Thanks, Allen1959--I am glad I still have you rooting for me. On my next run, I will think of you.
I have lots of time until the fall arrives. I may go with a Daniels plan.
Thanks, Allen1959--I am glad I still have you rooting for me. On my next run, I will think of you.
I have lots of time until the fall arrives. I may go with a Daniels plan.
asdfasdfsd wrote:
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.
Exactly! I felt the same way.
The bridge is a beast, and it is draining. There is also a rise (I think an overpass) at around 19 that is draining. In 2015, I had the wind against me the whole way there, and I was running alone.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
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?
Ignore love 2 run. He's a troll.
Outside - I think you should listen to Pumpkins. You don't need to "go the distance". For your next cycle why don't you just max out your LSD run at 3 hours? At approximately GMP + 1min that will get you a solid 23-24 miles, which should be enough. If that feels easy and you make it through your marathon cycle injury free you can bump up to 25-26 your next marathon.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
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?
I believe I know what the weakness or problem is. I have a leg length issue. It is not huge, but it is there. I have always had it.
I have researched the matter, and the only way to determine if one a has a true leg length discrepancy--rather than one hip sitting higher than the other--is to run a series of costly tests. My health care plan is not the greatest, and I do not have the money to do this.
Even so, I do not always trust these things. I have had a couple of stints of very costly PT, and I do not think they helped me much. Also, they treat everyone in a "cooke cutter" or "one size fits all" manner, giving the standard suggestion of "Do cross training instead," when cross training (i.e. biking) can even worsen some injuries, such as an IT band injury.
I try to do the best with what I have. And try to be joyful in doing so.
Who Dat? wrote:
David S. Pumpkins wrote: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?
Ignore love 2 run. He's a troll.
Outside - I think you should listen to Pumpkins. You don't need to "go the distance". For your next cycle why don't you just max out your LSD run at 3 hours? At approximately GMP + 1min that will get you a solid 23-24 miles, which should be enough. If that feels easy and you make it through your marathon cycle injury free you can bump up to 25-26 your next marathon.
This is a good suggestion, Who Dat.
Three hours on feet sounds about right. Though, I would say something more like GMP +40 secs. might be better. That would have me running about a 7:30 average...24 miles at 7:30 pace is 3:00 on the head.
outsiderunner wrote:
I have lots of time until the fall arrives. I may go with a Daniels plan.
Outsiderunner, I pretty much followed Pfitzinger's schedule (from 1999 book) when I ran sub-3 in my 40s. Pfitzinger's plans were based largely on Daniels research.
This year, I am planning a half marathon in April, and a full in October. I am basing my training on the same plan, but tweaking it. Instead of 7-day cycles, I am extending that to 9 days. That gives me an extra two days recovery between long runs (I will be 58 soon).
The other advantage, I think, is that it allows me to schedule both LT and VO2max workouts every 9 days instead of every 14 days (his plans generally scheduled them on alternate weeks). So far, the fewer recovery days between these workouts seem to be adequate. (I want to race a few 5Ks, so VO2max work is important).
I am being very careful to follow the prescribed paces, based on my current fitness ... even though it's a little disconcerting to see that 14 months ago, my 12-mile runs off two-day-week training were as fast as they are now that I am training more seriously.
Gotta believe in the program. And be patient.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
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?
God. You still don't understand. Have you even run or trained for a marathon?
outsiderunner wrote:
Who Dat? wrote:Ignore love 2 run. He's a troll.
Outside - I think you should listen to Pumpkins. You don't need to "go the distance". For your next cycle why don't you just max out your LSD run at 3 hours? At approximately GMP + 1min that will get you a solid 23-24 miles, which should be enough. If that feels easy and you make it through your marathon cycle injury free you can bump up to 25-26 your next marathon.
This is a good suggestion, Who Dat.
Three hours on feet sounds about right. Though, I would say something more like GMP +40 secs. might be better. That would have me running about a 7:30 average...24 miles at 7:30 pace is 3:00 on the head.
Yeah. Good idea Who Dat.
I also think that more people were trying to be competitive back then - long distance running became a phenomenon. I think it is less popular as a competitive sport now, even though participation numbers have grown.
And agree re: Daniels. I tried to sell him on that as well; but I think we all do what we want and justify it later. It's our nature.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
outsiderunner wrote:This is a good suggestion, Who Dat.
Three hours on feet sounds about right. Though, I would say something more like GMP +40 secs. might be better. That would have me running about a 7:30 average...24 miles at 7:30 pace is 3:00 on the head.
Yeah. Good idea Who Dat.
Agreed.
Stegosaurus wrote:
Outsiderunner, is there any reason the choice is only between NYCM and Richmond? Erie (PA), Lehigh Valley (PA), Wineglass (NY) and any Chicago fall marathons are all flatter/faster than Richmond and typically enjoy good weather.
What? Did you just suggest Lehigh Valley VIA?
Never visited LRC before hu?
NEVER RUN VIA
fck via, fck barb, fck mike
Emaciated Hobby Jogger wrote:
Yeah, Galen Rupp had a terrible race at the Olympics in 2016.
Are you kidding me? Rupp hasn't even broken 2:10.
In the 70s he would have been ridiculed.
Good run this morning (6.25 mi.). Significantly less pain. Stride felt pretty good, too. Nice weather--upper 50s when I started. Let's hope I am getting back to normal.
I have been keeping to the track, and that seems to have helped. The downhills really stress the IT band.
This morning's run put a smile on my face. All the best and happy running to everyone!
Smoove wrote:
I also think that more people were trying to be competitive back then - long distance running became a phenomenon. I think it is less popular as a competitive sport now, even though participation numbers have grown.
And agree re: Daniels. I tried to sell him on that as well; but I think we all do what we want and justify it later. It's our nature.
I don't know exactly the difference between now and earlier times. But I bet there was more self selection back then in that people running marathons were predominately high school and college runners with a fair amount of talent and mileage in their legs that trained very hard but were far fewer in number. Now there are much broader segments of the population running with significant variations in talent. Everyone from overweight 5-6 hour bucket listers to people like myself who start in their 30s and 40s who like to run and train for races to a degree but aren't willing to put in 100 mile weeks.
Smoove: I sent you an e-mail message a couple of days ago.
Who Dat? wrote:
Smoove wrote:I also think that more people were trying to be competitive back then - long distance running became a phenomenon. I think it is less popular as a competitive sport now, even though participation numbers have grown.
And agree re: Daniels. I tried to sell him on that as well; but I think we all do what we want and justify it later. It's our nature.
I don't know exactly the difference between now and earlier times. But I bet there was more self selection back then in that people running marathons were predominately high school and college runners with a fair amount of talent and mileage in their legs that trained very hard but were far fewer in number. Now there are much broader segments of the population running with significant variations in talent. Everyone from overweight 5-6 hour bucket listers to people like myself who start in their 30s and 40s who like to run and train for races to a degree but aren't willing to put in 100 mile weeks.
This is an interesting subject. David S.P. mentions the number of Boston finishers going under 2:25, last year vs. 1971, but love 2 run was specifically addressing the apparent weakness in Ameican performers (and training), then vs. now. David is right that more guys finish under 2:25 these days, but how many are American? In the race he mentiones, 2016 Boston, only three Americans were in the top 15. No matter how hard I tried, I could not get the stupid BAA results thingy to give me a list of the top 50 or 100 overall finishers, and so I could not verify how many Americans broke 2:25 last year.
This is a tough issue, as it always is when comparing "then" and "now," but there does seem to be something amiss. After Shorter, Ryun, Rodgers, and Salazar, 2:25 seemed like chump change for an American. Who has emerged since then--at least against international competition? I have some faith in Rupp, as he is cleraly talented. God bless him. True, he has yet to break 2:10, but his two marathons were in challenging conditions. That will always affect one's time.
Your messages were apparently diverted to my junk folder. I was able to retrieve and reply to the most recent one.
Smoove wrote:
Your messages were apparently diverted to my junk folder. I was able to retrieve and reply to the most recent one.
Thank you very much for the message, Smoove...I just replied.
outsiderunner wrote:
Who Dat? wrote:I don't know exactly the difference between now and earlier times. But I bet there was more self selection back then in that people running marathons were predominately high school and college runners with a fair amount of talent and mileage in their legs that trained very hard but were far fewer in number. Now there are much broader segments of the population running with significant variations in talent. Everyone from overweight 5-6 hour bucket listers to people like myself who start in their 30s and 40s who like to run and train for races to a degree but aren't willing to put in 100 mile weeks.
This is an interesting subject. David S.P. mentions the number of Boston finishers going under 2:25, last year vs. 1971, but love 2 run was specifically addressing the apparent weakness in Ameican performers (and training), then vs. now. David is right that more guys finish under 2:25 these days, but how many are American? In the race he mentiones, 2016 Boston, only three Americans were in the top 15. No matter how hard I tried, I could not get the stupid BAA results thingy to give me a list of the top 50 or 100 overall finishers, and so I could not verify how many Americans broke 2:25 last year.
This is a tough issue, as it always is when comparing "then" and "now," but there does seem to be something amiss. After Shorter, Ryun, Rodgers, and Salazar, 2:25 seemed like chump change for an American. Who has emerged since then--at least against international competition? I have some faith in Rupp, as he is cleraly talented. God bless him. True, he has yet to break 2:10, but his two marathons were in challenging conditions. That will always affect one's time.
Rodgers, Beardsley, Salazar. etc were running 2:08-2:09 at Boston nearly 40 years ago with a noon start. It took a race with gale force tailwinds for an American to go under those times. Don't tell me today's US marathoners are training right. Get out of the pool, alter-g and run more like we did.
Sir runsalot wrote:
outsiderunner wrote:This is an interesting subject. David S.P. mentions the number of Boston finishers going under 2:25, last year vs. 1971, but love 2 run was specifically addressing the apparent weakness in Ameican performers (and training), then vs. now. David is right that more guys finish under 2:25 these days, but how many are American? In the race he mentiones, 2016 Boston, only three Americans were in the top 15. No matter how hard I tried, I could not get the stupid BAA results thingy to give me a list of the top 50 or 100 overall finishers, and so I could not verify how many Americans broke 2:25 last year.
This is a tough issue, as it always is when comparing "then" and "now," but there does seem to be something amiss. After Shorter, Ryun, Rodgers, and Salazar, 2:25 seemed like chump change for an American. Who has emerged since then--at least against international competition? I have some faith in Rupp, as he is cleraly talented. God bless him. True, he has yet to break 2:10, but his two marathons were in challenging conditions. That will always affect one's time.
Rodgers, Beardsley, Salazar. etc were running 2:08-2:09 at Boston nearly 40 years ago with a noon start. It took a race with gale force tailwinds for an American to go under those times. Don't tell me today's US marathoners are training right. Get out of the pool, alter-g and run more like we did.
I know. I hear you.