2:35 female trying to run 2:30

Sciatica Road wrote:

The fact you are considering relocating indicates how much emphasis you are placing on it, so we are led to believe you are at an age where progression is very possible. Possibly you could give the Mammoth Lakes folks a stint to see if it is a fit.

By this, I meant possibly a short-time relocation; you may not even like altitude after trying it, and I have no idea how the Kastor's elite program works. They do have a club program for the general public:

Sciatica Road wrote:

Edit: It is possible to *still* get some of the benefit from the latter *while training at sea level*; for example, Gemma *Steel* is known to use an altitude tent and chamber.

HANSONS.

WOW! Good for you!

If you ever would like to chat, let me know.

You were the first American woman to break 2:30, right? Didn't you run incredible training mileage in doing so?

Patti C. ran a 1:14:03 Half at the age of 26, then went 2:30:57 one year later in September 1980.

But that is not the whole story...since she went 2:29:33 in New York later that fall.

...followed up with a sub 2:36 in Honolulu win in December '80, correct?

Sorta...

Thank you for remembering.

I thought I could perhaps offer a little insight to help her achieve her goal.

RWD: I read you got up to 150 miles a week in the past?PD: Oh yes, about 175 miles a couple of times. It is easy once you are fit and healthy. I was talking to Danny [her spouse, a 2-time All-American in cross country] last week. We were running all these trails and just having a great time. We were talking about mileage. I said you really can't count the mileage. You cannot run for the mileage. See how easy it is to do? It is a moderate pace, not slow-slow. It is a pace you can do, not real easy, but not too hard-tempo running. It is something you can sustain and remain in a comfort zone and not feel sluggish. You have a nice cadence going, rhythmic breathing, the pumping, and you just feel exhilarated. And you just run. You stop when you lose it... See how easy it is to accumulate the miles! You get fitter as you go along. Your attitude changes... "I can run all day!" Well, you can't because you are not an ultra-marathoner, you are a marathon runner. [Laughs] It is pretty easy when you are fit. 175 miles at a time, they are not a lot of 6:00 pace miles. A lot of them are 8:00 pace. It's just great, it's exhilarating!http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/chat-patti-catalano-dillon

patti wrote:

Sorta...

Thank you for remembering.

I thought I could perhaps offer a little insight to help her achieve her goal.

I'm probably not alone in hearing what you have to say, lol!

LOL!!! Ohmygoodnessgracious...yes, it's true...I do run and can/will run quite a bit..though today only an hour and half...not enough time in the day to do EVERYTHING.

I peaked out around 175 a few time...and ran close to 2. only once. That is in the building phase...not all the time. There's so much to fit in...takes time...and a buildup to buildup.

Michigan Proud wrote:

HANSONS.

Didn't Hilborn (on that list) only improve after leaving Hanson?

Looking for a Coach wrote:

I am looking for suggestions on which US Coach I should talk to about making the jump from 2:35 to 2:30. Obviously I know that it comes down to good ole fashion hard work but is there one coach that is better than others. I am not afraid to increase my mileage or relocate.

Take patti up on her offer.

If I haven't made any mistakes, this is Patti's trajectory:

Patti starts running at the age of 23 in 1976 in order to lose weight. In October of that year, she won the Ocean State Marathon in 2:53:40.

She repeats the win at the Ocean State Marathon the following year in 2:47:20.

In 1978, Patti again wins the Ocean State Marathon in a time of 2:44:11. Two days after Thanksgiving, (age 25) somebody challenged Patti to take up running full-time. She runs a 2:43:10 at the end of 1978 to win the Honolulu marathon.

Less than a year later, in 1979 Patti runs a 1:14:03 in September, a 2:40:28 to win Ocean State again, and a 2:40:07 to repeat at Honolulu (age 26).

In 1980, Patti runs a 2:30:57 at Vermont in September, followed by a 2:29:33 in New York (age 27), and then a 2:35:26 for another win at Honolulu.

That following spring, Patti (unofficially) sets the American record at Boston, running 2:27:51.

Hanite wrote:

Michigan Proud wrote:

HANSONS.

Didn't Hilborn (on that list) only improve after leaving Hanson?

This is an excellent post as it proves that ne size doesn't fit all. No one can argue that Hansons obviously know their stuff. They have coached 2 different athletes to the Olympics in the last 2 Olympic Games but Hilborn must not of been a good fit. She found something else that worked better for her.

1. Much like College you need to find a coach that understands your strengths. That should always fall on the athlete as the Coach should not alter his/her philosophy otherwise it won't work.

2. Do you like to train alone or in a group? If you don't mesh well with your teammates it won't work.

3. Are you discouraged by training with people that are better than you? This is often the case with groups. Deena in her prime would kill all female training partners and they were forced to bring in males for her to train with.

Jenn Rhines failed under Vigil in the marathon but after leaving the group bounced back to be an Olympian in the marathon. It is not because Vigil didn't know what he was doing with Rhines or Hansons with Hilborn. Not a good fit for who knows what reason.

You know YOU. Find a situation that makes you happy and you will improve.

I looked at that training group link and thought the times to qualify for men were unfair but maybe this is a depth thing?

A 2:59:59 runner (M or F) is not going to be competitive and has their work cut out to make the Olympics.

A 2:31-2:35 male runner could, however, make the leap to the trials with proper training. Why exclude them by making the standard so much tougher?

3:00 cutoff is 45 minutes off the women's WR.

2:30 cutoff for men is only 28 minutes off the men's WR.

Sorry to OP to get off-topic. Congrats on the 2:35. Very impressive.

It's a common mistake on these boards, but you cannot compare men and women's times linearly because the difference is not linear but more exponential.

One reason for this is because a lot of the top women have straighter bodies (i.e. bodies shaped more like men) that give them a larger advantage over the rest of the women (and similar such qualities). The men have no such advantage.

Thank you for posting here Patti! So nice to see some elite runners on here showing nothing but goodwill towards the community.

This website also has a larger female population than the boys would like to think, so it's doubly nice to see some elite women posting on here :)

Great Post wrote:

Hanite wrote:

Didn't Hilborn (on that list) only improve after leaving Hanson?

This is an excellent post as it proves that ne size doesn't fit all. No one can argue that Hansons obviously know their stuff. They have coached 2 different athletes to the Olympics in the last 2 Olympic Games but Hilborn must not of been a good fit. She found something else that worked better for her.

.

No, she went back to the coach who got her to sub 2:40 in the first place, and then he carried her to 2:35 this fall. This also proves the point of sticking with what works.

Steve Magness

or

Mark Hadley