How hard should you run ? - Page 14 - Training

Plodding Hippo

12/03/2005 at 18:12

Dear Themoabird

your GUC thread is ready and waiting in the non conventional running area

love hippo

Barnsley Runner

12/03/2005 at 18:28

FL - keep everything below 150. 140-145 ideally.

MikeB

12/03/2005 at 19:13

I struggle to get above 150 on sustained runs BR, but some of them certainly are not easy!

Barnsley Runner

12/03/2005 at 19:18

Is you max HR lower, though Mike? FL and I have similar HR ranges.

Kiwi runner

13/03/2005 at 16:21

Just a comment on training, potential, enjoyment, etc. I have just finished the Liverpool half-marathon (only my 2nd half marathon), and was ecstatic to have done it in 2:08:30, 5 mins faster than my first half 18 months ago. The reason I started reading this thread was the starting question - should I have pushed myself harder? I managed to run up to and over the finish line quite fast (couldn't really call it a sprint though), so had a bit left in the tank - did I push myself hard enough? BUT, whenever I did push myself, I got the stitch (bane of my running and I think my biggest handicap) so had to slow down again. For me, the achievement lay as much in improving my time as the fact that I have trained consistently and as well as I can manage over the past 9 weeks. In a way that's more of a personal achievement coz it took a lot to make myself do it, and my life seems to have been a bit overtaken by it. I am really proud of myself for doing both the training and the run, so that's part of the reward for me too. In terms of genetics, etc, my body can't seem to handle it when I exercise more than about 4 days a week so I have to settle for quality not quantity. From reading about running, I thought that the improvements in times came from the speed/hill sessions as much as the long runs (if not more - the speed sessions increasing lactate threshold, training fast twitch fibres, etc????). But what you guys on this thread seem to be focussing on is weekly mileage. Surely if you want to run for a long time the long runs help this but they don't make you run much faster do they?

soc

13/03/2005 at 16:58

Kiwi - have you tried decreasing the intensity/speed of your runs and THEN increasing it past 4 times per week (if that's what you want to do)?

I think for distances such as half marathon, the long run is probably the most important session - you don't really need many fast twitch fibres for a half marathon!

Barnsley Runner

13/03/2005 at 17:01

The speedwork is the icing on the cake. You need to bake the cake first.

Kiwi runner

13/03/2005 at 22:16

I enjoy the long run and was doing 16-19km for the 8 weeks leading up to the half-marathon (doing this in about 2 hours). Any suggestions on the biggest problem which holds me back a lot - getting the stitch if I run within 2.5 hours of eating or drinking and therefore possibly "underperforming" because of not being well-hydrated enough.
I really do enjoy running but it's not much fun with a stitch.
Soc, no matter how easy my sessions are, if I do more than about 4 runs a week my achilles is too sore and doesn't feel like my muscles recover at all. I think I'm just a product of my mostly idle childhood (don't analyse that!).

Tom.

13/03/2005 at 22:20

BR, "The speedwork is the icing on the cake". Can I refer you to some of my musings on the VO2max tread.

Barnsley Runner

13/03/2005 at 22:23

Can you bump it for me - I tend to avoid anything with the words `VO2 max':))

FarSide

14/03/2005 at 13:05

KR, provided you have a firm endurance base, appropriate speedwork is the only way to get faster. You can't do all your training at 7 min mile pace then expect to run a race or part of a race at 6 min pace unless you train to do that. From my cycling days, people would extend their mileage without speedwork and actually get slower.

Tom.

14/03/2005 at 13:10

BR - duly bumped

ceal

14/03/2005 at 13:16

Lowgrade, hi, how are you, we have certainly missed you. How is are your sprint sessions going? What track events have you got lined up?

Pantman

14/03/2005 at 13:23

Lowgrade - that is just wrong.

I did all my training slower than 6:45 pace and ran the Dartford 10 under 5:45 pace.
I plan to get down to 52min for 10M with nothing faster than MP, let alone anaerobic, in training. Watch this space...

Kiwi - more miles means more mitochondria = a better engine. Never underestimate the speed that easy miles can bring.

FarSide

14/03/2005 at 13:26

Sorry Pantman, not my experience or most athletes' - easy miles do nothing for my speed, intervals do.

Pantman

14/03/2005 at 13:29

Nevertheless, your statement was a blanket one. I have proven that to be wrong.

Barnsley Runner

14/03/2005 at 15:15

I ran 5:25 pace for a 10k with 2 sessions of 4 x 3 laps faster than that pace, or less than 1% of my training in the 3 months before that race.

If you did do all your training at 7m/m pace you would find the effort needed to achieve that pace get lower and lower, so when you run at your max in the race the pace is further and further beneath 7m/m.

jason X

14/03/2005 at 15:39

My fastest ever half marathon time was done when I started training for ultra's and virtually dropped all speed training from my schedule - and just centered my training on stretching my long slow runs out towards 30 mile. With two or three hard/mid tempo 10 to 12 milers mid week. Completely stopped doing speed sessions and intervals and just focused my main effort on really working hard on the long slow run day.

I thought this would slow me down Id certainly read a few times that ultra running made you slower, but I ran a 1:24 half of the back of it - near 2mins up on my previous PB.

You could say that If I had also included the speed training then maybe I would have knocked even more off, you could also say that maybe my speed training beforehand wasnt of high enough quality. But at the very least it does mean that it is possible to get faster without speed sessions/intervals.

themoabird

27/03/2005 at 16:09

So Tom, not sure if you're following this thread anymore, but given the fallout from the great Folkestone 10 showdown, I reckon the evidence is stacking up in favour of the proposition that the pursuit of PBs ain't necessarily good for one's mental health.

Glad you broke the 60 minutes, by the way.

(Sorry BR, just being a tad provocative.)

NZChristine

25/04/2005 at 11:59

Just read the thread - started off with a question from a 46 min 10k runner. Then it switched to - if you ran 80 miles a week you could run a sub-3hr marathon.
Then went to speed v miles. I'm a 54 year old woman - best marathon 1981 - 2.47.25 - ran 10 weeks of 70 miles a week. I am still running - not because I want PBs but because I love running and most of the time it's easy. I think your marathon time is based on your mile time. If you can run a 5 min mile you can with added mileage run a 6 min mile marathon - 2.37. Rod Dixon ran such a good New York marathon cause he could run a 4 min mile and did Lydiard style training.