Whilst I hear what you say I would like to do each one individually though your suggestion that I take breaks is a good one.
I'm doing it partly as an experiment. I'm 47 and want to run a sub3 marathon. I ran 3.15 last year and was hoping to take that to about 3.08 or less this year but my training has been scuppered by an injury. When I'm fully over that I intend to start the 1 mile training and I'm looking forward to concentrating on the faster stuff (Apart from marathons I've been running a number of ultras). Hopefully by getting my 'cruising' speed down through the months of 1m, 5k, 10k etc training I can then build up my endurance again and knock out a really good marathon time.
Thanks again, and enjoyed reading your blog particularly about your great 5k times!
I want to increase my speed and thought I would try training for 8 weeks for 1m then 8 weeks for 5k then 8 weeks for 10k and finally 8 weeks for a half marathon. I would then start 18 weeks for marathon training. Each block of 8 weeks would be specific to the distance. Not only would I find this really enjoyable but I'm hoping that by doing it this way my speed will greatly improve.
Has anyone tried this before and if so what was the outcome?
Also can anyone think of any reason why I should do it any differently, for example, only devote 6 weeks to the mile and perhaps more weeks for one of the others or whether it would be better to spend say 10 weeks on each and so on.
I haven't much experience but I wonder whether what suits one person may not suit another. Hence one person can try andyc209's approach and blow up really badly (much more than a 5 minute positive split in andy's case). It may even be that most people trying this approach would fare much worse and there be a substantially worse positive split. For others an even pace may be the best approach and for others a negative split approach may be better. It's a case of finding out (through experience) which pacing strategy works best for you.
At Chester I suspect I could run 7 min miles for quite a bit but I'm concerned that the slowdown will be greater than if I start at 7.10. I'll start at 7.10 and I'm hoping that I'm a 'negative split' person and my second half will be better than the first!
Thanks. It's interesting that you both set off at a pace that would give you "time in the bank". That approach doesn't appear to work with everyone and some who try it can blow up spectactularly. I'm running Chester this Sunday and whilst I'm not aiming for a sub 3 I am going for about 3.10 and I'm not sure whether to go for even pacing, a fast start and slow finish or negative split.
For those that ran a sub 3 can I ask what pace you went out at - was it a sub 3 hour pace and you got slower over the 26.2 miles, or did you start out a little slower and speed up?
I would be really interested to know what pace you decided to start with and why you chose that pace i.e. was it based on something like the McMillan calculater, or did you decide that you wanted to try and run sub 3 and so you started at 06.50 ish pace?