|
Mar 2022
12:59pm, 21 Mar 2022
17,414 posts
|
larkim
Not sure it's optimistic, though I'm assuming it's for someone with a few seasons of running behind them and with sensible MP approaches. Maybe 80% is too generous, but I'd be surprised if less than 50% of people on that sort of bog standard, structured plan had that wide an output if the race went well. Otherwise we're all in desparate search of that training plan that buys us our individual 20 minutes of outperformance.
It's all chicken and egg though. But it's a paper, it has it's pros and cons, and for me largely makes sense - you can predict with a reasonable level of reliability how most runners will perform in a marathon if you consider mainly their average pace in training and their volume of training. It's pretty uncontroversial when stated like that, isn't it?
The Tanda paper suggests there was a range of different training approaches at play (though doesn't detail it) so I don't think you can argue they were all likely on similar schedules (ranged from averaging 2.7 runs per week to 6.8, and from 25mpw average through to 69mpw).
|
|
Mar 2022
1:22pm, 21 Mar 2022
41,786 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Think I'd agree with larkim's statement. But partly because it uses the word "decent" which probably covers a huge range of outcomes! 60 miles per week at least one of which is a decent longer run (not 7 runs of up to 9 miles!) and some variation in pace that he describes, for a period of at least 4 months, yip. (Preferably with a decent base of running, but not necessary if you are young? Older runners need more consistent longer build up?)
We love to discuss the pros and cons of different race plans and predictors. But I agree with larks - they are 90% plus the same! Decent weekly mileage, decent number of long runs, decent gradual build up, decent bits of speed work, decent amount of rest and conditioning, decent taper, decent avoidance of injury etc. = decent outcome?!  G
|
|
Mar 2022
1:24pm, 21 Mar 2022
17,416 posts
|
larkim
Yep, decent
|
|
Mar 2022
1:37pm, 21 Mar 2022
22,283 posts
|
Bazoaxe
...and if you are Chrisull plenty of descent in the Alps du Cornwall
|
|
Mar 2022
2:16pm, 21 Mar 2022
12,213 posts
|
jda
Not sure I agree, there is no real speedwork in the Jack Daniels plan I'm doing, just threshold.
|
|
Mar 2022
2:20pm, 21 Mar 2022
22,285 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Do we need to define threshold - lol
I recall Jack Daniels having lots of cHMP work and a fair bit of MP, but also recall a 5 or 6 x 1k session that I would badge as speedwork
|
|
Mar 2022
2:38pm, 21 Mar 2022
17,417 posts
|
larkim
Which JD plan is that jda? The 18 week plan and the 2Q ones do seem to include I or H sessions which are speedwork, aren't they? Though not as much as the P&D plan.
|
|
Mar 2022
2:45pm, 21 Mar 2022
41,788 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Lol - ah, let's define terms. Haven't done that for a while. Threshold, Tempo, strides, intervals, cruise intervals, general, steady, aerobic etc.
Or we could just go full HR...!  G
|
|
Mar 2022
2:54pm, 21 Mar 2022
22,287 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I shudder to think that I ran two marathons (3:42 and 3:19) on completely self made plans and without having even read anything about proper training. In fact they were not even plans, I just went out and ran with no idea for pace and/or distance.
I started to read about proper training ahead of my third marathon and my first plan was Hal Higdon but I cannot quite recall if that was for marathon 3 or 4
|
|
Mar 2022
3:01pm, 21 Mar 2022
22,288 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Looking at my training log, Hal Higdon was 2009 and so I also ran 3:08 off my own made up plan. I had joined fetch in late 2007 and I assume had started reading a bit more about running and so must have had some more science to my training.
|
