Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Prizes at Races
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
"the key point isn't where they start- it's where they end!"
Actually I'd say where you end is not the important thing. If it was every slow runner would have no reason to continue: some of us are just not going to turn into fast runners whatever we do. Perhaps the important thing is the improvement between start and finish.
"and if they are training more they will quickly get to the level of the faster runners who will not improve as much."
Yeah, those who start at a lower level probably will improve more. But less of the quickly... trust me, some of us progress very slowly.
"Which is the crux of my argument- runners improve and the ones doing the most training will improve the most."
Unless they overtrain and injure themselves...
"Secondly I am strongly against having long runs composing a large percentage of your mileage and very strongly believe that running an hour a day at a harder pace would improve marathon pace and performance a lot more than 7 hours on a Sunday."
Sorry, but I have no intention whatsoever of doing a marathon having only run 5 miles max at a time. Have you ever actually done a marathon?!? Your belief is probably right for a fast runner, but not for a slow runner who wants to do marathons.
"Training by distance to my mind is ridiculous and it makes your own examples of 6-7 hour training runs ridiculous as you're only covering a certain level of distance."
It's a hell of a lot less stupid than considering doing a marathon on runs of only 4-5 miles. That sounds like the Jade Goody school of marathon preparation to me. I'm sure I'm not the only person who's found that training by time-based programs often doesn't allow for different runner's speeds. A distance based program also allows me to track my progress better than a time-based program: I don't have a posh garmin, so I can measure time to do a certain course much more easily than trying to estimate the distance I've done in a certain time.
Different programs suit different people...
Trust me when I say that if you are running 5 miles each and every day it will do a lot more good than running 20 miles on a Sunday.
I'm not saying that it's the best way to train for a marathon- what I am saying is it's a hell of a lot better than just running 20 miles on a Sunday as preperation.
Pete Riley debuted with a 2:14 marathon having not run more than 80 mpw- that works out to only 11 and a bit miles per day. If he can run 2:14 off of 11 and a bit miles per day then it really isn't hard to conceive of running a strong marathon off of only 5 miles a day.
Much more variety possible and training every day for 5 miles will turn you into such a better runner.
Monday - 1 mile warm-up, 3 miles hard (roughly the pace you can maintain for one hour going flat out provided that you are not going slower than 15 minute miling- if you are I would change this), 1 mile warm-down.
Tuesday- 5 miles keeping it very easy.
Wednesday - 5 miles very easy.
Thursday - 1 mile warm-up. 3 x mile as hard as you can with 5 minutes recovery between miles, 1 mile warm-down.
Friday - 5 miles very easy
Saturday - Kenyan Hill session! 2 miles warm-up, 1 mile of running up and down a hill of approximately 200m in length moderately hard, 2 miles warm-down.
Sunday- 5 miles very easy. (optional rest day)
This schedule repeated for 4 weeks before taking an easy week then another 4 weeks of this schedule would radically improve most runners fitness and if you can improve by 5 minutes over 10k (which for any runner over 60 minutes for 10k is what I would expect for a male between the ages of 20 to 45) which would do a hell of a lot more for marathon time than running 20 miles every weekend and nothing else.
Of course for optimal marathon training this schedule would again need to be adapted but this schedule would in my opinion make you a much better runner.
I would also add some technical drills before most of the work-outs, strides after one of hte easy runs and finally core stability work on an easy day or two.
Incidentally...
My debut 10k was 61:42 and I didn't break 60 for 2 years.
My current best is 33:16 and should be broken substantially over the next 12 months.
Blimey HH - thats a hellll of an improvement !
I think theres some good points on both sides really. If you run slow and long then you're training to run slow and long. If you run fast and short = then thats what you'll be good at.
I personally think that running fast and short as well as getting in the long runs will probably give you the best results - it seems to for me.
Peter obv did incredibly well in his debut - but did he really just split his miles like that - or did he get the 20 milers in ? Most plans work on getting 5 of those in before the marathon.
When did I ever say I run twenty miles just on a Sunday? Actually I do 3-4 sessions a week, mostly much shorter, with one longer session per week. I'd only be getting into really long sessions in the build up to a marathon. Pretty much standard marathon training in terms of milage and structure, just I take longer to do the sessions, and do slightly less of them per week.
I very much doubt Peter Riley actually ran 11 miles a day. I should think he did a mix of short and long runs, including, as an elite, some that were over 26 miles. Even if he did do it on 11 miles every day, then that's a big step up from doing it on 5 miles a day!
I called your method the Jade Goody school of marathon running, and I'm going to explain that comment a little more. You see, the London Marathon she failed at was also my first. I actually think Jade didn't present herself too well: many people seem to read what she said as she'd only done one half hour training session. To me it sounds like she'd worked up to running half an hour. She was also playing basketball on a regular basis. So she was doing regular, if short, training sessions. Meanwhile I could run 15 minutes without stopping. Judged on that alone, I was much less fit than she was.
So come the day, she went off a lot faster than me. Had she kept up the speed she got to mile 20 with, she'd have finished hours ahead of me. But she dropped out. Meanwhile I completed it. Considerably slower, but I was able to keep going. I have no doubt that what made the difference was not overall fitness but the fact that I'd done sessions of up to 15 miles.
Doing a marathon when you've never done anywhere near the distance is a very good way to set yourself up for injury.
If your goal is shorter distances, then fine, congratulations on your achievments and finding a program that works for you (though having looked at your profile I can't help wondering if you'd have less injuries if you allowed yourself a couple of rest days a week). Meanwhile I stick to what I've found works for me. I'm sure as I progress as a runner I'll change it, but right now it seems to get me round uninjured and gives me slow improvement, and that will do fine. Right now your schedule would make me an injured runner not a 'better' runner.
Jade didnt even know the distance. I really doubt she'd done any running at all. I know I passed her in the first couple of hundred yards - she didnt go off that fast - she's not capable of it.
How does your short run pace compare with your long run pace Rowan ?
Totally agree Jade was woefully unprepared. Actually I give her some points for guts in keeping going as long as she did. I was probably less fit than her, but mentally and in some ways physically better prepared.
My short run pace is quicker, but still impresively slow! 12 minute miling ish. I have broken the 11 minute mile... just about! I did do a measured 100 metres recently and that came in at 27 seconds, which if I've got my calculations right is under 8 minute miling? And on frost and with a (light) rucksack on my back! So I've still got hopes of a GFA one day but I don't think I'll be worrying Paula! LOL
YS, I sort of agree that it's good to encourage people not to be medicre. But if you are saying people who don't have natural athletic ability don't deserve rewards...
Fact is, as I've said before, personally a medal is 'prize' enough for me. But I don't see any reason why if you are going to give the elites prizes, you shouldn't give prizes for people who have achieved in other ways. After all, they've paid out their entrance fee and helped pay for those elites to get their prizes...
How about prizes for:
Most improved PB
Best fancy dress
Best sprint finish
Sweatiest finisher
Any other ideas?
Encouraging mediocrity?
...and people wonder why England failed to qualify...
"some of us are just not going to turn into fast runners whatever we do."
Well, you might nto win any races, but some people would do a damn sight better if they ditched their poor mentality and did some proper training.
Therefore you cannot say the slower runners have trained less, they may well have trained more. Sorry, but you can't argue with that.
lol - well there's a red rag to a bull. I can argue with anything I choose, thanks, ol' bean. This is one I can't be @rsed to repeat ad nauseam in a lengthy post. But briefly - if I trained more, and better, I do know I'd become a lot more 'naturally talented'. I might venture to suggest that this could apply to others.
"The harder I work, the better my genes seem to get"
ooooooooooh! John's fab! For getting people started. Then if they want to get faster they have to think for themselves, or at least make choices. But I do have to say that if it weren't for the Penguin I wouldn't have found this site, wouldn't have lost the weight, made the friends I've made (some of whom are as slow as I, some of whom are quite scarily quick), or changed my life for the better.
So John, mwah!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting snobby and elitist about things, if he makes running accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise do it then that's good.
However, as far as I can see he's not big on improving at running. I don't know hgow influential he is, but telling everyone it's OK to be slow might well lower expectations.