Base phase is a backward concept without any legitimate support.
ttc wrote:
I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.
BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.
HGGIN wrote:
what??? wrote:I ran 31 miles and raced xc the next day. I ran really well and recovered quickly. I built up to it. It's called fitness. Stop generalizing. Some of us have done more training that your average hobby jogger.
Did you run any faster in the marathon? I would say no. If I thought I'd run faster after running a couple 31 milers I'd run 31 milers. But, unless you're a world-class runner running 2:0x, I just don't see the benefit in running anything over 21 when training for the marathon.
I ran faster. And that 31 miler was 25 miles slow plus 6 miles of fartlek. I wasn't going to race the next day. A club mate talked me into it. I'm glad he did because it worked out really well and made me even more confident.
That was a huge training week and I would do the same again if I had the time.
If you don't see the benefit of running over 21, then you are missing out.
oddgs wrote:
Remember, as Arthur Lydiard did. He never divided one long run into two, because you wont develop your capillary system as well as you would if you did the run in one piece. Therefore, if you are used to go for long runs (over 26.2 miles) you wont have any problems with that. Remember, 800-metre runner Peter Snell ran a marathon distance in steady state every sunday..
capillary system? WTF?
Precious Roy wrote:
Fading in a marathon is all about fuel consumption. Running long runs over 26.2 during base does not do that much to improve your glycogen stores or your ability to maintain marathon pace when muscle glycogen is depleted. I know a sub-elite ultra guy who runs 30-40 mile long runs regularly on weekends, but is at best a 2:45 marathoner. That is because he is not improving his specific endurance for the marathon when he is plodding out a 35 mile run at 7:30-8 min pace. He is actually going slow enough to give his body time to replenish glycogen stores by taking in lots of sugars and carbs. So, doing 28 mile long runs during base provides little, if any, benefit while only increasing the risk of injury.
The fact of the matter is that the marathon is a b%tch for everyone. Only a tiny number of even the elites can get it right every time. Look at how many E. Africans drop out at major marathons. I am sure that Bernard Koech thought that his training was spot on to get him to sub 2:04 and a win. But he faded and ended up out of the hunt with a 2:08.
Likewise, Christo Landry and other US runners who did the work and were ready to break 2:10 according to their training logs ended up with a very disappointing result because the marathon is a b%tch. For most of us, having one good race out of 5 is as good as it gets. Same goes for many aspiring US pro runners.
Have you seen the Sammy Wanjiru training plan Roy? 38k very slow. Renato say it don't work. Sammmy knew better. Good for concentration, work well in race.
Here's a clue for anyone who thinks 31 milers (or any "over-distance") is necessary for success.
This guy named Bill Rodgers, 2:09 guy, won a few races in his day- covered over 200 miles (at least once) in a week. He never ran more than 23 miles for a single run.
Most he ran in one day was 31 (16am/15pm).
HRE wrote:
One of the questions about doing a 30 mile run if you're doing 150 a week is whether you can come back with 20 miles or so the next day and the day after, etc. or whether the 30 mile run interferes with the rest of your training.
If a person going 3 miles/day has a 5 miler & then has trouble recovering- Should he forever stay at 3 miles? No- build up to 5 mi. & be patient.
Rough Justice wrote:
Can you prove that the fading can be eliminated by over distance?
ttc wrote:I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.
BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.
I can prove under distance training correlates to fading. Just look at 99% of all marathon results & splits.
what??? wrote:
capillary system? WTF?
I assume it's a reference to:
If we look at the development of the oxygen uptake level, we can understand that, in some cases, there are people who can go out and run 140 kilometers (=90 miles) today, tomorrow, and the next day and the next day. They continue doing this. They have the ability through their development of blood vascular system and their capillaries to get quick recovery. We have a man in New Zealand called Max Telford, who actually ran 240 miles (=384 km) without stopping. And he can go out and run a marathon in 2:30 something. He can’t go any faster but he can turn around and go back in the same time. He sacrificed his speed to a large extent. This is why years ago when I ran 250 miles (=400 km) a week, testing out theories, I found it’s too much. This is why I found that we ran about 160 kilometers (=100 miles) a week in our main training sessions and jogged in the morning, six mornings a week up to an hour, that we got the best results. If we did more than that, we found we started to tighten up.
= Arthur Lydiard
what??? wrote:
oddgs wrote:Remember, as Arthur Lydiard did. He never divided one long run into two, because you wont develop your capillary system as well as you would if you did the run in one piece. Therefore, if you are used to go for long runs (over 26.2 miles) you wont have any problems with that. Remember, 800-metre runner Peter Snell ran a marathon distance in steady state every sunday..
capillary system? WTF?
Look up before ridiculing.
...26.3 is just crazy!
MarathonMind wrote:
Here's a clue for anyone who thinks 31 milers (or any "over-distance") is necessary for success.
This guy named Bill Rodgers, 2:09 guy, won a few races in his day- covered over 200 miles (at least once) in a week. He never ran more than 23 miles for a single run.
Most he ran in one day was 31 (16am/15pm).
Lagat runs 6 days/week. So I guess every pro should.
Why not just run a 50-miler every week and *really* be prepared?
You see, there *is* a boundary somewhere, even at easy speed, after which recovery becomes a problem, and the distance you're doing has diminishing returns relative to the distance you're training for.
There's no magic number. 20 and 22 historically have worked well for a lot of people. Everyone's different, though, and different at different points in time. 16 might do the trick for you, or maybe 28. The only thing I know is that it pays not to be stupid. The slowest marathon you run is the one you'll DNS because you did too much in training and got injured.
Is Lagat a marathoner? Does he run 200 miles per week?
Stick to the subject.
I hate the compulsion to run 3 x 20 miler that permeates within the "speed challenged" community. It takes a friend of mine over 4 hours if you include the drinks breaks he takes every couple of miles.
Ignoring your correlation /= causation trolling, I'd wager you'd find a positive correlation between over distance and fading.
ttc wrote:
Rough Justice wrote:Can you prove that the fading can be eliminated by over distance?
I can prove under distance training correlates to fading. Just look at 99% of all marathon results & splits.
Different folks, different strokes. Every athlete is different. Lots of Japanese runners have found considerable success with over-distance. I imagine if one has less weight, then over-distance does not break him or her down as much.
Yes, you are probably right, that if one is the average westerner, especially non-elite, and even more so. a clydesdale, over-distance could be a very bad idea.
I have always maintained that not getting injured easily is a talent. Some people can take quite a beating. Some people also recover quicker than others. I personally have no idea how ultra-marathoners do it. These people also benefit greatly from over-distance.
So it looks like the best answer for your question is because years and years of trial and error at many levels has lead to the conclusion that running longer than a marathon in training for a marathoner has diminishing returns for most runners.
That leaves room for outliers but suggests it is not likely the best way to go.
Star wrote:
So it looks like the best answer for your question is because years and years of trial and error at many levels has lead to the conclusion that running longer than a marathon in training for a marathoner has diminishing returns for most runners.
That leaves room for outliers but suggests it is not likely the best way to go.
But ttc says there is a correlation between under-distance and fading.
I assume ttc is an excellent and experienced marathon runner.
I'm not, so I guess he would know.
The 3 mile a day person struggling with a 5 mile run is not running 10 miles more on his 5 mile day than on his 3 mile day. He also has come nowhere near the point of diminishing returns in terms of length on any of his runs. He also cannot look at large numbers of successful runners who've had that success without going anywhere near 5 miles on a single run.