Sometimes I feel depressed about my lack of "talent"

I'm trying the same thing. Don't be scared of doubles. In fact, doubles make it easier to bump the mileage.

Think of it this way. Do you have time for a 12 miler at lunch? Not unless you have a VERY flexible job or are self employed.

Before work? Sure, but not if you start work at 6:30am and don't want to be a zombie..

You do 7 miles at lunch and have time to change, etc.. Then do 5 miles after work or a night without disrupting family time. A single 12 miler takes too much time if you have a family.

Embrace the double miles.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

TellMeHonestly wrote:

So 1) lose weight then 2) build up easy mileage towards 60+ even with doubles if I need then 3) introduce some workouts (speed) and 4) 12 or so weeks of classic marathon training peaking at 70 and then 5) race?!

For the details of your training you should get coached by someone who has worked with athletes at your level. But going from 60+ to the marathon peak of 70 seems a little light. I think you could be doing more, especially if you lost some weight. I know personally when I dropped weight I became significantly less injury prone and could handle more volume.

Looking forward to being more injury resistant! So far in 2016 I only went to 50 now and only twice, so if I could have a base at 60-65 before Marathon training I wouldn't want to go much higher once I re introduce workouts (1 stimulus not 2) but again I don't know and I have a long road ahead it seems! The coach suggestion is good, been alone for all my training (no coach or team, I like training solo!)

One unique challenge I face is heavy international business travel. That truly messes up schedules (and makes you fat). When I figure out how to deal with all these variables I'll write a book! Easier to run more at home.

never worn a singlet wrote:

I'm trying the same thing. Don't be scared of doubles. In fact, doubles make it easier to bump the mileage.

Think of it this way. Do you have time for a 12 miler at lunch? Not unless you have a VERY flexible job or are self employed.

Before work? Sure, but not if you start work at 6:30am and don't want to be a zombie..

You do 7 miles at lunch and have time to change, etc.. Then do 5 miles after work or a night without disrupting family time. A single 12 miler takes too much time if you have a family.

Embrace the double miles.

Thanks. Makes sense and even more so during the upcoming warm months (less clothing needed, and less sweating).

Even when traveling, easier to fit two small runs than a longer one. Should also help with metabolism, HGH and weight loss.

The first sentence of the last paragraph is the most important thing in what you wrote. Keep enjoying it, take the mental and physical benefits and take solace from what you've achieved.

I would not go too crazy with the weight loss. Yes, 150 is too much for a 5-7 distance runner, but it sounds like 135-140 is just fine for you. I believe that one must take frame size and one's natural tendencies into account. I am naturally thin--have been this way my whiole life. I am an inch shorter than you, 5-6. I go 125-128, depending upon the time of year (and my training) and even the time of day. At the starting line of the marathon, I was probably 123-124 (early morning and on the heels of a 24-week marathon phase).

Yeah, like others have said you need to raise your mileage. 40 miles a week which is what you hover at, is not quite enough. I also think reducing your 10k to about 37 would help your marathon as marathon pace would feel easier. When I went sub-3 I was about 35-36 10k (miler type though) and 50-70 miles per week. Doing workouts and getting on a structured program helped me tremendously. Before that I was frustratingly stuck on 3:06-3:10 after just running mileage for several years. After running a summer of track for speed, doing workouts and drills I dropped 13 minutes to 2:53.

I agree completely with "toucansam." You should read what he said again.

Six months. Minimum. ("Thinking about doing that in May-June" doesn't count.) No speedwork. No intervals. No hard tempos. No races. Just slow running, very gradually building up mileage. If you can schedule in doubles, do it. Be absolutely paranoid about injuries. To lower impact stress, run on soft surfaces if you can, and feel free to wear fat fluffy shoes with boatloads of cushioning if that's what it takes. Lose weight, but gradually.

I don't know how you can say that mileage never got you faster; it sounds as though you've never done significantly more mileage than what you normally do when you're on your usual weekly program of track stuff, hard tempo runs, and various other odds and ends.

It requires a lot of discipline and trust in the program to do what "toucansam" and I are recommending. Most runners will get antsy after a little while, and they'll go back to mixing a bunch of stuff together in training and never taking a complete break from racing. That can certainly work, but I don't think that it's likely to be optimal for someone in your situation who is trying to make a big leap in marathon performance within a fairly short period.

Fantastic suggestion! I couldn't agree more with your suggested approach and completely agree that most don't have patience.

I have taken this approach in the past; and anytime I pull away from it, trouble ensues. I would absolutely INCLUDE some strides. Read up on John Kellogg's speed maintenance. That's how I would do it.

Additionally, there would be nothing wrong with a weekly (or twice a week) high-end aerobic run. THIS IS NOT to be treated as a tempo as most runners would. Technically, this should be something you could turn around and repeat right away if you really wanted to. Plus, you should not be sore or have any stiffness at all from it - use a heart rate monitor as a governor if needed. Again, for more information, you'll find a wealth of knowledge about how to execute a high-end aerobic run from JK's writings.

TellMeHonestly wrote:

test2 wrote:

... Since you are saying 34 sec is all out and 37.5 sec is really difficult (5min/mile pace), it follows that 40sec (5:20 mile is about equivalent to a 38min 10k) is probably harder than it needs to be and this is has a tangible effect on your track workouts.

One small correction is that 38 flat 10k is 46 seconds per 200. But yeah I get the point, I need more "speed margin" as I am pretty maxed out at 5:20-5:30 already. I'd like to run a mile race at some point to test it out. Scares me much more than a half!

Right, I think you got my point but I did mean your mile PR pace. A 38min 10k runner should be able run 5:20 or better for the mile but it'll be difficult without a little more speed. Then again it may be that you are underestimating your speed and the point is moot.

In any event, I'd be encouraged: a 38min 10k without much mileage and 34sec 200m speed shows considerable talent. Good luck. Watch for overtraining when you up volume. It's not a bad idea for every third or fourth week to be a down week volume and intensity-wise. Also, if the higher volume doesn't agree with you (or even if it does), you might consider training for a shorter distance like the 5k or even1500m for a season. It's good for a change and being faster at the shorter stuff will help with a faster marathon.

Do you even Mileage???? wrote:

"The more I trained the more talent I found out I had"

Run more miles. Run twice a day then report back to us about your amazing progress. It's not lack of talent, it's lack of training.

Your welcome.

And when he finally runs his last PR he'll realize that he in fact didn't have a lot of talent.

outsiderunner wrote:

I would not go too crazy with the weight loss. Yes, 150 is too much for a 5-7 distance runner, but it sounds like 135-140 is just fine for you. I believe that one must take frame size and one's natural tendencies into account. I am naturally thin--have been this way my whiole life. I am an inch shorter than you, 5-6. I go 125-128, depending upon the time of year (and my training) and even the time of day. At the starting line of the marathon, I was probably 123-124 (early morning and on the heels of a 24-week marathon phase).

Very true. I was never thin. Not even as a 5-6 year old. Always pudgy. Now at 34 and 150 lbs I'm lighter than I was at age 16. But still, the previous posters have a strong point...weight matters a lot and the very best are rail thin.

Will take it a pound at a time, and see how I can do. I just need to take this just as importantly as the training itself. I'm encouraged when I remember that I was 160 lbs when I ran 3:16, and that it was in NY. With more mileage, less weight, and a flat course, I sure hope I will trim some time. Thank you again for your insights, and since you ran 3:02, best of luck to you in the sub 3 quest (if you so desire?!)

Les wrote:

Yeah, like others have said you need to raise your mileage. 40 miles a week which is what you hover at, is not quite enough. I also think reducing your 10k to about 37 would help your marathon as marathon pace would feel easier. When I went sub-3 I was about 35-36 10k (miler type though) and 50-70 miles per week. Doing workouts and getting on a structured program helped me tremendously. Before that I was frustratingly stuck on 3:06-3:10 after just running mileage for several years. After running a summer of track for speed, doing workouts and drills I dropped 13 minutes to 2:53.

Thanks for your feedback and data point! Agree having a bit more room wouldn't hurt. To be fair I think the 38:00 10k would translate to at best 3:05 for a guy like me, and I don't think I would attempt sub 3 before 37:15 10k and 1:22 or so half.

Congrats on your 2:53! That's amazing.

Sounds like you have done well based on where you started.

Thanks for the innovative approach. How about doing that in the winter months (when speed workouts can suck anyway due to bad footing/crappy weather?).

If I want to run Berlin in Sept, I think I could do what you say (lots of easy miles, soft surfaces, slow weight loss) for about 2-3 months then move on to marathon training (2-3 months) and shoot for 3:05.

Then I learn from a 4th marathon and my experience, and take the winter to build as you and toucansam suggest...and if it works, maybe I could try sub 3 in Spring 2017?

I know this may sound impatient. But if I can manage 60+ regularly on easy runs, this will be already a whole new level.

There is too thin.

I'm 150s and thin enough, but taller than you. I went to 140s and felt the strength loss. I can't imagine being much lighter, although the tables say I could go to 140 for my height near sixfeet. I'll stay around 20BMI, which seems ideal for me.

This doesn't apply for your height but the difference between 165 and 155 for me was night and day. At 155, feel like I'm floating on runs. At 165, more of a struggle. At 148, however, I just felt bad. Bottom line, don't lose too much weight. Let it come naturally. Also, I wouldn't stay at race weight year round or obsess about it. That's where problems start.

9000 miles in 8 years is key here. Your times are good for a runner without special talent and running very low miles. I'm not surprised you haven't broken 3 hours with that low of mileage. I run 2500-3000 a year and run a 2:37 marathon.

shugs wrote:

Fantastic suggestion! I couldn't agree more with your suggested approach and completely agree that most don't have patience.

I have taken this approach in the past; and anytime I pull away from it, trouble ensues. I would absolutely INCLUDE some strides. Read up on John Kellogg's speed maintenance. That's how I would do it.

Additionally, there would be nothing wrong with a weekly (or twice a week) high-end aerobic run. THIS IS NOT to be treated as a tempo as most runners would. Technically, this should be something you could turn around and repeat right away if you really wanted to. Plus, you should not be sore or have any stiffness at all from it - use a heart rate monitor as a governor if needed. Again, for more information, you'll find a wealth of knowledge about how to execute a high-end aerobic run from JK's writings.

Thank you. What kind of pace would you suggest for the high-end aerobic run? I'd think MP or slightly faster than MP but slower than HMP? For me that's what these 8 mi @ 6:40, 10 mi @ 6:50, or 12 mi @ 7:00 were supposed to represent. They helped a ton to be honest.

Compiling all the responses, it's pretty clear that when training for a key race weight and volume are key variables, followed by the variety in the training, doing 4-5 kind of workouts not every week, but on a rotating basis (e.g. speed every 2 weeks, hills every 2 weeks, hard tempo every 2 weeks, strides etc.)

Really appreciate all the input. This thread must be useful not just for me, but all the regular Joes out there who 1) love running, 2) weren't born for it and don't necessarily have the frame but 3) want to get better, and need to be told some hard truths even if it hurts. Now I need to do step 4) implement...will have a "test" half marathon at the end of month to see where I am at (shooting for 1:23), and after that, I will build mileage first. I am looking forward to it, including doubles and tons of boring 8:00 runs!!

Just peruse this site and realize talent goes hand in hand with miscreant behavior, social isolation and vitriol. That realization should make you feel better.

tooth3 wrote:

9000 miles in 8 years is key here. Your times are good for a runner without special talent and running very low miles. I'm not surprised you haven't broken 3 hours with that low of mileage. I run 2500-3000 a year and run a 2:37 marathon.

Yeah my biggest year was 1,950 and I ran all 365 days that year. In all the others I have always had 6-7 weeks of injuries built in.

I just looked it up and out of these 85 months of running:

- 2 were over 200 (230 and 207 miles)

- 19 were in the 150-199 range

- 29 were in the 100-150 range

- 24 were in the 50-100 range

- 11 were in the 0-50 range

150 is pretty typical (35 mpw) and the 0-100 are probably linked to time off and injuries which typically last 6-7 weeks for me.

Congrats on your 2:37 that's a sick time man.