- August 31, 2005 at 4:22 pm #4490
Bart’s question got me thinking that I believe I can do a four hour mary. I had three decent months followed by four lousey months and now I am back at it.
I just ran a 13 miler in the 90-100 minute range. I was tired but not wasted (more hills than Lakefront). I will test myself this Sunday at 15 miles – if the 15 goes well – I’ll try 20 on Sep 11th. Then I’ll back off to 7-10 mile runs for the next two weeks – no speed work – just endurance building.
Can I do it?
- August 31, 2005 at 5:25 pm #19200Ed 1 wrote:I just ran a 13 miler in the 90-100 minute range.
That’s quite a range.
- August 31, 2005 at 5:31 pm #19201
Either way it is not bad for the amount of time that I had away from running. It is also less than a minute per mile for the range – I was not paying much attention to the clock. I just wanted to see if I could go 13 and the time surprised me when I finished.
- August 31, 2005 at 7:27 pm #19202
Is it possible? Well, anything’s possible. Is it likely? Especially after 4 months without running, there is still a world of difference between 13 miles and a full marathon. It would be different if you were running 10 miles a day every day for 4 months and then did this 90-100 minute 13 miler (see the “collapse point theory” in the article GTF linked to in your last thread). Having run 0 miles a day for 4 months, the next 13 miles will be much more difficult.
- September 1, 2005 at 12:47 pm #19203
The more I think about the distance the more I realize and remember that 26 is so much further than 20 which is way further than 13. It is not just a simple double the distance even though it is in mathematical terms.
Proof that I will be unlikely to get the four hour is yesterday – I ran 7 in the morning but last night quit after only 3.25. I was not all that tired and nothing hurt – something inside just said it would be wise to stop – so I listened (for once).
My legs are very tired today – when climbing stairs I can really feel it. I still need to get out there today – hopefully for 6-8 miles (whatever feels right).
- September 1, 2005 at 4:30 pm #19204
Where’s your “human spirit, will power and determination”?
I’m not sure why you’re doing doubles now. You need to try to get comfortable covering miles – in single runs.
Someone (I believe Ryan) mentioned Gallowalking. While it’s highly criticized for getting people to run fast, I’ve never heard anyone criticize it for getting people to the finish line. I think every 10-14 days you should be going out for a long walk/run and cover as much distance as possible.
When I was building my long run base a few years ago I’d run 15 minutes and walk a minute. I’d use that minute to take a leak, drink, take a gel, etc. You have to do this right from the start of the run, not wait till “it’s too late.” I think just those little walking breaks can make recovery from your long runs quicker.
I also recommend doing this on race day. Will you look “silly” walking 15 minutes into the race? Maybe. Will you be glad you did 2 hours later? For sure.
- September 1, 2005 at 5:16 pm #19205
I’ll give your idea a test on Sunday and see if I can get 20 miles in with the idea of 15/1 or maybe 20/1. Is there a specific reason behind the 15/1 ratio?
Doing some math and running 2 miles (16:00)(8 minute miles) and walking 1 minute would equal just under a 4 hour mary? Is my math that bad? Or I am correct?
26.2/2 = 13.1 13.1*16(minutes) = 209 209 = 3 hours 29 minutes + 13 one minute walks = 3 hours 42 minutes?!?
- September 1, 2005 at 6:29 pm #19206
There’s no magic in 15/1 or 20/1. I believe Galloway says every mile. I’d error on the side of “too many” walking breaks. If you feel good at 20, go ahead a run the last 6.2.
Your math is right (except that you’re really not taking into account the distance you’re covering during those 13 minutes – which could be close to .75-1 mile) but with your time off from running, you’re not going to be able to average 8 minute miles.
That brings up a question. Are those 6:30-7:00 miles you’ve been doing on a treadmill? If so I really think it’s not calibrated correctly. Your 10k PR is right around 43 minutes or 7 minute pace. After taking several months off, you’re not going to be able to run that pace for even a 5k. So something is not adding up correctly.
Here’s an idea; just try to focus on finishing the marathon. Quit thinking about a time goal. When you get to mile 20 of the race, then you can start doing the math.
- September 1, 2005 at 6:59 pm #19207
The four mile run I did in the 7s with the last at 6:35 or so was on the streets with my wife riding a bicycle next to me – she was using a stop-watch. That 6:35 was likely only .95 and not a full mile.
I have about a month to test these ideas along with becoming consistent for once. I could do a TT one day and have my wife time me with a stop watch.
But you are correct in that I need to focus on finishing even if that means moderate walking. It is just tough to get motivated without something to “work” for. That is part of my problem – needing a goal to get motivated – I need to find the motivation in the running itself.
- September 1, 2005 at 7:22 pm #19208
we all make choices in our lives… if you can’t find the motivation to run, then find the motivation to not hurt yourself and decide to either not do this race or to walk the whole thing…even that will hurt a lot…
I did one marathon this way… I had a good base going, slipped on the ice and had some pulled muscles, took a month off, ran a month… ran the first 10 easy, jogged and walked the last 16.2… it can be done… I think Zeke’s idea of one minute every mile STARTING WITH THE FIRST MILE is really good beacuse you can be sure to see the mile markers instead of remembering to check your watch…
but if you’re not motivated to train at this point, why bother… and instead of worrying about time maybe you could think about hanging with the slowest pace group and cheering other people on…
- September 1, 2005 at 7:44 pm #19209
RyanKeymasterEd 1 wrote:The four mile run I did in the 7s with the last at 6:35 or so was on the streets with my wife riding a bicycle next to me – she was using a stop-watch. That 6:35 was likely only .95 and not a full mile.
And how did you measure the distances? Bicycle odometers, unless carefully calibrated, are notorious for being inaccurate. I agree with Zeke that something doesn’t add up here, even with that explanation.Ed 1 wrote:I have about a month to test these ideas along with becoming consistent for once.
In running terms, you can’t become consistent in a month because consistency is about what you do day after day, week after week, month after month. By definition, you need multiple months to establish consistency.Ed 1 wrote:I could do a TT one day and have my wife time me with a stop watch.
What is this going to accomplish?Ed 1 wrote:But you are correct in that I need to focus on finishing even if that means moderate walking. It is just tough to get motivated without something to “work” for.
At the point where you are now, you will need to work for the finish. Personally, as I have already stated previously, I don’t think you can realistically expect to make it the whole way without walking and waiting until you can’t run to start walking will lead to much more suffering than if you start mixing in walking right away. BTW: Galloway’s suggestion for 4 hour marathoners is to go for a run/walk ratio of 7-8/1. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong but I was thinking 10/1 seems reasonable.Ed 1 wrote:That is part of my problem – needing a goal to get motivated – I need to find the motivation in the running itself.
Why can’t the goal be to make it to the finish line in one piece? Given what you are trying to do, this could be a very lofty goal.
- September 1, 2005 at 7:56 pm #19210
Thanks to all of you – I will be safer and mix a walk and run thing. I guess I should test out a couple of ratios to see how they feel and pick the one that will allow me to finish without hurting myself. I do not care if I am wasted by the end of the marathon as long as I do not get injured.
Those distances were measured with a car odometer – please tell me that they are somewhat accurate 😕
Also, I never meant that one month would make me consistent – I was trying to say that I would start my consistency during this month. Sorry about that one.
I was thinking that a time trial over a accurately measured distance would give me a good idea of where I actually am at this point.
I will start with walks from whatever ratio I find feels best (safe) and if I got it left in me – then like Zeke said I can run the last 6.2 or whatever (less likely) I feel I got left in me.
- September 1, 2005 at 9:12 pm #19211
Car odometers are not very accurate either. They are calibrated at the factory to a specific tire size. If the tire size changes then the odometer will not read correctly. Even if the tire size is correct they are only plus or minus 2/10th of a mile in every 5 miles. The fact that the smallest unit of measure is a 1/10th of a mile you can easily be off by as much as 2/10th in 1 mile. One of the courses I run in training was measured with two cars. One car showed 5 miles and the other 4.8 miles. When I went and walked it with a calibrated measuring wheel it ended up being 5.3 miles. So you can see the problem.
- September 2, 2005 at 2:23 am #19212
4 hours is in the bank. Just keep running, you’ll be fine. Take it fairly easy the last week. Do your last long run 2 weeks out. Just run, don’t worry about the pace.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.