OK Double (and others), Help me out here…

Welcome! Forums Running Forum OK Double (and others), Help me out here…

This topic contains 22 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  GTF 13 years, 8 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #4486

    Peter
    Member

    Dave, you said a while back that in order to be able to run a sub 3:00 marathon, in your opinion, the runner needed to be capable of running a 39:00 10K Time Trial in the middle of a training cycle w/ little or no taper. This is what I’ve done the past 8 weeks since my last race (37:10 10k) and the past 6 days leading up to today…

    Last 8 weeks – 54, 52, 55, 40, 65, 51, 52, and 54 miles. The 15 weeks leading up to the July 4 race I ran an average of 50 mpw.

    last week Tue – 11 miles w/ 6 in 38:03

    ……………Wed – off

    ……………Thu – 7.5 miles w/ 5 @ MP

    …………… Fri – 8.1

    ……………Sat – 10.4

    ……………Sun – 15.0

    ……………Mon – 9.0

    Today I ran a 6 mile TT (actually 5.9) and hit the following splits:

    6:16, 6:02, 6:04, 6:13, 5:59 and 5:48

    My goal for Lakefront is 2:58. I plan on going out at a 6:45-6:50 pace and want to be @ 13.1 in 1:29 and @ 20 in 2:16. Probably the only question anyone will have about my training program (Hanson’s) is the lack of long runs. I have run 15 miles 4 times, 16 once and 17 once. I will run 1-2 more 17-18 mile runs.

    2 years ago with pretty much the same training plan I ran Lakefront as my debut marathon and hit 13.1 in 1:30:30, 20 miles in 2:19:20 and came home in 3:06:51. The main difference was I averaged 47 mpw vs 55 this time around, and I only had one 16 mile run in 2 years ago.

    So, I open this up to any and all to tell me what you think. I know I’m in better shape than I was 2 years ago, my races and workouts confirm it, and I feel very confident about my ability to do this, with 33 days to go. Now all I got to do is register for the race… 😛

  • #19178

    Chris
    Member

    I’d say you are well setup for a sub 3. Your 10K time suggests a time closer to 2:50. That assumes that you are properly conditioned for a marathon distance of course.

    As you say I would question your long runs. I’m no marathon expert as I’ve only run one, but one of the main points of the long runs is to move the “wall” back as far as possible. Both Daniels and Phitzinger have a 22 miler in their programs. I think that 20-22 mile distance is important as it brings you close in time duration to what you want to run your marathon in.

    Maybe try to do a 20 instead of an 18 coming up? I’m unfamiliar with Hanson’s but obviously they train some great runners. If you chose to stick to 18 and less be confident in knowing that distance has produced some great efforts in other runners.

    All in all on a good day I’d say your goal of sub 3 should happen.

  • #19179

    Ed 1
    Member

    Peter – better hurry there are less than 600 spots available.

    I wish I had kept up with my training to be able to run with you. Oh well another time maybe.

    You know that I am no expert either but that mental wall at 25 was tough – the physical at 23 I could just fight through. We both have run Lakefront and know what to expect.

    If you can, run a couple of your long runs along the lakefront route – it is a great training run and will help boost your confidence even more.

    With your base and good workouts – all you need is the belief.

    See ya near the start and about an hour after you finish.

  • #19180

    Zeke
    Member

    Peter,

    Seeing your 10k time, I’d say you’d have no problem breaking 3 hours. However, to be honest, your long runs and even your weekly mileage “scare” me. There’s no way I could running sub-3 on that mileage, but remember, everyone is different.

    I don’t know anything about the Hanson’s program (other than topping out their long run around 16 miles), I’m not even sure if it’s the same program they use for their elite team. You picked that program for a reason, I wouldn’t go and change things now.

  • #19181

    Bart
    Member
    Ed 1 wrote:
    See ya near the start and about an hour after you finish.

    Ed, are you really planning on finishing in 4-hours?

  • #19182

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I don’t think it’s any secret that I think people put way too much importance of the long run. It’s the overall program that will or will not produce results, not any one individual component. I believe it was GTF who recently posted a Joe Henderson article about Ed Whitlock on another thread that pointed out how Whitlock does much less in terms of the long run than what most people would even consider doing. Yet he became the oldest sub-3 marathoner ever. Why? Because he consistently got out the door for 1-2 hours of running every day. No speedwork, no ultra long runs, just consistently getting in the training.

    That said, I believe I have in the past expressed to you that it’s the overall training plan that I’m a bit weary of. At 55 miles per week, it wouldn’t matter for me if I was doing long runs of 15 miles or 25 miles. At best, I would still be back in Shorewood or Whitefish Bay at 3:00.

    However, in the end, as Zeke pointed out, you by now have committed yourself to the program. Deviating from it now would likely do more harm than good. Have faith in it, this program at a lower level got you through a 3:06 so who is anyone here to say that increasing the overall training load by 17% won’t be enough to improve by less than 4%?

  • #19183

    Peter
    Member
    Zeke wrote:
    Seeing your 10k time, I’d say you’d have no problem breaking 3 hours.

    I agree, but I know I’ll slow down some. 2 years ago I ran 4.9x my 10K time for 26.2. That would equate to a 3:02 for right now…

    Zeke wrote:
    However, to be honest, your long runs and even your weekly mileage “scare” me. There’s no way I could running sub-3 on that mileage, but remember, everyone is different.

    I do realize that everyone is different. Last time I did slow noticeably from miles 20-26 (almost 1 minute per mile). Maybe I’m still a bit naive believing that I will be able to maintain a sub 7:00 mile pace for 26 miles even with this comparatively low weekly mileage and long run totals. But I believe I’ll benefit from the 15-20% increase in mileage, the familiarity of the marathon course and being in better overall aerobic and anerobic shape. Will I get 7 minutes of benefits? Who knows…

    Zeke wrote:
    I don’t know anything about the Hanson’s program (other than topping out their long run around 16 miles), I’m not even sure if it’s the same program they use for their elite team. You picked that program for a reason, I wouldn’t go and change things now.

    Oh, I don’t intend to change anything now, I was just wondering if what I’ve done over the past 6 months has adequately prepared me for the (hoped for) 7 minute improvement that I am seeking. I originally chose the Hanson’s program for how it fit my work-life-run balance, and I realized that I needed a day off every week at age 40. I like the S.O.S. (2 days of something of substance per week) workouts, and the 8-16-8 mileage for the days around and including the long run. I do believe in the program, and I feel it presents me with the best chance of running under 3 hours at this time. BTW, it’s not the same program for their elites.

    I just wanted some feedback, and that what you guys have given me. Maybe if I don’t reach my goal, I’ll look at running 20 milers next time.

  • #19184

    Chris
    Member

    I ran my first (only) marathon in 3:04 I think….maybe 3:07. Either way I was running 50-60 miles a week and NO long runs whatsoever. I think my “long” runs were about 10 miles. I think I remember running a 15 miler about 6 weeks?? before the marathon. I know had I run a couple long runs 3:00 would have been a breeze. I just flat out cramped up at 22 miles and had to walk half the distance to the finish. I believe at mile 22 we were on pace to run low 2:50’s as we were at about 6:45 per.

    So I personally think you can run well on 50-60 miles a week. You can probably race better on 80 yes. I think everything you are doing should work for you. Have confidence in your training and you will be fine.

  • #19185

    Zeke
    Member

    Yeah, the good news is that this is similar training to your last marathon. Had you run 80 mpw and now tried 55 mpw, I’d say you’re in trouble.

  • #19186

    Anonymous

    I think ed whitlock is the king of the long run…If I remember correctly, he does a TON of 3 hour runs…at least a few times per week…

  • #19187

    Peter
    Member

    Prior to 2003, the most miles I had run in one calendar year was probably 1500, or 29 miles a week. More likely it was 30-35 a week, and periods of no running. I made it to 1900 in ’03, and was far more consistent. I should make 2400 miles this year. 2004 was filled with injury, so the miles dropped down.

    I believe in higher mileage, I really do. I’m just taking a slow and steady approach to building up. On the other hand, my current mileage is probably just about perfect for optimal 10K training 😆

  • #19188

    Ryan
    Keymaster
    Anonymous wrote:
    I think ed whitlock is the king of the long run…If I remember correctly, he does a TON of 3 hour runs…at least a few times per week…

    Not according to this article, in which Joe Henderson states:

    I told him that Whitlock’s runs all sound long to me. Before his 2:52 marathon of two years ago, all runs lasted two hours except the races, which could be shorter or longer. The racing itself served as “training” for speed or distance.

    Sure, all runs are relatively long but that would mean all of his runs outside of races were surely under 20 miles.

    Some more words of wisdom from that article and ones that give us a bit of a look into how long Whitlock’s runs actually were (sounds to me like we’re talking 15 mile range):

    For two decades the long run has been king. We’ve been taught to make it good and long, approaching marathon distance or (in some programs) even beyond.

    We’ve been told to do this weekly, or even two or three weeks apart, and to spend the time in between recovering with very easy runs and rest days. These long runs typically have at least doubled the runner’s everyday average.

    There is another way — the about-the-same-every-day way. It requires two radical departures from conventional training wisdom:

    1. Resurrect the old collapse-point theory, which guided marathon training programs of the 1970s and ’80s. This grimly named system held that you can run about three times your average daily distance before hitting a wall. Marathoners, then, need to up that average run to nearly nine miles to push the wall past the finish line.

    2. Limit the length of long training runs to half-again the daily average. Adding 50 percent to an everyday eight- or nine-mile run would place the longest one at about a half-marathon.

    Does a plan of shorter long runs and longer short ones work? It does for Ed Whitlock. He ran his fast marathons on daily training runs little more than half that length.

  • #19189

    Ed 1
    Member

    I am thinking that might not be impossible – I just ran a 13 mile run in about 90-100 minutes. I was tired but not wasted. If I can slow it down a bit to maybe 9:00s I should be able to chugalug through the whole distance. A four hour mary will require an average of the high 9:4Xs

    I am planning on running 15 this Sunday and see how that goes (hopefully an 8:00 pace). Sep 11th if the 15 goes well I’ll try a 20 miler. Then I’ll do a miny taper for the next two weeks – nothing hard just a lot of mid-speed runs around 7-10 miles in length.

    I know I’m crazy – but safe is no fun at this point.

  • #19190

    Peter
    Member
    Ed 1 wrote:
    I am thinking that might not be impossible – I just ran a 13 mile run in about 90-100 minutes. I was tired but not wasted.

    13 miles in 90 minutes is 6:55 pace. Did you really run this? If you were tired but not wasted after that, then maybe you really do have a 3 hour marathon in you. Even 100 minutes for 13 miles is 7:41 pace. I’d love to be able to do that after four months off from running.

    If I can slow it down a bit to maybe 9:00s I should be able to chugalug through the whole distance. A four hour mary will require an average of the high 9:4Xs

    A 4:00 marathon is actually 9:09 pace.

    I am planning on running 15 this Sunday and see how that goes (hopefully an 8:00 pace). Sep 11th if the 15 goes well I’ll try a 20 miler. Then I’ll do a miny taper for the next two weeks – nothing hard just a lot of mid-speed runs around 7-10 miles in length.

    I know I’m crazy –

    Based on your statements above, I’d have to agree.

  • #19191

    r-at-work
    Member

    I wasn’t going to post on this thread since I am not at the level you guys are talking about… but the comment “safe is no fun” got to me… what has that got to do with the discussion at hand… Ed Whitlock had three VERY different things going on (from Ed 1 anyway)… the first is that he plays it safe… at least that is what you would have to figure ‘at his age’ that he wouldn’t be running year after year if he took unsafe chances…

    his age is the one thing I’m closer to than most of you and I can say that you have to listen to your body & be safe… okay so he’s almost a machine…anyway… the other two things are consistancy & patience… how does this apply to the current thread ?? I think that whatever program you pick for your ‘next’ marathon if you’ve done one your body has already started to adapt and the more you do the further down that road you are… and Whitlock has the patirence, or at least he has so far, to tray again if conditions aren’t perfect… at least that’s what it sounded like in the one article I read about him…

    so can Peter meet his goal… hey, what if it’s 80 degrees? there are just too many things that can stack up against you… all that foolishness aside, I went to the McMillan calculator and he thinks it will happen… so don’t go out to fast, fuel & hydrate well and hope for a calm, cool day… and if it doesn’t work, try again after reviewing the plan & comparing the outcome to other races, etc…

    good luck…

    -Rita

  • #19192

    Peter
    Member

    If it’s 80 degrees, all bets are off. Seriously, I wanted to generate some discussion, and my ‘low miles’ approach was bound to create some carefully constructed caveats. I appreciate everyone’s input, and honestly believe if I suffer after 20 miles, then I probably didn’t put enough miles in to reach my goal. I don’t mind, b/c I know where I am today compared to two years ago, and all else being equal, I like my chances.

    As far as Ed Whitlock and Ed 1 go, all I can say is, the best predictor of future success in almost any athletic endeavor is your most recent past.

  • #19193

    tomo
    Member
    Ryan wrote:
    Anonymous wrote:
    I think ed whitlock is the king of the long run…If I remember correctly, he does a TON of 3 hour runs…at least a few times per week…

    Not according to this article, in which Joe Henderson states:

    I told him that Whitlock’s runs all sound long to me. Before his 2:52 marathon of two years ago, all runs lasted two hours except the races, which could be shorter or longer. The racing itself served as “training” for speed or distance.

    Sure, all runs are relatively long but that would mean all of his runs outside of races were surely under 20 miles.

    Some more words of wisdom from that article and ones that give us a bit of a look into how long Whitlock’s runs actually were (sounds to me like we’re talking 15 mile range):

    For two decades the long run has been king. We’ve been taught to make it good and long, approaching marathon distance or (in some programs) even beyond.

    We’ve been told to do this weekly, or even two or three weeks apart, and to spend the time in between recovering with very easy runs and rest days. These long runs typically have at least doubled the runner’s everyday average.

    There is another way — the about-the-same-every-day way. It requires two radical departures from conventional training wisdom:

    1. Resurrect the old collapse-point theory, which guided marathon training programs of the 1970s and ’80s. This grimly named system held that you can run about three times your average daily distance before hitting a wall. Marathoners, then, need to up that average run to nearly nine miles to push the wall past the finish line.

    2. Limit the length of long training runs to half-again the daily average. Adding 50 percent to an everyday eight- or nine-mile run would place the longest one at about a half-marathon.

    Does a plan of shorter long runs and longer short ones work? It does for Ed Whitlock. He ran his fast marathons on daily training runs little more than half that length.

    Here is what ed said on letsrun.com

    RE: Good Ed Whitlock story in NYT today 2/15/2005 8:16PM – in reply to still a young runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

    “In the 20 weeks before last September’s marathon, I ran 67 sessions of 3 hours, 22 sessions 2 to 2.5 hrs, 6 sessions 1 to 2 hours, 13 tempo or fartlek sessions, 13 races (1500m to 15k), I missed running on 13 days for various reasons. Only a single training session per day. On 2 calendar weeks I ran 3 hours every day. Not sure of pace on 3 hour runs, maybe a bit over 8 minute miles.”

    sounds like quite a few long runs to me. On two calendar weeks he ran 3 hours every day!

  • #19194

    tomo
    Member
  • #19195

    Ed 1
    Member

    I think some of the confusion is time versus distance – an elite can cover many more miles than a slug like me in a given time period- and you therefore cannot consider that we both completed a long run. My run would have taken a long time and the elite’s would have been a long run.

  • #19196

    GTF
    Member

    Reminiscent of the farmer parable, where the farmer who keeps pulling up his plants to check the progress of the roots sees his harvest yield diminish considerably as a result. As if that were not a bad enough scenario, in this situation the farmer apparently would be doing that while trying to bring a crop to maturity in less than 20% of the recommended growing season, without any fertilizer.

  • #19197

    Ed 1
    Member

    This would hold true in part if you could take into consideration the human spirit, will power and determination.

  • #19198

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Interesting. Well, assuming that was Whitlock (I remember imposters showing up regularly at LetsRun in the past) it’s interesting to see the contrast between that and what Joe Henderson says Whitlock told him about his training before his last sub-3. Of course, this still points out that Whitlock doesn’t go out and try to run 40-50% of his weekly mileage in one shot like a lot of people do, throwing all their eggs into one run every week or two. He keeps plugging away with a lot of runs of roughly the same distance. That consistency makes all the difference.

  • #19199

    GTF
    Member
    Ed 1 wrote:
    This would hold true in part if you could take into consideration the human spirit, will power and determination. I could and did, in the context of how consistently effective it was in the past six months.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.