Re: Just a thought

"Ignoramus32597" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Doug Freese

Quoted message said:

"Ignoramus32597" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I calculated that if I run the marathon at the speed of my two last
5.6 mile runs, I will do it in just under 4 hours.

If only these clasulations were even close. If you can run one 6
min/mile can you run 26 of them?

An improper analogy. I was not saying that I can run a sub 4 hour
marathon now, I was saying that it is within reach. After the end of
my 50 minute run, I was not at all tired, but, in fact, refreshed and
could run for a bit more.

And you can't see the forest for the trees, While my example was
utilizing exaggeration you obviously missed the point. To take a simple
5.6 mile run and draw any marathon pace conclusion, especially with your
minimal base is like panning for gold in a wind storm. Yes it is a
positive sign but don't get extrapolationitis. Once you build up and get
a decent 20 miler or two under your belt, then come back and talk about
a potential finish time. Even at that point we'll warn you that the last
10k is still an unknown and has brought many runners to their knees.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course it's possible and yes, a lot more work is needed. Now the
real
question, do you know how much work you need to achieve your goal?

No clue.

Great answer! I was assuming that after you read Glover you might have a
clue. Are you sure you really read it? Anyway, you should sit down and
work on a meaningful schedule rather than waste time with these pie in
the sky assertions.

Quoted message said:

I will go by my experience. I need quite a bit of running, that's for
sure. I will ramp up my mileage slowly, and will include longer "test
runs" to see how my shorter runs translate into longer running.

This sounds more like "what you want to be went you grow up" prose than
anything tangible. Hint, work on a schedule that gets you to the dance.

-DF

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ignoramus32597 said:

In article said:

"Ignoramus32597" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I calculated that if I run the marathon at the speed of my two last
5.6 mile runs, I will do it in just under 4 hours.

If only these clasulations were even close. If you can run one 6
min/mile can you run 26 of them?

An improper analogy. I was not saying that I can run a sub 4 hour
marathon now, I was saying that it is within reach.

And Doug, quite correctly, is saying that this is utter nonsense.

All that you know at this point is that for a negligible distance,
you can run the pace of a 4 hour marathon. That's nice, and, yes,
it is a necessary condition, but it doesn't make 4 hours 'within reach'.

Look. I can run a 100 m in 14.5 seconds. That's better than
4 minute mile pace (14.9/100 m). By your notion of 'within reach',
a 4 minute mile is within my reach. This is, however, total nonsense.
In doing my 100 m sprint, I'm sprinting -- not using the same
energy sources as I would have to in racing a mile. That fact
makes itself felt as the distance gets around 400 m and I'm down
to (an old-age best) 66 seconds for the 400, vs. the required 59.6.

Running your 5.6 miles in under an hour, you're nowhere near
the physiological limits and resources needed to hold that
pace for another 3+ _hours_.

Quoted message said:

After the end of
my 50 minute run, I was not at all tired, but, in fact, refreshed and
could run for a bit more.

Sure. You can easily persuade yourself that this was the case.
Keep doing it, and you'll be turning your regular runs in to races
as you keep pushing for ever-better "within reach" reports. That'll
be followed by the injury reports.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

"Ignoramus13464" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I already have a schedule and exercise log on

http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/

I will ramp up to that schedule gradually.

What schedule? All I see is repititious pictures of you paying homage to
yourselff over and over and over and over. I'm looking for an N week
schedule to include long runs and mileage culminating with a taper and
race. What I see is what you did not what you're going to do. Example
Glover and Schuder Pg. 216.
-DF

Leafing through rec.running, I read Doug Freese's message of 15 Oct
2004:

Quoted message said:

"Ignoramus13464" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I already have a schedule and exercise log on

http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/

I will ramp up to that schedule gradually.

What schedule? All I see is repititious pictures of you paying homage
to yourselff over and over and over and over. I'm looking for an N
week schedule to include long runs and mileage culminating with a
taper and race. What I see is what you did not what you're going to
do. Example Glover and Schuder Pg. 216.

Maybe he means this http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/exercise.txt

Marathon training schedule (goal to ramp up to)

Mon 0.0 miles
Tue 2.8 miles
Wed 5.6 miles
Thu 5.6 miles
Fri 2.8 miles
Sat 8.4 miles
Sun 8.4 miles

2004/10/09: 2.8 mi ran in 22:30
2004/10/09: 5.6 mi ran in 50:41
2004/10/10: 8.4 miles in 1:19:13
2004/10/12: Ran 2.8 miles
2004/10/12: Walked 1 hour
2004/10/13: ran 5.6 miles in 50:57
2004/10/13: walked 20 min

Phil M.

"Ignoramus21424" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You got it... That's my exercise log and I will try to keep it up to
date. I just added 2 miles that I ran today, which means that I ran 27
miles the week to day, which is too much as I was supposed to ramp up
more slowly. Will try to run a bit less.

That's not a plan but a history of what you did.
-DF

<< Will try to run a bit less.

That's not a plan but a history of what you did. >>

Halt! Dead Wrong!
He says, Next time,
A bit less. That's
A plan, forward-looking
Mess: No run,
No gain. Net
Loss!

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

<Will try to run a bit less.>

Will try, I say;
What I did, that's
What's planned against.
A relative position
Through moving time,
A river rushing me all the time.
Want shore; need innertube!
A rubber donut, afloat ~
A ring around my embodied
Struggle to stay afloat.
Yes, that's a plan;
A plan based on where the current
Took me from, where
I go, now rushing downstream,
Not fighting against.

<That's not a plan but a history of what you did. >>

Must we perpetually restate
The premise? A bit less,
Yes, that implies before,
A more, so to speak.
Something's got to stand
For a stake, a solid measure,
A point of departure ~
I was.
Here I am.
I will go there.
Yes, that's half time:
Before & now.
There, well, that's
Ahead...

<Halt! Dead Wrong!
He says, Next time,
A bit less. That's>

A bit less,
Yes, that implies before,
A more, from
Which next time
Substracts

<A plan, forward-looking
Mess: No run,
No gain. Net
Loss! >>

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>