Good or stupid?
Good or stupid?
Your question is stupid.
[quote]What the? wrote:
You're quote]
fixed
jdnmdsjsnks wrote:
[quote]What the? wrote:
You're quote]
fixed
Interesting point
That very schedule is one of the reasons why we had so much depth in the marathon in the 70's and early 80's.
It's a grueling schedule, so you better be mentally and physically tough before you attempt running 10 in the morning and 10 at night everyday.
I doubt you will get many serious posts in this thread, there are like 6 people that frequent this board who ever hit that kind of mileage.
why not run 20 one mile runs per day
run one mile every 48 minutes
plus 8 hours of sleep
Old School Approach wrote:
That very schedule is one of the reasons why we had so much depth in the marathon in the 70's and early 80's.
It's a grueling schedule, so you better be mentally and physically tough before you attempt running 10 in the morning and 10 at night everyday.
I doubt you will get many serious posts in this thread, there are like 6 people that frequent this board who ever hit that kind of mileage.
Thanks. Guys like you are why this board is still tolerable.
12 10 milers and a 20 would make more sense.
Obviously you would do a long run of 20 on Sunday, just like 2-3 of the 10 mile runs would be done or include miles at or below marathon pace.
This schedule is beautifully simplistic that most runners today don't follow it because it's not complicated enough.
Frank Shorter had a quote on why he couldn't put out a book on training 'because it would be one page'.
Lindsey Scherf is a girl who hits that sort of mileage.
yeah i've always been a believer in the simple stuff. if you just run a set distance daily with a longrun on sundays, different "workouts" will take care of themselves. meaning, like you said, when one feels good, they'll run the better part of their 10miler at race pace. it's mucd easier on the mind than writing up complex workouts and target energy systems blah blah.
Old School Approach wrote:
Obviously you would do a long run of 20 on Sunday, just like 2-3 of the 10 mile runs would be done or include miles at or below marathon pace.
This schedule is beautifully simplistic that most runners today don't follow it because it's not complicated enough.
Frank Shorter had a quote on why he couldn't put out a book on training 'because it would be one page'.
why is his best time not very competitive by today's standards? Why do today's runners perform better despite their inferior training methods?
this is a VERY GOOD schedule for a marathon, the suprising thing is because you are running so much you will not need a long run, and your speed will be surprisingly good, i followed a similar schedule for 5 weeks 12 in the morning 7 in the afternoon for 133 miles a week, i ran a marathon as a training run in about 2:30 running the 2nd half much faster, i was going to drop out at 20, but i decided to finish because it felt so easy, i had some friends who were doing 6 x 1 in 5:00 per mile the next day, so after a 7 mile morning run the next day.
i ran the workout not knowing what to expect as i had not timed any of my runs in that 5 week period, we hit 5:00 even on the first 3 then a better runner than me decided to run 4:40 on # 4 and 5 i ran right with him which i never was able to do and i still was not breathing hard so i ran hard on the last one in 4:28, which for me was good because i have never been a good runner.
the drawback for this schedule to me is i felt like a zombie, i would fall asleep in class and wake up because of the pen dropping from my hand.
i think too many schedules put to much thinking into them when solid consistent workouts will lead to solid consistent results.
example if you run 12-15 miles a day (84-105 miles a week) and dont worry about rest days, tapering etc. you will probably be more consistent than someone who goes super hard 1 day takes 2-3 rest days and is trying to analyze everything workout by workout in a schedule. so many books encourage people you can take a day or 2 or 3 off from running, run less run better, i say that is garbage.
the usual reasoning is hard work must be followed by rest, so the body can adapt, if that is true why do the good runners run 12-15-20 miles on their recovery day, i say easy running helps circulate the blood so the recovery lets say 15 miler is like a massage for your legs, and i am surethere are other reasons as well.
eventually if you are seeking a time and you are no longer improving on just mileage, keep the mileage the same and incorporarate some workouts 4-5 x5k is excellent workout for a marathon if your goal is 6 minute pace or 2:37 run the 5k pace, if goal is 5:30 pace or 2:24 run the workout at 5:30 pace.
if your goal is a 15 minute 5k run 5-6 x 1k at about 3 minutes or 6-8 x 800 at about 2:25
darn i am really drifting but yes your 10 in the morning 10 in the afternoon schedule will produce good results.
? wrote:
Old School Approach wrote:Obviously you would do a long run of 20 on Sunday, just like 2-3 of the 10 mile runs would be done or include miles at or below marathon pace.
This schedule is beautifully simplistic that most runners today don't follow it because it's not complicated enough.
Frank Shorter had a quote on why he couldn't put out a book on training 'because it would be one page'.
why is his best time not very competitive by today's standards? Why do today's runners perform better despite their inferior training methods?
Why is it that every time a good thread like this one starts up a guy like you has to reply with something like this? "How come his time isn't as fast?" douche
? wrote:
Old School Approach wrote:Obviously you would do a long run of 20 on Sunday, just like 2-3 of the 10 mile runs would be done or include miles at or below marathon pace.
This schedule is beautifully simplistic that most runners today don't follow it because it's not complicated enough.
Frank Shorter had a quote on why he couldn't put out a book on training 'because it would be one page'.
why is his best time not very competitive by today's standards? Why do today's runners perform better despite their inferior training methods?
professional pacers, aid stations set up for specific elite runners, also just knowing the faster times can be run, and shorter would be very competitive with todays american runners.
RonnieJames wrote:
? wrote:why is his best time not very competitive by today's standards? Why do today's runners perform better despite their inferior training methods?
Why is it that every time a good thread like this one starts up a guy like you has to reply with something like this? "How come his time isn't as fast?" douche
Well, you didn't exactly answer the question . . . do you think if Shorter trained like runners do now, he would have run slower than he did?
he would still be a top-notch american marathoner.
Frank's time would not be very competitive by today's standards because:
1) Africans started running marathons.
Runner's today perform better because:
1) Africans started running marathons.
Do U.S. runners perform better?
Not really save Hall who had the chance to run a fast time on a time trial course with pro-pacers (they didn't have time trials back in the day because our balls had dropped and we raced head to head every time).
Frank would have won the 2000 US Trials and would have been on the team in 2004 and would have been in contention to make the team in 2008.
Guess what the big difference in marathon running the past 35+ years?
Africans. Lots of Africans.
You think the top African runners are following some unique new type of marathon training while cross training on an Alter-G? Nope.
They are doing the same training we did back in the 70's except they are built for distance running.
'VERY GOOD schedule for a marathon'
'darn i am really drifting but yes your 10 in the morning 10 in the afternoon schedule will produce good results'
So should we get the training program of runners like Geb and Wanjiru and throw them in the bin?
It's a rhetorical question
jdnmdsjsnks wrote:
[quote]What the? wrote:
You're quote]
fixed
Your report card:
English - F
Running - D