Anyways.
I usually have my race recovery program dialled down to a fine art (I've had plenty of practice over the years) but this time it's not entirely the same. Maybe I'm getting old or maybe it's because I was pushing harder than what I've been uses to in a while. I do hope it's the latter and it does make sense - a 3:01 marathon is very different from a 3:15, which is roughly what I'd usually run when I do a marathon as a training run, give or take a bit.
Anyway, my legs still felt a bit sore 10 days after the marathon and I was not happy about that. I decided to try a different approach. I looked back at the training I did 2 years ago, when recovery just seemed to happen magically, and decided to copy the basic approach: 2 short runs a day instead of 1 medium one. The effects were almost instantaneous, there was no soreness on Thursday morning, neither during the run nor afterwards. Of course now I'm wondering if I was imagining things because things don't usually turn around that quickly. Maybe on Tuesday I was merely dealing with DOMS from Sunday's mountain run? Anyway, I'll keep the doubles going, at least on the days where real life will let that happen. As always, the evening run was a good bit faster than the morning run even though the subjective effort was basically the same. I've seen that many times before.
I did not have time for a second run on Thursday and won't be able to do so tonight (Friday) either, so I extended this morning's run to 8 again, despite what I just said. However, there will be a lot of doubles in the coming weeks.
The weekend will be very different - I'm doing a workshop, more about nutrition and s&c than training, but I'm really looking forward to it and hope to get a lot out of it.
Training will then step up a gear from Monday on. That's when the serious training for Belfast will start.
As for Manchester, I had heard the chatter last year about the marathon course being short. I refused to believe that because I could not fathom that an officially measured and certified course of a fairly major marathon could be short 3 years in a row. Turns out I was wrong! Thankfully they confirmed that it was correct this year (my GPS measurement of 26.37 miles bears this out). Of course, I would have broken 3 if the course would have been short still - though that news would have been highly unwelcome in that case.
- 19 Apr
- 10 miles, 1:19:38, 7:58 pace, HR 142
- 20 Apr
- am: 5 miles, 41:32, 8:18 pace, HR 133
- pm: 4 miles, 30:28, 7:36 pace, HR 141
- 21 Apr
- 5 miles, 41:28, 8:18 pace, HR 132
- 22 Apr
- 8 miles, 1:04:02, 8:00 pace, HR 137
Great photo, Thomas! That's too bad about the Manchester marathon being measured short 3 years in a row... Doubling up sounds like a good idea.
ReplyDeleteGreat photo! Short courses are super annoying. Had a friend who ran a 'PB' for 10k recently (34:05ish) but he suspected the course was short, so he continued though the finish chute until his Garmin said 10k and a PB of 34:20.
ReplyDeleteNot a good year for the Manchester Maratthin organisers. They're going to need some talented PR people, and soon. Funny, we were only discussing my surprise in 2013 when I arrived at the final 200m and was much quicker than my Garmin was indicating. Now we know why. A lot of PBs have been trashed with that news.
ReplyDeleteCheers for the photography shout. I promise all Thomas' readers that I did not pay for such high praise. Honestly.