Why do you run 150 miles a wk? I think it is great but if you consider yourself "slow" which I'm sure you are not and if you run 150 miles a wk at 6 min pace (since you consider yourself slow) that is alot of time. Do you not work or are you just highly paid and efficient with your time. I'm just curious bc I have never spoken to any one who runs that much.
Oops sorry I missed your response. You are an animal!!! Please tell me you are not an anorexic male and instead are well balanced and just plain love what you are doing. I'm assuming you don't run for a team. Really, I would love to see you take 4 wks out of your life, run some low mileage with continued intervals and tempo and then blast a 28 min 10,000 or a 1:03 half marathon. Wow!!! If you do please let us know.
'love the Steve Brace quotes... Sadly, it does seem that 2H10 does not amount to all that much on the international scene nowadays... yet I can't imagine being able to make the commitment it takes to run these sort of times without turning professional. I think he's got it spot on!
Or a s*tload of 2:25-2:35 folks.
fastfoot wrote:
Yes, you may have a chance but only if you have the ability to run the 400m closer to 50.
If you can't break 55 you'll have trouble breaking 2:20 even if you do 1k miles a week.
Pete Pfitzinger couldn't break 55 for 400m and he ran 2:11. 400m speed doesn't have a lot to do with marathon ability.
Jonas wrote:
Cze:
How did you go about changing from normal shoes to H streets? I have an injury right now, and when I return, it will have been about 8 weeks with 21 miles in that time (and none the last 4). The podiatrist encourages me at first to have orhthotics. I wear the New Balance 765, and have had, in the last 4 years, Achilles tendonitis, an avulsion fracture, a stress fracture, another stress fracture, a back strain, mono, a talus sprain, metatarsal tendonitis, metatarsal tendonitis again, another back strain, yet another illiac crest strain, piriformis and sciatica, metatarsal tendonitis again, and, now, a bad heel bone bruise/marrow endema in the calcaneus where the growth plate has almost closed.
As you can see, I am in need of strategies again injury. I have a 17:47 5K PR despite training much harder than sub-4:30 milers on my team because of all the injuries, and, when I am healthy, no progression.
These kinds of questions are usually reserved for Trackhead. He seems to be the minimalist guru around here. It's taken me a year to go from Asics 2070s with huge rigid orthotics to nothing but H streets and barefoot running. You just need to do it gradually. I've done 3+ hour runs in the H streets now, but I mostly shy away from any sort of pavement.
I used several transitional shoes along the way. I started by just not wearing my orthotics every now and then. When that seemed fine, I started working in some lightweight trainers (I think I was using the Nike Air Talarias...remember those!). Then I started doing some runs in the Nike Triax TC. Then I worked down to the Asics DS-Racers, and then spent most of last summer in the NB RC240s (with a lot of the heel cut off) and Asics 15-50 spikeless cross-country shoes.
By time XC rolled around last year I was up to hour runs barefoot and had done some 20+ milers in the Puma H streets. This winter I experimented with using aqua socks in place of barefoot running when there was snow on the ground.
Now, I train pretty much exclusively in the H street and barefoot. Hope that helped. You just HAVE to listen to your body. Wow, it's so ironic that I'M saying that...people have been ragging on me for that for the past 8 years.
Oh yeah, and I certainly DON'T do 150mpw all at 6min pace. Most of it is at 7min pace.
Where to Start? wrote:
OK if someone has talent where would they start?
Start by running:
a) a 2:30 Marathon with only 3 sessions per week........
b) then run every day, going to 80/90 miles per week, you become able running 2:20 and......
c) then you have the opportunity to become a PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, using two sessions a day and running 120/150 miles per week, you can run 2:10
Cze wrote:
Tempo runs are my favorite type of training. Almost all of my runs are "progression" runs where i start nice and slow, pick it up in the middle, and then crank down the pace the last 5 miles or so. i've done weekly 4 mile tempos at 5:30-40 pace at some points, and over the past year or so have attained the fitness to where i've been able to do some longer (10-15 mile) segments at 5:45-6:00 pace. I finish a lot of runs with a really hard last mile for me--5:10-5:30 or so. My mile PR is 4:42.
I think you're not getting enough out of your speed, such as it is. At age 30 I trained quite intensely for the track and managed a time of 4:41 (PR 4:34 at age 18). My marathon PB at age 29 was 2:44:05. The next year my mile time was nowhere near as fast, and I ran 2:35:14 for the marathon. This was on the very hilly Palos Verdes California course (steep hills then sharp switchbacks coming down) and 95 degrees at the finish. Several of those a ways behind me had run in the 2:28 to 2:30 range on faster courses, or did soon thereafter, including a friend who I routinely finished a few seconds ahead of and who ran 2:29-2:30 three times on flat courses within a few months of that race.
My highest mileage prior to the 2:35 was a very consistent 98 miles a week, probably averaging (would need to check) 95 to 98 for the prior 12 weeks. I ran all out 2 mile intramural races in 10:17 and 10:07 twelve and ten days before the marathon. My fastest 13 miles in practice was 5:58 pace on the track, but I did do a 2 hour track race at 5:49 pace two weeks before. So I had a lot of endurance. However my usual training pace was a very consistent 7:20 pace around a very accurate 1 mile loop. I only ran faster than that twice a week.
So, really, with a 4:42 time for the mile, I think you should be able to break a 2:30 time for the marathon.
here's what you do wrote:
Start by running:
a) a 2:30 Marathon with only 3 sessions per week........
b) then run every day, going to 80/90 miles per week, you become able running 2:20 and......
c) then you have the opportunity to become a PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, using two sessions a day and running 120/150 miles per week, you can run 2:10
I didn't ask how to do 'a' or 'b', but how to do 'c'.
By the way I had been up to 132 miles in a week prior to the 2:44, averaging 110 for 5 weeks in a row including volume intervals 2 or 3 times a week and decided that was too much. My endurance was plenty good enough. It was the speed (mile time) and ability to run the faster paces that was lacking. Thus I decided that 98 miles a week was plenty of mileage for me.
J Rupp wrote:
I think you're not getting enough out of your speed, such as it is. At age 30 I trained quite intensely for the track and managed a time of 4:41 (PR 4:34 at age 18). My marathon PB at age 29 was 2:44:05. The next year my mile time was nowhere near as fast, and I ran 2:35:14 for the marathon. This was on the very hilly Palos Verdes California course (steep hills then sharp switchbacks coming down) and 95 degrees at the finish. Several of those a ways behind me had run in the 2:28 to 2:30 range on faster courses, or did soon thereafter, including a friend who I routinely finished a few seconds ahead of and who ran 2:29-2:30 three times on flat courses within a few months of that race.
My highest mileage prior to the 2:35 was a very consistent 98 miles a week, probably averaging (would need to check) 95 to 98 for the prior 12 weeks. I ran all out 2 mile intramural races in 10:17 and 10:07 twelve and ten days before the marathon. My fastest 13 miles in practice was 5:58 pace on the track, but I did do a 2 hour track race at 5:49 pace two weeks before. So I had a lot of endurance. However my usual training pace was a very consistent 7:20 pace around a very accurate 1 mile loop. I only ran faster than that twice a week.
So, really, with a 4:42 time for the mile, I think you should be able to break a 2:30 time for the marathon.
thanks for the reply. your experiences are very encouraging to me. I think I ultimately have the potential to get down to the 2:30s in the marathon, too. My 4:42 mile was at altitude, as was the 2:47 marathon (on a day where it was over 80 degrees by the end). I think I still have a lot of PR's in me to say the least.
you defenitly dont need to break 50 seconds to run a good marathon i think you'd run a poor marathon if you can...
carlos lopez or his rivaldont know wich of the two had real trouble breaking the 60s/400 i read over here and he went out well in the marathon.Further i wont say you dont need talent to run a good marathon but i've read some strange storry's about sub2:10
I read(dont know if its correct) for example bong ju lee who ran a 2:07:20 marathon only broke 30 min 10 k by 26 seconds.
If you run 50 seconds on a 400 wont you have to much ft fibres to really become a marathon legend?It's not that a sprinters look alone is going to bring you to 50 seconds.
I'm sure a lot of ultra-runners run 120-150 and when have any famous ultra-runners run anywhere close to 2:10?
There IS no crime in what you're doing.
Keep on truckin'.
What are you talking about?
Lopes had a 3:42 1500. That's 58-point PER 400. And he can't break 60?
You'll have to explain that one.
Oh, and Lopes closes a 10K against Mamede in 56-point.
Basic speed helps in efficiency of stride and margin at all other paces.
A 50 second 400 runner feels easier at all slower speeds and can develop their endurance to a greater speed than a 55 400 guy. If the 50 guy can hold 75% of top speed for a mile, that's better than the 55 guy holding 80% of his speed.
Thanks, you've convinced me to move up to the mile.