Since it is July 4th today I don’t know how many people from across the Pond are going to read this, so I take the opportunity to draw on a point made my Grellan in his comment yesterday.
I’ve used running calculators like the McMillan one plenty of times, and I have found them to be reasonably accurate for anything up to the half-marathon distance. I never managed to get anywhere near my projected marathon time though. I think that is where the wall comes in. Very good runners may be able to push the wall past the 26-mile mark, but I and, I suspect, the majority of runners are not. Last year in Dublin running got markedly more difficult after the 23 mile mark, and even though I managed to keep the pace going pretty well, there is something that keeps me from running my predicted times; I’m always several minutes slower. Therefore, I don’t think that a marathon time of 3:25 a few weeks after a 1:32 half is bad. My prediction would have been between 3:20 and 3:25, and that’s where you ended up. But keep going. For someone who has been running for a year and a half those are impressive times. In fact, your marathon PR is better than mine (though I definitely intend to change that in October).
After feeling like someone needed to scrape me off the pavement on Monday I didn’t expect a brilliant workout on Tuesday. Nevertheless I decided to press ahead with the double header for as long as I could stomach it; I could always dial back the pace if it got too much. After a slow 2 miles warm-up I tried to press the accelerator to 7:15 pace, but like last week did not manage to reach that pace. In fact, it was worse than last week, my splits for each 2.5 mile segment were 18:34, 18:51 and 18:44 (7:25, 7:32 and 7:29 pace respectively). Don’t ask me what happened. My only comment in the logbook was “crap”, and let’s leave it at that.
After that, I definitely didn’t expect much for today. In fact I toyed with the idea of just running slowly at recovery pace, but once I was out on the road decided to give it a try anyway. A slow warm-up was followed by 10 miles at 8:00-8:05 pace. That was pretty much acceptable, and I surprised myself by how well I felt. Well enough, in fact, to push the foot down once again for 3.5 miles at 7:15 pace, and this time I definitely surprised myself by actually hitting that pace. I really don’t know why I’m seemingly unable to run 7:15 for a normal run, but have now managed it twice with 12 miles in the legs. It just doesn’t seem to make an awful lot of sense. However, I’m not complaining. All of a sudden my fears of overtraining are gone (to return again, no doubt) and I’m feeling good again. I’ll follow this up with 8 very easy miles tomorrow. No need to push the pace. I noticed that I’ve slowed down a little bit over the last 2 or 3 weeks. Mainly this is down to me not being so hung up about pace any more. I used to run every single run under 8:00 pace, now I’m a lot more relaxed about it. As my mileage is creeping upwards again, this is probably a good thing.
I made once change in the office. I think my knee felt so bad because my chair was quite low down, so I changed it and adjusted it a good bit higher on Monday. This resulted in me looking down at the screen all day, which gave me a really bad pain in the neck. On Tuesday I gathered the fattest computer manuals I could find and used them as a monitor stand. The pain in the neck is gone, and my knee seems to be getting better, now that the lower leg is at a different angle. I dare to hope again.
3 Jul: 10 miles, 1:17:28, 7:44 pace, avg. HR 153 (?), 2.5 miles split paces 8:30, 7:25, 7:32, 7:29
4 Jul: 17 miles, 2:16:36, 8:02 pace, avg. HR 149, 2.5 miles w/u, 9.5 miles @ 8:00-8:05, 3.5 miles @ 7:13, 1.5 miles c/d. Much better.
Thomas I'm inclined to agree with you in relation to predicting marathon times from Half marathon or 10k results purely based on my experience. However this article (found through links to your blog)http://www.tricoachjill.coach-site.com/page/page/4110957.htm suggests that I may need more aerobic conditioning i.e. do all my runs at a sub Lactate Threshold heart rate so as to push up the pace at a given HR and uitlmately push up the LT HR above target Marathon HR (which should be 15-20 bpm lower than HRMax). It's quite a long thread but essentially says and that the majority of runs should be at HRMax minus 50bpm with faster runs closer to LT HR (HRMax minus 30bpm) "Speedwork" should not commence until after this "basebuilding" phase,if at all for long distance training. I must say though that my marathons have been run at an avg HR of 165bpm which is approx 20bpm lower than my HRMax and while my pace suffered significantly in Dublin last year, in Cork it was fairly even throughout. Maybe my basebuilding is done.
ReplyDeleteNot to butt in here, but when the coach in the post suggests doing a majority of runs at HRMax minus 50bpm it doesn't seem to equate to doing ALL your runs at a sub Lactate Threshold heart rate, which seems to be what you're planning. More aerobic running seems to be the message, which I think for the vast majority of runners translates to more running period, rather than actually slowing down and doing less running by doing all your runs at 50bpm below max.
ReplyDeleteThe whole 50bpm below max seems fairly arbitrary too, depending on where your max heart rate is (through genetics and training, though more emphasis on the former).
Thomas is a fine example of what more running can do (if you take out the knee injury that is, ha ha). His paces have improved dramatically at the same efforts, and I attribute it to more total running rather than slower running.
Hope I'm not sticking my hand in the bee hive here.
What struck me first in that article was the reason where most people go wrong in the coach's opinion:
ReplyDelete1. You don’t run enough mileage
2. You train too fast
Personally I'm working my way up on the first point, and I like to think that I'm doing enough and it doesn't apply to me. As for the second point, I might be guilty, but nobody has ever come up with a definite formula of what pace is the best. In fact, find 5 articles from 5 different coaches and you'll end up with 5 different recommended paces.
Glancing over my logs I think that most of my runs are somewhere at 40-45 bpm below my HRMax. They used to be higher, but as I got fitter my average HR dropped even though my paces increased, and my effort levels stayed pretty much constant. Tempo runs are generally around 25 bpm below HRmax. That doesn't quite fit into the HRs from the article, but all I can say is that it seems to work for me.
Personally I agree with Mike in that more aerobic running equates to more running period. I don't take much notice of my HR while out on the road, I just check it after each run and note it down. I think that as long as you run plenty of miles at a reasonable effort, you will improve.
"I don't take much notice of my HR while out on the road, I just check it after each run and note it down. I think that as long as you run plenty of miles at a reasonable effort, you will improve."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. I've found that every single run I do regardless of pace, distance, or "perceived effort" has my HR above 80% of max. I've found my HR readings to be totally useless as a training tool since training at "zone x" would have me walking down the street.
A few "coaches" i've talked to said to ignore the HR completely while running and go on perceived exertion only. After all, what's the use of limiting your pace if you can comfortably handle a faster pace over a set distance? For me, 10 miles at 8:04(a great pace for me) translated to 90+% of max the entire time, yet I never felt better.
Then again, it depends on the individual. I'll collect the HR data, but I don't/won't train by it. My two pence...
I agree with your comments on the running calculators. My 5K PR would predict a 3:30 marathon ... but that just isn't going to happen. You can easily train for a relatively fast 5K on 30 to 50 miles a week, but the time necessary to get to the equivelent times in a marathon is beyond anything a working stiff has available.
ReplyDeleteNice workout by the way ...
Thanks for the advice folks. I welcome the "butting in". I'm the new kid on the block when it comes to running and welcome advice. Certainly my times had improved when I upped my mileage for the Cork Marathon (still a relatively manageable 70mpw). I have never trained on HR - only recorded it. Incidentally the majority of my easy runs (<10 miles @ 8 to 8:30 pace) would have been less than 135 bpm increasing up to 145 bpm on the 20 to 24 milers. Somehow my HR increases significantly during a marathon with no real corresponding increase in pace (best 7:51 avg pace at 165 bpm).
ReplyDelete