|
Jan 2012
2:20pm, 31 Jan 2012
1,682 posts
|
rf_fozzy
D2D - absolutely agree with you! Just remember to remain open to new ideas.
Pesto - people do wear spikes for XC though. That could be described as off-road? 
Right back to work now. Got lots to do before my muddy, wet and looking at the weather forecast, probably snowy and icy 22mile fell/trail race on Saturday
|
|
Jan 2012
2:22pm, 31 Jan 2012
12,973 posts
|
Pestomum
Phoot... that's just running round fields
|
|
Jan 2012
2:31pm, 31 Jan 2012
2,647 posts
|
paul the builder
""""All I'm saying is that I'm proof that unconventional training works... for me""""
Well (and daviec alluded to this earlier) - I don't actually think that having a 35sec/mile gap between your 10k PB and HM PB, and a 46s/mile gap between HM PB and Marathon PB proves anything of the sort. You're under-trained for the longer distances. If your HM time was 4-5 min faster, and your Marathon time 15+ min faster, then you might be on to something.
Except, for that to be true, I reckon you might have to do some longer runs....
|
|
Jan 2012
2:57pm, 31 Jan 2012
191 posts
|
Devoted2Distance
Each to their own Paul, you can't quibble with the fact that I've dramatically cut my times.
The point of this thread was just to show that it IS possible to bring your times down (6 min PB is not exactly a few seconds is it?) without exhausting yourself running 20 miles+
I've never run more than 18 miles in training and I can run 3.36 on a hilly marathon course. There are some runners who struggle to get a sub 4 marathon even though they are training 18, 20, 20+ runs.
|
|
Jan 2012
3:06pm, 31 Jan 2012
309 posts
|
Derby Tup
I've been watching this thread with interest. I ran 1-40 for what was thought to be a 'long' half. I think I could run 3-40 to 3-30 for a marathon (I ran seconds inside 4-00, when I hadn't done much training and was at least a stone over where I normally am now). However I think I'd struggle to get much below 44 for the 10k. Therefore, I think your 10k time hints at plenty to come yet D2D and reckon you've just not got your marathon training right for you yet
|
|
Jan 2012
3:13pm, 31 Jan 2012
2,648 posts
|
paul the builder
Anyone can dramatically cut their times D2D - that just depends on how slowly / badly you ran your first races. Meaningless.
It's pointless to compare yourself to "other runners" really. Everyone has a different age, weight, gender, running background, training budget. Look in the mirror. You ran a 3:45 in 2009 (so only 9min faster in 2-3 years), and your 10k / HM / MP relationship is pretty poor. If you're enjoying training this way, then fine. But stop trying to convince people that marathon training without long runs "works".
Also, 3:36:00 is a 5min PB from 3:41:00.
|
|
Jan 2012
3:15pm, 31 Jan 2012
192 posts
|
Devoted2Distance
We'll see...
10k SHOULD be my best distance as it's the distance I run most regularly (I've been running a 10k loop for 7 years) but here's the catch - my 'training' and my reasons for running are entirely different.
I run to relieve stress and escape everything, if I don't run fast enough, I don't get the endorphins. So... I don't get the rush I need. Training slow or doing things a bit more calculated doesn't exactly work for me. I know my times will come down because all the time I'm getting faster (race times over the years prove this) it will just be a matter of time and experience. As long as I stay injury-free (which, touch wood, I have for years now) everything should go to plan (don't quote me on that though)
|
|
Jan 2012
3:16pm, 31 Jan 2012
193 posts
|
Devoted2Distance
Paul - I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just saying it can be done
|
|
Jan 2012
3:16pm, 31 Jan 2012
38,988 posts
|
plodding hippo
Didnt you have a femoral stress fracture a couple of years ago D2D??
|
|
Jan 2012
3:18pm, 31 Jan 2012
194 posts
|
Devoted2Distance
Yes, three years ago
|
