Inside in D.C. Snow!!! wrote:
This guy wrote:He actually did long runs and tempos if you actually read the article, and had calf cramps for the last 5 miles of his marathon.
Yeah did a few 18's, but still kept a very low volume and the main focus was intervals. Calf cramps isn't glycogen depletion. And he did improve his time and felt much more rested going into the race.
I guess not as pure as the OP was looking for, but close.
Not even.
OK. No sarcasm then. He ran 3:39. That's not the sort of thing that's going to revolutionize marathon training.
investigating99 wrote:
The prevailing paradigm for marathon training is running as much volume as you can handle at intensities that keep you breathing easy, along with some sharpening with a smattering of intervals and tempos. Has anyone here bucked the system and trained just using intervals 2-3 times a week?
Let's say I was to use a benchmark run at an easy aerobic heart rate (e.g. 70% MHR), measuring speed at this heart rate at the beginning of training, and at the end of training. If I were to see the same improvement in this speed at an aerobic intensity from the intervals as I would have from running high volume of aerobic miles, would I not be just as prepared to run the same pace in the marathon?
Has anyone experimented with this, or know of anyone who has? Thank you.
This is kinda close to the FIRST plan we did (for my marathon PR... and I immediately got hurt afterwards, lol) It was 3 hard runs a week: 3-4 miles worth of intervals one day, 5-9 miles at tempo another day, and then a long run much quicker than your average long run (maybe MP to MP+:30). So, not ALL intervals, no, but much higher intensity than any other plan I have tried.
3:39 might be someone's potential. I know plenty of people who would love to run a 3:39. As for the guy in the article, it was a personal best. Is Letsrun only a snobfest for elites or near-elites? Or can older runners and runners without the unearned genetic gifts that elites are born with participate here?
HRE wrote:
OK. No sarcasm then. He ran 3:39. That's not the sort of thing that's going to revolutionize marathon training.
It sure would for someone who could never break 4 hours. These runners count, no? 3:39 could be someone's potential.
As I recall, the author wanted to run 3:20. Really, when you're talking about times as slow as 3:39 there are loads of things you can do to get there. This was one of them.
HRE wrote:
As I recall, the author wanted to run 3:20. Really, when you're talking about times as slow as 3:39 there are loads of things you can do to get there. This was one of them.
I've never just picked a time. Instead I train, and from a bunch of data points (speed at certain HR's or a time in a tune-up race) know what pace I can run.
Still, one runner's 2:10 is another's 3:39. If 3:39 is the absolute best a person can do considering their genetic make-up and age, and they reach that potential after years of hard training, then it's as big of an accomplishment as someone running their potential of a 2:10 (or whatever)..
Inside in D.C. Snow!!! wrote:
HRE wrote:As I recall, the author wanted to run 3:20. Really, when you're talking about times as slow as 3:39 there are loads of things you can do to get there. This was one of them.
I've never just picked a time. Instead I train, and from a bunch of data points (speed at certain HR's or a time in a tune-up race) know what pace I can run.
Still, one runner's 2:10 is another's 3:39. If 3:39 is the absolute best a person can do considering their genetic make-up and age, and they reach that potential after years of hard training, then it's as big of an accomplishment as someone running their potential of a 2:10 (or whatever)..
He didn't do years of hard training
No argument there. But all sorts of people run that kind of time. Presenting what this MacKenzie guy is pushing as something better is baseless. And really, unless you're old or have some sort of physical challenge 3:39 is far from the best you can do.
Inside in D.C. Snow!!! wrote:
HRE wrote:OK. No sarcasm then. He ran 3:39. That's not the sort of thing that's going to revolutionize marathon training.
It sure would for someone who could never break 4 hours. These runners count, no? 3:39 could be someone's potential.
No they don't count. You're not going to reach your marathon potential doing crossfit and if someone did a 3:39 he was certainly nowhere near his potential.
Born in UK as father over their fighting in WW2, but very much Australian - going back multiple generations.
Leading up to races he would do a weekly 20 miler at 2:20 pace. 5 min mile pace and even far quicker over extended distances was common (racing the final mile of long runs at near 4 min mile pace) ... so Yes - high intensity - but sorry, also decent mileage.
Fletcher Farrington wrote:
Born in UK as father over their fighting in WW2, but very much Australian - going back multiple generations.
Are you related to him?
Fletcher Farrington wrote:
Leading up to races he would do a weekly 20 miler at 2:20 pace. 5 min mile pace and even far quicker over extended distances was common (racing the final mile of long runs at near 4 min mile pace) ... so Yes - high intensity - but sorry, also decent mileage.
I f the stories of him running most of his runs at 5 min pace or faster are true and with long runs on weekends he would be pushing out 80 to 90 miles per week so still pretty solid volume. I did read he ran about 150 miles a week in his early marathon days but then cut back to a higher intensityloerr volume approach.
Is Bob Moore mentioned as a Canadian under 2:20?
Chepstow wrote:
Is Bob Moore mentioned as a Canadian under 2:20?
I mentioned him on page 2. I just read that he ran his 1,775th lifetime race a few days ago.