Sub 3h15

Yes, "PLANC" is phrase of the week (month?) in my book.

Wise words from TR, but what else did you expect?

Fraser - 16m in 2 hours is very good going. Some might even say it's too good!

Really sound reps from Ormeski and BOTF. Great for the confidence to get a bit of zip in yer legs at this time of year when things* begin to weigh you down.

* Food, drink, weather, that seasonal disorder depression jobbie, etc.

I use those Power Bar gels on runs longer than 25kms - I'm not sure how much good they do me, but they can't be doing any harm as my guts never complain, and psychologically they provide a boost. Sometimes I cut my lip on them, though...

9.5m this morning inc. 3 x 2 kms off 2-min jogging recoveries. Was determined not to get too anxious about these, and they went much better than last weeks' as a result. 7:50 (6:19mm), 7:44 (6:14mm) and 7:43 (6:13mm).

I felt I needed to do these a) to counter-balance some slower running I've been doing and b) because I've got a 5m race on Saturday and I fancy doing the family name proud.

Keir wrote (see)

BB - I find that I don't drink much in HMs or less. I grab the odd cup for comfort / dry mouth rather than performance benefits. Do you think drinking makes a difference to performance over a 90 min race?

I can’t be sure how much good it does but it certainly can’t do any harm. The one Half marathon I did run without much fluids my pee was very dark after the race and I took longer to recovery. I think it was MM who said it in an earlier post, but I too take energy drinks during a long hard run to help recovery for the next as much as fuelling the current one.

TR – I couldn’t agree more with your FIRST training comments.

5.6mile recovery for me last night. Not entirely sure what I was recovering from but anyway, average 9:02mm and 117bpm. I was awake, honest.

Nice pacey reps from BOTF, Ormeski and Ant. You all appeared to be moving at the same speed, were you together?! Ormeski - Just out of interest, are you a scouser?

Joolska - Nice man-racing and perfectly timed after the discussion/scuffle on Championship start times! Did you not also trip him up and while he was down there scream "AND THAT'S MY EASY PACE, SCUMBAG!"?

XPS - 145 miles. I'm guessing that's 30 days.

AfE - Shame about the work nonsense. Can't you tell them you've more important targets?

Interesting discussion on the FIRST plan. Sounds like a diet really, which I suppose it is. I have to say for Loch Ness (completed in 3hrs22mins), due to knee worries I probably did something like FIRST (although I've never seen it) as I only managed an average of just under 22mpw but almost every session was hard or long or both. I would then take as many days rest as I felt I needed to be completely refreshed, which resulted in my running only 3 or 4 days a week. I saw this as the only way I could attempt the sessions needed for the mara. For me, at that time, it worked. However, as TR suggests, I now run double that mileage, mostly slow and my legs don't need half the recovery time, which enables me to run 5 or 6 days a week which, in turn, will mean I smash my PB next time out. As we all know, alot of marathon running is about confidence and therefore different training methods are required for different people, at that particular time.

IMHO.

Blimey, things move fast on here, not sure I can keep up.

XPS - amazing! Hmm, I might have to get in touch re. GUCR - not that I'd ever think of running that kind of mad event, but I'm organising a relay for charity along the canal next spring, so be good to get some tips.

Okay, there follows a stupidly long spiel about First - ignore it if you like and head for the bottom of my post which sums it up

Perhaps it's all the fault of magazine editors who promise the quick fix with plans based on the Furman schedules. Just so that we know we're talking about the same thing here, the schedule I derived from the book and adapted consisted of

• 1 x intervals session, slightly faster paces than you'd calculate from Macmillan or Danield.
• 1 x tempo session, Half Marathon pace or slightly faster, 3 - 7 miles
• 1 x LSR including 4 x 20 milers, 1 x 23 miler, at paces progressing over the schedule from MP + 1min to MP+ 15s for the last 20 miler.
• I added 1 x easy run, 5M
• 2 x cross-train sessions, for me biking 20 miles odd, but over the summer a 60 - 70 mile bike ride + a 30 miler.

TR, I would only suggest that some people find their tendency to get injured is reduced with other-than-high-mileage schedules. And others find the opposite.

My story is that 3-4 runs a week with lots of cross training was fun, hard work, and got me what I wanted. 6 runs a week, higher mileage, prior to that, was also fun, relatively easy, and also got me what I wanted. I got injured between plans using a tennis ball for injury prevention, doh! This time round I'm going for option two, just to change things around and break the routine.

A bit more perspective: I can also only speak for the more casual runner, perhaps not Moraghan's dedicated runner. I'm someone who discovered running later in life (aged 35). I like the competition, but don't have the desire to even attempt to approach serious times at the marathon. Sub 3 seems to be a reasonable target (and a hard enough one for me) to aim at without losing my OH. Some of you here may approach running the same way, as committed fun, some of you may be aspiring serious runners, or serious runners for your age groups/gender already.

Just spotted Blister's post - spot on but far too reasonable!

Blimey, this is far too long, I do apologise!

Meanwhile, in training news, on Sunday I just 10k PBed (37:47) on 30 mpw. And yes, it certainly does make me think what could I do on 60 miles per week!

In sum ... Why can't we all just get along!

luna man -  Congrats on your 10K PB really impressive time. Each to their own regarding training plans if it works it's a good plan.  As I said earlier I was put off the First plan as struggled to reach paces but maybe this was due to carrying an injury over from Stratford.  Currently enjoying running 6 days a week.

12miles for me this morning, 3 miles slow then 3 miles steady x 2. Looking for MP for the steady and hit 7:14, 7:13, 7:15,7:11,7:12, 7:11 so a little bit quick but happy with consistency.

If anyones after a long sleeve top to keep them warm during LSR's Start fitness are selling some More mile Alaska thermal tops for £14.99.  Tried mine this morning and does the job.

Nice running BB. Ooh, that's 3:10 pace

Excellent 10k time LM. Something's working for you, that's for sure.

In the current spirit of complete transparency, I should point out that I only started a lower mileage routine after several years of 5-6 days a week running. I imagine that I had a reasonable-ish base then before adding in the speedier stuff, which is generally recommended anyway?

So Jane, if you've been happily running 6 days a week already (if you have), why would you change? All the evidence is still that the best way - the short cut if you like - is more regular running if you can do it. I chose an alternative because of an inability to raise the mileage and stay injury free.

I'm not advocating high mileage instead of the FIRST plan, anyone that runs high mileage runs the risk of getting injured. I would advise (or prefer) the 5 or 6 runs /week you mentioned. Intervals, tempo and an LSR (that gets pretty close to MP) are 3 hard sessions esp for someone that is looking to that approach cos of previous injuries.
Might just be me but I see litlle point in doing the tempo and intervals if you havnt run enough miles to have sufficient endurance to be able to benefit from those two sessions. If your wheels have come off by 18M it doesnt matter a scooby how fast you have been able to run intervals. I would expect a person that did something like an LSR, a midweek 13M and 3 or 4 other steady paced runs of say 6 to 10M to be pushing their body far less hard in training and have much greater endurance on the day (might just be me but this enabled me to run a comfy sub3 in my first marathon).

I'm not knocking anyone for using the FIRST plan, just saying that I dont see it as an answer for folks that worry about injury risks. I'm a low pressure, dont take it too seriously sort of runner myself.

De-lurk....

I love all the thoughts / questioning /  discussion on what plan is best etc etc. IMHO I think the only right answer is that there is no single best plan - There is only the best plan for you...I also feel that there are plenty of ways to get to 3.00/3.15...so you should follow your own plan.  I think the most important thing I learned from this thread (from TR/TT/XPS etc etc) - Is to listen to your own body, and nothing else...if it tells you it needs a rest, rest...

(...but to go 2.45/3.00 there probably is only one way (miles, miles and more miles).

I think what LM / TR / MM and others wrote all makes sense - I think we all agree on the fact that the joy of marathon running is that there are no shortcuts, you generally get out what you have put in - in fact you sometimes get less back (i.e. a worse time) than you have put in, and it is very very rare to get out more than you have put in - And that is why it is such a good sport....

AR - I chose FIRST mainly because (a) I am lazy and would prefer to do fewer faster runs than more slower ones and (b) I am married with 3 kids and my wife hates me running hence I need to keep the time doing it as low as possible (c) I felt it would reduce the chance of injuries (though I am less convinced on this argument now).

X-post with a few...

Jane - Further to my post above - Do what suits you, what you enjoy, and you will be fine.  All plans introduce some variety of LSRs, Tempos, HMPs etc, so get some variety and some mileage and listen to your body...and if you put the effort in you will hit the 3.15 and maybe more...

BarryB - Forgot to answer the other day, Gloucester is local to my parents and where I was brought up, but not to where I live now. Too early in the year to tempt me to race it, although I might use it for a long training run in a few years.

BB - Forgot to answer the other day. I am not sure if being vegetarian means more or less colds. I used to get loads of colds when cycle racing, but I think this was due to over training and no rest weeks. I had 0 colds the year I stopped cycling and became a teacher, despite everyone else training to teach coming down with loads of them. I think running has meant I am healthier and seem to be fighting off colds better than normal at the moment. Not sure how being vegetarian affects this. Certainly you don't see many overweight veggies. What do you reckon about the colds / veggie things Speedy?