Richmond Marathon or NYC Marathon?

Thanks very much, Who Dat! Your post gave me a boost.

And thanks to Er., David S.P., Richland, love 2 run, and all others here, as I believe that all of you are offering honest comments and looking out for my best interests.

Er.: I am glad you did not suggest having me slog it out at 9:30. Were I to do so, I might get so bored that I would quit running. As Who Dat and others have discerned, running for me has a lot to do with inspiration and feeling. If I feel well enough to get my legs going, I go out and run. I just love it. It is a wonderful feeling of freedom. It is a whole-body movement that is incomparable. No other form of exercise can touch it. In my view, it also offers the greatest challenge, too. Just yesterday, I was explaining this to my massage therapist.

With regard to inspiration, I am very happy to hear that I have inspired someone. That is what this sport is all about, even for walkers. I was inspired by a walker (a friend) who lost her husband to cancer. I was in my early 40s, and thought: "What she is doing is great; I should do likewise." So, I started running seriously, and have been enjoying it ever since, even through the setbacks.

In terms of a training plan, I created one based upon Hudson's philosophy. I really like his structured yet go-by-feel method. It seems very "organic."

Feeling pretty good today, but I will rest. Hope to be back out where I belong (roads, track, or trails) on Wednesday.

Thanks for the clarification, gramps. How regularly did your sub-2:25 guys run 22 miles @ 5:30/mile? Was that recommended training back in the day?

love 2 run wrote:

Not quite, son. In my training group, we had a total of 5 guys who had been under 225. So I know how we trained. We ran a lot more than the kids do today and yes we ran our runs faster. We didn't have many easy or rest days like today. Every run had a purpose and that was to get better. Running easy or not running was not they way we got better.

I ran the Richmond half back in November. The course was beautiful, I had a foot injury in September-October so I didn't run my best but the beautiful view made it much more enjoyable. It's also a very organized event, and you're almost guaranteed ideal weather. I haven't ran NYC marathon so I don't really have an opinion on it yet, I do know it's a very tough course though.

I ran the Richmond half back in November. The course was beautiful, I had a foot injury in September-October so I didn't run my best but the beautiful view made it much more enjoyable. It's also a very organized event, and you're almost guaranteed ideal weather. I haven't ran NYC marathon so I don't really have an opinion on it yet, I do know it's a very tough course though.

I ran the Richmond half back in November. The course was beautiful, I had a foot injury in September-October so I didn't run my best but the beautiful view made it much more enjoyable. It's also a very organized event, and you're almost guaranteed ideal weather. I haven't ran NYC marathon so I don't really have an opinion on it yet, I do know it's a very tough course though.

I'm reading Hudson's book now. There are training plans in there to follow. I didn't see any 22 mile runs at goal pace.

outsiderunner wrote:

In terms of a training plan, I created one based upon Hudson's philosophy. I really like his structured yet go-by-feel method. It seems very "organic."

I'm just being honest here...it sounds to me like you found a name for the workouts you were already doing and believed in and were getting you nowhere. You aren't actually following the advice you've gotten here.

OK, David...I get it. I tend not to appreciate your sarcasm, but that is the way you are, and I have grown to accept it, and even to like you.

And so, in regard to the 22-miler at marathon pace, my aim for this year's marathon cycle is to take Angryjohnny's advice and to do a peak run of 26 (not 23), but do it slower. It think that getting through the whole distance, even at a slower pace, is useful, both physically and mentally.

outsiderunner wrote:

OK, David...I get it. I tend not to appreciate your sarcasm, but that is the way you are, and I have grown to accept it, and even to like you.

I know. You're a very genuine person and I am really not. I use sarcasm to get my points across. However, I like you because you just keep proving me right over and over again. Keep it up. :)

Outside - why don't you just follow the long run progression in the Hudson plan you're following?

Who Dat? wrote:

Outside - why don't you just follow the long run progression in the Hudson plan you're following?

I agree: Hudson's plan looks good. I looked over Level 3, and his plan tops out with a 24-miler. I would like that to be a 26-miler. I think Angryjohnny is right--I need to "go the distance."

I also note that much of Hudson's philosophy is included in what I have already done. For instance, he has lots of progressions runs, and long runs wherein he has things like "the last 15 minutes hard." That is how I tend to run naturally. It is also fun, too.

outsiderunner wrote:

Who Dat? wrote:

Outside - why don't you just follow the long run progression in the Hudson plan you're following?

I agree: Hudson's plan looks good. I looked over Level 3, and his plan tops out with a 24-miler. I would like that to be a 26-miler. I think Angryjohnny is right--I need to "go the distance."

Why do you think you need to "go the distance" when thousands of people have run sub-3 without running the distance in training? I would argue that maybe there's some sort of benefit to spending an equivalent amount of time on your feet (ie...3 hour run), but since you're running slower you don't quite have to run a full 26 to get to that point. 3 hours @ 8 minutes is 22.5. @ 7.5 minutes is 24. Gee...I wonder why his progression tops out with a 24 miler...

For reference 26 miles is probably at least 3:15 to 3:30 hours on your feet if you're not at MP. At that point, what is the benefit vs risk ratio? How will a 3.5 hour run at one time affect your runs on the days prior to that run? Or on the days after that run? Is there more benefit in that one 3.5 hour run, or consistency over several days?

Also, his while Level 3 plan looks good, it is a seven-day-per-week plan. I like having at least one day off per week. I can do periods of every day running, but I would rather not. I think my running becomes boring, tedious, and "routine" when I do too many seven-day weeks. I love training hard, but I always want to be looking forward to a run, and not viewing it as a daily chore. I must have love and joy in my running.

This is what I'm talking about. These days there is just too much emphasis on not overdoing it. The body gets stronger by being taxed. Runners these days are told not to run too far or run too fast. It is no wonder that there are no good marathoners these days. In the 70s if you ran the low 2:20s you were an also ran. Now, you are a hero.This has to do with runners today not pushing their limits. You push your limits and you will go far.

Yeah, Galen Rupp had a terrible race at the Olympics in 2016.

love 2 run wrote:

This is what I'm talking about. These days there is just too much emphasis on not overdoing it. The body gets stronger by being taxed. Runners these days are told not to run too far or run too fast. It is no wonder that there are no good marathoners these days. In the 70s if you ran the low 2:20s you were an also ran. Now, you are a hero.This has to do with runners today not pushing their limits. You push your limits and you will go far.

So you're point is that in the 70s were out there doing 3.5 hour runs and there was a benefit to that that "kids these days" just don't understand?

And you're giving this advice to a guy who is clearly suffering from an overuse/weakness injury that will scientifically NOT go away just by running through it? I'm all for people pushing themselves...for running as many miles as their body can handle, but it's also something you have to build slowly over time if you want it to be sustainable. The fact that he is injured and has been injured previously in 2 winters out of only running for like 3-4 years shows what he's doing isn't sustainable. The fact that he hasn't shown any improvement over the last 2-3 years while still being young in running years and is getting injured shows what he's doing isn't right. Out of the 5 you mentioned, how many are still running and how many burnt out?

It's not that 4 hour marathoners these days have 2:25 potential but are soft. It's that 45 years ago guys that could run 4:00 marathons didn't want to run marathons. Guys with 2:25 potential are still running 2:25.

The Boston marathon had 17 finishers run sub 2:25 last year. The 1971 Boston Marathon had 8 sub 2:25 finishers. What's this about depth of talent?

love 2 run wrote:

These days there is just too much emphasis on not overdoing it. The body gets stronger by being taxed. Runners these days are told not to run too far or run too fast. It is no wonder that there are no good marathoners these days. In the 70s if you ran the low 2:20s you were an also ran. Now, you are a hero.This has to do with runners today not pushing their limits.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but back in the 70s we were young. Outsiderunner is 47 or 48 years old. He hasn't been pounding the pavement for decades like some on us older guys, but there's still a big difference between 27 and 47, in terms of resilience and recovery.

Outsiderunner: I'm still rooting for you. Kinda wish you'd chosen the Daniels plan, though (and followed it). But if you're still enjoying the process, and looking forward to the races, more power to you!

Richmond is generally fast but the bridge around mile 15-16 is a total beast. If the wind is blowing against you, which it usually is, it can be really draining and slow you down considerably. But after that it's pretty flat to the finish. I find the steep downhill finish is annoying, but some people like it.