|
Feb 2013
9:49am, 27 Feb 2013
13,733 posts
|
DeeGee
It wasn't a decision I had to make until last night. I really enjoy what I'm doing now, but I might just be young enough to do both. I'll be at marathon 31 by the end of June.
I had decided to split this year at June, run for fun until the end of June, then do the whole focus, targetted thing properly for an October race. Then I decided to have a bloody good go at Brighton and use my result there to determine the rest of the year. Now I'm reconsidering the wisdom of entering a 50k in December if a year of proper training will let me return to Rotterdam in 2014 for a tilt at 3:00.
Of course, I could yet be totally overestimating my fitness and actually be nowhere near 3:10. In which case it's a far longer road ahead...
Gah! I hate having to make decisions.
|
|
Feb 2013
9:50am, 27 Feb 2013
13,734 posts
|
DeeGee
Thanks Gobi.
|
|
Feb 2013
9:52am, 27 Feb 2013
13,735 posts
|
DeeGee
A 20 between the marathons? A four week cycle of 18-20-18-26?
|
|
Feb 2013
9:59am, 27 Feb 2013
18,369 posts
|
eL Bee!
DeeGee - I can see no problem with running a sub-3 and running multiple marathons.
The trick is to target a specific one as your hard run one and run the other essentially like long training runs.
I ran sub 3 as my last 'race' before the 10 in 10 on the back of pretty big mileage and a short taper,
But the previous marathons and marathon length runs I'd done were at a much lower intensity
|
|
Feb 2013
11:04am, 27 Feb 2013
13,736 posts
|
DeeGee
In a way, I'd secretly like to prove him wrong! I'm glad to see that it is possible. But then it comes down to true potential and talent.
I'm only a very average runner, so if 2:59's the best I could ever hope for in my wildest dreams, then I could be chasing it for years anyway waiting for the perfect combination of factors.
I subscribe to the "mileage good, more mileage better" school of thought, hence my increase from 35-50 mpw. I'm actually on for 250 miles this month as I have not taken time off post-Quadzilla.
|
|
Feb 2013
12:02pm, 27 Feb 2013
18,370 posts
|
eL Bee!
DeeGee - I'm similar to you, and my times improved across the board on a diet of more volume and a specific speed/strength/endurance session per week and occasionally using shorter races as speed work.
|
|
Feb 2013
12:07pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,463 posts
|
Gobi
Funny that Bee 
|
|
Feb 2013
12:13pm, 27 Feb 2013
24,238 posts
|
Velociraptor
Mr Bee, you need to write a blog to explain that avatar
|
|
Feb 2013
12:41pm, 27 Feb 2013
509 posts
|
Canute
FR is spot on with the statement that individuals differ. For some people (eg Ron Hill), the mantra ‘more miles better’ leads to a deterioration in performance. I suspect that for most people, going beyond the point of substantial glycogen depletion damages the body in a way that takes weeks to repair, and this limits you ability to profit for subsequent training. As a crude rule of thumb, running more than 20 miles at anything faster than 1 min/mile slower than you current best marathon pace demands relatively prolonged recovery before you can benefit from further heavy training. Whether or not there is much benefit from frequently running 20 miles or more at very slow paces seems to differ between individuals. In my experience, once you can run the full marathon distance relatively easily, there is more to be gained from lower volume training with a higher proportion of fairly high intensity sessions.
|
|
Feb 2013
12:49pm, 27 Feb 2013
13,742 posts
|
DeeGee
Now that's intriguing. Do you not feel that that would somehow sacrifice endurance?
|
