Flanagan's 28 mile run

PhysMech wrote:

Interesting that you should bring Lasse Viren up. Correct me if this is not accurate, but almost all his runs were 8 miles or less with lots of farleks. In fact, the same day Shalane did her 28 miler, I did 3 x 8.25 miles (almost 25) with a 2-3 hour break between.

Interesting that you think your training is better. I know Shalane has a bronze medal and finished second in New York. I'm assuming you've done better since you train better. Congratulations on all your success.

I ran 28 miles once... in a week.

Shoebacca wrote:

Interesting that you think your training is better. I know Shalane has a bronze medal and finished second in New York. I'm assuming you've done better since you train better.

My training uses ideas from many sources, including the training of someone who won 4 Olympic gold medals, including the 5k/10k double wins in two straight Olympics. Shalane has said she is going for some track records this spring. Why not look at the training of the great ones in those events and try and come up with some hybrid workouts that might have the potential to be useful for all her goals in the next two years.

I am not sure about the improved fat oxidation caused by the glycogen deprivation of a long run. I personally believe that this is one of the elements that is lacking in many marathoners training. In Healthy Intelligent Training the author says taking glycogen replacements during a long run negates one of the purposes of a long run, which is to improve fat oxidation. I don't know of any scientific research that backs this up. But it is often the case that science is preceded by practice. Science often backs up what is already practiced.

Of course, I didn't get the glycogen deprivation work in that so many marathoners seem so fond of. I know the idea is to increase the percentage of fat burning and train the body to store more glycogen, but I have yet to see the real research that definitively proves that this actually works. *TROLLMODE ON* It probably exists, but I haven't seen it yet. *TROLLMODE OFF*[/quote]

PhysMech wrote:

Shoebacca wrote:

Interesting that you think your training is better. I know Shalane has a bronze medal and finished second in New York. I'm assuming you've done better since you train better.

My training uses ideas from many sources, including the training of someone who won 4 Olympic gold medals, including the 5k/10k double wins in two straight Olympics. Shalane has said she is going for some track records this spring. Why not look at the training of the great ones in those events and try and come up with some hybrid workouts that might have the potential to be useful for all her goals in the next two years.

So if you throw a bunch of food you like in a bowl and mix it around, it will come out well? You can't mix and match things from different programs and expect success.

And why are you copying what elites do? You have to look at what they did before they were elite. I bet you're one of those guys who think too much, believe they have all the answers but are running slower than the WOMAN you are critiquing.

Thanks for the post. It's interesting that so much of traditional training seems to use ideas from the training of other runners and often has no scientific research to back it up.

I agree that science often backs up what is already practiced. It also often shows that what is practiced does not produce the results that people thought it did.

what??? wrote:

I bet you're one of those guys who think too much, believe they have all the answers but are running slower than the WOMAN you are critiquing.

Yes, I think a lot. I don't believe I have all the answers. THAT'S WHY I THINK A LOT!!!! :-)

And why are you making my posts about me? That was not my intention. After thinking about it, (there I go again) I have concluded that I'm old and will never run faster than Shalane again. But this thread is about Shalane. This may come as a shock, but I'm actually hoping some serious runners, including Shalane, consider this hybrid longrun workout. It's a total shot in the dark to think they might be reading this thread, but what the heck. I included my reactions and recovery only to provide a single data point about a runner's results from it.

Let me get this straight. So basically you ran a triple. One 8 mile run in the morning, one in the afternoon and one in the late afternoon? This is supposed to somehow be better than one long run? It is not even close to the same thing and it would be training different aspects. You clearly do not know much about running. The reason you felt like you had done half the distance the next day is because what you did was not taxing the same systems.

I was telling one of my athletes the other day that I have seen countless examples of people applying science to training, only to see it fail.

Instead, I prefer to anecdotally see what has worked with large numbers of runners, apply those same principles, and then see if I can figure out the science behind why its working.

In other words, don't do the training based on the science, do the training based on experience and then back out the science.

For example... doubles. I've rarely seen someone start to do doubles and get worse. So do doubles. Maybe it inhibits the formation of scar tissue? Maybe the second run "flushes out" free radicals? Maybe its just easier to get more mileage in that way, and the more mileage, the better? Does the science really matter, though, if it works?

The long run... I have seen more runners improve with an 18-30 mile long run (when talking about marathon training) then not improve. OK... Let's make sure you get that long run in. Now, I can look up the science... glycogen depletion, capillary density, increase in mitochondria, yada yada yada... but does it matter? As Malmo has pointed out (on the doubles), 100s (or 1000s) of runners have proven it works so what else do you need?

Another example. I have found through my own coaching successes and failures, as well as talking to several very respected coaches, that while training for a marathon, you need next to no V02 Max work. That its actually detrimental. Instead, a lot of 1/2 MP - MP work and easy running is the best formula to success. OK... let's experiment with that and then figure out the science.

Good coaches know the science, but don't coach based on it alone. They coach based on experience and trial and error, and then they hope the science backs them up. They also quickly find that different people respond to different things... especially based on their own individual talents and histories. This can completely turn the science part on its head.

Just some thoughts.

The Truth Seeker wrote:

Let me get this straight. So basically you ran a triple. One 8 mile run in the morning, one in the afternoon and one in the late afternoon? This is supposed to somehow be better than one long run? It is not even close to the same thing and it would be training different aspects. You clearly do not know much about running. The reason you felt like you had done half the distance the next day is because what you did was not taxing the same systems.

Yes, I ran a triple. Was planning it to be a quad, but I felt good after the third leg and decided to cash out at that point. If I was specifically training for a marathon, I might not consider this workout better than a long run. But I, like Shalane, am training for everything from 5000m to the marathon. It's intended to be a hybrid workout and my intention was to cover the most events and limit the protein breakdown that a true longrun would have. As far as how much I know about running, nobody cares. After doing the workout, I agree I didn't tax the systems exactly the same way as a long run but that was the whole idea.

Nice post, Conto. I like your balance between science and doing what has worked for others. But hey, I'm old and not training to set world records. I like using my body like a crash test dummy because it's just fun. :-)

PhysMech wrote:

Nice post, Conto. I like your balance between science and doing what has worked for others. But hey, I'm old and not training to set world records. I like using my body like a crash test dummy because it's just fun. :-)

But, then you suggested that someone who IS training to set world records (or at least American records) do your version instead of her 28-miler.

nike for rent wrote:

Marathoners don't tweet about a long run.

dumbdumbdumb wrote:

agreed that real marathoners don't need to post that they ran 28 miles.

Nordie wrote:

By the way, Haile tweeted a few weeks ago that he did a 3 hour run.

Ha ha ha! Owned.

To defend PsychMed a little, I am not sure he's suggesting she should necessarily do it, only that someone somewhere should consider it or try it and see if it works. He was just using anecdotal evidence from his own experience about how he felt the next day. He was claiming one was better than the other. He was merely comparing the feeling after the different methods. Let me know if I misunderstood PsychMed.

Remember it's good to try new things as long as you can learn from them. Just don't try them simply because they're new. Try them for a reason, such as running 24 miles in a day without feeling banged up. But maybe feeling kind of banged up is the purpose of the run.

If Ritz every gets healthy he should try this type of training. The big mistake he and other current us marathoners are making is that they train for the pace of the marathon not the distance.

There was no real point to your workout and to suggest that somehow what elite runners are doing is wrong and they should think more along the lines of your "hybrid" workouts is nuts.

PhysMech wrote:

Yes, I ran a triple. Was planning it to be a quad, but I felt good after the third leg and decided to cash out at that point. If I was specifically training for a marathon, I might not consider this workout better than a long run. But I, like Shalane, am training for everything from 5000m to the marathon. It's intended to be a hybrid workout and my intention was to cover the most events and limit the protein breakdown that a true longrun would have. As far as how much I know about running, nobody cares. After doing the workout, I agree I didn't tax the systems exactly the same way as a long run but that was the whole idea.

Ken Kesey's Reindeer Milk wrote:

I am not sure he's suggesting she should necessarily do it, only that someone somewhere should consider it or try it and see if it works. He was just using anecdotal evidence from his own experience about how he felt the next day. He was claiming one was better than the other. He was merely comparing the feeling after the different methods. Let me know if I misunderstood PsychMed.

Remember it's good to try new things as long as you can learn from them. Just don't try them simply because they're new. Try them for a reason, such as running 24 miles in a day without feeling banged up. But maybe feeling kind of banged up is the purpose of the run.

PsychMed - lmao. You seem to know me all too well (kidding).

Of course I'm not trying to tell Shalane what she should do. She has a good coach for that. Lots of you all seem to be reading into things other people type a lot. You should be more careful assuming things because it only makes others see what's going on with YOU. Maybe YOU are the one who is arrogant enough to think you should be telling Shalane what to do. Maybe YOU are the one who is arrogant enough to think that all the elites are training incorrectly. Maybe YOU are the one who is a "know-it-all" and what everyone else thinks is nuts.

KKRM, you were right on here, and after doing many long runs, the main purpose of trying a couple of these hybrids was to runs lots of miles in a day without getting all banged up.

You, sir, need to learn to respect the marathon.

PhysMech,

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant. I was reacting to your post about your training being from many sources... including Viren... and that since Shalane was going for track records this spring "why not look at the training of the great ones in those events and try and come up with some hybrid workouts that might have the potential to be useful for all her goals..."

I interpreted that to mean you thought there was room in her training to use such a workout. Well, you did kind of say that. If you meant something else, or if I read too much into what you wrote, then I apologize.

All I had to go off of was what you wrote. Upon reviewing all your posts in this thread, on page one you certainly gave props to her coaching, and didn't criticize her 28-miler.

I think I lumped your one post in with some of the others' negativity. Sorry about that.