Despite the AW normally being a waste of money, I get it for the odd interesting article and results, in this weeks issue in response to a crticism of last weeks Horwell interview, the editor mentions that he would be happy to print articles from other distance coaches - other than Horwell. While I realise that it should be the job of the AW to ask the relevant coaches for comments could anyone coached by any of the top marathon coaches please ask them to do something?
'83 was an even better year - I don't have the full result - this is only the British guys for whom it was their best even mark (except Norman Wilson who ran quicker once at Boston)
1 Mike Gratton (ENG) 02:09:43
2 Gerry Helme (ENG) 02:10:12
5 Jim Dingwall (SCO) 02:11:44
7 Martin McCarthy (ENG) 02:11:54
13 Ray Crabb (ENG) 02:13:15
17 John Cain (ENG) 02:13:43
18 Merv Brameld (ENG) 02:13:48
24 Ray Smedley (ENG) 02:14:45
25 Paul Campbell (ENG) 02:14:47
26 Paul Baker (ENG) 02:14:54
27 Bob Sinclair (ENG) 02:14:58
38 Norman Wilson (ENG>WAL) 02:15:47
30 Bill Cain (ENG) 02:15:00
40 Bob Treadwell (ENG) 02:15:51
41 Jon Kilsby (ENG) 02:15:53
There have been many articles on endurance running (including the marathon) in "The Coach" over the past few years...but how many have read them? Will putting it in AW or having seminars,talks or conferences make a real difference if nobody reads AW the Coach or attends the events?
The best way to pass on the knowledge is by direct coaching/advising with the athletes and there doesn't seem to be enough of that. There seems to be a fair few runners about who choose not to have a coach and rely on learning it all for themselves. Or there seems to be a tendancy to hang onto the every word of one of the well known mainstream coaches without even giving a thought about if what coach is saying is indeed right for them as an athlete. There are many fantastically knowledegeable former athletes/coaches out there who are no longer involved because they have been marginalised or become unfasionable.
I realise it wouldn't change the face of british distance running, all I want to see is something of more substance in the AW other than Horwells idea of a 3 mile hard run being the same as a 30 mile run.
mplatt wrote:
Khannouchi has run under 28 minutes at least 5 times, all on the roads (usually slower than track) and all during marathon buildup.
you're not seriously disputing the fact that he's a marathon specialist? His 5k PB is 13'42 and his 10k 27'47, 'only' 1'30 behind the world best (or 40' behind road best).
More than anyone else he shows that an early specialisation in the marathon can reap rewards.
I don't dispute the quality of the running but even people who set pbs in '83 maintain that it was short that year.
Kassa. I dont think that he has run well enough at any distance this year to suggest that he should be picked for Gothenburg. If there are reasons behind that situation then it was his responsibility to ensure the selectors were aware. Didnt he pull out off Commonwealth Games and didnt he dnf at London ?
AW. There was a period when Tony Ward was writing articles in the mag that gave a very one-sided view of athletics in the UK. At that time a number of coaches decided that they would not write anything for AW, but the situation might have changed now. If you want somebody other than Horwill in AW, then tell the magazine.
National Marathon Conference ? wrote:
Certainly not trying to stifle debate but am concerned that athletes may believe the sort of comment posted a day or so ago by Mr Orange - that we have enough glycogen to run a marathon, therefore its the training that is wrong.
If we had a suitable person with time to spare then they could easily post all the info requested on this site. Trouble is I am not certain the right people have the time.
A Conference is not the answer, its the start of an answer where UK athletes are exposed to the sort of people who can help. How many posters here attended the UK Conference at Stratford last year where L Dunn. A Stanton etc etc spoke on endurance training - answer, not enough. Virtually all of the UK 'experts' were there and were available for one to one discussions.
I'm not sure which bit you don't understand. I said that we store enough Glycogen during the taper to get us through the Marathon at the correct pace.
That is a factual statement.
Jon Orange wrote:I said that we store enough Glycogen during the taper to get us through the Marathon at the correct pace.
That is a factual statement.
I would only quibble with the end of that statement, the "at the correct pace" part.
We store enough to get through the marathon at a specific pace exactly using up all of the glycogen stores. You run faster, you use a higher proportion of glycogen relative to fat as fuel, you run out of glycogen early, and "hit the wall." You run slower, you don't hit the wall. The magic is in finding that exact pace on the day.
Unfortunately, though, the specific pace you can exactly manage for the full pull (on that day) without crashing MAY NOT be the pace you'd like, or the pace think you should run based on shorter distance races or workout progression.
If you haven't improved fat utilization during your marathon training, the pace you can sustain without blowing up will most certainly be slower than you would like it to be.
You wrote that the body stores enough glycogen to run the marathon at the right pace. So what does that mean ? What is the right pace ? It is either a completely meaningless comment or it means that we have enough glycogen to run at the pace that we want - please give us the benefit of your wisdom and explain what you did mean.
Pete, as a Marathoner yourself, you understand what I was saying.
I don't agree with others that we should do a lot of slower pace running in order to improve fat burning. Running at Marathon pace also improves fat burning. I have even run a good Marathon on 40 miles per week, and as you can imagine, to get fit on such low mileage involved very little slow running, it was mostly faster paced stuff.
Training at target race pace is the most important thing. Just 15-35 miles per week at target race pace (plus some faster and slower running)is enough to knock a chunk off our previous best times. But then again, if only I could practice what I preach....
Jon, you are obviously not as informed as some of the other posters, for once take some advice, you might improve.
I was replying to Dave Wardle, who I think was trying to run 2.19 - 2.20. He was probably in 2.21- 2.22 shape. He ran as hard as he could and finished 41st in the London Marathon, a very commendable effort, even if he did hit the wall.
It's a fine line isn't it. Don't need a National Marathon Conference to establish that fact, you just need to run a few Marathons.
Jon Orange wrote:I don't agree with others that we should do a lot of slower pace running in order to improve fat burning. Running at Marathon pace also improves fat burning.
Jon,
I agree with the second sentence, but don't agree with the first, and think you won't get the most out of the M-pace work without doing the high volume of easy work to support it.
But that's at the heart of the quality vs. quantity debate, isn't it?
Johnny O is back wrote:
Jon, you are obviously not as informed as some of the other posters, for once take some advice, you might improve.
I have done very long slow runs, did they make me a better Marathon runner? No I don't think they did. My Half Marathon was very good, but my full Marathon was not nearly as good. The best Marathon runners can run a very fast half, and only be a few seconds slower per mile over 26.2
Actually to be fair this seems to be quite a complicated debate.
From my memory, Canova says effectively the same thing that Jonny is saying. That training close to marathon pace is the best way to improve the energy systems at use in the marathon.
We do hear and read acounts stating that some of the top guys like Derek Clayton, Steve Jones and Khalid Khannouchi run/ran close to 5 min mile pace on most of their runs.
Furthemore we also see some examples of top marathon runners who run a fast paced long run each week or so (maybe close to marathon pace ??). For example, the Mike Gratton training program on the internet link, or the accounts of Frank Shorter's training.
It does seem that there many different approaches in the training performed by the best guys to run a decent marathon and obviously there is not going to be a "one schedule for all" answer.
Pete, I believe that slower pace running serves well as base training. During the last six weeks however, it serves best as recovery running from the harder efforts. This is how the Marathon specialists train.
Dustin Hoffman wrote:
Furthemore we also see some examples of top marathon runners who run a fast paced long run each week or so (maybe close to marathon pace ??). For example, the Mike Gratton training program on the internet link, or the accounts of Frank Shorter's training.
Didn't Frank Shorter trained at altitude, reason for slower pace?
Sounds all pretty easy compared to what the champs do.
http://www.runnersworld.com/events/boston06/chat_cheruiyot.htmlRWD: What's the daily dosage when you train in Kenya with Tergat?
RC: We run about 32-33 kilometers per day, at least. You know less than 30-km per day is someone who is not quite serious yet at the distance.
On this glycogen burning vs fat burning - I'd like to be as sure as I can on what happens with as little really detailed science as is necessary to suggest how runners apply it in practice. Does this make sense:-
- Pfitzinger (p45) says 'if you do a great job of loading, you'll have just enough glycogen for the marathon'. He says this after outlining that 'racing' the marathon you get 75% to 90% of your energy from carbs, the rest from fat.
- I interpret this as meaning that if you get everything else right you can still 'race' the 26th mile (and .2 of the 27th) using the same ratio of glycogen to fat ie you are never running solely off fat
- he also talks very coherently (pps 120-121) about how, short of world class level where 'genetics and training put them on a higher plane', you need to 'budget' for a c 60/90 second positive split between the 1st and 2nd 1/2 to allow for running economy to falter by c 2% as you start to recruit less efficient fast twitch fibres once the slow twitch fibres are fatigued.
Collectively those things suggest to me that if you couple them with a 1/2 marathon c 3-5 weeks beforehand, the knowledge that you've done a suitable number of suitable long runs at a suitable pace/effort (more on which below) and you don't set a target that your 1/2 marathon pace suggests is 2-3 minutes just out of reach even on a perfect day, and if you pace yourself accordingly on the day, you can be confident that you can get to very far in the race before things get really hard.
Long runs - sure there are some folk who specifically use flat roads to mimic the FLM route, even using th ecourse itself, and thus, sort of, they get exactly the same stimulus/discomfort level in training as the same pace will incur in FLM. Many though do many of their long runs off road; over hilly courses; over distances that they don;t accutaely know the distance of; the day after either a hard training session or XC race; with a slight hangover; possibly starting at least partially depleted and/or dehydrated thru a combination of the prevoius factors.
So in any of those circs, and especially if several apply, a given pace, say target marathon pace + 30 secs per mile, is going to feel like flipping hard work compared to what it will be like when they are tapered, loaded etc. This, coupled with a load of egs of high achieving Brits, Kenyans, wherevers, who don't appear to execute their long runs with a hugely detailed level of pace precision, makes me wonder whether in the real world there is perhaps a limit in planning the pace of long steady runs beyond which the number of variables makes the maths of little practical benefit.
But if I'm just being intellectually lazy here, I'd welcome any comments as they'd probably be useful to other guys who have tuned in to date. Thanks
David, all i can offer is some empirical data which may, or may not support you hypothesis.
In 2003 I ran Amsterdam in 2:22:14 with a first half of 71:24 so a 30 sec negative split. Last 10k felt great and I finished like a train. Longest run was 2:40 at altitude. 6 months later I ran 2:21:51 in london off a 69:10 first half so a 3 and a bit positive split. Longest run was 2:20 at altitude.
For sure Amsterdam was much more enjoyable and felt a hell of a lot easier despite the fact that I had only being running again for 9 months after a 3 year 'retirement' and averaged a frugal 60 mpw for my final 12 week build up although key sessions were the long run above + 4x5k which i did 4 times.
2006 was also a big positive split and the last few miles felt like muscle fatigue rather than glycogen depletion. I say this because in 2004 london when i took my drinks at 30, 35 and 40k I got a sugar rush which revived me for a couple of minutes followed by a huge dip whereas this time the sugar didnt have the same magical effect/subsequent crash. I just kept plodding along.
Would be interested to know how many current brits with sub 2:20 have run a negative split and how they found it.
On a related topic I found a big difference in relationship between target MRP and blood lactate level during preparation and final taper (which was much lower lactate). Hopefully this means we got the 2 1/2 week taper right but probably a subject also worthy of detailed discussion. I for one felt totally shagged 10 days before the race but full of beans with 3 days to go.
Adrian