login
Miles 20 - 26 (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2004-11-10 11:10 AM in reply to: #81221 |
Elite  3498     Chicago |  Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26the bear - 2004-11-10 9:46 AM This coupled with the fact that anthing over 3 hours is not providing any benefit to your body Not so sure this is a "fact" Not that it makes me any more of an expert, but I've run ten, and tried a variety of approaches, and can vouch for what works for me. My best marathons have been the ones where I've done three or four runs over 20 miles in training. Most of these runs have been around a 10-minute pace (slower when it's hotter), meaning that in those training cycles I have had several runs over 3 1/2 hours. My last long run comes three weeks before race day, and I've had no problem recovering from that run during my taper. So, if someone has a marathon goal pace of 12 minutes, and a corresponding LSD pace 1 to 1 1/2 minutes slower than goal, would you recommend they attempt a marathon after a longest training run of only 13.5 miles (3:02)? I am by no means an expert either. I just wanted to make the point that there are studies out there (i'll search and post here when I find them) that say over 3 hr runs do not make a body stronger. And you're right, one or two studies does not a fact make! Regarding your long training run question...an LSD pace of 13:30min/mile is about walking speed so once we start talking about these "outlyers" I would imagine that you're correct because I believe the "3 hour rule" is for people who are running their LSD and once you start considering the lower end of the spectrum (i.e. almost a walking pace of 14:00min/miles) perhaps the "damage" to the body is not as severe as assumed in the study. Good point! Edited by Steve- 2004-11-10 11:10 AM |
| 2004-11-10 11:21 AM in reply to: #81246 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 I'd be surprised if you don't catch flak for referring to slower speeds a "walking pace." Remember this is BeginnerTriathlete.com, and not everyone is at your ability level. What works for you won't work for everyone, and there are those that put just as much effort (and suffer just as much stress) while running in what you refer to as "the lower end of the spectrum."That said, due to an injury, I walked every step of the Country Music Marathon this past April in 5:38 (12:54 pace). So for some people, that is a walking pace. |
| 2004-11-10 12:00 PM in reply to: #81250 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 the bear - 2004-11-10 10:21 AM I'd be surprised if you don't catch flak for referring to slower speeds a "walking pace." Remember this is BeginnerTriathlete.com, and not everyone is at your ability level. What works for you won't work for everyone, and there are those that put just as much effort (and suffer just as much stress) while running in what you refer to as "the lower end of the spectrum."That said, due to an injury, I walked every step of the Country Music Marathon this past April in 5:38 (12:54 pace). So for some people, that is a walking pace. I hope that people don't take my post that way. The "lower end of the spectrum" was not at all referring to people being "lower" than others, simply a descriptive term to denote that the pace per mile times we were discussing are at the level that is realistically about as low as you can get before a walking pace per mile begins. If I could think of a different work to use than "low" and not sound offensive I would... Didn't mean to offend, just describe. Consequently, (getting back on topic) if you can walk a 12:54 min/mile pace then I don't believe the studies I was referring to apply due to the lower impact nature of walking vs running. That was the point I was trying to make and didn't mean to make it sound offensive by using the word "low." Additionally, if you did walk an entire marathon at a 12:54 min/mile pace then it is in fact a "walking pace" is it not? So that's why I was using "walking pace" in my post. A walking pace is defined as a pace at which you can hold while walking. So, I hope people understand that my reference to: "walking pace" AND "low" are not meant to belittle ANYONE's effort but rather to make reference that perhaps the 3 hour limit for a long run does not apply. make sense? Edited by Steve- 2004-11-10 12:05 PM |
| 2004-11-10 12:09 PM in reply to: #81266 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 My point is that what may be walking pace for you and I is running, maybe even at a strenuous pace, for others. We kind of got sidetracked here, but you maintained that it was alright for slower runners to exceed your arbitrary three hour limit because it was less stressful for them. By that rationale, someone running a 10-minute pace incurs less stress than a nine-minute-pace runner, and so on. Thus your three-hour limit becomes even more arbitrary. I continue to maintain that regardless of pace/time you still have to cover 26.2 miles in a marathon. I would be extremely hesitant to send someone to a marathon with a long run of less than 18 miles, no matter how long it took them to cover that distance in training. |
| 2004-11-10 12:15 PM in reply to: #81266 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 Well, I've seen articles that reference this 3 hour 'rule' also. I'm quite slow and 3 hours would never get me close enough to the distance to be comfortable..... But, I just wanted to point out that slower does not equal easier. We're not slower because we're taking it easy. We're less efficient than you. Therefore each step is harder work. So, if the 3 hour rule is valid (no opinion as I haven't ever tried to run more than an hour), it would apply to us just as much. I was about to break out with the flak, but Bear covered that. ;-) |
| 2004-11-10 12:19 PM in reply to: #81277 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 |
| 2004-11-10 12:23 PM in reply to: #81284 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 Well, the achilles tendonitis is getting no better and no worse. No idea what to do about that. Good news is that ChiRunning seems to have saved the day and I am able to run without pain and without inflaming any injuries. It's wonderful! So yes I'm running for short distances about 4 times a week for the last two weeks now. Makes me very happy!!! Now if it would just stop with this cold rain nonsense.... I'm eager to get out there!!! |
| 2004-11-10 12:30 PM in reply to: #81288 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 That's great news. I'm going to have to find this ChiRunning book... |
| 2004-11-10 12:44 PM in reply to: #81153 |
Expert 1166 Colchester, CT | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 the bear - 2004-11-10 9:22 AM Damn, you guys are good. Chris' post (cdf26.2's) should be capitalized, bolded, and preserved for posterity as the Top Three Rules of Marathoning. Add to that proper hydration and nutrition and you have the blueprint for a successful marathon. Thanks for the compliment. For whats it's worth, when I was doing my long runs, my pace was around 9:30 miles, so I frequently went over the 3 hour limit and had no problem recovering from it. I think it all depends on what your body is used to. I was doing 4-6 20+ milers over 18 weeks, but I was also doing some 12-14 milers mid week at an easy pace. Chris |
| 2004-11-10 12:46 PM in reply to: #81294 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 Definitely! You coach for Team in Training, right? Obviously, how you run seems to agree with you, but if any of your trainees are getting injured, they should read it. The author also touts speed benefits, but honestly I have yet to test the theory... |
| 2004-11-10 3:51 PM in reply to: #81277 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: Miles 20 - 26 kimj81 - 2004-11-10 11:15 AM Well, I've seen articles that reference this 3 hour 'rule' also. I'm quite slow and 3 hours would never get me close enough to the distance to be comfortable..... But, I just wanted to point out that slower does not equal easier. We're not slower because we're taking it easy. We're less efficient than you. Therefore each step is harder work. So, if the 3 hour rule is valid (no opinion as I haven't ever tried to run more than an hour), it would apply to us just as much. I was about to break out with the flak, but Bear covered that. ;-) I guess I mean to say walking is easier on the body than running....but sry for the thread hijack regardless.... |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK