Re: More speed progress...

<< Bear G wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Bear G said:

Ignoramus4020 wrote: >>

Impressive!

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Phil M. wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus22163's message of 10 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

I am thinking of a schedule like this (for now).

Sun 8.4 miles
Mon 0 miles
Tue 2.8 miles
Wed 5.6 miles
Thu 5.6 miles
Fri 2.8 miles
Sat 5.6-8.4 miles

That's 30-33 miles per week. I am not sure if I'd be able to stick to
this schedule, so I will try it.

Any sort of a build up to this? What is your mileage now?

Phil M.

Ditto, I would give yourself a few months to work into that routine, but
looks good. Of course you'll extend the long runs more as you stabilize
with that base, right?

- T

Ignoramus22163 wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Just a little update.. I wanted to run 8.4 miles today. Did not have
time time during the day.

So, I ran in the evening. Did 8.4 (or 9, according to different
calculations, I could not measure the distance properly yet) miles
tonight. THe running time was 1 hour 19 min 12 seconds, which is
better than 1:35 that was done during my "trilal run" that convinced
me to run a half marathon.

Because of cool weather and running without the shirt, running felt
"easy" even though I ran at 3-3 breathing pace. I could probably
squeeze 3 minutes out of this run by being a little more focused.

I figure, 79 minutes compared to 95 minutes is a decent initial
progress. I have no doubts that future progress will be a little more
slow to some.

I want to thank everyone who posted meaningful messages that
encouraged me to run more.

That's a good improvement. Why were u running so much slower before? It's
my impression that most beginning runners run too fast because they think
"no pain no gain". It seems you've been doing the opposite.

- T

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xDjad.2258$wV4.1955@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

steve common wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

and certain adaptations happen in the body that don't happen on
slightly shorter runs.

I actually don't believe this. Or rather, that the positive physical
effect is so slight as to be a poor involvement for marathon or
shorter
races.

Well YMMV, but I'm very convinced that my long-run endurance went up
substantially after completeing those longer runs. By doing those
every 3
weeks my performance on each was noticably better than the previous
one both
in terms of fatigue and recovery.

I have to agree with Tony - they worked great for me. I still think if
your body can take the longer runs they will benefit you and not at the
point of slicing speed work.

I still to this day think the 8-12 week schedule for marathon training
is too short especially for the first few tries. if one is going to
stick with such a short schedule then yes, don't go longer than 20.
OTOH, if you want to have a better shot at the clock, make it a 4 or
even 5 month schedule and gradually stretch your longer runs and reduce
the risk of injury while gaining the benefits.

Yes, I know the elites seldom go past 20 but most of us are not elite.
And yes. YMMV. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In building for my 50k I did a 6 hour run in the
mountains, but at a slow endurance pace, and that told me my legs
were

ready

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for the 50k in a way that my 4hr+ runs just didn't. As it turned out
my

50k

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was less than 6 hours, but I was well prepared.

I think that the 6 hour training run was pure mental toughening or
reassurance for you.

There are so many factors that we learn from doing longer races that map
nicely back to shorter races, especially the marathon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A _single_ training run of any kind will make such a small difference
to
your organism that I'm certain you could simply have rested that day
and
still run the same 50k race, in physical terms.

I don't think it was the ONLY run but a single long run. They are a
usually a series of long runs with a building of miles or terrain
difficulty and I think they work well. I don't go 6 hours for 50k but
tend to hang 4-4.5 it's fine for me, but remember I have few more years
and races under my belt and I don't cross train as heavily on a bike.

Quoted message said:

I disagree, and I chose to do those long runs partly on advice from
this
group. I believe those runs made it possible for me to have a fairly
decent
race for a guy who cross trains. BTW, I never followed a Galloway
program,
and I don't think it's strictly necessary to go the distance or
longer, but
I do think the body gets a kind of specific training, as does the
mind, when
training close to the same time as the race. Of course above 50k this
isn't
practical.

I'm glad you added the last sentence. I would have asked how long you
would run for a 50 miles or further. 🙂

-DF

"Ignoramus22163" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I will go by feel, if on some days I feel miserable, I won't push
myself too much. It is not the army and I am doing all this for
entertainment purposes, sort of. Maybe I will build up more slowly,
but I do not see this schedule as too punishing.

Remember, the body does not show it's dissatisfaction with sudden
increases, immediately. All to often people ignore the early signs of
doing too much and chalk it up to bad days or misalignment of the
planets. Maybe you have great recovery powers but you don't have any
history either. The smarter consensus is suggesting that you take it
slower and cut the risk. Your choice but why add another variable to
likely thwart your efforts.

-DF

Doug Freese said:

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xDjad.2258$wV4.1955@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I actually don't believe this. Or rather, that the positive physical
effect is so slight as to be a poor involvement for marathon or
shorter races.

Well YMMV, but I'm very convinced that my long-run endurance went up
substantially after completeing those longer runs.

I have to agree with Tony - they worked great for me. I still think if
your body can take the longer runs they will benefit you and not at the
point of slicing speed work.

Long runs also allow you to explore other elements of an endurance
event. You can complete a 2 hour run with relatively poor
nutrition and hydration during the run, but it's critical for a 4
hour run.

Quoted message said:

I still to this day think the 8-12 week schedule for marathon training
is too short especially for the first few tries. if one is going to
stick with such a short schedule then yes, don't go longer than 20.

USAFit is nominally a 26 week program but the first 8 weeks is
spent getting runners up to 10 mile long runs.

Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

Quoted message said:

A _single_ training run of any kind will make such a small difference to
your organism

Quoted message said:

I disagree, and I chose to do those long runs partly on advice from this
group.

I wasn't too clear maybe. I didn't say that _regular_ runs of a given
type made little difference. I was saying that ONE single run (of any
type) would make only a small physiological difference.

Doing a 3h run every fortnight will surely have a cumulative effect,
positive or negative depending on the rest of your training time. But
you could skip ONE of those and barely loose anything.

Hence my point about your 6 hour training run. That lone run did not
have a significant, positive effect on your physical capacities. If it
weren't for the psychological effect, you could have skipped the run
altogether.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ignoramus23816 said:

In article said:

"Ignoramus22163" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I will go by feel, if on some days I feel miserable, I won't push
myself too much. It is not the army and I am doing all this for
entertainment purposes, sort of. Maybe I will build up more slowly,
but I do not see this schedule as too punishing.

Remember, the body does not show it's dissatisfaction with sudden
increases, immediately. All to often people ignore the early signs of
doing too much and chalk it up to bad days or misalignment of the
planets. Maybe you have great recovery powers but you don't have any
history either. The smarter consensus is suggesting that you take it
slower and cut the risk. Your choice but why add another variable to
likely thwart your efforts.

I hear you. Ultimately, I am the person who knows myself best. For
example, I knew that I could run a half marathon and be fine, despite
others' advises that it'd be foolish. i ran it (slowly) and was just
fine.

So, I agree with your general philosophy that it is good to ramp
things up slowly, but, on the other hand, just how slowly to do it is
a matter of degree. The reason for saying so is that I am not really
tired after those runs I did. So, the schedule that I posted is nice
in the sense that I will probably have enough personal time to stick
to it most of the time, but I may take a few weeks to ramp up to it.

Rule of thumb upper limit (read that UPPER LIMIT) is 10% per week
in either longest run and total weekly miles. This doesn't
apply so well when you're getting off 0 mpw, 0 days/week, or even
getting away from 1-2 days per week. But sometime around, it
seems, 3 days/week, it takes hold and the injury gods will be
keeping their eyes on you. Equal rule of thumb is that it is
agressive to double your base mileage in 2 months (8 weeks).

Your body, if in otherwise good condition and rested, will
give you a 'pass' for a single run or week wherein you exceed
its recovery ability. But repeat the same increases, or even
the same runs, for a few weeks, and it can give a different story.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

<< If it
weren't for the psychological effect, you could have skipped the run
altogether. >>

You sure?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

steve common wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

Quoted message said:

A _single_ training run of any kind will make such a small difference to
your organism

Quoted message said:

I disagree, and I chose to do those long runs partly on advice from this
group.

I wasn't too clear maybe. I didn't say that _regular_ runs of a given
type made little difference. I was saying that ONE single run (of any
type) would make only a small physiological difference.

Doing a 3h run every fortnight will surely have a cumulative effect,
positive or negative depending on the rest of your training time. But
you could skip ONE of those and barely loose anything.

Hence my point about your 6 hour training run. That lone run did not
have a significant, positive effect on your physical capacities. If it
weren't for the psychological effect, you could have skipped the run
altogether.

I take your point. I wasn't aiming for 6 hours, but I was enjoying it so
much I just kept going. In fact the total experience of that run in the
mountains was of a higher quality than my race. I think it fit my plan to
do a run on that weekend because I was only doing long runs every 3 weeks,
and none of my other runs were much over 90 mins. It might have hurt my
race slightly to go 6, but then again it might have helped because I felt
very strong in my race. Because my weekly mileage is low and I cross-train
a lot, I feel the long runs were key.

- Tony

(Brilliant One) said:

You sure?

Sure today, but surely not tomorrow.