the basic principle that all coaches acknowledge - under recovery increases risk of illness and injury. You have actually made comments on this already which is why I disagree with you

demfad wrote: »

The trail run was not ideal for recovery but injury risk fairly low I would have thought. And I believe that was accurate. The get the benefit of an enjoyable trail run with friends he decided it was worth the risk.

Also the statements of hill running using different muscles is true to an extent but unfortunately some of the overlapping ones (glute medius, TFL and to an extent piriformis) are among the top risk muscles that overlap between the two forms of running (hill and marathon) as mentioned and uphill running actually requires more hip flexion which in turn has a knock on effect on stabilization of the pelvic region during single leg stance phase of running gait cycle.

My comments regarding irresponsible are based on your belief that under recovery in this incidence was likely despite the fact that their were no DOMS present.

You may disagree and that is your perogative. Doesn't matter now anyway as OP has been up and down the mountain.

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

As I have stated the study you show is from a very small sample size as well as the authors admitting in the paper that no conclusive opinion can be drawn from this due to the limitations.

The authors did acknowledge the paper was by no means conclusive but what they said was that the paper established a significant relationship between a high rate of exercise and reduced apoptosis (reduced rate of cell death).
You state the diametric opposite below. It would really help if you could supply the study where you learnt this. Otherwise someone may assume you pulled it out of the proverbial.

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Basically these factors can actually impact your fitness to an extent and actually result in excessive mitochondrial cell death...

...............................................................................

Also the statements of hill running using different muscles is true to an extent but unfortunately some of the overlapping ones (glute medius, TFL and to an extent piriformis) .....

I think Enduro has covered the relative fatigue levels of a trail run vs a road run already. They are not comparable.

Enduro wrote: »

And I also agree with Demfad's point that the uneven terrain of hillrunning is a major factor into fatigue effects. Very few people would have the experience of observing the relative impacts of this over the distances/time I've raced, but my experience is that it is a massive massive factor (And flat/road running is far more damaging, in case that's not clear).

...............................................................................................

My comments regarding irresponsible are based on your belief that under recovery in this incidence was likely despite the fact that their were no DOMS present.

It is better to get the FULL adaption from a training stimulus. My comments were not related to injury or illness, they were related to his body ADAPTING to the training stimulus produced by his run in Tralee. I reasoned that the training adaption available was even greater than if he ran an all out marathon, as less destruction was clearly involved and he could gain the full adaption. If he adapted from the 16 hard miles from that run, he could surely blast out a serious HM. 10 miler etc. 4 weeks later.
Here's what I said:

demfad wrote: »

Remember though, the fact that your marathon wasn't a full effort means that you would probably get a better training adaption from it than if the marathon had gone to plan. You will get a lot of strenght gains from Tralee. The trail run will scupper a lot of it (3 hr duration and esp. downhills).
If your not sure I would advise taking the good training adaption from Tralee and pushing the trail run out a week or so.

I don't see anything irresponsible about that position.

Dubgal72

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Curious, OP, your mileage was quite low for such an ambitious target and did you do any marathon specific sessions? Do you think your aerobic base was strong enough and will you do things differently next time?

Looking back, mileage was very low alright. Baby means was down to 2 nights or so of under 10km, maybe half hour of hill repeats another night, the Saturday sessions were good alright but still it enough mileage in the legs.

I must admit to a bit of foolish machismo, hadn't run more than 20km on roads in a long time and have done a fair bit of hill running and was flying towards the end of last year when training for the Sky Run. Had forgotten how intense marathons are, perhaps guilty of that whole "sure I run up over the Reeks, a road run will be a cinch"!

Don't think there'll be a next time, didn't even see myself returning for 1 more but big group of cousins entered Tralee so kinda had to. Beat them at least, so some dignity retained!

Thanks for all the info folks. Interesting stuff. Got back into it last weekend with a pretty tough 17km at less than 5 mins over muddy fields and hilly roads, then a run over Hungry Hill on Sunday. Claragh this evening and then back into training.