The Trials and Tribulations of Running YouTubers

P Luttrell wrote:

I definitely think there are a few things I could change in marathon training to improve for next time, but I'm not necessarily sure "harder training" is the thing.

Maybe I'm wrong there, but I think I could do with a touch more volume in my marathon specific workouts. However, I think the intensity of those workouts was spot on: I basically ran the exact same pace in the race (with the same HR figures) as I ran in those workouts (if you take out the big hill at 36k).

I'm also aware of plenty of guys who ran over the weekend, who did much harder workouts in their prep than me, who faded much worse than I did in the last 7k of their marathon. Obviously, there's plenty of other variables there - but I think making marathon workouts too hard is one of the biggest mistakes people make in marathon training. Again, I could be wrong there, but it's certainly a mistake I've made in the past.

In terms of easy running, I'm aware that they probably look very slow to other people, but they don't feel that slow to me. I'm blown away that other people with similar times (or slower) can bang out 7 minute miles for their "easy" runs. To me, that just wouldn't be easy at all. And I wouldn't be able to run 90 mile weeks if I did that (I doubt I'd be able to even run 60mpw). But if people can get away with it, and they think it's working, then more power to them.

old_skool50 wrote:

P Luttrell wrote:

I definitely think there are a few things I could change in marathon training to improve for next time, but I'm not necessarily sure "harder training" is the thing.

Maybe I'm wrong there, but I think I could do with a touch more volume in my marathon specific workouts. However, I think the intensity of those workouts was spot on: I basically ran the exact same pace in the race (with the same HR figures) as I ran in those workouts (if you take out the big hill at 36k).

I'm also aware of plenty of guys who ran over the weekend, who did much harder workouts in their prep than me, who faded much worse than I did in the last 7k of their marathon. Obviously, there's plenty of other variables there - but I think making marathon workouts too hard is one of the biggest mistakes people make in marathon training. Again, I could be wrong there, but it's certainly a mistake I've made in the past.

In terms of easy running, I'm aware that they probably look very slow to other people, but they don't feel that slow to me. I'm blown away that other people with similar times (or slower) can bang out 7 minute miles for their "easy" runs. To me, that just wouldn't be easy at all. And I wouldn't be able to run 90 mile weeks if I did that (I doubt I'd be able to even run 60mpw). But if people can get away with it, and they think it's working, then more power to them.

I agree with this. I smashed my marathon PB on the sirpoc program, almost 1:1. And honestly, it was a lot of easy running and I would say would look like bad marathon training to a traditionalist. Absolutely zero work in the long run, just, it's long. I've never been stronger and certainly didn't fade, the opposite.

I think some of the problems really here discussed are more guys not knowing where their fitness is at , rather than the training specifics per se. Just my thoughts, but it's easy to over think all this I think.

Ozzi Batt-Man wrote:

old_skool50 wrote:

I agree with this. I smashed my marathon PB on the sirpoc program, almost 1:1. And honestly, it was a lot of easy running and I would say would look like bad marathon training to a traditionalist. Absolutely zero work in the long run, just, it's long. I've never been stronger and certainly didn't fade, the opposite.

I think some of the problems really here discussed are more guys not knowing where their fitness is at , rather than the training specifics per se. Just my thoughts, but it's easy to over think all this I think.

I want to reiterate that Paul ran amazingly and I see a lot of value to the NSA principles. However, I think hard long runs are necessary for runners approaching their genetic limits.

Look at it this way, putting Paul's recent 10km time of 32:31 into prediction calculators, they are predicting an equivalent marathon time in the 2:29-2:31 range. I propose some harder long runs (as we are all saying about Floberg) may have helped Paul hold a faster pace over the marathon, as speed and/or threshold doesn't appear to be a limiting factor.

Again, I don't mean to single out Paul or to talk down his fantastic time on Sunday (I happily follow him on all platforms). It has just spurred some reflections on NSA for the marathon. Unfortunately, from occasionally reading the NSA chat on LR, it seems impossible to have constructive conversations on such things there.

P Luttrell wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree that for people approaching the absolute limits of their potential they should be pushing the boundaries of intensity and volume.

I don't think I'm there yet though - and the same goes for most amateurs.

And just to highlight that point, before starting training that was primarily threshold based (just over a year ago), my marathon personal best was 2:49.

Now, it wouldn't matter how hard I ran my long runs, there's no way I'd make the jump down to 2:35 without dramatically improving my anaerobic threshold - and to me, NSA is pretty much the best system I've come across at doing that.

Now, does it cover every single base? Absolutely not. But it's a trade off that seems to yield far greater time gains (at a range of distances) than training more traditionally.

In terms of how well my marathon time translates to my 10k best, I've not met many amateurs with marathon PBs as fast as what those calculators predict. I'm not saying they're wrong - but unless you've being doing 100+ mile weeks for years on end, it's pretty rare.

And I'm not totally disagreeing with you either. I even included a few faster long runs in the short marathon block that I did leading into Melbourne. But I think moving away from the NSA structure for too long would result in a diminished anaerobic threshold, which would lose more time than any series of long runs would provide.

P Luttrell wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree that for people approaching the absolute limits of their potential they should be pushing the boundaries of intensity and volume.

I don't think I'm there yet though - and the same goes for most amateurs.

And just to highlight that point, before starting training that was primarily threshold based (just over a year ago), my marathon personal best was 2:49.

Now, it wouldn't matter how hard I ran my long runs, there's no way I'd make the jump down to 2:35 without dramatically improving my anaerobic threshold - and to me, NSA is pretty much the best system I've come across at doing that.

Now, does it cover every single base? Absolutely not. But it's a trade off that seems to yield far greater time gains (at a range of distances) than training more traditionally.

In terms of how well my marathon time translates to my 10k best, I've not met many amateurs with marathon PBs as fast as what those calculators predict. I'm not saying they're wrong - but unless you've being doing 100+ mile weeks for years on end, it's pretty rare.

And I'm not totally disagreeing with you either. I even included a few faster long runs in the short marathon block that I did leading into Melbourne. But I think moving away from the NSA structure for too long would result in a diminished anaerobic threshold, which would lose more time than any series of long runs would provide.

it's not thershold wrote:

ItsJustThresholdTraining wrote:

A bunch of neurotic hobbyjoggers overthinking threshold training, something which we have known about since at least the 1980s.

Threshold training is brilliant and the fella who posted in the other "Norwegian Approach" thread on here about his training should be commended for sharing really solid training advice.

But, through no fault of his own, he has created a monster.

It's not actually about threshold training. That's the main misconception. It's creating the most meaningful load of X amount of time, without thinking within blocks or arbitrary periods of time. Which is silly when you think about it? Sub threshold is probably the most sensible way to do this, but ultimately it's about managing as much load as you can, whilst keeping your head above water with fatigue.

If you don't understand this, you will think you just run threshold and that's about it. But it's not. It's really not. That's probably the least important aspect of the whole thing.

Sorry a bit of a tangent, but just thought it was worth pointing that out for anyone confused with what sirpoc is actually saying