Disappointed at NYC Marathon--Should I go back-to-back?

yes_indeed wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

That was dumb.

Rather than call people names, I like to run. That is what this forum is supposed to be about, running.[/quote]

I didn't say you were dumb, I said what you did was dumb. Smart people do dumb things all the time.[/quote]

Fair enough. I chose to run that day, and am glad I did. It was a good run.

What say you?

I just haven't heard a race result where you didn't also think your fitness was better than the result. At some point you have to accept that your fitness is reflected in the results. If you don't have a race result that shows better fitness after July 4, then it's impossible to say that you achieved better fitness after July 4. It's really as simple as that. Once you are able to accept that, maybe you will start to look at ways to train smarter. There's some really novice stuff you're missing and you've been getting by on talent. I know this, because you've said foolish stuff like this:

No, not "some runners do this". Most, if not all, smart runners do this. All competitive runners do this, and science backs this approach. As long as you keep making excuses about why your race results aren't quite as fast as you think they should be because you're "training runs are so fast", you can start actually critically thinking about how you can get measurably faster instead of just handwavey faster or "i put in the work so i must be" faster.

For reference: I have run an 18:00 5k, but only a 3:25 marathon (only marathon). That was on 3 day a week training in college...not a smart or optimized approach, but I don't look at the VDOT table and claim to be or say that I "should be" a 2:53 marathoner. I don't tell people "I'm a 3:25 marathoner, but I think I'm faster now" or "but it wasn't ideal training." I don't qualify my time by saying it was a hilly course (Cincinnati) on a rainy day. I just say I've run a marathon, if they ask the time, I say 3:25. It's simple...straightforward...that's the beauty of racing.

I'll say three things here:

1. You asked my opinion. I recommend you run the series your friend mentioned, enjoying a chance to run races easily every week or two without risking injury. Get in some 5ks, 10ks, 10 milers even. Have fun racing. Slow down your longer runs. Then stick to your plan and run a spring half and a fall marathon in 2017. But for goodness' sake pay attention to the advice you're getting here or you will remain forever disappointed and convinced you've underperformed.

2. The tendency among runners to qualify their PRs based on course, weather, erratic pace, etc is one of my Letsrun pet peeves. People do it with elite performances here, too. "That 3:51 he ran was clearly worth a sub 3:50 if he had run a quicker first lap." No, that 3:51 is worth a 3:51. While I think you could have run under 3:00 in NYC if you had trained more sensibly in the weeks running up to it, you didn't. I know you haven't called yourself a 2:55 runner or anything like that, but be wary of a tendency to clarify what you've run---I ran 18:40 but on a hot day on a hilly course. Well, okay, but sometimes people run faster rolling through the hills. And maybe you were fitter in mid-September, but your 5k PR remains what you ran in July. Until you run faster.

3. If you read around on these boards, you'll see that the criticism and nastiness you've received is very, very tame compared to some of the abuse hurled around here. I'm not saying that makes it okay. I'm just saying that I don't think you have much cause for complaint. I don't think you're dumb. I do think running with a 121 heat index is dumb.

3:25 wrote:

That was on 3 day a week training in college...not a smart or optimized approach...

It's difficult NOT to put race performances in context, especially when they're relatively weak compared to our other results. YOU just did it! We all do it.

That said, I understand your point, and certainly don't disagree. Just cutting "outsiderunner" a little slack here.

Allen1959 wrote:

... especially when they're relatively weak compared to our other results.

Although we don't really have actual stronger comparative race performances yet from outsiderunner ... I am hoping he digests some of the training science that's been suggested. Maybe target some shorter races. I've been rooting for him, and admire his tenacity.

Er... well said. I think you should have the last word. End of thread!

Of course my 5k PR is what it is...never said anything to the contrary. It was someone else who brought up the 19:12, and I chimed in just to clarify things, hoping this thread might take a more sensible direction, as 5k/10k-to-marathon extrapolations make for an interesting subject. Of course, comments are taken different ways by different people, and people want to "read into" statements what they think they see in them.

In regard to having cause for complaint, I ask you: what if you were called a liar--and called a liar multiple times? What would you do? The grass is always greener when you're sitting back making judgments or standing by watching the fray, out of harm's way. You're a runner, right? Why not try running in someone else's shoes.

Allen1959 wrote:

Allen1959 wrote:

... especially when they're relatively weak compared to our other results.

Although we don't really have actual stronger comparative race performances yet from outsiderunner ... I am hoping he digests some of the training science that's been suggested. Maybe target some shorter races. I've been rooting for him, and admire his tenacity.

Do we have any other times for half-marathon or 10K (in addition to his four 18M to 23M training run/races in four consecutive weeks) that we can use to further explore his ultimate marathon potential?

Why do the marathon times of outside runner get slower with each marathon that he runs?

Please explain this conundrum.

Thank you for your attention in this urgent matter.

Allen1959 wrote:

3:25 wrote:

That was on 3 day a week training in college...not a smart or optimized approach...

It's difficult NOT to put race performances in context, especially when they're relatively weak compared to our other results. YOU just did it! We all do it.

That said, I understand your point, and certainly don't disagree. Just cutting "outsiderunner" a little slack here.

I was using that as an example of how you can do it with any race, my point is that I don't use those reason or make those statements when someone asks my time. I just did it to prove a point, not a point of habit.

You see, Er, you see what I am talking about? I am still being called a liar, as it is implicit in this statement...

not sure??? (registered) wrote:

Allen1959 wrote:

Although we don't really have actual stronger comparative race performances yet from outsiderunner ... I am hoping he digests some of the training science that's been suggested. Maybe target some shorter races. I've been rooting for him, and admire his tenacity.

Do we have any other times for half-marathon or 10K (in addition to his four 18M to 23M training run/races in four consecutive weeks) that we can use to further explore his ultimate marathon potential?

Why do the marathon times of outside runner get slower with each marathon that he runs?

Please explain this conundrum.

Thank you for your attention in this urgent matter.

Sure, one can say "3:07" all day, but it cannot be said for 26.2. For something like 26.8 or 27.0 perhaps, but not 26.2. I have already stated what happened in that race, in more than sufficient detail. I have offered these comments openly, and as another poster has said, I have been the "most transparent poster in this thread." I owe nothing to anyone here, yet have shared all I could, and everything that was requested of me. When that is not good enough, I do not know what is.

I still have no idea how you got off course. You knew it was about 2 miles from the trail back to the school. Why turn off at mile 21....more than 4 miles from the finish?

Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:

I still have no idea how you got off course. You knew it was about 2 miles from the trail back to the school. Why turn off at mile 21....more than 4 miles from the finish?

I have already explained why, but I will explain it again. At the road crossing, I saw a police car partially blocking the trail and a policeman there. I had no runner that I could spot in front of me (there was a gap and thus no visible runner ahead of me). It appeared as if I were being directed to turn right (policeman, police car), and I even thought that the reason, perhaps, that I could see no runner in front of me was because he had already turned right. As I have indicated, it was an odd confluence of situational cues.

I also would like to point out that I have been in races that were not exactly as "advertised," wherein the course was not exactly as it had been documented in the on-line race map.

You sure are sensitive for a guy on an anonymous message board known for being cruel. I said you were good and all you heard was the part about excuses.

Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:

I still have no idea how you got off course. You knew it was about 2 miles from the trail back to the school. Why turn off at mile 21....more than 4 miles from the finish?

I think he had hypoglycemia from severe glycogen depletion which led to poor executive function decision making skills and caused him to go in the wrong direction in his marathon race.

His marathon race times are also going in the wrong direction.

This is a consistent pattern with outside runner.

Do you think it is just a coincidence?

3:25 wrote:

You sure are sensitive for a guy on an anonymous message board known for being cruel. I said you were good and all you heard was the part about excuses.

Okay...but "elite excuse maker" is pretty biting. It is a shot not just at one's running, but at one's person. You are right, though, this is a rough board. So, how aboout we do something different--let there be peace between us, fellow runner.

All the best...

Did the police officer turn off your GPS watch as well?

No, but perhaps someone has turned off your brain, as GPS watches never lose signal, right?

https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216917707-Bad-GPS-Data-What-Why-How

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/health/nutrition/gps-watches-may-not-track-runs-accurately.html?pagewanted=all

Hey outsiderunner -- Did you register for Chicago?