P + D training for VLM 2013

1137138140142143192

Comments

  • MennaniaMennania ✭✭✭

    I have the yet to be published latest version which I am proof reading for me old mucker Pfitz - or P guy as I call him. He advocates the 15m progressive, suggesting that you have to be a nailed on superstar elite athlete and generally all round decent bloke to finish it. I did mine this Mondayimage.

    (Not all of the above is true)

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    You didn't realise that was actually a typo then Men?  It is being amended prior to publication.

  • We are all amazing, I give us that.  Well, in terms of this thread we are, not sure about the "real world". image We have done brilliant folks.  Seriously, these plans are probably the hardest "amateur" marathon plans on the shelf, I have missed a bit but mileage wise, only about 30 miles.   I am looking forward to my 16 MILE LONG RUN next week, it is to be done day after a tune up race though.  I have a Borders League race I could do Wednesday so may do that. But I won't be running 12 miles week before Ten - don't see the point really, better to be fresher than tired.  I will do 10 miles. 

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    HeOw - I'll make up my mind for sure mid-run on Sunday. image  It will be no more than 12m though.

    My legs feel so much better now that I've completed today's five miles with strides!  I've just printed a four hour marathon pace band, in case they don't have any at the Brighton Expo.  I can't quite believe I'll be there this time next week!

    Only fly in the ointment at the moment is that my son hasn't yet shown any signs of Chicken Pox.  My best hope now is that he doesn't break out until after the marathon.  The kids are really looking forward to going to Brighton and have been for ages. image

  • I like the challenge of the arithmetic on the way round rather than use a band.  And using average pace on the Garmin is just a godsend

  • just had a very sluggish 10 mile jog / plod. thankfully it's a slow day at work otherwise i don't know when i'd have fit it in.

    avg 10min/miles and my legs felt heavy and my whole body felt lethargic.

    have final 20 miler this weekend. hope that feels a little better :-

  • Ten - I was going to suggest that you could make a final decision on the length of run while you were out.  If the legs are really feeling weary then I wouldn't bother with the extra couple of miles as it is unlikely to make much difference at this stage.

    Also just a wee reminder. Remember that you might want to clear the lap record on your Garmin if you record all the laps on every run, which I think you must because you give all your splits on here and not just an average. The last thing you want is for it too be full after a mile or something.  This is not something I have too much of a problem with as I set all my workouts on Training Centre and then upload so a whole session is a lap unless intervals.

    HeOw - I have that combination of runs this weekend and I'm not sure I'm looking forward to 16 miles after racing parkrun tomorrow. The only plus is that it is ONLY 16 miles and not 20 image

    JF50 - I quick like the sums too, it passes the time and diverts the mind. However, if you muck up then you may not be so happy with yourself!

     

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    Fiona - that certainly makes sense.  I found that 16m run as hard as the previous 20m run having raced parkrun and run some MP miles the day before.

    JF50 - your brain clearly operates on less oxygen than mine.  I struggle to count to ten in a race, never mind multiply 9:09 by more than two miles image

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    Ten - an incentive to run 9 seconds faster?

  • literatin wrote (see)

    Ten - an incentive to run 9 seconds faster?

    Lits got it, don't mess about with odd seconds

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    Lit - I would still want to know where I stand in relation to the four hour mark.

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    If it was me, I'd try and stay just under 9.10 and add 9.10 to my time at each mile marker. So if I came in at 9.05 for mile 1, I'd be aiming for mile 2 at 18.15, etc. So addition rather than multiplication. Towards the end I'd be dividing 4 hours minus current time between the number of miles left to see how fast I had to go for each remaining mile. By that point I'd hope to have a few spare seconds to play with.

    I didn't get a garmin till Christmas, so my half marathons before that were run with a cheap stopwatch and some mental arithmetic fun.

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    Hello - back up to the sunny north today. Seems like spring has almost sprung here in Manchester, the south east is still in the grip of a winter freeze.

    Just been out for a gentle 5 mi with a few strides.

  • chickstachicksta ✭✭✭

    ooooh stats - I love stats image

    3 x 17, 2 x 18, 1 x 19, 5 x 22 = 216

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    5 x 22? Crikey.

  • Only NP is gonna beat that I reckon Chick, well perhaps Scott Overall as wellimage

  • chickstachicksta ✭✭✭

    don't forget Steve Way ...  he did 26.2 in training last week image

    I love 22 milers ... I have a really nice running loop along the river and back through a nature reserve which is exactly the required distance image

  • I thought the rule was just to add up your five longest runs?



    For me that would be 2 22, 1 21, 2 20s. Giving a total of 105. Needs to be at least 100.
  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭
    JF50 wrote (see)

    I like the challenge of the arithmetic on the way round rather than use a band.  And using average pace on the Garmin is just a godsend

    JF50 - do you turn off the autolap?  Overall average pace for me has not been much use when I hit the lap button to correct for garmin diferrences against the mile markers.  I'm thinking maybe I will remove autolap to keep a better average.  I do have a habit of missing mile markers, though.

     

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    Twenty mile runs are the law.  Chick... you broke the law!

  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭
    literatin wrote (see)

    If it was me, I'd try and stay just under 9.10 and add 9.10 to my time at each mile marker. So if I came in at 9.05 for mile 1, I'd be aiming for mile 2 at 18.15, etc. So addition rather than multiplication. Towards the end I'd be dividing 4 hours minus current time between the number of miles left to see how fast I had to go for each remaining mile. By that point I'd hope to have a few spare seconds to play with.

    Bloody hell Lit.  I can't follow that now, never mind in a state of extreme brain-oxygen deprivation! image

     

  • Tenjiso,  the simplist way is to keep average pace on the garmin. However suggest trying to keep it under 9mm miles to take into account the extra 0.x miles due to weaving etc.  If you keep garmin under 9mm average you will sub four regardless of the accuracy issues !!

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭
    Tenjiso wrote (see)

    Bloody hell Lit.  I can't follow that now, never mind in a state of extreme brain-oxygen deprivation! image

     

    Sorry Ten, I always just assumed everyone did it like that!

  • Lit - that's how I would do it



    Ten - to use the average lap method you will need to switch off auto lap that is how you solve the problem of inaccuracy between you and the mile markers.
  • TenjisoTenjiso ✭✭✭

    Thanks Fiona - I'll give it a practice session on Sunday to make sure I'm comfortable with the method (I think I will be).

    Lit - I know what you mean, but my maths goes out the window when I'm running hard image

  • No PainNo Pain ✭✭✭
    Knock knock, can I come in? Sorry been AWOL due o work, life and training, just read back and see everyone is still here image now who mentioned the orgyimage



    Training still going to plan here and JF50 it's 4x18 4x20 and 9x22. Starting to add the polish now with more and more tempo sessions, will do a park run tomorrow then a half marathon on Sunday with 10 miles at MP after that the miles do start to drop a lot more.



    Looking forward now to getting to the start line and eating lots of cake mmmmmmm.
  • Ok stats alert

    3x16, 2x18, 3x20, 1x 22 = 166 or if you don't include the 16s then 105 so definitely more than ever before and the 5 longest = 100 miles exactly image
  • MennaniaMennania ✭✭✭

    Robbed from some other fast vlever bugger re setting up your garmin for race day - I use this method and have failed to spot the mile markers and easily recovered it. Apologies to those who have read it before;

    "We probably all know someone who has got to the closing stages of a race, thinking they’ve used their Garmin to pace themselves perfectly to dip under a certain time, only to find they miss out because “the course was long”, or tunnels, underpasses and the like mean their Garmin lost signal and threw the pace number out of the window.

    It doesn’t have to happen that way. Even on a course with tunnels, or with inaccurate mile markers, or even on a long course(*), you can set up your Garmin in such a way as to always know how you’re doing in the race, rather than get the nasty surprise at the end. I’ve been asked to explain on threads and fmails several times, so I thought I’d stick it here for posterity.

    On the screen you’re going to look at while racing, you need to have at least these two data fields displayed:
    a) Pace – Lap
    b) Time – Average Lap
    And you also need to switch AutoLap off. And AutoPause too, if you use that normally.

    You then need to hit the Lap button at each mile marker.

    So within each mile, you look at “Pace – Lap” to see how you’re doing just for this mile (don’t use Pace (current) for this, it changes too frequently).

    And for the race as a whole, you can see your situation by comparing “Time – Average Lap” to your goal pace.

    And that’s it. This will work for races with tunnels, skyscrapers, tight turns, inaccurate mile markers – anything. As an illustration:

    Say you’re trying to break 90min for a HM. So you need to run better than 6:52min/mile average for the 13.11 mile course.

    Without doing what I suggest above:
    If you steady pace mile one with your Garmin pace field showing 6:50m/m, but the Garmin distance at the first mile marker is 1.01m – then you’ll actually pass the mile marker in 6:54 (but the Garmin will have beeped at 6:50 with AutoLap).
    If every mile goes by like this, going by Gamin pace alone you’ll think you’ve cracked the 90min, but you’ll actually come home in around 90:50. The GPS distance will record 13.24m, and you might think the course was long (although it almost certainly wasn’t).
    That would be pretty frustrating, since you might think you’d paced it perfectly. It’s even more frustrating when the margin is closer, if the Garmin “over-read” on distance is less than the 1% above.

    If the same runner sets up the Garmin as above:
    Pass mile one, hit lap manually – they know that the first mile was 6:54, not 6:50. The field “Time – Average Lap” says 6:54m/m. They’re slower than 6:52 target pace and are aware of it. Until they speed up and this field reads better than 6:52, they’re still behind the pace.

    If you miss a mile marker, this method is not screwed up either – you just need to make a lap somewhere, even if it’s not accurate. As long as you have pressed lap X times when you pass the X mile marker, the field “Time – Average Lap” will be your average pace in the race to this point (it’s basically doing the same calculation you would do if you took total time and divided it by total race distance at that point).

    Forget about Virtual Partner; since the GPS measure of distance isn’t (sufficiently) reliable you can see why that isn’t a reliable method.

    (*) Officially measured courses are not long, even if your Garmin says it is. GPS cannot be relied upon to be accurate to better than 1-2% typically, so you c

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    So, I'm sure you're all on tenterhooks waiting to hear about my BIRTHDAY parkrun debut (just humour me). It was the first meeting of a brand new parkrun with a massive hill in it (twice), and I came 10th in 20:15, which I was only a little bit annoyed with as I think I ought to have been able to do it faster and beat the dude in the orange t-shirt just in front of me. But I enjoyed myself. I think the slightly suboptimal time must be down to advancing age. image

  • Well this morning was a tune up race. Only parkrun available so that's what I did with 3 miles warm up and cool down to make a total of 9 miles. Parkrun PB 24:41 and 5 k PB 23:49 so that was the time to beat. Today was a lovely morning with a mild yo moderate wind, but it is always windy on the parkrun course so conditions as good as they could be. I pushed fairly close to the front and then went for it. The first k is uphill so I was worried that I'd set off too fast but kept with it. Managed to keep the pace throughout for a time of 23:13 which is probably a couple of seconds slower than I went as I started my watch at the gun. So a PB by 36 secs. imageimageimage. If I'd had to I could probably have pushed on a little more. I managed a sprint finish to get shot of the bloke who thought he'd beat me as we turned the final corner. Ha I showed him. I was 107 which is at 100 people further forward than in recent weeks. Our parkrun now regularly has more than 300.
Sign In or Register to comment.