|
Feb 2013
12:50pm, 27 Feb 2013
15,379 posts
|
FenlandFunRunner
DeeGee, you are product of ALL your training, both mentally and physically.
|
|
Feb 2013
12:55pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,466 posts
|
Gobi
The problem is this Canute. You post something that encourages less as good and people only see less.
Most people dont train hard enough to find the point where more is not better.
I discovered my point of stall to be in excess of 110 miles a week.
Not many people will go to this extreme to find the true limit.
Fact is DeeGee hasnt done enough mileage and is already excited by your comments.
Sorry DG no offence meant.
|
|
Feb 2013
12:58pm, 27 Feb 2013
13,744 posts
|
DeeGee
Not excited. Merely intrigued.
|
|
Feb 2013
1:02pm, 27 Feb 2013
15,380 posts
|
FenlandFunRunner
Wise words, Gobi. There are no shortcuts.
|
|
Feb 2013
1:03pm, 27 Feb 2013
50,467 posts
|
Gobi
I know
|
|
Feb 2013
1:08pm, 27 Feb 2013
19,335 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Re. less is more, I'd just echo Gobi. If you are an elite doing 120 miles per week, then adding more slow stuff prob isn't worthwhile and instead there is a lot of focus on speed work and the right distance at the right speed. But most of us never reach our "maximum useful" volume. It's just too much for us to fit in, round a family, full time job and usually too late a start in life at a high impact sport.
And even the elites, who have tried over last 20 years to cut down from 120 per week to less, but with more "scientific design of speed and intensity" have got worse (collectively, not as individuals). So a lot are going "old school" and back to 120+ miles a week and are seeing improvements.
Anyway, quantity vs. quality. I *think* that's prob been discussed once or twice before in Fetch, RW and other forums, Without conclusion/agreement, I would add!
A final good luck whichever way you choose to address it. Time was one of the things for me. There is plenty of time to run lots and run long (I'm going for ultras after I reach my marathon goal). But I believe I've only got a few years left to do my best effort at a marathon. And I'll kick myself if I don't give it my best shot. I'm at least 5 years older than you tho I suspect. :-)G
|
|
Feb 2013
1:15pm, 27 Feb 2013
11,151 posts
|
*jono*
yes you are proper old HG 
|
|
Feb 2013
1:19pm, 27 Feb 2013
510 posts
|
Canute
I had not intended to encourage avoidance of hard work. In recent comments on Fetch I have referred to Jim Peters to illustrate that it is possible to run world class marathon times based on fairly high intensity, low volume (ie less than 50 mpw) training. Peters trained far harder than most marathon runners. I am sure Peters would train differently now, and I do not underestimate the value of high volume base building. However, the key word here is building. I believe that for most people frequent long runs (eg 20 miles or more) at moderate intensity (eg faster than 1 min/mile less than MP) do not produce sustained building.
|
|
Feb 2013
1:21pm, 27 Feb 2013
5,820 posts
|
Binks
Lots of great stuff here. Particularly the "no shortcuts bit".
I think a lot of this comes down to conflicting objectives. I think it's fine to run a few marathons as training for a "peak" marathon so long as racking up marathon numbers isn't your aim.
Certain things are compatible I think. Eg half marathon and marathon pbs. Marathon and 50 mile pbs. 10k and 5k pbs. etc.
Some stuff is not, such as 5k and 100 mile pbs. Or trying to join the 100 marathon club as quickly as possible and pretty much any pb.
But obviosuly a lot about marathon running isn't just the raw speed and endurance stuff. There is a lot to learn and train for regarding nutrition, thermoregulation, mental stuff etc that having a lot of 26.2 mile runs under your belt will certainly help with.
|
|
Feb 2013
1:27pm, 27 Feb 2013
11,152 posts
|
*jono*
good contributions - my penny's worth is experience - this is something else that will come with time. and then I suppose most runners will think *what did I do that for* - at the time it seemed reasonable
|
