Relating Training Distance to Race Distance?

Don Kirkman said:

Many years ago there were a few threads about estimating a person's
reasonable race distance in terms of his longest training runs and/or
weekly mileage. Does anybody remember that topic or know of a site
that has it available?

I'm not aware of the precise conversations you recall.

But in general the topic arises regularly in forums and books and
wherever people blab about training and racing. And there's a pretty
wide range of opinions and experiences, not much of a solid consensus.

Even if you clarify "reasonable" race distance and specify the
runner's goals (finish? maximize performance ten weeks from now?
maximize performance four years from now?) and prior experience
(absolute beginner? been running 85 MPW for years?) I think you'll
still find quite a divergence.

Someone recently mentioned the old "collapse point" theory which spoke
of racing three times the average daily run length (i.e. weekly
mileage * 3 / 7). Lydiard would have a miler like Peter Snell running
at least 100 MPW with hilly long runs of better than twenty miles. I
think Higdon surveyed coaches and found that a good percentage of them
agreed most runners need about 55-65 miles per week to run a "pretty
good" but not best possible marathon. Japanese marathoners famously
run really big miles, like over 150 per week, at slow pace. Glover
specifies various ranges for people running at a variety of levels -
and apparently you can further customize his recommendations by
choosing an earlier (more miles) or later edition. The eminently
quotable Don Kardong noted that "runners like to train 100 miles per
week because it's a round number. But I think 88 is a lot rounder."

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race - at least if you
hope to race faster than your everyday training pace. For a marathon
and up, the long run should be shorter (in distance; a fairly common
recommendation is for a few runs of around 22 miles at about the goal
finish time).

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Charlie Pendejo wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman said:

Many years ago there were a few threads about estimating a person's
reasonable race distance in terms of his longest training runs and/or
weekly mileage. Does anybody remember that topic or know of a site
that has it available?

Quoted message said:

I'm not aware of the precise conversations you recall.

I *said* it was many years ago. :-)

Quoted message said:

But in general the topic arises regularly in forums and books and
wherever people blab about training and racing. And there's a pretty
wide range of opinions and experiences, not much of a solid consensus.

[. . .]

Quoted message said:

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race - at least if you
hope to race faster than your everyday training pace. For a marathon
and up, the long run should be shorter (in distance; a fairly common
recommendation is for a few runs of around 22 miles at about the goal
finish time).

I actually ran a 27-mile/walk before my first marathon, but none after
that. For the next 26 is was more like three or four 18/20/22 mile long
runs, whatever I could manage between weather, health, family
obligations and all the other ills that flesh is heir to.

But I really was trying to recall or get some clues for rule-of-thumb
figures suitable for beginners or low mileage folks like me, and
"reasonable race distance" was intended to imply some help for a newer
runner to decide if entering a 10k might be a little much based on his
current training or if it would be better to dial back to a 5k. The
nearest I can recall was that it might have been half of the weekly
mileage or three times (twice?) the long run.

I brought it up because I thought that might provide a useful guideline
for some of the newer runners who are (overly) eager to try some races.
And by "races" I mean aiming for mid-pack at best.
--
Don Kirkman

Don said:

I thought that might provide a useful guideline for some of
the newer runners who are (overly) eager to try some races.

Right.

For beginners looking to have some fun and be confident of finishing,
my instinct is that the length of their longer runs is the most
relevant factor. Curious if you and others agree or disagree - I
certainly can't claim extra special insights or experience here.

Basic principle is that the excitement of a race will give you "a
little extra". Meaning that if you've been able to run that distance
in training, you can probably race it a bit faster. Or if you're able
to run about 3/4 of the distance in training, you'll likely be able to
complete it in a race. Assuming you're healthy and it's not some
injury limiting you to 75% of the distance or a particular speed.

Charlie Pendejo said:

Don said:

I thought that might provide a useful guideline for some of
the newer runners who are (overly) eager to try some races.

Right.

For beginners looking to have some fun and be confident of finishing,
my instinct is that the length of their longer runs is the most
relevant factor. Curious if you and others agree or disagree - I
certainly can't claim extra special insights or experience here.

From the perspective of a beginner looking to have some fun, be
confident of finishing, and at least be able to walk the next day, I go
with the long run being the key element.😉 There's almost always the
element of surprise by weather or some unknown trail feature that still
leaves a bit of challenge even to just finish, even on a course you've
done before.😉

I think I've heard adding 50% or 30% (can't remember) to your long run
is a survivable "race". That 3x your avg run that you mentioned in your
first post I just saw somewhere recently (some board), but had never
seen that before.

I've also seen various "suggestions" that long run shouldn't be more
than 20% of weekly mileage while many who do long runs every 2-3 weeks
may have them as 50% of that week's mileage or 30% of 2-wks mileage -
essentially working on a 14-day microcycle (or 12 day like I did last
year). 7 days isn't particularly magic in training concepts, but it is
convenient for many people.

I think a lot also depends on how "comfortable" the long runs were. Like
if the person is barely surviving them, they're not going to have the
confidence, and may be undertrained for the distance, even just "doing"
it. It may also depend on how long they've been at that level. Like my
long run right now isn't much longer than my longest last year, but I've
done them a couple times now, have a little larger base, and recovery is
a little faster. No, I doubt that I could do Lost Lake any faster this
year, but I could probably go out and "do" the course right now (if
people weren't still skiing there).

Just to play with numbers, say a person was training for a 15-mi race on
6 days/wk of 5 mi = 30mpw, long run of 5 mi. Say someone else did 15 mi,
3, 3, 3 for 24 mpw in long week and may 4x4 = 16 mi in non-long week.
I'm thinking the 15-mi long-run runner would have the greatest
likelihood of finishing with least struggle. But a lot depends on what
is actually being done in the other training runs.

The 3xavg length run rule would work out for the 1st runner, but the 30%
or 50% more than long run wouldn't. Reverse situation for the 2nd
runner. (My training last year was closer to runner 2 than 1, and that
was probably one of my most fun races.)

Quoted message said:

Basic principle is that the excitement of a race will give you "a
little extra". Meaning that if you've been able to run that distance
in training, you can probably race it a bit faster. Or if you're able
to run about 3/4 of the distance in training, you'll likely be able to
complete it in a race. Assuming you're healthy and it's not some
injury limiting you to 75% of the distance or a particular speed.

Agree.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

PS: Keep in mind I'm not too proud to hike if needed.😉

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

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

From the perspective of a beginner

You can't do this anymore Dot ;-)

Quoted message said:

I think I've heard adding 50% or 30% (can't remember) to your long run
is a survivable "race"

I have the 30% in mind from somewhere, can't remember where it came from
tho' (Galloway? Some French running mag?)

steve common said:

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

From the perspective of a beginner

You can't do this anymore Dot ;-)

Oh, yes, I can. 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think I've heard adding 50% or 30% (can't remember) to your long run
is a survivable "race"

I have the 30% in mind from somewhere, can't remember where it came from
tho' (Galloway? Some French running mag?)

Personally, I think these numbers are pulled out of the blue, massaged,
rounded, and if somebody like Lydiard or Pfitz or Daniels even
hypothesizes them, they become like carved in rock.😉 Even if they're
valid for center of curve, what about folks in the tails.

Dot
waiting for a file transfer to finish

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think I've heard adding 50% or 30% (can't remember) to your
long run is a survivable "race"

[...]

Personally, I think these numbers are pulled out of the blue, massaged,
rounded, and if somebody like Lydiard or Pfitz or Daniels even
hypothesizes them, they become like carved in rock.😉 Even if they're
valid for center of curve, what about folks in the tails.

For a case like this, I figure 30% and 50% are the same number. The
more appropriate, less misleading formulation of this number - the one
with the proper number of significant digits - is "a bit".

You don't even have to look at "folks in the tails" (hmmm, you've got
me thinking of Latvian ladies again). Differences from one day to the
next in what you eat, how much sleep, exercise vs. rest, biorhythms,
horoscopes, I Ching hexagrams, moods, weather, zeitgeist, the spirit
of the radio, and sheer luck add up to the difference between going
130% and 150% with change to spare. And that's before we even
consider that you might add a few (more) walk breaks and/or slow the
pace and/or endure slightly more discomfort to go further.

I'm thinking the folks more than a couple greek letters away from the
mean - at least the ones in the "good" direction - can run sub-4
marathons on practically no training. At least the young'uns.

Quoted message said:

waiting for a file transfer to finish

I was wondering if you were still up, up already, or sleep-posting at
whatever hour it must be in your time zone. :-)

Which is how many hours behind GMT?

Charlie Pendejo wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race

<snip>

Yahhheee I run 800-1500 m!!!! ;-)

martin

clean-shaven martin said:

Pendejo said:

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race

Yahhheee I run 800-1500 m!!!! ;-)

And your long run is *at least* a mile, right?

Charlie Pendejo said:

clean-shaven martin wrote:

HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pendejo said:

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race

Yahhheee I run 800-1500 m!!!! ;-)

And your long run is *at least* a mile, right?

I can manage a mile (and 2 if I have to) :-)

(Actually it is ~15 miles)

martin

Don Kirkman said:

But I really was trying to recall or get some clues for rule-of-thumb
figures suitable for beginners or low mileage folks like me, and
"reasonable race distance" was intended to imply some help for a newer
runner to decide if entering a 10k might be a little much based on his
current training or if it would be better to dial back to a 5k. The

Better to dial back to the easier 10k distance, until you're fast enough to
handle the speed and intensity of the shorter distances.

Once you're comfortable with 5k road races, it's time to lace up some spikes
and step up to the mile.

When you get old and burned out, ramp it down and start doing marathons.

Then, when the decline into decrepitness takes over, retire to the trails.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Charlie Pendejo said:

clean-shaven martin said:

Pendejo said:

About the only thing most people seem to agree on is that, for most
races, your long run should be longer than the race

Yahhheee I run 800-1500 m!!!! ;-)

And your long run is *at least* a mile, right?

Late in his career, El G was able to finish the olympic 5k, after several years
of only finishing mile races, thanks to several years of gradually building his
long run up to a distance of 2 miles.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

In article <[email hidden]>,

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Charlie Pendejo wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman wrote:

[trim]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But in general the topic arises regularly in forums and books and
wherever people blab about training and racing. And there's a pretty
wide range of opinions and experiences, not much of a solid consensus.

Precisely.

Still ...

[trimmage]

Quoted message said:

But I really was trying to recall or get some clues for rule-of-thumb
figures suitable for beginners or low mileage folks like me, and
"reasonable race distance" was intended to imply some help for a newer
runner to decide if entering a 10k might be a little much based on his
current training or if it would be better to dial back to a 5k. The
nearest I can recall was that it might have been half of the weekly
mileage or three times (twice?) the long run.

I brought it up because I thought that might provide a useful guideline
for some of the newer runners who are (overly) eager to try some races.
And by "races" I mean aiming for mid-pack at best.

Let's make it 'race' meaning 'go and enjoy the fanfare', as opposed
to time or placement.

For that, for races between 5k and 10 miles, inclusive, a common
rule of thumb is that you can complete race about 50% longer than your
longest run. Having done 10 miles on this basis, I'll affirm that
it is a matter of _doing_ 10 miles, not racing them. If you start
thinking about times, you're aiming for DNF or injury, or both.

A more conservative estimate is for your long run to be the same
duration as the race (races up to, say, 2.5 hours -- before fat
metabolism become a major factor). Since you 'should' be doing your
training runs at 70-80% of race pace, then about that fraction of
race distance as well. This is still pretty much a zone of completion
rather than racing.

For weekly mileage, there's even less guidance/ruling of thumbs.
One thumb-rule is that second longest workout should be around
2/3rds the longest (Pfitzinger and Douglas are fond of this).
So, for our 10 mile finisher, long run is 7.5 miles, second longest
is 5, and two more half hour runs which I'll declare to be 3 miles
each, and you're at 18.5 miles for the week as a low figure
for doing a 10 miler. This accords with some low mileage survivors
of 10 mile races I know. There might be a rule of thumb that
says 1/2 weekly mileage as max race distance, and if there isn't, we
can declare it to be one now.

Better than 'how little can I get by with' is to take some
distance, like 5k, and work on improving it for a while (year or
two). The route to improvement will include putting in more miles,
lengthening your longest run, etc. After working that year or
two on running a really good 5k (really good still being personally
defined), start over with 10k (good training for a 5k should have
you easily finishing a 10k).

--
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

Don Kirkman wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

dial back to a 5k.  The
nearest I can recall was that it might have been half of the weekly
mileage

<snip>

Yep but nothing's for free!!!! If you do less miles to run fast on shorter
distances you have to run that much faster!!!!!! Result you will be as
tired as doing long runs and some times it will take as long time /w. pause
between intervals. I can do a 2 mile up 3-5*800m 2 mile down and it will
take 1½ hour (incl strides, stretching etc to get ready to run fast!).
Could have done a 12-13 miles run (have taken the same time to finish and I
would have been much fresher). Miles isn't enough to concentrate on...
Quality is the keyword (even to marathons)

martin

Donovan said:

Late in his career, El G was able to finish the olympic 5k, after several years
of only finishing mile races, thanks to several years of gradually building his
long run up to a distance of 2 miles.

Heh.

And of course a legitimate contender for "best runner in the world"
has a lot at stake, so he was wise to build conservatively, turning
his back on that aggressive ten percent rule.

Seriously, the Moroccan system is built around just an unfathomable
amount of fast running, no? Lower volume but more quick stuff than
just about anyone? I wonder how long they do run.

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm thinking the folks more than a couple greek letters away from the
mean - at least the ones in the "good" direction - can run sub-4
marathons on practically no training. At least the young'uns.

Yeah, my cousin did 3:45 at LA a few years back on ~20 mpw for a few weeks.
However, as you know, he had a couple of extra Greek letters working for him
;-)

So the formula becomes: Daily mileage times 8.5, ok with you?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Then, when the decline into decrepitness takes over, retire to the trails.

Hey, I did most of my running hilly trails back in the day when could break
2:40.

And in my current decripitude, I have rediscovered the joy of road racing,
after swearing off them for many years.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Many years ago there were a few threads about estimating a person's
reasonable race distance in terms of his longest training runs and/or
weekly mileage.

If you run L miles as your long run, *and* your weekly mileage is 3 to 4
times L, you can race twice that distance --- at your long run pace. Ultra
runners do this and worse all the time. I've run good 50 mile races on long
runs of 20-25 miles, for example.

Similarly, with the same weekly base of 3 to 4 times L, you can also race L
miles, at a 10-15% faster pace than your long run.

So there.

-- Dan

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com