Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Shortest LSR to run a marathon?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Do those guys coach any top runners?
Renato Canova suggests alternating each week from long fast run to long slow run (don't think the slow is very slow) He says below 80% race pace isn't useful (specific) training. Claudio Berardelli does something similar I believe. Greg McMillan uses long fast runs every second week too...(etc)
I am amazed that someone posting in a thread about marathon running has never heard of Hal Higdon, Jack Daniels, Pete Pfitzinger (and his co-author Scott Douglas) and Tim Noakes.. But yes, between them they have done a bit of coaching, a bit of running and a bit of research.
Anyhow I was in a rush earlier so I googled, grabbed the top 3 results, scanned and copied a couple of quotes. This is a forum about running, not The Lancet, so I didn't do full background verifications on them all :rolleyes: If we're going to start restricting comment to those with experience of elite athletics then this place will be dead - offhand I can think of 5 members who I know for a fact have competed and / or coached at International level. And nice as those 5 are it would get pretty boring...
And TBH it's not all about citations and quotations and who's coached what elite runner because a lot of what the elites do either doesn't apply or is dangerous at the ordinary runner level. Virtually all of teh advice I offer on this forum is based on something I have read in either this book, this one or this one. But it's all backed up with personal experience. I'm coming to the end of my 10th marathon training cycle in 4 years and as a mid pack and average marathon runner who likes to experiment I've tried a lot of training plan variations.
So, just from this thread, I've done the "no base training, not many long runs" thing (DCM 05). I have done the "5 very slow runs = 100 miles" thing (Longford 06). I've done the "PMP and fast paced long runs" thing (DCM 08, Rotterdam 09).
So when another novice or average runner training for a marathon asks a question I can pass on my experience in the hope that they can learn from some of my stupid mistakes. Unfortunately that experience isn't always available in a peer reviewed scientific journal but I do my best...
And that's the crux of this discussion for me. Some people seem to be taking principals of training from other distances and applying them to the marathon, or adopting an "if teh elites do it this way then thats the right way" attitude. And - as I said - that's not always the case.
But back to the original question. CFitz quoted this:Only slower marathon runners (3:30-plus) and ultramarathon runners are likely to benefit from emphasizing training in their fat-burning zone.
As if it rebutted all my points. After I stopped screaming and thumping the keyboard I went back to my second post on this thread, which said:--amadeus-- wrote: »They are the exceptions rather than the rule and basing your own training on that sort of approach isn't recommended. People like Noakes, P&D, Daniels and McMillan have decades of experience of running and coaching behind them. They - along with the likes of Hal Higdon and Glover - all (without exception) agree that the long run is a central part of your marathon training plan and is the single most important session.
Where they do diverge is the pace it should be run at. Glover and HH (who mainly aim schedules at slower or beginner runners) emphasise time on your feet. I'm up for correction but they are more concerned that someone following thier schedules will be out on course for 4 - 5 hours (maybe more) so they need to spend a lot of time out there in training to prepare for that (mentally as well as physically). Pace is less important at this level so slow slow slow is ok.
The other (P&D in particular) are aimed at runners aiming for a specific time. In this case pace is more important and teh mantra "long slow miles makes long slow runners" comes into play. P&D say long runs should never be more than 20% slower than PMP, with a 10 - 20% range preferred.
Now is it just me or is CFitz's quote basicaly agreeing with what I've been saying all along? And isn't 20% off race pace as the slowest LSR the same as "below 80% race pace isn't useful (specific) training"
Anyhow when you start quoting your own earlier posts to answer questions in thread the argument has definitely gone full circle so I'm going to leave the snake eating it's own tail and I promise this is my last post on it!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Agreed. I think the natural evolution of an average internet-savvy Irish marathon runner is (sweeping generalization):
1) First marathon - have a go at it yourself, making up your own spurious program - finish but suffer
2) Find boards ART forum - get referred to Hal Higdon - run a slightly better marathon - better finish but slow
3) Want to progress further/faster - buy a P&D or Daniels book - Push harder - achieve goals
4) Join an athletic club - training programs structured based on ability/proper coaching.
Hal is free, straighforward, and not too taxing, for those dipping their toe in the marathon water. P&D is a lot more strenuous and more structured. The rest? I don't kow yet..
Or you can skip 1,2,3 and go directly to 4
From running the last 18 months i've developed my own marathon plan, the plan is not to run another marathion until I can get around in less then 3:15. Just fell that its almost harder to run a 4 hour + marathon both from the physical and psychological side the time on feet combined with the mental time it takes for all the long runs in training is hard. So i'd advocate the run and enjoy your running first and then when you fell ready run a marathon.0 -
I know it was tongue in cheek, but for most of us, that path/progression isn't logical. You don't get up one morning, decide you want to be a runner, and then join an athletics club (though possibly that should be the correct conclusion).shels4ever wrote: »Or you can skip 1,2,3 and go directly to 4
For most of us (another sweeping generalization), the flow is:
1) I have some external influence, that suggests I should be running (weight, smoking, middle-age, health, burning desire to re-live the sporting days of my youth)
2) I realize I like this running stuff
3) I've sorted out the external influence, but I'm still enjoying the running
4) Wahoo! Races are fun!
5) I wonder if there is anyone else out there, with similar goals.
6) join a club.
7) I obviously love bullet-points and numbered lists. I need to get out more. 0 -
I know what you mean, I think most people do learn as they progress and move their goals. Some start with a marathon and then end up running 5k some the other way round.Krusty_Clown wrote: »I know it was tongue in cheek, but for most of us, that path/progression isn't logical. You don't get up one morning, decide you want to be a runner, and then join an athletics club (though possibly that should be the correct conclusion).
For most of us (another sweeping generalization), the flow is:
1) I have some external influence, that suggests I should be running (weight, smoking, middle-age, health, burning desire to re-live the sporting days of my youth)
2) I realize I like this running stuff
3) I've sorted out the external influence, but I'm still enjoying the running
4) Wahoo! Races are fun!
5) I wonder if there is anyone else out there, with similar goals.
6) join a club.
7) I obviously love bullet-points and numbered lists. I need to get out more.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
shels4ever wrote: »Or you can skip 1,2,3 and go directly to 4
From running the last 18 months i've developed my own marathon plan, the plan is not to run another marathion until I can get around in less then 3:15. Just fell that its almost harder to run a 4 hour + marathon both from the physical and psychological side the time on feet combined with the mental time it takes for all the long runs in training is hard. So i'd advocate the run and enjoy your running first and then when you fell ready run a marathon.
But for me completing the marathon is a goal in itself, I just want to run one and get back to my life of running 3/4 short runs a week for fitness and the odd race thrown in. Really the time for me is no longer relevant, of course I am married with a young son so even running one marathon is selfish enough!
I ran a good bit when I was younger and my times now are waaaay slower (2.5 mins a mile!) so the longer distances are the ones now for the new PBs!!
On the club runner thing - I ran a bit with the local team and you would really need to be a decent runner even to show up for training. Most of the easy runs were nearly my race pace! Found it good sometimes but tough going most of the time. I was "duped" into running a cross country race by the coach who reckoned I would do well - let's just say I didn't. There were certainly no such things as individual programs for me or anyone I knew - maybe for the guys in the club who were winning races?0 -
-
Yep its a great goal tooBut for me completing the marathon is a goal in itself, I just want to run one and get back to my life of running 3/4 short runs a week for fitness and the odd race thrown in. Really the time for me is no longer relevant, of course I am married with a young son so even running one marathon is selfish enough!
I ran a good bit when I was younger and my times now are waaaay slower (2.5 mins a mile!) so the longer distances are the ones now for the new PBs!!
On the club runner thing - I ran a bit with the local team and you would really need to be a decent runner even to show up for training. Most of the easy runs were nearly my race pace! Found it good sometimes but tough going most of the time. I was "duped" into running a cross country race by the coach who reckoned I would do well - let's just say I didn't. . Don't get me wrong i've done the exact same thing and went from doing nothing to running a marathon , and if i were to do it again i'd do that same. But I wouldnt do one again until I can run a time. It's only my view of marathons i don't really like doing marathon after marathon and rather shorter stuff.. 0 -
--amadeus-- wrote: »I am amazed that someone posting in a thread about marathon running has never heard of Hal Higdon, Jack Daniels, Pete Pfitzinger (and his co-author Scott Douglas) and Tim Noakes.. But yes, between them they have done a bit of coaching, a bit of running and a bit of research.
Save your amazement. I never siad I hadn't heard of them. I have btw. I've read Daniels and always got the impression he was more into the research/theory side of things than actual direct coaching. The others I am not aware of who they coached. I have Lore of Running and didn't get the impression he was a coach either. I would have thought it easier to answer the question than go posting links and implying I'm ignorant of their coaching. Nobody else has said who they coached so I'm still none the wiser.Anyhow I was in a rush earlier so I googled, grabbed the top 3 results, scanned and copied a couple of quotes. This is a forum about running, not The Lancet, so I didn't do full background verifications on them all :rolleyes: If we're going to start restricting comment to those with experience of elite athletics then this place will be dead - offhand I can think of 5 members who I know for a fact have competed and / or coached at International level. And nice as those 5 are it would get pretty boring...
I'm not suggesting restricting comments to experts.
In my opinion, the purpose of citing something is to give wieght to an argument. If nothing is known about the person making the argument then that can't happen. If selected quotes go against the grain of the article it is at best misleading.And TBH it's not all about citations and quotations and who's coached what elite runner because a lot of what the elites do either doesn't apply or is dangerous at the ordinary runner level. Virtually all of teh advice I offer on this forum is based on something I have read in either this book, this one or this one. But it's all backed up with personal experience. I'm coming to the end of my 10th marathon training cycle in 4 years and as a mid pack and average marathon runner who likes to experiment I've tried a lot of training plan variations.
I can't see why. The paces they use would be a bit much for the normal runner. The volume may or may not be too much depending on the athletes but the principles (if you can see what they're doing and why) are surely quite useful for someone who wants to achieve something close to their potential.But back to the original question. CFitz quoted this:Only slower marathon runners (3:30-plus) and ultramarathon runners are likely to benefit from emphasizing training in their fat-burning zone.
As if it rebutted all my points. After I stopped screaming and thumping the keyboard I went back to my second post on this thread, which said:
Now is it just me or is CFitz's quote basicaly agreeing with what I've been saying all along? And isn't 20% off race pace as the slowest LSR the same as "below 80% race pace isn't useful (specific) training"
Well you jumped on his post that said runner faster is generally better than running slow by going on about it being better to run slow to burn fat and saying VO2 max intervals weren't the way to go (cfitz's commetn was in relation to slowing down to an uncomforatble pace on runs, not interval sessions). He thens repsonded with a comment which said that fat burning is not the biggest issue for runners faster than 3:30 which I can see how would back up the argument that quicker is better and it's just blossomed since then.This is my point, you wont get to the bottom of it. Theres compelling evidence to support both the slow running theory and the fast running theory. Everybody is equally convinced as to the superiority of their own choosen approach. Without getting too deep and philisophical about things, its similiar in everyday life, we see the world as we wish to see it, not as it really is. For example you think there was nothing graceful about amadeus' exit, but I do. Whos right? That argument could rage on forever. Trying to change someone elses viewpoint so that it matches your own is an exercise in futility and a waste of your time and energy.
I find making the argument strengthens your own points. On the other side of things you'll find sometihng you didn't know even if you don't agree with everything that's said. At the very least you'll find out where someone you disagree with completely is coming from which is useful when dealing with such viewpoints. I'd change my viewpoints if they turned out to be wrong. I'm not that petty.Are they specific to inidividuals? Or are they generic catch all coaching arranged for clubs?
(just curious)
It really depends on the coach, how well they know the athletes, how many athletes tehy have and how much time they can devote to it. If you've got 20 athletes and you don't see them very often and have very little time, you'll probably just throw the same programme at all of them. If you have a small group it's easy to give them individualised programmes. Personally, I'd put in some common work though so they can train together some of the time.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement