No Paula Radcliffe schedule this year in the Marathon Mag. What do you think of the schedules they have printed and who is the guy who has written them?
I am new to this but will let you have my thoughts anyway. Doing the long run on time rather than distance doesn't seem to be a good idea, slower runners may not have run enough miles that way. Also, it seems to have lots of 2 hour long runs then jumps to 3 hours for one week before tapering for the marathon. An hour increase in one week seems a lot.
I have been looking at the Hal Higdon schedules which show distances rather than time and have a more sensible increase.
Written by the winner of one of the first London Marathons (1983 I think) - he now organises training weeks etc, so he knows what he's talking about.
Agree with your comment on the sudden jump to three hours SP; there should be a smoother transition. However I think doing long runs on the basis of time is better than by distance, as the emphasis should be on "time on your feet", not speed; certainly I think the sub 3 hour schedule is adequate in terms of longest runs; not sure about the schedules for slower runners but am sure I read somewhere that running for much over 3 hours was damaging on the system and should be avoided in training...
Comments
I have been looking at the Hal Higdon schedules which show distances rather than time and have a more sensible increase.
Agree with your comment on the sudden jump to three hours SP; there should be a smoother transition. However I think doing long runs on the basis of time is better than by distance, as the emphasis should be on "time on your feet", not speed; certainly I think the sub 3 hour schedule is adequate in terms of longest runs; not sure about the schedules for slower runners but am sure I read somewhere that running for much over 3 hours was damaging on the system and should be avoided in training...