progress

Michelle said:

Quoted message said:

Does the program call for that ? In general, it's not a good idea.

The program doesn't call for any speed; all it prescribes is distance.

But why isn't it a good idea?

The short run days are supposed to be recovery days, not speed workouts. You're
already pushing it as it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I
was able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier.
I could

No, you were not able to run the distance period.

Wrong! At six weeks, the plan called for me to run six miles for my
long run; I ran that six miles without walking even one step. I do not
see where you get "you were not able to run the distance period" from.

The week before that, you bombed out of your long run, right ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could have gone farther than the six miles that run called for,
but I knew enough not to.

Why not ?

Because the last time I tried to run further than what I should have, I
injured myself.

What is your standard for determining how far you "should" go ? besides
hindsight, that is ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Quoted message said:

So for you to run a half marathon on this training program, is the
equivalent of a 7-8 minute per mile runner attempting to run a full
marathon on the same length training program. I could be wrong about
this - and if I am, I'm sure someone will point that out. :-)

I don't think anyone would dispute this. It's time at a given effort
level that matters.

I doubt that there are any marathon programs that call for a long run of
13 miles, 6 weeks out and a rapid buildup in the last 3 wks. nearly all
have a 2 or 3 week taper.

I don't think one loses anything by being conservative.

Patience is not the same thing as procrastination.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

joe positive said:

I realize you are doing a half-marathon training program and you're 5
or 6 weeks out from the race, but I think this half is going to be a
struggle for you, or anyway much harder than it has to be.

There's always a reason to put something off, whether it's running a
race, buying a new computer, or whatever. One can't put things off

Patience is not procrastination. A methodical progression towards a goal is not
putting things off. Slow and steady wins the race.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

shinypenny said:

Michelle said:

If at all possible. If it becomes apparent to me that I can't, I'll
reschedule for another time.

I have to say that I also worry about you injuring yourself by doing
too much, too soon. But then i stop myself from posting that, because
it may simply be that my own history of injuries colors my view, and I
tend to be ultra-conservative.

Here's what worries me: it's your pace. If you were an 7-8 minute per
mile runner, you'd only need to be on your feet for something like 100
minutes to complete a half. But since your pace is more like 13-14
minutes, you'll need to be on your feet for nearly twice that.

So for you to run a half marathon on this training program, is the
equivalent of a 7-8 minute per mile runner attempting to run a full
marathon on the same length training program. I could be wrong about
this - and if I am, I'm sure someone will point that out. :-)

Excellent point about time on the road, yet seldom mentioned. It's
more important as we age because of that slower pace.
In the old days Bill Rodgers used to say he could never stay at it for
three hours like so many in the pack did. Of course, now he's finding
out what it's like. An older runner might be better off to use the
clock time for the training run rather than measure by the mile. Many
old runners, including old John Kelly in the Boston, use to train only
six mile runs a few times a week. He did walk some along the way and
at 75, he was entitled. As you age it seems you actually have to
train less. That's because you "have to" train less. In the middle and
younger years, the rule of thumb used to be that a person could expect
to run three times their average training mileage over the previous
three months. My personal belief is that as you get older you can
prevent injuries by avoiding the super long runs and saving everything
for race day. If you are in good shape and well rested you should feel
like you could run all day long. When certain situations come
together, that's almost what I do, run for hours and hop on the bike.
I don't think I'm alone either. Forget the mile time. Get into shape
and gain the confidence that you can hold a survival pace for any
reasonable time. Then you can enter any distance race without regard
to meeting Hal Higdon's charts.

Elflord said:

Michelle said:

When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).

Quoted message said:

Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).

That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it would be great
news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't mean a whole lot in terms
of your stated goal of running a half marathon.

As it is, I think you're making a really good case for dumping the half and
running a 5k or 10k instead. I still don't really understand why you're using
a training program that is appropriate for a 5k or 10k, to prepare for a
half marathon.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

What he said.

He or she is going to start calling you names now.

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

> That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it
> would be great news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't
> mean a whole lot in terms of your stated goal of running a half
> marathon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why is that?

Quoted message said:

Because how fast you can run a short distance race has very little to
do with whether or not you can succesfully complete a long distance
race.

OK, this was a short-run day; the program calls for one short run per
week; this was it. I try to run the short runs faster than the long
runs and normal runs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This past Sunday, I ran six miles; this coming Sunday, I'll run
seven miles.

Quoted message said:

That would make a solid program for finishing a 5k-10k race
reasonably well.

This is halfway through the program.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The training program is a half-marathon training program.

Quoted message said:

We've already had this discussion. It is the best possible solution
given absurd constraints, which are that you insist on attempting the
distance on inadequate training (being barely able to run *half* the
race distance, 6 weeks from the race is in my book woefully
inadequate)

That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I was
able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier. I could
have gone farther than the six miles that run called for, but I knew
enough not to.

I have established certain qualifiers for me to decide to forego this
race; if I hit those qualifiers, I'll forego it, but so long as I am
able to keep up with the training plan, I'll continue to train for the
race. I can cancel my hotel reservation up to 6 PM on October 16th
without penalty, so I'm in no rush to give up.

And every day following the plan helps me in the long run--if not for
this race, then for another race down the pike. And I know enough to
not do anything that would injure me while following it.

No one is going to dissuade me from attempting this race; my own body
may tell me that I can't do it, but no one else's input is going to
change my mind.

The only reasonable way to race a half marathon is to have completed a
whole bunch of times that distance and more.

Yes there are people marketing training programs for half marathons
and full marathons that don't have you actually try to push the pace
and that you don't have to have run that distance. There's people
that will take your money for anything.

It looks like you just want to participate in an event. That's fine
but it's not running and it's certainly not racing.

Participating in events that are longer than what you are ready for is
a good way to get hurt.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

The only reasonable way to race a half marathon is to have completed
a whole bunch of times that distance and more.

There are many people who have completed marathons and half marathons
without having ever run that distance or more. And every training plan
that I have seen for either of those distances have had the longest run
shorter than the race distance.

Quoted message said:

Yes there are people marketing training programs for half marathons
and full marathons that don't have you actually try to push the pace
and that you don't have to have run that distance. There's people
that will take your money for anything.

If they did that, and their plans did not work, the word would get out
and people would avoid them.

Quoted message said:

It looks like you just want to participate in an event. That's fine
but it's not running and it's certainly not racing.

Then what is running? And what is racing? More importantly, why is it
any concern of yours? You're not going to be running in that race, and
even if you were, how would my being in it affect you?

Quoted message said:

Participating in events that are longer than what you are ready for
is a good way to get hurt.

And you, of course, get to decide when someone else is ready, right?

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it is, I think you're making a really good case for dumping the
half and running a 5k or 10k instead. I still don't really
understand why you're using a training program that is appropriate
for a 5k or 10k, to prepare for a half marathon.

Cheers, -- Elflord

What he said.

He or she is going to start calling you names now.

That might be your style, missy, but it is not mine. Unlike you,
Donovan has been polite and courteous in his criticism of me; unlike
you, he has not acted like a jerk. So I have no reason to call him
names, dearie.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I realize you are doing a half-marathon training program and
you're 5 or 6 weeks out from the race, but I think this half is
going to be a struggle for you, or anyway much harder than it has
to be.

There's always a reason to put something off, whether it's running
a race, buying a new computer, or whatever. One can't put things
off

Patience is not procrastination. A methodical progression towards a
goal is not putting things off. Slow and steady wins the race.

And that's what I'm doing: slow and steady. It won't win me the race,
though.

By the way, I asked a friend, who has been running for more than thirty
years:

"Could you please give me your honest and frank opinion as to whether I
should keep training to run in the half marathon next month. There are
a number of experienced runners at rec.running who are telling me that
because I've run only six miles with six weeks to go, that it is
unrealistic for me to expect to be able to complete that race."

Her reply:

"I suggest keeping up with the plan. There is a rough rule of thumb
that says a runner can go twice the distance of their longest run in the
last 30 days. I'd also point out that that very same rule also advises
that it won't be a pretty finish. It is doable at this point.

"Personally it would have been better to pick a longer training plan,
but that is neither here nor there now. You work with what you have."

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because of your tendency to both push for validation, and ignore
those who disagree with your approach, you've come to an erroneous
conclusion.

Those tendencies exist only in your perception. You may notice
that I

But you do. You mischaracterize the opinions of those who express the
smallest amount of agreement, and dismiss everything else.

I've mischaracterized your opinion and Theresa's? The only ones I've
dismissed are those who are antagonistic and insulting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am not ignoring you. I do ignore those who are abusive and
antagonistic, though.

Fine for the context of soliciting advice, but you can't claim that
everyone except me agrees with your approach.

I never claimed that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The tone tells me that the poster is more interested in his own
self importance than in helping me; therefore, I do not give any
credence to what he has to say.

The correctness of an argument has nothing to do with whether the
person making that argument has a helpful disposition.

The tone of the message tells me whether the person is interested in
helping me; if the tone says that the person isn't interested in
helping, I don't pay attention to his "advice", because it really isn't
advice. Someone like Hurley, for instance, presents the attitude that
he is better than I am because he can run faster than I can. Yes, he is
a better runner, but that doesn't make him a better person. He is
interested only in putting me down; he told me that I shouldn't be
running at all because I don't run fast enough to suit him. So why
should I believe anything he says?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't know that you're not going to fall off.

As I said, I'll dismount if I see that I'm going to fall off.

One doesn't always see in advance, this is especially true when
training load is increased beyond ones capacity to adapt.

It's simple, really. If I can't do the distance consistently, I'll know
it. Two Sundays ago, I couldn't finish the six-mile run. If I had not
been able to finish six miles this past Sunday, I would have realized
that I won't be able to finish the training plan. This coming Sunday,
I'm scheduled to do seven miles. The following two Sundays are eight
miles each, then nine, and then ten. If I can't do them, I'll not be
running in the race.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's what I meant; if I see that I'm not going to be able to do
it, I'll not do it.

What if you get injured ?

What you don't appear to be getting is that the potential down side
is not just failure to complete the race, it's also injury.

Oh, I understand that alright. I also believe that I'll know to quit
before that happens.

Quoted message said:

What makes your schedule a gold standard for determining how far you
can or can't go ? How do you know that you should schedule 6 miles,
but not 5 and not 7 ?

That's what the training plan calls for. If I can keep up with the
training plan, I'm OK; if I can't keep up with it, I'll not be able to
do the race.

Quoted message said:

Determination would involve choosing a realistic progression in
training, and making a long term commitment instead of taking risky
shortcuts for a fast payoff.

This is a long-term commitment, and there are no risky shortcuts.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does the program call for that ? In general, it's not a good idea.

The program doesn't call for any speed; all it prescribes is
distance.

But why isn't it a good idea?

The short run days are supposed to be recovery days, not speed
workouts. You're already pushing it as it is.

The short run is the second running day of the week. The week starts on
Monday with strength building, Tuesday with a normal run, Wednesday with
a short run, Thursday a rest day, Friday a normal run, Saturday a rest
day, and Sunday the long run.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the
> race, I was able to run half the distance without the "barely"
> qualifier. I could

No, you were not able to run the distance period.

Wrong! At six weeks, the plan called for me to run six miles for
my long run; I ran that six miles without walking even one step. I
do not see where you get "you were not able to run the distance
period" from.

The week before that, you bombed out of your long run, right ?

Right, that was the week before--and as I said, it was the result of a
combination of factors, the most important ones being my starting out
too fast and my not having eaten properly the night before.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because the last time I tried to run further than what I should
have, I injured myself.

What is your standard for determining how far you "should" go ?
besides hindsight, that is ?

Back then it was not increasing my distance more than 10% every two
weeks. Now, it's what the training plan calls for.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

At any rate, your mileage may vary, because we're different people
with different physiologies. And I do think you're smart enough to
ditch the plans if necessary. Despite my worries, I am rooting for
you. A part of me thinks to myself, if you can do this... then I have
hope too. :-) (But I'm still going to wait until next year and after
a 10K and maybe another 10 miler to try!)

Thanks for the input. I think the key factor is that I also think that
I'm smart enough to ditch the plans if necessary. It seems that Donovan
(and maybe others) think that either I'm not smart enough or that I'm
not capable of recognizing when it would be necessary. I disagree with
him on both counts.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

I doubt that there are any marathon programs that call for a long run
of 13 miles, 6 weeks out and a rapid buildup in the last 3 wks.
nearly all have a 2 or 3 week taper.

The Higdon plan doesn't call for a rapid buildup in the last three
weeks. It has a gradual buildup from a long run of four miles the first
week to ten miles at the end of the eleventh week.

Did you ever look at the plan itself?

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

> I realize you are doing a half-marathon training program and
> you're 5 or 6 weeks out from the race, but I think this half is
> going to be a struggle for you, or anyway much harder than it has
> to be.

There's always a reason to put something off, whether it's running
a race, buying a new computer, or whatever. One can't put things
off

Patience is not procrastination. A methodical progression towards a
goal is not putting things off. Slow and steady wins the race.

And that's what I'm doing: slow and steady. It won't win me the race,
though.

Doubling long run length in a few weeks is neither slow nor steady. It's a
rapid ramp-up.

Quoted message said:

By the way, I asked a friend, who has been running for more than thirty
years:

As for your friends comments, she point blank states that a longer training
plan would be preferable. That's consistent with my position.

No-one is saying that you *can't* or *won't* be able to finish the race in
that time frame. If you don't get injured, you probably will finish.

I'm suggesting that longevity as a runner depends on adopting a long term
mindset to training, and I don't believe you've done this yet. I'd go so far
as to say, once you do that -- adopt a long-term mindset, you've more or less
won the larger battle. Everything else follows from that.

Quoted message said:

Her reply:

"I suggest keeping up with the plan. There is a rough rule of thumb
that says a runner can go twice the distance of their longest run in the
last 30 days. I'd also point out that that very same rule also advises
that it won't be a pretty finish. It is doable at this point.

"Personally it would have been better to pick a longer training plan,
but that is neither here nor there now. You work with what you have."

I certainly hope that you don't consider this a ringing endorsement of your
plan.

I would be more inclined to fully agree with your friends position if you were two
or three weeks from the race (which would be almost done with the program). But
as it is, you are only half way through, and still have quite a lot of ramping
up to do.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Michelle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Determination would involve choosing a realistic progression in
training, and making a long term commitment instead of taking risky
shortcuts for a fast payoff.

This is a long-term commitment, and there are no risky shortcuts.

Not to pile on but your plan is risky and is a shortcut. And from the
way you parse advice, throw out the naysayers and accept the "well
maybe," shows some commitment but I would call it compulsive. So unless
one of your legs fall off your going to do the race.

My only suggestion to get through race day with the least discomfort is
do the race with run/walk strategy from the start. It's a conservation
strategy that will increase your odds of getting to the finish line and
in the best clock time. If you try running till need to walk, you will
likely use up all your glycogen and the last N miles will be agony. It's
called hitting the wall and is best avoided. Ignore those macho folks
that bad mouth the walking aspects. You know you are going to be out
there for a long time so run/walk.

Don't be surprised if your recovery is not extensive. Your age and
running inexperience will smack you in the tail end. You have no base to
speak of and base. i.e. foundation is what this sport all about. You are
trying to fly the plane after playing on simulator in your den.

Assuming you get through this 1/2 alive and well, I hope your next
effort is another half with a more reasonable plan or better yet, some
shorter races and concentrate on building a base that will keep you at
the game.

-Doug

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

I doubt that there are any marathon programs that call for a long run
of 13 miles, 6 weeks out and a rapid buildup in the last 3 wks.
nearly all have a 2 or 3 week taper.

The Higdon plan doesn't call for a rapid buildup in the last three
weeks. It has a gradual buildup from a long run of four miles the first
week to ten miles at the end of the eleventh week.

It's only "gradual" in the same way that stomping on the gas in a Ferrari results in
"gradual" acceleration to 60mph.

Sure you pass through several intermediate points at some stage, but "gradual" isn't
the right adjective.

A reasonable increase in training load is about 10% every 3 weeks, which would have
you doing a long run of 6 miles after 12 weeks, and have you more or less ready for
a half marathon in 6 months.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because the last time I tried to run further than what I should
have, I injured myself.

What is your standard for determining how far you "should" go ?
besides hindsight, that is ?

Back then it was not increasing my distance more than 10% every two
weeks. Now, it's what the training plan calls for.

The fact that a training plan says that you "should" run 6 miles a day does not
mean that you can't run 7, and it doesn't guarantee that you're not better off
with 5.

Everyone is different, and no training program, not even one written by a
knowledgeable coach who is familiar with your training, can be a gold standard
for exactly how much you "should" do on a given day.

The only way to be sure you're running within your limits, is to start with something
comfortable, and increase it gradually, so that if/when your body complains, it also
complains gradually.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

so that if/when your body complains, it also
complains gradually.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Your face is just SCREAMING "plastic surgery, please?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

The fact that a training plan says that you "should" run 6 miles a
day does not mean that you can't run 7, and it doesn't guarantee that
you're not better off with 5.

Everyone is different, and no training program, not even one written
by a knowledgeable coach who is familiar with your training, can be a
gold standard for exactly how much you "should" do on a given day.

OK, then you don't know how much I "should" do on any given day. In the
meantime, the training plan is a good guide as to what I should do--a
guide, not a gold standard. And as you have seen, I can and have
adjusted from that guide as I deemed appropriate.

Quoted message said:

The only way to be sure you're running within your limits, is to
start with something comfortable, and increase it gradually, so that
if/when your body complains, it also complains gradually.

I started this plan with something comfortable, and increased gradually
in accordance with the plan, and when my body complained, I backed off
(by adding walk breaks) until I was able to continue.

I think the only contention you have with what I'm doing is that you
think I'm not doing it gradually enough.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

I think the only contention you have with what I'm doing is that you
think I'm not doing it gradually enough.

I don't think that's it, specifically. I've been reading
the back and forth and what's popping out is that you seem
to be prioritizing this one race over base-building and a
program focused on staying healthy. So, while you say that
you're committed to running, the way you're approaching
things the race appears to be more important to you than the
actual running itself.

You're going to do what you're going to do, but you're
posting a lot about your running and there's this dissonance
in what you're writing that I think is the source of some of
the comments.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email hidden]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community