Much of the advice on this subject and others related to high mileage suggest a long period (10 wks+?) of base building. Say for me, working up to 90 mpw, but with all steady/slow runs, again for me 7:00 mpm or slower. With the lack of my usual interval and tempo runs can I expect an initial decrease on my 5K, 10K times if I was to race during the base building?
ebrunner wrote:
To keep fit, as a hobby, etc. If one already is spending 1-1.5 hours/day running, they may decide they would be better off spending the extra hour improving on some other part of their life. At that point, the marginal cost of running more would exceed the marginal benefit.
Interesting, ebrunner. I always assumed that there were twenty-four hours in a day. I checked it out on the internet - I was right, there really are twenty-fours hours.
Secondly, my grandfather used to tell me, "if you don't have the time to do things right the first time, then how the hell are you going to find the time to do it over?" He was right.
Thirdly, the notion that "they may decide they would be better off spending the extra hour improving on some other part of their life" sounds good in theory, but in reality it's nonsense. People just don't "...spend (their leisure time) improving on some other area of their (lives)..." The few who would, most certainly could give up TV time, or otherwise unproductive blocks of time, for the pursuit of personal enlightenment - and still manage to reserve enough running time to get the job done right.
So can you.
Jzs, what was your running background going in to the mara training and did you anticipate doing 2;40ish??
From what I've read/heard 24 hours a day is an accurate assumption. Say you work 12 hours , sleep 6, commute for 2, and spend 2 hours eating/grooming/cleaning/etc. Assuming there are in fact 24 hours a day, you would be left with 2 hours. Some would choose to run for 2 hours, others may run for 1-1.5 hours, and have sex or play the piano for the other 30-60 min. While that may be an "unproductive block of time" to you, others may get more fulfillment out of doing something else with the 30-60 min. than they would spending the time running more.
Admittedly, as far as running is concerned, not spending the full 2 hours running would not be "getting the job done right" as I will agree that most runners maximize their potential at well over 100 mpw. However, I don't think the original poster ever questioned whether 100+ MPW is the best way to train, but whether 100+ MPW (i.e. "doing the job right") is worth the extra time/energy for a runner who would probably not become a top runner despite attempting to train like one.
Very good in the badinage department, ebrunner.
I'd work on getting that workday or the commute down. Eating can always be merged into one of the other time slots.
If you are getting more fulfillment at other things then, by all means, do so. I wouldn't expect you'd get much empathy from the pianists at the LetsPlunk piano forum if you complained about not having enough time to run, would you?
My background,
31:47.78, 10k track on 32/wk ave, over 52 weeks: 19, 25, 17, 17, 22, 24, 13, 32, 30, 31, 31, 16, 29, 24, 10, 45, 55, 57, 50, 55, 65, 55, 52, 55, 45, 40, 40, 35, 9, 18, 30, 24, 5, 6, 17, 46, 23, 37, 35, 48, 41, 36, 24, 26, 56, 51, 37, 31, 15, 22, 29, 25.
1:11:07, 1/2 marathon on 36/wk ave, over 52 weeks: 23, 36, 22, 9, 13, 4, 9, 8, 11, 9, 21, 21, 41, 34, 27, 25, 51, 64, 47, 65, 59, 50, 66, 49, 43, 30, 27, 23, 26, 34, 47, 32, 46, 16, 27, 22, 17, 18, 39, 29, 20, 22, 38, 73, 69, 66, 54, 76, 52, 64, 54, 64
Of course I have not included what I did within those weeks but I can tell you this, I was not jogging around much.
I was hoping for better in the marathon, I never hit my best time. Never ran enough.
Who ran a better marathon, Jzs or me? I ran a 3:11 on .72 miles per week. That's right. Less than one mile per week and I qualified for Boston in my first marathon(38 yrs old). I didn't run for 18 years, so that would be 936 weeks of 0 followed by 7,11,16,13,16,17,18,17,24,23,31,27,37,30,34,32,0,0,0,0,0,17,49,
56,60,61,49,57.
In other words, you can skew statistics and averages to prove whatever point you want.
I bet your split was 1:15:09 and you crawled to a 1:27 last half gallowwalking the last 3 miles.
Listen, I'll be the first to admit I could have run a faster marathon with more miles but I put into my runs everything I had. Also I have the upmost respect for the distance & never really liked the event, so no I didn't go flying out but yes I did hit a wall after 22 miles. Oh ya I took a piss @ 5 miles, a shit @ 15 & threw up @ 22 miles. I thought I did fairly well considering it was run in Upstate NY on Aug 7th where the temps got up to 70*
5mi split 31:08; 10mi split 61:05 (29:57); 15mi 90:50 (29:47); 20mi 121:03 (30:13)
What's your story hot shot?
Jzs, thanks for breaking that out for me. Your 10K and HM times are not exactly pedestrian either. Congrats on a nice marathon.
I'm impressed. Those are very good splits. Your 10 k time predicts to a lot faster marathon, so you were very smart knowing with the limited mileage, you would have to run a slower pace. Most would not have figured this out.