I will ask again if anyone else reads this?
Anyway, his most recent column summarizes a speech he gave at Dick Beardsley's Marathon running camp regarding how to best predict what you are capable of running in a marathon. He mentions the Yasso 800m, Galloway's "Magic Mile", the 10k test, and the 1/2 marathon +5%. But, the predictor he uses today and offers as a standard for the runners he coaches is to simply take the pace of your longest training run and extend that to 26.2 miles. I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, I think it's discouraging. He is delivering this speech at a camp that people have paid for to make themselves better marathoners. This predictor contains no sage wisdom. To me, it suggests that covering the distance is the ultimate goal to be acheived through training. You could simply run any distance for 5-6 days during the week with a long run on the weekend and prove his theory correct. It seems there would be little benefit to a varied workout program during the week, ie no need for speed, hills, fartlek, etc. I always thought the point of a marathon training program was to put you in a position to use 18- 24- 28 weeks of training to do something special on 'race day.' Regardless of how fast my fastest track or interval workout was during training, I always knew that I would be capable of more on race day because of adrenaline, taper, race prep etc. I know we have discussed this before, but this seems like great advice for those who want to know how long it will take to cross the marathon of their life's 'to-do list.'