From a 4:34 to a 2:35? This gives me hope and also states that anyone, no matter where they are in life, can make HUGE gains in the 13.1/26.2 with the right training, attitude and equipment.
Some are limited by natural talent, but a good coach, self-discipline, mileage and other things could probably get a 5-hour marathoner down to high 3s at least, for instance, or even a 3:30 person under 2:55.
jecht wrote:
From a 4:34 to a 2:35? This gives me hope and also states that anyone, no matter where they are in life, can make HUGE gains in the 13.1/26.2 with the right training, attitude and equipment.
Some are limited by natural talent, but a good coach, self-discipline, mileage and other things could probably get a 5-hour marathoner down to high 3s at least, for instance, or even a 3:30 person under 2:55.
When I was running in high school I never got under 6:00 for the mile and never finished ahead of anyone who actually finished a race until near the end of my junior year. Until I was a college sophomore I considered a race successful if I managed not to finish last. In those years running anything close to 6:00 pace for a marathon seemed a fantasy but I remember thinking if I really, really, worked at it I MIGHT be able to eke under three hours though even that seemed iffy.
But the jump from 4:34 to 3:29, that came from my first to second marathons, only took half a year and only taking my miles from about 40 to 50 or 60. There was also a lot of improvement in my cross country races, which were really more of a focal point, as well. What I took from those six months was that I raced faster when I ran more miles. Believe it or not, in those years there was so little information about training widely available that I only learned that idea a couple years earlier.
I really think that if you're fairly young and healthy you can run under three hours if you just run enough. But I suspect that a lot of people running five hour type marathons have trouble believing they can get close to three, or perhaps an equivalent time for their age or gender and therefore have trouble motivating themselves to doing good volume for months and years on end. And honestly, maybe they just don't see the "payoff" as worth spending a lot more time running. What tangible rewards do you get from a 2:52 marathon that you don't get from 5:25?
I'm not sure how important having a good coach is. I actually had to find ways to ignore coaches when I was making that progress but none of them were really "distance" guys but rather general track coaches.
2:52 gets you a BQ for sure!
I feel confident that as my mileage increases I'll get faster. I don't know if 3:05 is in the cards on 55 mpw but I think I can at least get to 3:15. If I can crank it to 65 (I have done a peak of 61 before with no issues) I may be in good shape. I also want to have fun with this and not get injured--i.e. I don't feel I need 90 mpw or 100 mpw to BQ.
Maybe as I get older I'll age into it at age 40-45. Being an 18-34M or 35-39M is the toughest bracket.
not me but my friend who has close to the same times and pr’s that I do but slightly slower does her runs plus a long run at around 6:40-6:50 pace. For some reason she’s never dead from it. I run 2:10 and 4:55
Those who run steady or moderate pace?
How do you define moderate or steady pace?
moderate pace1 wrote:
Those who run steady or moderate pace?
How do you define moderate or steady pace?
I always used Lydiard's idea of finishing a run feeling "pleasantly tired." That usually worked out to about the pace I could run for a marathon at the current time.
moderate pace1 wrote:
Those who run steady or moderate pace?
How do you define moderate or steady pace?
Moderate pace is between aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold (or lactate threshold)
Steady, means for most a continues running at the same speed and not changing it.
"All moderate" will take you to the edge of your natural talent for endurance.
After that, you need some kind of workouts to start recruiting more muscle to go faster.
What would the suggestions be for those who use heart rate training. Most runs Zone 2 or Zone 3? Or those using %s 70-80% of hr or hrr? Every run as a sub-threshold or tempo effort might work wonderfully for the younger competitive runner, but those in their mid to late forties and older or those more injury prone may not benefit as much. In this case this effort is more in line with Easy Interval Method? Thoughts?
I'm in my early 40's and I mostly train this way. I get 60-70 miles a week in. Sometimes more for a marathon block. Sometimes less if I'm doing other things. The vast majority of my runs are easy or moderate/steady. I do all training up to traditional tempo paces based on HR. So for me the window for easy to moderate is 65% to about 80%. For my own HR readings that puts me between mid 120s and mid 150s.
When I'm cruising around at HR low 150s I'm at roughly marathon pace +/- 10 seconds or so (depends a lot on how tired I am and what the weather is or how hilly my loop is). I don't get down to those paces every run. Maybe 3 runs a week. And some of them progress down closer to 10k pace for a little while. I just feel it out and see how things go. Sometimes I go a whole week on nothing but easy runs if that's how I'm feeling.
About every 3 or 4 weeks I'll do some 200s or 400s or something like a fartlek just to touch on some faster leg speed. I always give myself a good amount of easy jogging between intervals to fully recover.
For me, this method has allowed me to slowly continue to PR into my early-40s (I was a highly mediocre runner in HS and only got back to running in my mid-30s), is a very enjoyable way to train, and keeps me far healthier than more traditional polarized training that touches on all race paces. Cruising around and going a little faster, but rarely faster than 10k pace, just works for me.
I don't think I could do what some of the classic no-interval guys did (like Nenow or Clarke), but maybe I could have in my 20s?