DCM 2017 Mentored Novices Thread

Mrs Mc wrote: »

If of any help to the novices and no science behind it I'm a novice from 2015 I was aiming for the 4.30 time so my runs did bring me to the 4 hour mark. I think for while I felt it was time on my feet it was also good for my head to know that I could stay on my feet for that time. As they say round these parts trust in the plan and stick to the plan. I followed Dave carries plan from Irish runner magazine which also brings you to 22 miles on your longest run. Again there was a lot of discussion around the benefits of this but for me it's as much a head game thing as anything else as your mind will be tested as much as your body on the day. I'm no expert but I think for novice marathon runners who are building up that base you need to do that 4 hours on your feet. Anyway it stood me well on the day crossing the line at 4.31. Trust in your plan and it will get you there. We are all here to prove it. Good luck in your last few weeks of long runs

AuldManKing wrote: »

I need to do some research on this to get it right and might put a feeler out to Testostercone for some help with this.

For now - lets follow the plan as is.

My thoughts would be that if we were setting out a plan so the longest runs would max out at 3 hours, then there would be another longish run on the preceding day to mimic the fatigue effect - but I need to verify that.

As our plan is set out, lets follow it as laid down - it hasn't hurt previous Novices (that I'm aware of )

that means running longer than 3 hours, so prepare for it well.

El Caballo wrote: »

The 3 hour long run rule does hold water. There is an issue when it comes to novice runners in that regard in that many people who enter the marathon are starting from scratch or a low level of base fitness which is not ideal to be honest but is the way things are so you have to work around these things in that situation.

The reason behind this 3 hour run is that aerobic benefits fall off a cliff around the 2:30-3 hour mark. The goal of the long run is to build aerobic endurance through strengthening of the heart, improving mitochondrial density and building new capillaries all of which help with oxygen transport between the lungs, heart and muscles. With everything else in life, there comes a point of diminishing returns where your body simply can't absorb the training as well anymore and the risks start to outweigh the benefits. Let's look at this way, say you have a runner who is doing their long run at 7 min/mile easy pace for 20 miles, that works out at 2 hours and 20 minutes. Then you have a runner who is doing their long runs at 11 min/mile easy pace for 20 miles, that works out at 3 hours and 40 minutes. Who has the higher intensity here? The person who is running 11 minute miles so effectively the person with the lower level of aerobic fitness has a harder run and thus a higher level of injury risk all other things being equal. That last bit is a little off topic from the OP but just trying to get a point across. The 20 Mile run is one that is steeped in folklore from the days of the 70's and 80's when there really wasn't too many novices running marathons and is something passed down to now even though times have changed.

Many elites will run for 2:30- 3 hours in training but they will cover something close to 30 miles in that time, you might see some sub elites cover 25-26 in training and your 3 hour runner might get 22 down in that time because they still get good benefit up to that point. It has being shown that a 2:30 run will almost give you the same benefits as a 3:45 run but the risk of injury is much greater in the 3:45 run as the muscles/form breaks down and this will generally be a bigger issue for novices as the will generally be structurely weaker than experienced runners. Many novices will be running a harder long run than seriously quick marathon runners and that will cause a double whammy effect because they are aerobically weaker thus won't recover as quickly from a 3 hour run never mind a 4 hour run.

This is the general science to it but obviously there is the psychological benefit of covering a decent chunk of the race distance in training even if physiologically, maybe there isn't much to be gained. There is probably a few counters to this through raising midweek mileage(I cannot state just how important this is to running a good marathon), back to back weekend runs to stimulate fatigue like ultrarunner do and alternating a longish steady run with the long run biweekly would be a few things I think could benefit a novice. It's a tricky one for sure and probably deserves a decent debate on the pros/cons of the current way vs some other approaches that may work.

Mrs Mc wrote: »

If of any help to the novices and no science behind it I'm a novice from 2015 I was aiming for the 4.30 time so my runs did bring me to the 4 hour mark. I think for while I felt it was time on my feet it was also good for my head to know that I could stay on my feet for that time. As they say round these parts trust in the plan and stick to the plan. I followed Dave carries plan from Irish runner magazine which also brings you to 22 miles on your longest run. Again there was a lot of discussion around the benefits of this but for me it's as much a head game thing as anything else as your mind will be tested as much as your body on the day. I'm no expert but I think for novice marathon runners who are building up that base you need to do that 4 hours on your feet. Anyway it stood me well on the day crossing the line at 4.31. Trust in your plan and it will get you there. We are all here to prove it. Good luck in your last few weeks of long runs

annapr wrote: »

+1 to this
Any novice/first marathon plans I've seen include the long runs.... most of us here are at the slower end of the spectrum (4 hours +) so it's impossible to keep to the '3 hour rule' if doing the long run at the right (slow) pace. So while El Caballo might be right about the physiological benefits, it's not all about that for a first marathon. It's about training yourself for the distance.

The idea of attempting a first marathon without having done as many of the long runs as possible on the plan seems mad to me. As a novice, I did HH1, a very basic plan but enough to get me round and appropriate for the amount of running I had under my belt.

My second time out, I did the meno plan (from boards) which had 2 x 22 milers (i think i only did one) and lots of 18-20 mile runs.... i was much stronger and more prepared going into the marathon after that.

As Mrs Mc says, the psychological benefit of knowing you can run 20 miles in training, or 22 miles... is huge. And you'll need all the psychological benefits you can get on the day

ariana` wrote: »

LOL this gave me a giggle :pac:

I've only paired up 3 people and 2 of those aren't even novices :pac: but i have figured out the gender of everyone... or at least i think i have :eek:

ariana` wrote: »

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. It's great to hear from you folks who have followed the plans previously. I find the science stuff really interesting, must be the geek in me but all the replies point to the psychological benefit of having run 20 miles especially for a 1st marathon and i've said it myself on this thread previously that i can't imagine not going out on d-day knowing that i can at least run 20 miles! As it is 6 miles still seems like a leap but i know i'll be more rested after tapering and the excitement/adrenalin of the day and support of the crowd will help with that 6 miles. I ran a half marathon having only run 11m and the last 2m didn't bother me so i feel 20-26m is comparable-ish :cool: but i wouldn't like to have any less than 20 done for this time anyhow.

Sheep1978 wrote: »

I guess everyone is different in body and mind - I also had some level of fitness from football and I'm hoping to be around 4hrs but I will definitely be doing at least 1 20m run so I know I am able for it and can get through the last 6m on the day even if I have to crawl

ariana` wrote: »

I've no doubt it's possible and you are proof of that and i am sure there are many others who've done it too... but that doesn't mean it's the best option for me right now or for many others. Horses for courses and all that

I wouldn't be very confident or young or of natural athletic ability (i could go on but i'd only depress myself :pac::pac::pac:) so for me i would like to line up on d-day with the confidence that i can at least run 20m.

ariana` wrote: »

That's a new one, thanks.

I've heard to multiply your HM time by 2 and add 20 mins.

skyblue46 wrote: »

I heard that one too but reading back over a couple of years threads a smaller proportion of those who did a 1:50 half managed a 4 hour full. I didn't look at other times. Actually I became very doubtful about breaking 4 after seeing how many people were outside their target time last year.

It also made me wonder whether most people use 'target' as meaning their best possible or their reasonable expectation?

skyblue46 wrote: »

Hmmm... A man who has been immense help to us all with motivation, tips and a great knowledge base has suggested that Testostercone's input would be valued. To me that means I would place great store in any such advice. So when Testostercone suggests that his opinion is to consider not doing long runs of such lengthy duration I would be very inclined to listen.

I understand the psychological angle too but personally (and I'm very aware we are all different) I would have more worries about my body letting me down on the day than my mind.

Sheep1978 wrote: »

quick q on the hills / inclines on the DCM course (if anyone knows the course). How do the hills compare in comparison to say the khyber in the phoenix park.? More/less steep and same for distance.? Just thrying to gauge a rough pic in my head. I'll drive the whole south side part of the course at some stage but not got round to it yet.