Marathon Advice

Dominic Shields said:

The Cooper test is interesting because that (as I understand it) is how far you
can run in 12 minutes

It is indeed. However for non-elite runners, I've seen far more references
to "half-Cooper" tests - ie the distance covered in 6 mins.

That's simply because the average of non-elite running population cannot
hold the "Cooper pace" (ie the one which works in his formula for VO2 max)
for anything like 12 minutes.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

First, the author, who really should know better, succumbs to the silly "you're not
*really* moving on the treadmill" fallacy.

OK in the sense that you are quite clearly moving - both up and down
(predominantly) and front to back (is this a significant component
compared to wind resistance? I have my doubts), not to mention "all over
the place" if your form's a bit dodgy.

He is right in the sense that you are not moving, even at 16kph (10mph,
the limit of most "standard" TMs over here), at more than a fly's fart
compared to the wind resistance you encounter when running outside at the
same pace.

Humble Observation : most TMs I've encountered, outside of sports medicine
labs, are so wildly optimistic in their pace/speed readout that it would
be madness to extrapolate a "real-world" time from them. The first one I
used - a pro gym model - said I'd managed 5 minute miles for 10 minutes
after a 15' warmup + "hills". At the time, my 21k time was 1:43 (the
improbability calculations are left as an exercise to the reader :-)

NOTE to anyone who may suspect me of bias against TMs. Not true. I started
running because I had more fun warming up on the treadmill than doing the
weight lifting sessions I was warming up for (in 1999). When I found
myself running on the TM until the timer ran out, I finally went outside
and started really enjoying myself.

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

I think my times (as an inexperienced runner) on tm are substantially
faster than trails,

....snip...

Quoted message said:

But, if you look at Chris Clark's tm training for the 2000 US women's
Olympic trials, which she won, her race pace on the tm was surprisingly
close to what she actually ran, iirc.

Maybe this could be largely due to the quality and/or maintained accuracy
of the TM which is available?

On a standard, one-size-Pfitz-(sic)-all TM in a gym, I used to go
noticeably quicker than on the sports faculty one.

That one was an accurate predictor of my race paces, despite me being
tested (VO2max, HR, arterial pressure, ventilatory rates, direct catheter
lactate etc...) at 0% slope.

Quoted message said:

For me, I decided they were useful aerobic
or strength endurance tools, but they just didn't seem to simulate real
hills very well.

I have a feeling that this is where the real difference lies too.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can have fairly weak endurance and still fake it for 2 miles.

_

What's this mean exactly?

Quoted message said:

Your body won't overheat in two miles

_

This is not true for everyone at all and if you talk to enough RDs
you'll learn there is a reason the first water stops commonly as policy
(a saftety requirement) are to be placed prior to the 2 mi marker. also
it's common to hear of Tmill runners take it to the road and tank
after 1 mile (running too fast and lost in translation).

Interesting what Dr. Christine Clark might say. Before you open your yap,
look her up on google and see how she fared with treadmill training.

steve, if i don't take a contray postion....who will? lol.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can have fairly weak endurance and still fake it for 2 miles.

_

Quoted message said:

What's this mean exactly?

It means you can run a good 2 mile time off a relatively weak base.
___

Oh...well in that case I've faked whole marathons for
crissakes....lol....

Quoted message said:

steve, if i don't take a contray postion....who will? lol.

Yeah, you usually take the bottom position.

steve common said:

Humble Observation : most TMs I've encountered, outside of sports medicine
labs, are so wildly optimistic in their pace/speed readout that it would
be madness to extrapolate a "real-world" time from them. The first one I

Yeah, that gets back to the whole calibration issue. Unless you know that it's
been calibrated properly, it's all guesswork.

I haven't noticed anything odd about the pace readouts on treadmills, but I
usually don't push the pace hard enough to find out. I haven't found a treadmill
that I could pull back to back 5 minute miles on though.

Quoted message said:

used - a pro gym model - said I'd managed 5 minute miles for 10 minutes
after a 15' warmup + "hills". At the time, my 21k time was 1:43 (the
improbability calculations are left as an exercise to the reader :-)

(-;

In fact, I suspect that back to back 1:43 half marathons are quite a bit easier
than a single 5:00 mile.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

The key to it all is your weekly milage. The more miles you put in,
the easier (and faster) the actual race will be. Log log log. If you
don't know how much you've ran then how can you improve? Log however
you want to, obviously, but a good tool is useful. I found a good one
http://www.idelphia.com. It shows you your weekly milage as a graph,
which is cool. After a while I started feeling like I have to "feed
the graph" and it got me mad improvements. Another cool thing they do
is, if you go the the site with your cell phone (mobile browser), you
can do your data entry then and there right after your run so you dont
have to worry about forgetting to do it later.

Good luck!

Thanks, although "proper" runners seem to frown on them, I always run wearing a
Garmin 301 which basically takes care of the logging issue.

I have a garmin watch. Cool idea, but doesnt work unless you run in a
desert. Unfortunatelly, deserts are few and far between in the
northeast, which is where I am. Most descent running trails are in
parks with lots of vegetation. Garmin seems to bail out whenever it
sees a tree or a sizable bush. I donno, there are lots wierd phobias
out there. The garmin must have a woodo... one :-)

Dominic Shields said:

Quoted message said:

The key to it all is your weekly milage. The more miles you put in,
the easier (and faster) the actual race will be. Log log log. If you
don't know how much you've ran then how can you improve? Log however
you want to, obviously, but a good tool is useful. I found a good one
http://www.idelphia.com. It shows you your weekly milage as a graph,
which is cool. After a while I started feeling like I have to "feed
the graph" and it got me mad improvements. Another cool thing they do
is, if you go the the site with your cell phone (mobile browser), you
can do your data entry then and there right after your run so you dont
have to worry about forgetting to do it later.

Good luck!

Thanks, although "proper" runners seem to frown on them, I always run wearing a
Garmin 301 which basically takes care of the logging issue.