Just as a wee change of topic: Does anyone know why there's such a discrepancy between the schedules offered? Either you're 'sub 4:30' or you're a 'just get you round'.
I find that a bit upsetting because I don't need a run/walk schedule. I already run regularly, albeit slowly, and I'm aiming for around 5 hr 30 running the whole way.
I've run one marathon already (badly) and several half-marathons without schedules, and I wanted to try to prepare for the FLM with a proper schedule and see if I can improve the experience (read: not hit every possible physical wall along the way )but the only options I seem to have is one that is far too fast for my abilities, or one that's too basic. Has anyone got the same problem? Or can anyone help to point me in the right direction to a schedule that's around the 5-5 1/2 hour mark?
Just thought ti would tell you of my experiance of 20 mile + runs.
Trained for my 1st marathon at London this year was advised to only do up to 23 max only problem was i underestimated the distance on the longest run and ended up doing 24. 7 !! was out for 3 hours 50!!!!
Ran Ashby 20 a week later was fine got round in 2 .47 but come London six weeks after the mammoth long run i found it very tough going after 21 miles, mile splits went from 8. 30s up to nearly 10 mins!
So i think the long run was far too long for me, so i wouldnt be too concerned in not running more than 20 m in training , i would go 22 tops, in fact thats the way im going to be going in training for Brighton marathon next year.
I don't have specific marathon experience.... but I would certainly say that time on your feet is more relevant than a long-run that matches race distance.
If you're training for a 3-hr marathon, I'd say it'd be better to be hitting a higher mileage week-on-week and doing long-runs that give you 3 hours on your feet.... rather than putting too much into a long run that's going to break you down.
I'm happy doing a long-run of no more than 90 minutes in 10k training... and even that is probably more than I need... and I've run good times on doing 60 min long runs.
Weekly mileage/the quality of the sessions you do has probably got far more to do with it. I'm not the most experienced runner in the world... but I have dipped under 40 mins a couple of times for 10k so I'm not talking complete shit.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |