Easy Peasy wrote:
You're obviously trolling. You didn't barely run 2 hour long runs, break 2:30, and not make a team. I guess you would have been a 2:15 runner if you actually trained properly for the marathon huh?
No 5K runner is going to even remotely reach their potential by running 6-7 mile long runs. 2 hour long runs are a staple for everything from the 5K to HM for full potential, but a bare minimum of 90 minutes is certainly the case for a 5K.
Go easy like your name suggests...did you actually 'read' what I said.
Yep...I like to troll, because I only have 40 yrs marathon running experience ;-)
I was a hack at school, just average, never made the school aths team, even though I tried, there were athletic studs way better...so that is an indication of natural talent.
10yrs later I broke 2:30 for the marathon. My max weekly mileage was 120, but mostly 100- 110, because I am not bio-mechanically perfect to 'just do more mileage'.
My max long runs were around 32 to 34...work it out, that is barely over 2hrs at the pace I was training.
The OP may not 'reach his potential' but his question is not that. Read it again
he has already run 18:12 off 40km/wk with some cycling etc, so no structure at all and he just wants to run 18:00 with better structure, now that he is doing more and not running as fast as before, we have people telling him " hey that is mile type training' ...do this progression or that" or "hey, you are running too little , do more mileage'".
It seems on LRC the answer to everything is "do more mileage", or "Do Daniels/Pfitzinger/MacMillan etc"
We are not talking about rocket science here...the main factors making you run faster and further are more 'consistent' training and being more efficient. Everything on top of that is icing.
If 'more mileage/speed etc' gives you less consistency due to injuries/fatigue...don't do it, adapt your training, we are not equal and there are many ways to skin the same cat.