113 replies to this topic

[HillsAths1]

johnnyboyrun, on 22 June 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

HillsAths1, on 22 June 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

johnnyboyrun, on 22 June 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

My two cents worth after watching this thread grow......There is a bit of debate surrounding what he is doing-is it right is it wrong? Regardless, this guy has to be commended for thinking outside the box, putting it out there and having a go. A lot of people like to sprinkle this topic with negativity, but many people have done great things following a different path... Once again, stick to your guns and report back!!

Many of the negative comments on this topic are here for a reason, when you post something that is different to the norm, it is generally because they are asking for feedback.

Speaking from my own point of view any negative comments are based on 30+ years of running and about 15 to 20 years of coaching.

I am not saying that the methods wont work, what I am saying is that the proposed activity is likely to lead to injury and results will most likely suffer.

If the original post was meant to be a "Look at me, see what I can do" post sorry if I misunderstood.

I wasnt taking a dig at anyone in particular, just giving my opinion like you or anybody else.....It seems to me like he is going to do it anyhow and wont be swayed either way or are dont you see that? So rather than get on here and say he cant, i would prefer to be supportive and i'm keen to see the outcome.

I am also keen to see the outcome, however unfortunatly, I believe it may be like watching a car crash, you know what is going to happen, but you cant do anything to prevent it!

If the sample of one works out well, great, however it would still take more for me to think about adopting those methods for those that I coach.

[johnnyboyrun]

I agree completely and as i said i would never adopt those training techniques or advise anyone to do so....
I have a mate who just started running about 3 months ago- i advised him, telling him to have some structure and to take baby steps, even offered to write him a program for free... He wouldnt listen to me or anybody else, took shortcuts and guess what he is now injured and cant run at all. Sometimes people need to just figure things out themselves whether it's a success or failure... IMO the best thing you can do as a runner is listen, read, take on the advice from those more experienced.

[mytym]

CLARIFICATION:
Two points I'd like to make:

1. INSPIRATION BEHIND THIS THREAD
When preparing for an event, my philosophy is, train in circumstances similar to those present at the event. If I'm study for an exam, I take practice exams. If I'm playing in the AFL Grand Final, I want to play in other Finals in the lead up, and if I'm running the marathon, I want to train the same way that I plan to run on the day. This seems logical to me, but as I have found, conventional wisdom, particularly that contributed by the experts, does not concur. I find this most perplexing, and as a result, thought I'd express that in a forum such as this, providing others with the opportunity to follow my progress if they wish. I suppose you could say I'm conducting an experiment using myself as the test subject, in an effort to experience why, what's seem logical to me, is the road less traveled. Ordinarily, a sample size of one is unrepresentative of the target demographic, however in this instance, I am the target demographic, so the sample size for this experiment is perfectly suitable.

2. THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLED BREATHING
It seems that the more I try to explain what I mean when using this term, the more questions I raise, so I'll it at that. Perhaps that's more a reflection on my shortcomings as an articulator than any inherent flaws with the approach. I often hear runners express concerns over how fast they should start their run and lament that perhaps they went out too hard, or too slow. I simply wish to eliminate that dilemma, by handing over responsibility of initial speed to my body. If I'm not quite 100% or my preparation is not quite right, my body will adjust accordingly. In effect, that part of my run is in auto-pilot. It's a partnership if you like. My body can look after the pace-setting and I'll look after the rest. That is the primary purpose of the Controlled Breathing technique. Let me tell you, as an extremely goal-motivated runner, it can be quite frustrating at times, because without violating the partnership and taking over the pace-setting reigns (which happens quite frequently), I have no control over what speed I run at. Despite this, I often run my fastest times when this technique is employed.

Edited by mytym, 23 June 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[mutk]

Mytym I like what you are doing. I was simply confused about the meaning . Now I understand more completely. You are in fact doing a form of perceived effort pace regulation.

And you are going at perceived Marathon pace effort in training...

[mytym]

I thought I'd just take a moment to thank you all for your participation.  I appreciate all of your words of wisdom, encouragement and criticism.  All opinions and input, both positive and negative are welcome, and I'm happy to provide updates on my progress or demise if you'd like me to.  On that note:

The penultimate 30k run before the maiden full-distance attempt is scheduled for tomorrow.  In the last 24hrs I've thought about the possibility of altering the schedule, as I often do, to possibly run the full-distance run tomorrow.  The weather conditions aren't looking that great, 30k Northerly's & possible showers, so it's probably unlikely, but I'm considering the option of re-assessing my run at the 21k mark tomorrow, if I'm running fast and feeling good, I think I'll go for it.  If there's one thing I've learnt, it's that form is fleeting and opportunities need to be taken when they present themselves.  Due to the wet weather, my preferred running route through the wildlife reserve, will be unsuitable, so I'll be running my standard wet weather course.  Of all the regular courses I run, this one is the most similar to the MM circuit.  Mainly footpaths, reasonably flat and as a result usually fast.  Let's see what tomorrow brings...

[iRonnie]

mytym, on 21 June 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

OK, I hadn't actually measured the time, it just seems like about 5 seconds in my mind.  Perhaps it's more like 3 seconds.  Regardless, the essence is the same, a slow deep breath in, hold it, then a slow deep breath out.  It's the same method I use on race day, so whether it takes 3 sec or 5 sec, and whether I run at 10kmph or 15kmph, it, by definition, is 'race pace' and 'race paced effort.'

Quote

I have no control over what speed I run at.

Hi mythym,
I think it best to rely on natural  bio feedback to determine your speed. You seem to be advocating reversing the process  and controlling the bio feed back with your  “ controlled- breathing” technique.

By all means,  stomach breathing and breathing  deeply and consistently enough  to avoid hyperventilating is a good thing. ( Hyperventilating  is more likely to happen on the  start line or if you suffer from anxiety).  Once  running, I think you will find that it is best to just let your breathing come naturally in response to your bio-feedback and your pace  sense.  
When we increase the intensity of exercise the motor regions of the brain recruit more muscle fibers and hence more myofibrils to produce increasingly more powerful muscular contractions which requires  more energy and thus more oxygen.   It may from this seem logical to assume that from this increase in oxygen requirement that controlled breathing  could solve the pace dilemma  - as you call it.  

The way  you have explained your idea of controlled breathing could give the impression that if i  am jogging along and adapt a certain breathing pattern, I’ll start winding up to a desired pace. It doesn’t work that way.  If I jog slowly and breathe at the same rate as when I am running at my marathon pace, I will still jog (albeit it might give the impression i lost a lung).  In other words, there is not necessarily a linear comparison between controlled breathing and speed.

However, there is a linear relationship between  oxygen consumption,  oxygen utilisation  and speed .  Other transitionary factors such as muscle damage; blood PH; metabolic waste  from training or other activities ; chemical balance in the body and brain; energy reserves (glycogen); your mindset  also come into play to determine your potential effort and perceived effort  on any given day. . So all these things and how we monitor their effects  help us govern our pace – not controlled breathing on its own.

Also,  our lungs work by diffusion.   It takes into the bloodstream what your muscles require regardless of  how much you try to control your breathing.   Now I hear you say (using logic): “If I hold my breath, eventually I will grind to a halt.   Thus ,if I limit my breathing  during a run, I will slow down. “  Granted, however,   this is very inexact and unnatural way of doing things.

The trigger to breathe is subconscious and instinctive.   We respond to the amount of carbon dioxide in our blood.   This can be seen if you hold your breath. Eventually your breathing  instinct will take over from your attempt  to hold your breath.  The ultimate governor here  is your instinctual breathing.   You can control your breathing but not the specialised cells call chemoreceptors.  These  send  nerve impulses to the medulla oblongata where the  respiratory centre lies.  These impulses  cause messages to activate the respiratory muscles.   You are controlling your breathing (countering your instinctual breathing) but not the diffusion rate to the same level of conciseness of your natural processes. I think it best, within reason,  to free your body to follow its natural processes, whilst being aware of your breathing,  heart rate, muscle condition, hydration and so on.

In short, pace sense takes common sense, time and practice to develop.

Edited by iRonnie, 23 June 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[Colin]

iRonnie, on 23 June 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

In short, pace sense takes common sense, time and practice to develop.

Yes. I think the Science of Sport touched on natural speed limiter that racing often develops, i.e. if you go and run a 10km vs a 5km you almost naturally settle into a pace that is at your marginal effort. And this pace has nothing to do with breathing.

mytym, on 23 June 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

1. INSPIRATION BEHIND THIS THREAD
When preparing for an event, my philosophy is, train in circumstances similar to those present at the event. If I'm study for an exam, I take practice exams. If I'm playing in the AFL Grand Final, I want to play in other Finals in the lead up, and if I'm running the marathon, I want to train the same way that I plan to run on the day. This seems logical to me, but as I have found, conventional wisdom, particularly that contributed by the experts, does not concur. I find this most perplexing,

I like the use of logic, however the analogies do not hold. You can do a practice exam paper the night before your exam and enhance rather than impact on your ability to do thye same the next day.
You can run a 5km race and set a PB and again set another PB three days later.

However you simply cannot do this with a marathon, if so then your first effort wasn't flat out. There is a reason that the experts do not concur...because they either have heaps of experience in it or they have researched it. In Noakes' Lore of Running there is a section on recovery and as a ball park Noakes has the old 1 day per mile rule for recovering from a training run- to full recovery. None of the elite marathoners have defied this conventional wisdom, otherwise the guys would be picking up big pay cheques every month.

You could still come back here and say that you broke 3hrs therefore it worked, but it would then be likely that your training runs were not 'race pace' and you have lots of reserve potential

mytym, on 23 June 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

It seems that the more I try to explain what I mean when using this term, the more questions I raise, so I'll it at that. Perhaps that's more a reflection on my shortcomings as an articulator than any inherent flaws with the approach. I often hear runners express concerns over how fast they should start their run and lament that perhaps they went out too hard, or too slow. I simply wish to eliminate that dilemma, by handing over responsibility of initial speed to my body.

I think you have clarified what you mean - to me anyway-- however, as I said then that is not 'race pace' nor is it the natural pace that you settle on for a PB effort.

To me it seems more like a 'safety blanket' way of being 'inside your comfort zone' so that you know you will do the whole distance without busting your gut. And that is not necessarily a bad thing- but it ain't race pace effort.

cheers

[Davo]

mytym, on 23 June 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

CLARIFICATION:
Two points I'd like to make:

1. INSPIRATION BEHIND THIS THREAD
When preparing for an event, my philosophy is, train in circumstances similar to those present at the event. If I'm study for an exam, I take practice exams. If I'm playing in the AFL Grand Final, I want to play in other Finals in the lead up, and if I'm running the marathon, I want to train the same way that I plan to run on the day. This seems logical to me, but as I have found, conventional wisdom, particularly that contributed by the experts, does not concur. I find this most perplexing, and as a result, thought I'd express that in a forum such as this, providing others with the opportunity to follow my progress if they wish. I suppose you could say I'm conducting an experiment using myself as the test subject, in an effort to experience why, what's seem logical to me, is the road less traveled. Ordinarily, a sample size of one is unrepresentative of the target demographic, however in this instance, I am the target demographic, so the sample size for this experiment is perfectly suitable.

Yes, yes mytym, I thoroughly agree with you. I have expressed this opinion many times on coolrunning and am usually shouted down by all the people who cannot think outside the conventional square. Most of them miss my second point, which you must also be aware of, and that is give yourself adequate time to recover!
I like your logic and I wish you the very best of luck. I wish there were more original thinkers around like you.

[Colin]

Davo, on 23 June 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Yes, yes mytym, I thoroughly agree with you. I have expressed this opinion many times on coolrunning and am usually shouted down by all the people who cannot think outside the conventional square. Most of them miss my second point, which you must also be aware of, and that is give yourself adequate time to recover!
I like your logic and I wish you the very best of luck. I wish there were more original thinkers around like you.

So you agree with all those giving him advice then that it is not the best way to do it ...so who is left to shout you down now?

[mytym]

Some very sage advice there iRonnie.  Thanks.  I have no doubt you are absolutely correct.

As it turned out, the weather was perfect today.  The sun was shining, the supposed 30km Northerly's weren't present, or at least I couldn't detect them, and the 21km pre-requisites of both running fast and feeling good were there.  As a result, I had no option but to convert my 30k run into a full distance run.  Overall, I was very pleased.  Not surprisingly I smashed my previous PB set at the MM in 2009 by over 40min.  Apart from the general fatigue and soreness common with a run of this distance, I came out of it injury free and the dreaded "wall" was negotiated without causing significant damage to my inevitable late run fade.  However, I was also made painfully aware how bloody long a full distance run is and although the feeling is subsiding a little now, I have been left somewhat deflated by the size of the task in front of me.  Thankfully, by tommorrow night I will forget the worst aspects of todays run and be full of confidence again.

Thankyou for your advice also Colin.  I know it seems like it's falling on deaf ears, and I understand it's backed by a mountain of science and experience from those such as yourself that have been there and done that.  Whether or not I ultimately am able to run under 3hrs with my preparartion will do nothing to prove it right or wrong as a preferred routine for the common runner, however I believe it will prove to me, that it is absolutley the right way to go for me.  After today's run, I am more convinced than ever of that because as has happened countless times in the past, I am able to run much better over the distances I've already run regularly and regardless of how much energy I seem to have when I reach the unchartered distances I inevitably fall away dramatically.

Another reason why I don't think conventional wisdom is suitable for me in this pursuit, is that most of my experiences in my 3 and half distance running years is contrary to what conventional wisdom dictates I should be experiencing.  The McMillan calculator is a perfect example.  CR seems to swear by it, but I'm sure it must targeted at those that can sprint well wanting to make the transition to distance running.  When I enter my short-distance PB's it predicts that I won't be able to get anywhere near the long-distance times I have already achieved and conversely it suggests my long-distance times should translate into impossibly quick short-distance times that I could never achieve in a million years.

[Colin]

mytym, on 24 June 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Another reason why I don't think conventional wisdom is suitable for me in this pursuit, is that most of my experiences in my 3 and half distance running years is contrary to what conventional wisdom dictates I should be experiencing.  The McMillan calculator is a perfect example.  CR seems to swear by it, but I'm sure it must targeted at those that can sprint well wanting to make the transition to distance running.  When I enter my short-distance PB's it predicts that I won't be able to get anywhere near the long-distance times I have already achieved and conversely it suggests my long-distance times should translate into impossibly quick short-distance times that I could never achieve in a million years.

Perhaps some misunderstanding there too   The calculators, not necessarily McM- he has only copied what was out there, they are all the same, but Neujhars will tell you more about what is needed---only work when you are doing the equivalent training for PBs at both distances. It is no use doing 30km runs at an easy pace - because that is what you are doing- but being able to run 3hrs you then expect to smash 18:20 in 5km. It doesn't work that way.
If you apply it the right way then it absolutely works- from The marathon WR holder to your experienced 3hr runner.

Again, you may well run 3hrs, I am not doubting that, but your long runs are not race pace- they are by your own definition easy- so if you do just break 3hrs then it would most likely mean you can do much better.
As I indicated, to me it seems like running within your comfort zone- not that there is anything wrong with that.

[run2work]

Enjoying this thread. It is a very interesting approach Mytym.

For me, a runaholic who likes to be out there on the trails or roads 6 days to of seven and twice a day for five of those days; the approach is outside my understanding. I also would like to do a sub3 time, this one in Sydney in 12 weeks. (I did a few in my younger years and would like to think I am young again.)

My approach is the anthesis of yours, with almost no faster running. (Some very slow in fact). That is until recently with an increasing amount of 4.15 min/km runs, no more than 15% of total so far but gradually increasing, I think to about 40% by week 10 or 11.

I think you may inspired me to include more quality running that matches what I will attempt in 12 weeks in Sydney;  although I realise what you are attempting is quite different, audacious even.

Mytym, what time did you do for the most recent run? Did you have something 'in the bank' at the end or were you pretty well a spent force?

r2w

[Davo]

Colin, on 24 June 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Davo, on 23 June 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Yes, yes mytym, I thoroughly agree with you. I have expressed this opinion many times on coolrunning and am usually shouted down by all the people who cannot think outside the conventional square. Most of them miss my second point, which you must also be aware of, and that is give yourself adequate time to recover!
I like your logic and I wish you the very best of luck. I wish there were more original thinkers around like you.

So you agree with all those giving him advice then that it is not the best way to do it ...so who is left to shout you down now?

Eh?
I know I'm from Tasmania and all that, so can't be expected to be the next Einstein, but.......please explain.

[mytym]

run2work, on 24 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Mytym, what time did you do for the most recent run? Did you have something 'in the bank' at the end or were you pretty well a spent force?

I ran 3h12m this morning.  I was absolutely spent.  I suppose I could've kept shuffling on, but probably 6m/k would be all I could do from that point.  I'm still sore now, but have every intention of running the 22k home on Wednesday night as per normal.  I'll find out how much today's run has taken out of me then.

I'm aware of how McMillan works.  I plugged in my times for short distances below 5km which I have sprinted many many times earlier in the year whilst doing my speed training.  Still can't get anywhere near the times it suggests.  Conclusion: McMillan and Mytym don't mix.

Edited by mytym, 24 June 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[run2work]

Yes, the McMillan  calculator and I vary more and more as the years go on, and I think that is pretty normal as one ages and loses one's top end speed; and some may just have less fast twitch muscle fibres and so be  natural 'stayers'.

Good effort with the 3.12. It will be interesting for you on Wednesday to see how much recovery will be made by then. I know in my case, DOMS would be well set in.

If the 3.12 leads to some good adaptations and not breakdown of muscle tissue, then Wednesday might go well. Let us know how 'the experiment of one goes?

r2w

[mutk]

mytym, on 24 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

run2work, on 24 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Mytym, what time did you do for the most recent run? Did you have something 'in the bank' at the end or were you pretty well a spent force?

I ran 3h12m this morning.  I was absolutely spent.  I suppose I could've kept shuffling on, but probably 6m/k would be all I could do from that point.  I'm still sore now, but have every intention of running the 22k home on Wednesday night as per normal.  I'll find out how much today's run has taken out of me then.

I'm aware of how McMillan works.  I plugged in my times for short distances below 5km which I have sprinted many many times earlier in the year whilst doing my speed training.  Still can't get anywhere near the times it suggests.  Conclusion: McMillan and Mytym don't mix.

I plugged my 400 metre times into McMillan and it suggests I could do a 2hr44 mara. HMMM.

I do think that a combination of current speed / endurance ( 3km, 5 and 10km races) and current absolute raw speed should be whats used to detirmine your training paces. I have found I have significant raw speed compared to my current speed/endurance. ie 3km 11 minutes flat, yet I have the ability to cruise at or near 3min/km for a short distance and high repetitions. 3min/km is not a sprint for me and so I think I should be able to string together a few to get a faster 3km, 5km and eventually 10km race.

Hence I am cultivating my raw speed for a while until it converts to real speed endurance over 10km's.

Its one thing I suspect may be missing for you. You seem to be focusing on near to Lactate Threshhold pace runs. Lots of them. That is really good BTW, since it is that very pace that is right for a Marathon race. Its been frequently said that once you have speed/endurance enough to get near 3hrs for a Marathon, that the way to get you sub 3hrs is almost always simply a small focus on speed speed speed near the race.  Just that little bit of extra running efficiency..

[MG4R]

I think the McMillan calculator is a guideline more than anything. Everyone runs differently, the calculator does not really take that into consideration. I know of people who are workout heroes and fail miserably in races. Some people thrive of short and fast, others off long and slow. Each to their own.

[mutk]

Goodwin, on 25 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think the McMillan calculator is a guideline more than anything. Everyone runs differently, the calculator does not really take that into consideration. I know of people who are workout heroes and fail miserably in races. Some people thrive of short and fast, others off long and slow. Each to their own.

I have found that whether I plug in my best 3km TT, best 10km race or 400 speed, the message is pretty consistent - My distance performance is absolutely piss poor. What varies in the McMillan calculations is just how piss poor it is!!

I worked it out in percentages of the average pace I acheived compared to the average paces to do the race times McMillan calculates. Using my 400 metre pace I acheive 79% of Mara pace, 82% of HM pace .. and gradually 'better'  as the distances get shorter. The shortfall is not so bad if I plugin my 10km race times..  It would be interesting to see hwo much others 'under acheive' by in the McMillan calculator.

It seems I am better at speed than distance. I feel its due to the fact that I heve never utilised my speed in training. Thats gradually changing.

[Colin]

mytym, on 24 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

  Conclusion: McMillan and Mytym don't mix.

mutk, on 25 June 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Goodwin, on 25 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think the McMillan calculator is a guideline more than anything. Everyone runs differently, the calculator does not really take that into consideration. I know of people who are workout heroes and fail miserably in races. Some people thrive of short and fast, others off long and slow. Each to their own.

I have found that whether I plug in my best 3km TT, best 10km race or 400 speed, the message is pretty consistent - My distance performance is absolutely piss poor. What varies in the McMillan calculations is just how piss poor it is!!

Let's not call it McMillan, rather "your potential based on other distances". [McMillan I find confuses people because it is now an internet calculator].

If you are someone with good economy- and this is mainly due to running form/style- and doing adequate training, then there is no reason whatsover why you would not be able to extrapolate what other runners can. Running is pretty simple....there are only a few factors there to chew on.

If there is any internet calculator that is very useful it is Neujhars, because that actually tells you what you need to fucus on and also has an ascent/descent function.

mytym, you have not told us what your 5km and 10km PBs are so difficult to give advice, but anyone able to jog a 3:12 42km imo is already an easy  sub 3hr marathoner. The only way one would know if that is your true potential is to look at the other times.

[mutk]

Colin, on 25 June 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

If there is any internet calculator that is very useful it is Neujhars, because that actually tells you what you need to fucus on and also has an ascent/descent function.

My google foo has failed me do you have a link to it at all?

Cheers

[mytym]

My current short distance PB's are as follows:

100m - 16 sec (Laugh if you wish, but I have never been able to beat this, despite countless attempts)
250m - 42 sec
500m -  1.33
750m -  2.31
1km   -  3.28
2km   -  7.30
3km   -  11.42
5km   -  19.59 (I reckon I can do better than this)

Beyond 5km is a bit misleading because there is always usually some redundancy built into my runs beyond this distance, therefore I have no doubt I can surpass my current PB's for distances over 5km.

Once this marathon season is over (when Summer approaches), I intend to go back to speed training and see if I can sharpen up some of these times.  There's probably not much more I can do under 3km, but there's definitely room for improvement from 4-10km.

[mutk]

mytym, on 25 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

My current short distance PB's are as follows:

100m - 16 sec (Laugh if you wish, but I have never been able to beat this, despite countless attempts)
250m - 42 sec
500m -  1.33
750m -  2.31
1km   -  3.28
2km   -  7.30
3km   -  11.42
5km   -  19.59 (I reckon I can do better than this)

Beyond 5km is a bit misleading because there is always usually some redundancy built into my runs beyond this distance, therefore I have no doubt I can surpass my current PB's for distances over 5km.

Once this marathon season is over (when Summer approaches), I intend to go back to speed training and see if I can sharpen up some of these times.  There's probably not much more I can do under 3km, but there's definitely room for improvement from 4-10km.

Reasonably odd distances there.  It may help if they were 100,200,400,800, etc Only because of convention.  It seems that you have a bit of raw speed, and that is not converted in the longer distances performance. Just like me. For example, your 100 metres in 16 seconds. Standing start?  You lose several seconds there unless you are a sprinter with great start technique. SO over 200, you should be able to do about 30 seconds flat. And over 400 you should be able to buzz out to near 1 minute flat based on your 100 metre pace. And your 3km time - you are losing hand over fist compared to the short distance speeds you seem to be capable of. Your 5km time, its slightly better than the 3km effort but still not what it might be.

Don't assume that speed training is exclusive of Marathon training, that is a significant error. Genuine speed training - form drills, accelerations, anything that gets you running fast with good form but short enough to not lead to tightness is complimentary to endurance training. It won't do any harm whatsoever and can only help you feel better at speed. And can be done all through your weekly schedule. It seems you don't have easy days and hard days - or easy and hard weeks/ months. So its difficult to decide where you might do these speed drills. After an easy recovery run is the best time for many people... By speed I don't mean sprints either. Just fast(er)

I have found that the day after a genuine speed workout, that I am constantly reigning myself in on longer runs. I seem to have programmed myself to use leg speed and it feels effortless. Not sure if anyone else feels the same, but its a good problem to have. Maybe you could do a few drills and see what happens?

Given the sort of efforts you are putting in, the raw speed you have and the actual performances of 3km, compared to your 100,250,450, you could find a little speed drilling will yield improvements too.

[Uncle Dave]

Davo, on 19 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Peterhorse, on 18 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

You mention injury or potential injury mytym... this is one of the main problems/risks with going out and running hard at your so-called race pace every time you run. There's a reason why your road is the load less travelled.

Herb Elliott once said "I only trained for half as long as the other fellows. But I trained twice as hard."

Emil Zatopek, when asked why he only ever did speed training, said "I already know how to run slow."

Strange people to quote in a thread on marathon advice. Did H.E. ever run a marathon?

..and given that his 5 and 10k times both predict a sub 2:10 marathon, and he never even ran sub 2:20, E.Z can only be described as an under-performer at the marathon distance.

[HillsAths1]

Unc, from what I understand Zatopek, had never actually trained for a marathon (other than 1956, when he ended up in hospital and was advised not to compete).

in 1952 he was a last minute addition to the field and went on to win the race in Olympic record time.

Championship marathon (and indeed most of the 1500m plus) races are very rarely run at a pace that would set a record. So just because he did not run a fast time is not indicitive of his potential, he did however win 3 Gold Medals in just over a week.

The use of Zatopek and Elliot as examples, I dont believe is strange given that both are runners who have tried something different in training, similar to the OP.

[Colin]

Yeah,

Marathons were still regarded as 'out there' in those days so the 5km, 10km etc were still a lot 'better' than the marathon times. The more races get 'raced' then the closer the times extrapolate to potential, and plus the 'stepping up' of 10km runners to marathon over the last 20 yrs. In 1972, Viren ran the marathon at OG but only as an afterthought.

mytym, on 25 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Once this marathon season is over (when Summer approaches), I intend to go back to speed training and see if I can sharpen up some of these times.  There's probably not much more I can do under 3km, but there's definitely room for improvement from 4-10km.

Extremely odd times you posted there. Your last sentence (my highlighting) does not make sense however. If you can run a marathon in 3hrs then you are already running faster over the further distances. As for not doing much under 3km, all other things being equal if one person is faster over 100m or 1km then he will be faster at every other distance.

Edited by Colin, 26 June 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[iRonnie]

When preparing for three hour marathon the conventional wisdom agrees with your philosophy that we should train in similar circumstances to the race.   That is why conventional wisdom leans towards doing sessions that are specifically replicating your goal marathon pace in training.  

Developing aerobic capacity; running efficiency; the ability to clear metabolic wastes (usually called LT training); durability; endurance; stamina; and the ability to utilise both fat and glycogen for energy are all needed in the correct mix to run a marathon to your  potential.  That’s the conventional wisdom.  Nearly a century of runners and coaches breaking away from convention have fed into the acceptance of a lot of today’s conventional wisdom.

Just off topic for a little while.   There is plenty of conventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of conventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way,  or just plain nonsense.  And, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way, or just plain nonsense.   Some wisdom deemed  unworthy by the majority of opinion may well work magic for “pioneers” like mythym.

I mention this because Davo and you give the impression that to follow convention is to follow blindly without any thought.

Two of the runners  I admire, Yoshihisa Hosaka and Juma Ikangaa  both are straining the bounds of convention with their training.

Quote

His training principles are remarkably simple: Hosaka runs identical workouts every day without fail. At 5:30 a.m. he jogs 1.5 miles through the mountain  to a cherry tree-lined riverbank path where he does 5 x 1K, starting at 6:25/mile pace and working down to 5:20/mile, followed by another 1.5-mile jog back through the mountains to his home. He works from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., then drives to a park with a 600m concrete brick loop. After some simple strength exercises, Hosaka warms up with 20 laps, starting at 9:30/mile pace and gradually building to 8 minutes/mile. Next he goes onto the road outside the park and again runs 5 x 1K, this time on a long downhill at 6 minute/mile pace down to 5:20/mile, the jog back up serving as recovery. To cap off the workout he runs 5 x 100m accelerations on a soft dirt field in the center of the park to practice his finishing kick.

And that's it. No long runs, no sustained pace runs, but he totals about 20 miles a day, every day, with more than 10K at or faster than marathon pace. Hosaka is clear on is reasons for this interval-based training. "Most people," he says, "can't keep race pace up for a long time as they get older. Doing it in intervals lets you keep your speed without getting hurt." His method also has marathon-specific psychological benefits. "Early on it's easy, but after a few days it's harder and you think, 'Ah, this is like the 30K point in the marathon,' then it gets even harder like at 40K. Every day's training becomes like part of the marathon. Most people run a hard day and then jog an easy day, but the marathon is constant and you have to train yourself to handle that constant."

From:  http://runningtimes....ticleID=16503ir

Now that is unconventional and apparently very productive for him; but i think it would destroy more runners’ aspirations than enhance them.
Having said that, the thing I like about it Hosaka’s training is his emphasis on running at and above marathon pace (According to Sport Scientists, like, say, Peter Reaburn in The Masters Athlete  old fellas have to keep up the quality in training for best results) .

I like Hosaka’s logic here, which is much the same as yours, mythym, in that he seeks to  train in circumstances similar to the event.  The main “circumstance” could well be mythym  running  at a constant 4:15 per k pace.  The question that the “goal oriented” mythym needs to ask is whether or not his training has sufficient  quality running to buffer the metabolic wastes (usually referred to as lactic acid) that build up during a marathon.   Runs significantly slower than marathon  pace teach you to use fat and are good for endurance but  they won’t help you handle the  waste products from  placing demands on muscles that are not conditioned  to the stronger contraction force and turnover of  running at  your goal pace.

Juma  Ikangaaa is another runner who has pushed the bounds of  convention.  I like his attitude.  The following quote captures that  attitude:
“I don’t rain to beat another runner.   We are out there  together, competing with  the marathon, and I train to run the marathon as fast as I can.”
He sure didn’t wait around for Rob deCastella in 1982.  Sure Ikangaa  paid the price but he forced deCastella to run fast.

Anyway, that desire to run fast comes through in his training.   He ran 50k runs every weekend.   He also ran 25x400s, 50x200 plus runs that convention deems necessary such as tempo runs, mile reps and so on.   Once again, he was just over 5 feet tall and a wisp of a man, so he could handle that training. Not many  three- hour runners would absorb that training.  A lot of successful runners would deem the 50k runs as unnecessary but most don’t seem to have any problem following the mix.
He also said that if he felt fatigued he would miss a session.  He said:  “ I usually run how I feel.”   This seems to be your main emphasis -running how you feel and covering 42.2 km in training.   That, will get you kudos in some circles, but a sub-three, or reaching your potential (which I think you may well have underestimated [I wouldn’t get psyched out by your lack of basic speed or pace -predictor charts])  and then using your achievement  to validate your theories seems a little more sensible to me .

You see mythym there are aspects in training that some runners emphasise more than others.   I am like you, in that I have little natural speed.   My muscles is all slooow twitch: slower than the times up to 500m you have posted.  If I key my sprint times into McMillian I can in no way  on earth get near the projected times.   However, after years of solid training and racing I am about right.   I lag a bit on 5000m but 10000m time projects close to my marathon and my half  suggests a slightly quicker marathon time.   Most of the pace guides are pretty handy but most seem to assume appropriate training.   And conventional wisdom being what it is that training would be pretty well conventional.

I was like you when I started setting goals.  I thought natural speed ws necessary.  I read in all the books around at the time that most club athletes a run 60sec quarter easily.   I went to a 400m track and couldn’t break 74 seconds.   I was doing a lot of long running similar to your program.   I too had a goal time I wanted to beat.  I did this by utilising my strengths (endurance) to develop the stamina needed to maintain pace.  So instead of ten 400s in 60 (which I couldn’t do. My 400pb is 65. i set it later in interclub) built up to 20 in 72-75. It took a while.

Looking at your times and fall off from 500m to 1k and beyond tells me that you need to work on  upping your anaerobic threshold (if you choose to improve your AT) .  If you are a genuine, fit slow twitcher, you will find you haven’t the power to get anaerobic over a short distance.   Don’t worry.  According to current orthodoxy, including some solid aerobic running that nears your anaerobic threshold could ensure a better threshold.  But it takes years and years.   Barring injury, I can’t see the training you are doing now will hurt your long-term goals.   It will help.  Pride aside, you will be able reassess and still have a go latter using a better mix if it doesn’t work out.

Like you mythym I am just tooling around: giving anyone who reads this another perspective. All the rest of us on CR are “ experiments of one” too.  Some of us see the sense in conventional wisdom; others may not and may make choices that seem logical to them at the time.

You apparently value innovation and thinking outside the square, like Ikangaa, Yoshihisa Hosaka, et.al.  so you are seeking a value-driven  goal.   That’s a good thing.  You may not achieve your marathon goal but you will discover your truth about the matter.   You might even re-inforce or disrupt the conventional way.  You can’t go wrong.

Edited by iRonnie, 27 June 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[mytym]

Thanks for the advice and encouragement iRonnie.  Much appreciated.  That goes for you too, Davo (just in case you tought I had forgotten about you).  I think it would be foolish for me to disregard conventional wisdom, after all it is what it is because it obviously works for the majority over a long period of time.  I just find that for me personally, it is often contradictory to my own experiences and when it comes down to a choice between the two, I know which one I'll choose every time.

Some of you were commenting on the odd short distances I provided for my PB's.  That's because (apart from 100m) they aren't done on a running track.  They're done on a 1km street circuit beginning and ending at the front of my house.  The first 500m is also slightly downhill which no doubt skews the times.

PROGRESS UPDATE:
I ran the 22k home tonight and came through unscathed.  Broke my PB by 90sec and was within 90sec of a negative split.  The calves were still a little sore from Sunday's run and probably needed 1 more day to be cherry ripe but I'm very pleased nonetheless.

[johnnyboyrun]

Extremely insighful iRonnie. Its always a pleasure to read your posts!

[Easy Tiger]

Good post Ronnie, are you coaching your son?

Every athlete is different, every good coach needs to be an explorer. Hope it goes well Mytym, but even if it doesn't who cares, you've had a crack, try something different next time.

[Davo]

Yes, excellent post, Ronnie. Swaggerer would be proud of you, but he's probably too busy coaching your son, who did very well in the Launceston 10.
Were you there? I was one of the people handing out the medals at the finish.

[mutk]

This thread started off as a bit of a beating for the original poster mytym. But has turned around to become a very informative, supportive thread with mucho good will. Is that the Gold Coast Marathon taper period influencing things?  Moods all improved as we come out of glycogen depleted state?  

Anyway I have been thinking for a long time about my own training, and how I am going to acheive my aims. My aims are quite lofty I admit, but here they are:

- 3km in sub 10minutes
- 5km sub 17
- 10km sub 37min
- HM 84 minutes
- Marathon sub 3hours


I have natural speed ability to do 10 x 400 at 3:12/km pace. I say natural because all I do is kick a bit and thats the speed I ended up doing. I can run reasonably relaxed at that pace for 400 metres, begin to burn a little, have a 2 minute rest and do it again.

Just this week for fun I did a 400 metre trial where I did 3 maximum efforts in a row with 2 min rest between - 56 seconds, 58 and 1:02  was the result - inaccuracies on my Garmin were taken into account, I set it for 410 metres .... It was a straight track so thats a small advantage too, but its a good indicator I can do sub 1 minute 400 metres. My 3km time is still a relatively slow 11 minutes flat. I cannot sustain the fast pace for very long at all, it sucks all the oxygen out of me!! As I slow my paces, I don't seem to have significant improvements in sustaining that pace until I get to about 4:20/km.

My problem as I see it is that my greatest volume of training I have done has  NEVER cultivated the speed capability I have. I know that without doubt when I run 5 minute pace I use different muscles compared to when I do 3:12 pace. I can feel what my body does, and I tend to think that for a pace range of 5:00/km down to 4:20/km I use same or similar muscles, but as I go a little faster, things change. eg  3:50/km down to 3:12/km I use very different muscles compared to 5:00/km to 4:20/km range, but then as I begin to go all out spirint, it changes again. And as far as paces slower than 5:00/km, ( where I have done the greatest training volume over the years ) I use muscles in an extreemely relaxed state and absolutely nothing like what I do at faster paces.

Now I do understand the ideas behind aerobic capacity, that long runs develope the various body systems and improve aerobic capacity, and that is the greatest factor in distance running. But my lingering doubt is this - The aerobic capacity is a result of the full bodily system being trained, and that  includes the muscles, capiliaries and arteries of the body that are employed in running. IF you do the vast majority of your training volume aerobically and at a 'easy pace'  - for me that has tended to be about  5:00/km pace - then what you end up training and peaking the aerobic capacity of - are the muscles that you employ whilste running easily. NOT the muscles employed running at 3:50/km pace or faster if thats your ultimate goal.

If I want to run a Marathon at better than 4:12/km pace then I really should do more running at that pace and intervals even faster. But obviouly I am no-where near capable of doing Marathon traing for such a pace yet.

So why am I going on about short distances like 3,5,10  in a Marathon training topic?  Because I think for me - a person that is capable of sub 1 minute 400's, the signs that I am on my way to acheiving sub 3hr Marathon are :  sub 10 minutes 3km , a sub 17 minutes 5km and a sub 37 minute 10km.

So my approach will be set these goals in the interim as I  prepare for my next Marathon race attempt. Train for a sub 10min 3km, acheive that, train for a sub 17 min5km, acheive that, train for a sub 37 minute 10 acheive that, and then simply because HM's and Marathons have such similar training, swing over to Marathon training and see where that takes me after knocking off these interim goals. This is a long term plan over maybe 6 months to a year BTW.

In fact it occures to me that the greatest Marathon runners tend to come from a track and middle distance background. They all come up through the ranks as perhaps 800,1500,3.5,10, 15km runners, even steeple chassers sometimes. They are already fast. So I personally think a good approach if your goal is a fast Marathon, is to back peddle, and get your shorter distances personal best(s) down as far as you can and then attack Marathons later after you have built your speed.

So how does all that sound?  I tend to think what I am saying is completely conventional

[Paul Every]

mutk, on 28 June 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

This thread started off as a bit of a beating for the original poster mytym. But has turned around to become a very informative, supportive thread with mucho good will. Is that the Gold Coast Marathon taper period influencing things?  Moods all improved as we come out of glycogen depleted state?  

Anyway I have been thinking for a long time about my own training, and how I am going to acheive my aims. My aims are quite lofty I admit, but here they are:

- 3km in sub 10minutes
- 5km sub 17
- 10km sub 37min
- HM 84 minutes
- Marathon sub 3hours

If you are achieving the 3 and 5 km times, your half and marathon goals should be more like 80 and 2:50.

[Paul Every]

mytym, on 27 June 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Some of you were commenting on the odd short distances I provided for my PB's.  That's because (apart from 100m) they aren't done on a running track.  They're done on a 1km street circuit beginning and ending at the front of my house.  The first 500m is also slightly downhill which no doubt skews the times.

You talk about the specificity of your training to race a marathon under 3, but it appears that you don't race. Why is that?

I still don't understand why you feel that shorter runs, intervals, racing over a variety of distances or base mileage are not beneficial to your running.

I will be very surprised if this "works". Even if you don't get injured and do manage to run sub 3, I am sure if you adopted a more suitably structured and comprehensive program in 2013 you are much more likely to improve as a runner.

Still, I can't look away.

[iRonnie]

Mytym,
i think a lot of CRs mistook your OP to be a post asking whether or not your program was a goer.  Hope things go well and you learn.

Johnyboy,  i am always interested in what you have ot say too.

Easy Tiger,  No i am not really coachng iJonny.   i think sometimes he coaches me.  He draws up his own program.  i used to write jonny's program when he was a lad and he says he learnt the crux of it all then.  He also says that he doesn't want to be overly regimented (like me); wants to be a free thinker; that he is like most runners in that we all feed off each other's knowledge. i guess you could say the running community has been a sort of coach for both of us.

Davo.  No i was fresh out of surgery the day before.  Swaggerer doesn't coach.  He is too busy becoming a bettererer farceur.

[mutk]

Paul Every, on 28 June 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

mutk, on 28 June 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

This thread started off as a bit of a beating for the original poster mytym. But has turned around to become a very informative, supportive thread with mucho good will. Is that the Gold Coast Marathon taper period influencing things?  Moods all improved as we come out of glycogen depleted state?  

Anyway I have been thinking for a long time about my own training, and how I am going to acheive my aims. My aims are quite lofty I admit, but here they are:

- 3km in sub 10minutes
- 5km sub 17
- 10km sub 37min
- HM 84 minutes
- Marathon sub 3hours

If you are achieving the 3 and 5 km times, your half and marathon goals should be more like 80 and 2:50.

Yes I realise that. I say 84 and 3hrs because   80 minutes flat and 2hr50 seem out of this world right now.

I feel that the 3,5 times are much more reachable based on my 400 metre capability.  This is all pie in the sky dreaming right now of course. Just trying to arrive at a point where my training contributes to my goals effectively. I am convinced my past has nut supported my natural speed at all.

[Tony123]

Sounds like a good plan mutk.  This has been my approach too, work on the 3km, 5km 10km times and then aim for a good half and mara.  

I have had so much fun improving over the shorter distances that i have only run one mara.  I ran that mara ages ago, before I was as fit as am i now.

personally i think that if you can hit a sub 17min 5km, then you can run sub 36min 10km and a sub 80min half.  A sub 80min half should give you about 2:50 for the mara.

Edited by Tony123, 28 June 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[iRonnie]

Quote

In fact it occures to me that the greatest Marathon runners tend to come from a track and middle distance background. They all come up through the ranks as perhaps 800,1500,3.5,10, 15km runners, even steeple chassers sometimes. They are already fast. So I personally think a good approach if your goal is a fast Marathon, is to back peddle, and get your shorter distances personal best(s) down as far as you can and then attack Marathons later after you have built your speed.

So how does all that sound? I tend to think what I am saying is completely conventional

mutk,
Have you been talking to Pat Clohessy?  He is big on conditioning the body to run hard over 5000m and 10000m before tackling the marathon.  This is a proven sensible way to proceed.

Pat is also big on doing lots of slower miles to get the strength, durabilty, endurance to so you can train hard.  Being patient is Clohessy's catch cry.  As for the hard sessions:   Most of the lads out at UQ do their speed sessions in a controlled way.   Peter Nowill says that he really only goes all out in one session a week.   The other speed sessions are hard as but not as hard as they could be.

The trouble with having the speed you have is you can get yourself into trouble, especially if you engage that muscle power too often and for the wrong reasons.

Look after yourself mutk.  The more competition in Brissy the better.

[iangallagher16]

Hi Mutk,Enjoying this thread alot. Thought provoking etc. I see your point that your questioning why you should be doing a lot of aerobic work at around 5min pace when you want to be running your marathon at 4.12min pace. However, over time and with consistent training your aerobic pace will eventually fall from 5min pace down to 4.45 then to 4.30, 4.20 etc. You will naturally speed up. Certainly been the case for me.  Its not a quick approach though and would probably take more than 6 months - appreciate you want to achieve your goals a little sooner than this which is cool. Another point, you also talk about some of the greatest marathon runners having excelled at the shorter distances. Remember, even when they were only racing the shorter distances they were still training their aerobic engines by putting in big base mileage before concentrating on speed. anyway, good luck, hope you hit your goals, I'm sure you will.

[mutk]

iRonnie, on 28 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Quote

In fact it occures to me that the greatest Marathon runners tend to come from a track and middle distance background. They all come up through the ranks as perhaps 800,1500,3.5,10, 15km runners, even steeple chassers sometimes. They are already fast. So I personally think a good approach if your goal is a fast Marathon, is to back peddle, and get your shorter distances personal best(s) down as far as you can and then attack Marathons later after you have built your speed.

So how does all that sound? I tend to think what I am saying is completely conventional

mutk,
Have you been talking to Pat Clohessy?  He is big on conditioning the body to run hard over 5000m and 10000m before tackling the marathon.  This is a proven sensible way to proceed.

Pat is also big on doing lots of slower miles to get the strength, durabilty, endurance to so you can train hard.  Being patient is Clohessy's catch cry.  As for the hard sessions:   Most of the lads out at UQ do their speed sessions in a controlled way.   Peter Nowill says that he really only goes all out in one session a week.   The other speed sessions are hard as but not as hard as they could be.

The trouble with having the speed you have is you can get yourself into trouble, especially if you engage that muscle power too often and for the wrong reasons.

Look after yourself mutk.  The more competition in Brissy the better.

Howdy iRonnie,  this is all independent thought and reasoning based on the info I have gathered and chewed on. And also how I feel when I run and train and the outcomes so far of my training. I have done things arse about, and sort of regret my first Marathon since it led to overuse injury. At least it did help me reach a vague conclusion as to what I should be doing.

Its good to know what I am thinking of is a sensible way to go.  I am 47 this year, and it pisses me off no end that I as a 17 year old with no specific training I managed to do a 10km fun run in 37 minutes. So I have a certain level of impatience going on too and want to beat my pimply 17 year old self into the ground

[Bellthorpe]

iRonnie, on 27 June 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

There is plenty of conventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of conventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way,  or just plain nonsense.  And, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way, or just plain nonsense.

Crikey, when I started to read that at first I thought you were channelling Donald Rumsfeld:

Quote

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

But I soon realised that wouldn't be the case, if you were to channel anyone it would more likely be Tommy Ramone.

And FWIW I'm a keen follower of Hosaka also.

[Tony123]

mutk, on 28 June 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Its good to know what I am thinking of is a sensible way to go.  I am 47 this year, and it pisses me off no end that I as a 17 year old with no specific training I managed to do a 10km fun run in 37 minutes. So I have a certain level of impatience going on too and want to beat my pimply 17 year old self into the ground

At 47 you are still a young fella, (I'm 46), still plenty of time to get speed and stamina.

There are plenty of guys in their 50s and 60s running quicker than both of us, if they can do then we can do it.

[mutk]

iangallagher16, on 28 June 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Hi Mutk,Enjoying this thread alot. Thought provoking etc. I see your point that your questioning why you should be doing a lot of aerobic work at around 5min pace when you want to be running your marathon at 4.12min pace. However, over time and with consistent training your aerobic pace will eventually fall from 5min pace down to 4.45 then to 4.30, 4.20 etc. You will naturally speed up. Certainly been the case for me.  Its not a quick approach though and would probably take more than 6 months - appreciate you want to achieve your goals a little sooner than this which is cool. Another point, you also talk about some of the greatest marathon runners having excelled at the shorter distances. Remember, even when they were only racing the shorter distances they were still training their aerobic engines by putting in big base mileage before concentrating on speed. anyway, good luck, hope you hit your goals, I'm sure you will.

Ah yes  I thought I should clarify - I am not questioning why so much aerobic conditioning, I know for sure it works.

I just want to make sure my aerobic conditioning is done to the whole running system, ie enlisting muscles that get me going at the pace that has me reach my goals. Instead of bashing myself with Marathon training targeting my current level - maybe sub 3hrs 30 if I trained for 3 months - I think it may be a worthwhile investment in my time to target short distances - do the correct aerobic base we all know is important, but also focus on the raw speed that gets me doing 3km at sub 10 as an example.

A sort of prepartion period where I get myself ready for another proper stab at Marathon training   and then target a fast race. In the future.

I think maybe 6 to 12 months of 3,5,10km focus. More likely 12 months and then think about doing Marathon training again.

Cheers

[iRonnie]

Bellthorpe, on 28 June 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

iRonnie, on 27 June 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

There is plenty of conventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of conventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way,  or just plain nonsense.  And, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that is all good.  And, of course, there is plenty of unconventional wisdom that will be found to be agenda-driven scam, not the best way, or just plain nonsense.

Crikey, when I started to read that at first I thought you were channelling Donald Rumsfeld:

Quote

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

But I soon realised that wouldn't be the case, if you were to channel anyone it would more likely be Tommy Ramone.

And FWIW I'm a keen follower of Hosaka also.

Make sense to me.  Who would have thought Rumsfield would follow Derrida's thinking?

Tommmy Ramone was their manager.  No one wanted wanted to play the drums so he stepped in.  Marky is the drummer who took over.

Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee, Marky.  There was Richie for a while.  Tommy produced a few albums and wrote some songs with Joey et al.

I don't have to channel anyone -except Swaggerer. Although if i was going to channel a Ramone it would be Joey.

One day you'll stop checking me on my verbose  posts.  Yes I believe in miracles.

I can't read Japanese so if you see anythng on Hosaka can you share it?

Edited by iRonnie, 28 June 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[mytym]

Paul Every, on 28 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

You talk about the specificity of your training to race a marathon under 3, but it appears that you don't race. Why is that?

I think it comes down to a lack of commitment, which sounds a bit strange, considering how much commitment is required to train for a marathon. I don't really like the idea of booking myself in for this event and that event 'committing' myself to running at a certain place at a certain time. Weird I know, but that's me.

Paul Every, on 28 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I still don't understand why you feel that shorter runs, intervals, racing over a variety of distances or base mileage are not beneficial to your running.

I don't agree with this comment at all.

I think running shorter distances is absolutely vital to improving your long distance running.  I think you've drawn this conclusion because my current training does not involve any short running, but I haven't just started my training.  I've been at it since the start of the year.  I do all my speed work early on generally running distances shorter the 5km.  Only when I achieved my goals at this distance did I increase 7km then 10km and so on.  What I don't do, is go back to running shorter distances once I've already progressed beyond that point.  That will have to wait until after October.

Intervals (I assume that means running at different speeds within a single run?) are a fantastic way to improve.  I incorporate this in all my runs.  Especially now that speed training is over, I rely on running the last sections of my runs at an uncomfortably fast pace to improve my long run speed.  I'm not sure if this applies, but I hills are another form of interval that I use to signal when to up the tempo of my run.

Base mileage is absolutley critical also.  You can't expect to run well over a long distance if you don't put in the miles beforehand.  I just don't believe in 'junk miles.'  If you're going to run, you have to make it count.  If you haven't recovered from a previous run, then give it another day.  Two or three runs a week is perfectly fine as long as they are quality runs covering a decent distance.  Whether I run 6 shorter runs or 3 medium to long runs doesn't matter as long as the miles covered is sufficient.  Running too often will have a detrimental affect on my performance because I won't have sufficent time in between to recover from the previous run.  The result is that much of my distance would be consigned to 'junk status'.  Junk miles are fine if I just want to go the distance, but inadequate if I want to run the distance fast.  (I'm well aware that the wider running community disagrees with me on this point.)

mutk, on 28 June 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

So my approach will be set these goals in the interim as I  prepare for my next Marathon race attempt. Train for a sub 10min 3km, acheive that, train for a sub 17 min5km, acheive that, train for a sub 37 minute 10 acheive that, and then simply because HM's and Marathons have such similar training, swing over to Marathon training and see where that takes me after knocking off these interim goals. This is a long term plan over maybe 6 months to a year BTW.

I don't want to discourage you, but I completely agree with this approach.  It's the only way to go in my opinion.  Knock over the short distance targets before tackling the long distance targets.

[mutk]

Not at all sure why your agreeing with me should be discouraging or disappointing me

I am preparing for marathon training over a 6 to 12 month period. You mytym are training for a Mara. A big difference. You are doing training for a Mara in a fashion that is much closer to conventional training than you might think. And it is closer to conventional Mara training than what I am doing. You are doing the long runs. I am not - that is I am not doing marathon specific long runs. End of week and midweek long runs are part of my training right now. Just that I am not doing 22km plus for example. In fact am doing deliberately shorter 'long' runs and building them up super slow because of my long term heel injuries . I am doing the shorter faster and you are not.

I still thing will benefit from some interval and speed work. Its what is missing. Speed and interval work is fun too

Edited by mutk, 29 June 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[iRonnie]

I still can't see why a marathoner would exclude interval,reps, speed, LT sessions, sessions from a  marathon program. Especially can't get why a marathoner would exclude marathon pace runs.  Doesn't make sense to me.

I still can't see why a 1500m, 3000m, 5000, 10000, metre racer would exclude long runs.  

As far as i am concerned, you're re-inventing the wheel -but you're making it with corners.  

I think it far better to include all the ingredients ( they are all there for a reason).  Keep the mix and shift the emphasis to the requirements of the race distance.  

I is a marathoner and i do fifty metre "sprints".  Great for dynamic stretching and form. I do  improperly so-called junk miles too, among other things, to help with recovery and endurance. It all helps.

Sorry,  i don't get your logic.  Different yes, sensible no (in my opinion).  I'll leave you now with your  " magic formulas".

Edited by iRonnie, 29 June 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[mytym]

mutk, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Not at all sure why your agreeing with me should be discouraging or disappointing me

It was tongue in cheek.  If mytym, "the weirdo" likes it, it can't possibly be sensible.

[walshy2]

iangallagher16, on 28 June 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Hi Mutk,Enjoying this thread alot. Thought provoking etc. I see your point that your questioning why you should be doing a lot of aerobic work at around 5min pace when you want to be running your marathon at 4.12min pace. However, over time and with consistent training your aerobic pace will eventually fall from 5min pace down to 4.45 then to 4.30, 4.20 etc. You will naturally speed up. Certainly been the case for me.  Its not a quick approach though and would probably take more than 6 months - appreciate you want to achieve your goals a little sooner than this which is cool. Another point, you also talk about some of the greatest marathon runners having excelled at the shorter distances. Remember, even when they were only racing the shorter distances they were still training their aerobic engines by putting in big base mileage before concentrating on speed. anyway, good luck, hope you hit your goals, I'm sure you will.

This post really resonates with me Iangallagher16

I did a sub 3 mara in 2010 and struggled with injury since and only in the last 6 months or so have got back to the type of training I was doing 2 years back prior to my only sub 3.

Whereas previously my long runs were all around 5 min km's I actually am finding it quite easy to do them st 4:45 pace or thereabouts with the same effort without really thinking too much about holding pace, in fact sometimes needing to consciously back off a bit

Shorter runs during the week on easy days have become 4:30 - 4:35 pace rather than 4:45 at what feels like the same effort.

My personal opinion is that more can be achieved in Mara training by focussing on faster shorter runs than faster longer runs ie I think there is more bang for your buck in going faster over shorter distances than the long runs, but everyone is different I guess

Edited by walshy2, 29 June 2012 - 09:09 PM.

[mutk]

Walshy!!  Sorry I messed up quotes on my mobile here


My personal opinion is that more can be achieved in Mara training by focussing on faster shorter runs than faster longer runs ie I think there is more bang for your buck in going faster over shorter distances than the long runs, but everyone is different I guess





This is an example of what I am banging on about:) It makes sense from the traditional. Long runs are for building strength endurance. Shorter runs can be for building the ability to run at LT or slower as well as building and maintaining speed form and efficiency.

It makes sense.And for me specifically I have much more to gain in doing lots of speed and middle distance than super long .

[HillsAths1]

While posting on another thread about pacing this thread came to mind, I am wondering if Mytym and Mutk are still about and how they are going with their training and racing?