Paris marathon RR

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by marko, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. marko

    marko Guest

    Let me just quote myself for a start :

    > Also, I think I really got into my brains not to start
    > too fast, to race at my pace, evenly and wisely.


    this is just to show, once more, if need be, that thinking is not the
    same as doing, as you'll see later with the splits I did.

    1/ Background :
    As a background, I'd like to come back 2 years before when I ran my then
    3h04 PR. At the time, I thought I could run sub-3, but the kind of
    training I did was probably too hard for me, with too much track and not
    enough recovery days (although I ran less miles on average than this
    time) so that coming off that marathon I realized that it would be way
    better to be undertrained than overtrained, and that I do more enjoy
    running in the woods (be it only those of the bois de vincennes in
    paris) than round a track.
    I didn't have the opportunity to try another marathon before this one,
    that I choose in october '05. In between, I unsuccesfully tried last
    summer to beat my 10k PR with again much track sessions and very little
    aerobic runs. My times were great on the track workouts, but pathetic in
    races.
    That's when Anthony first mentioned to me the Hadd training system, and
    I got really interested in it. I had never before read about Lydiard
    either, and those views about aerobic conditionning, and the way one
    could make huge progress only out of it got me really interested.

    So I began to build more mileage without taking care of speed, with
    sometime running at about marathon pace (not target MP but current which
    was at the time about 4'30"/km)
    I managed to increase my weekly mileage, and ran better and better (ie.
    faster and easier, week after week).
    Meanwhile, I continually postponed speed workout, and just did a couple
    of LT runs.
    In the end of november, I ran a 10k PR just out of endurance training,
    and really easily, which convinced me of the soundness of my current
    training.

    I kept running at easy speeds, with some MP runs that went faster and
    faster, till I got stupidly injured, tripping on a dog, which made me
    completely stop training for 2 weeks.
    I still managed to ride on the bike a few times, and did some XC-skiing.
    I got back into training, a little bit less motivated, but could get
    back to my former form.

    On march 5th, I ran a HM PR of 1h23'40" without racing all out, and I
    continued training until I got an ITBS 3 weeks before the marathon, but
    managed to cure it quickly with ice and NSAI.
    I never did any speed workout in 2006, only 2 LT runs, but much MP runs
    from 3k to 8k.
    I did a real taper for 3 weeks and was real fresh on race day.

    2/Race Report

    After a good night sleep, which was helped with a good nap the afternoon
    before, I woke up at 5:30 to get my breakfast, 3 hours before the race.
    Weighing myself, I noticed 2 more kilos from the carbo-loading (home
    made fresh noodles, and rice-cake...)
    Breakfast was as usual, 1 liter skimmed milk with cocoa, and 200g bread
    with marmelade.
    Got back in bed for one hour, then in my car, and off to paris (I didn't
    want to ride my bike for the 6km, to avoid any unnecessary fatigue).

    Race is well organised, with colored bibs in function of your target
    time (with proof thereof for sub 3h15') so I was in the preferential
    starting area, just after the elites, and before the red bibs (3h)
    The weather was perfect, 7°C and very little wind (which I feared most)
    Blue sky, hence sun, and no excuses not to race well...

    The start of the race is on the Champs Elysées, a wide avenue that
    slopes down toward the Concorde place. Being well placed on the starting
    line makes it even more difficult not to get carriedd away, and run like
    a sprinter. I passed the line in 29secs, and we weren't that packed up.
    I tried to run slow, but still did 4'06" which was 7secs under target...
    bad for a marathon.
    I tried to slow down, but as with CP, I didn't that much, as I was
    probably way faster when I hit the first km, and indeed I did hit 4'05"
    at the second km.
    On the 3rd I did perfect 4'15", but then again, too fast, feeling really
    good this morning.

    At the first water station, I do as I'll do the whole race, every five
    km : 1 bottle of 330ml water with 3 sugars which gave me a 5%
    glucose/water refreshment.

    For the first 7k, the HR is just approximate, as the HRM went up and
    down, probably due to the crowd (eventhough it's supposed to be coded...)

    So I ran a little bit fast, and so would the subsequent km be : always a
    little bit fast (only km 7 slower but there is a little hill, that I
    tried to take as gently as I could)

    OTOH I rapidly realized that I was in great form, and that I could make
    a sub-3 if there wouldn't be any injury.

    At km 10, I was in 41'48", although I couldn't make anything out of it,
    as I didn't bring any timetable to place it in context.
    Since a few races, I run only by watching kilometers splits on my watch,
    that's it.

    I ran really easily until HM in 1h28'24", with good feel and confidence
    (km 17, is a hill, again I ran slow only to avoid wasting energy)
    At this point, I knew I was doing great, still, I didn't know how long
    that'd hold.

    Kilometer 23, I ran foolishly (remember what I wrote the day before,
    about being wise and all...) @ 3'56"/km (6:19/mi) but everything was ok
    though. I slowed a bit, and continued very well until km30 (2h05'49")
    where I was happy to see that everything was still fine.
    Particularly since between km 26 and 30, there are 4 treacherous steep
    ups and downs (tunnels) but I took them gently, they didn't cost me that
    much.

    From 30 to 35, again an uphill, slight, but always in good form,
    especially since there were less and less people, and most of them, I
    would overtake with great pleasure.

    This is also the part of the race when I realized something new, which
    is that for the first time since my first marathon, I was way more
    conscious of the outside world. I could do some sighseeing and wave to
    the public and musicians along the way, things I never did before, being
    too much into the race (or too tired?)

    So at about kilometer 32 there is this slight uphill road, almost 1km,
    and after it I began to feel my quads a little bit hard.
    I never had a cramp while running, but I know from my first 2 marathons,
    that there are always so many people with cramps after km 35.
    This made me be cautious and somehow I seemed to have slowed a little
    bit to 4'20" /km between 35 and 40, or is it simply that I was a little
    bit tired? I really think I felt good, if it wasn't for my legs.

    So I continued a little bit slower, still passing a lot of people, until
    km 40 when I thought, for 2km I can push the pace again, which is just
    what I did.

    km41 I ran in 4'18" (6:55/mi)(at that point a fellow runner told me
    "head up, you're falling asleep!" so I went head up, and acceleratedd a bit)
    km42 was in 4'13" (6:47/mi)(avg pace of the race) and the last .195km I
    sprinted in 42" which made it a 3'35" pace (5:46/mi) and showed that I
    still had some reserves.

    I was so glad I finished it and in less than 3hours, that was really great!

    I'm quite content with the race and the way I ran it, although it wasn't
    as well paced as I hoped. I don't think I could have done way better
    with only two marathons before, and knowing my tendency to pace myself
    unwisely. The only seconds that I could have won, were the 25 lost
    between km35 and 40, but that's not a lot.

    Another question, the same as ever, is how best would I've fared, had I
    run a tad slowlier in the first part?

    3/ the splits

    km time splits HR
    1km 0:04:06 4'06" 155
    2km 0:08:12 4'05 155
    3km 0:12:28 4'15" 155
    4km 0:16:31 4'03" 152
    5km 0:20:41 4'10" 158
    6km 0:24:58 4'17" 155
    7km 0:29:07 4'08" 155
    8km 0:33:32 4'24" 158
    9km 0:37:39 4'07" 154
    10km 0:41:48 4'08" 166
    11km 0:46:06 4'18" 159
    12km 0:50:14 4'08" 162
    13km 0:54:24 4'09" 160
    14km 0:58:38 4'14" 159
    15km 1:02:55 4'16" 157
    16km 1:07:07 4'12" 159
    17km 1:11:33 4'25" 159
    18km 1:15:35 4'02" 159
    19km 1:19:41 4'06" 159
    20km 1:23:52 4'10" 157
    21km 1:28:00 4'07" 162
    21.1km 1:28:24 0'24"
    22km 1:32:15 4'14" 159
    23km 1:36:12 3'56" 163
    24km 1:40:30 4'18" 161
    25km 1:44:39 4'09" 176
    26km 1:48:50 4'10" 160
    27km 1:53:00 4'10" 165
    28km 1:57:20 4'20" 160
    29km 2:01:36 4'16" 162
    30km 2:05:49 4'12" 161
    31km 2:10:01 4'12" 164
    32km 2:14:11 4'10" 165
    33km 2:18:28 4'17" 164
    34km 2:22:40 4'11" 165
    35km 2:27:01 4'20" 164
    36km 2:31:23 4'22" 167
    37km 2:35:45 4'21" 165
    38km 2:40:05 4'20" 166
    39km 2:44:28 4'23" 165
    40km 2:48:55 4'26" 164
    41km 2:53:14 4'18" 165
    42km 2:57:28 4'13" 167
    42.195 2:58:10 0'42" 169

    4/ weekly mileage before the race :

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    week 1 : 85 km 53 mi 06h34'
    week 2 : 68 km 42 mi 05h23'
    week 3 : 31 km 19 mi 03h06'
    week 4 : 34 km 21 mi 01h40'
    week 5 : 68 km 42 mi 05h28'
    week 6 : 81 km 50 mi 07h04'
    week 7 : 84 km 52 mi 07h12'
    week 8 : 79 km 49 mi 06h19'
    week 9 : 65 km 40 mi 04h45' (with HM race)
    week 10 : 78 km 48 mi 06h19'
    week 11 : 78 km 48 mi 06h13'
    week 12 : 67 km 42 mi 05h37'
    week 13 : 55 km 34 mi 04h24'
    week 14 : 76 km 47 mi 05h41' (with M race)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    last 8 weeks' average : 73 km 45 mi 05h49'
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    year : 948 km 589 mi 75h52'
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    5/ next goals

    At some point during this race I thought that I could probably run a
    4'06" pace sometime with proper training, and I hope I can do it either
    this fall or next year (sub 2h55 goal!)
    I'll try a 10k and a HM before this summer, I believe I can run a sub-83 HM.

    Thanks for reading *and* for your support over all those months of training!

    m
     
    Tags:


  2. Polo!

    On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:59:29 +0200, marko <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Let me just quote myself for a start :
    >
    > > Also, I think I really got into my brains not to start
    > > too fast, to race at my pace, evenly and wisely.

    >
    >this is just to show, once more, if need be, that thinking is not the
    >same as doing, as you'll see later with the splits I did.
    >
    >1/ Background :
    >As a background, I'd like to come back 2 years before when I ran my then
    >3h04 PR. At the time, I thought I could run sub-3, but the kind of
    >training I did was probably too hard for me, with too much track and not
    >enough recovery days (although I ran less miles on average than this
    >time) so that coming off that marathon I realized that it would be way
    >better to be undertrained than overtrained, and that I do more enjoy
    >running in the woods (be it only those of the bois de vincennes in
    >paris) than round a track.
    >I didn't have the opportunity to try another marathon before this one,
    >that I choose in october '05. In between, I unsuccesfully tried last
    >summer to beat my 10k PR with again much track sessions and very little
    >aerobic runs. My times were great on the track workouts, but pathetic in
    >races.
    >That's when Anthony first mentioned to me the Hadd training system, and
    >I got really interested in it. I had never before read about Lydiard
    >either, and those views about aerobic conditionning, and the way one
    >could make huge progress only out of it got me really interested.
    >
    >So I began to build more mileage without taking care of speed, with
    >sometime running at about marathon pace (not target MP but current which
    >was at the time about 4'30"/km)
    >I managed to increase my weekly mileage, and ran better and better (ie.
    >faster and easier, week after week).
    >Meanwhile, I continually postponed speed workout, and just did a couple
    >of LT runs.
    >In the end of november, I ran a 10k PR just out of endurance training,
    >and really easily, which convinced me of the soundness of my current
    >training.
    >
    >I kept running at easy speeds, with some MP runs that went faster and
    >faster, till I got stupidly injured, tripping on a dog, which made me
    >completely stop training for 2 weeks.
    >I still managed to ride on the bike a few times, and did some XC-skiing.
    >I got back into training, a little bit less motivated, but could get
    >back to my former form.
    >
    >On march 5th, I ran a HM PR of 1h23'40" without racing all out, and I
    >continued training until I got an ITBS 3 weeks before the marathon, but
    >managed to cure it quickly with ice and NSAI.
    >I never did any speed workout in 2006, only 2 LT runs, but much MP runs
    >from 3k to 8k.
    >I did a real taper for 3 weeks and was real fresh on race day.
    >
    >2/Race Report
    >
    >After a good night sleep, which was helped with a good nap the afternoon
    >before, I woke up at 5:30 to get my breakfast, 3 hours before the race.
    >Weighing myself, I noticed 2 more kilos from the carbo-loading (home
    >made fresh noodles, and rice-cake...)
    >Breakfast was as usual, 1 liter skimmed milk with cocoa, and 200g bread
    >with marmelade.
    >Got back in bed for one hour, then in my car, and off to paris (I didn't
    >want to ride my bike for the 6km, to avoid any unnecessary fatigue).
    >
    >Race is well organised, with colored bibs in function of your target
    >time (with proof thereof for sub 3h15') so I was in the preferential
    >starting area, just after the elites, and before the red bibs (3h)
    >The weather was perfect, 7°C and very little wind (which I feared most)
    >Blue sky, hence sun, and no excuses not to race well...
    >
    >The start of the race is on the Champs Elysées, a wide avenue that
    >slopes down toward the Concorde place. Being well placed on the starting
    >line makes it even more difficult not to get carriedd away, and run like
    >a sprinter. I passed the line in 29secs, and we weren't that packed up.
    >I tried to run slow, but still did 4'06" which was 7secs under target...
    >bad for a marathon.
    >I tried to slow down, but as with CP, I didn't that much, as I was
    >probably way faster when I hit the first km, and indeed I did hit 4'05"
    >at the second km.
    >On the 3rd I did perfect 4'15", but then again, too fast, feeling really
    >good this morning.
    >
    >At the first water station, I do as I'll do the whole race, every five
    >km : 1 bottle of 330ml water with 3 sugars which gave me a 5%
    >glucose/water refreshment.
    >
    >For the first 7k, the HR is just approximate, as the HRM went up and
    >down, probably due to the crowd (eventhough it's supposed to be coded...)
    >
    >So I ran a little bit fast, and so would the subsequent km be : always a
    >little bit fast (only km 7 slower but there is a little hill, that I
    >tried to take as gently as I could)
    >
    >OTOH I rapidly realized that I was in great form, and that I could make
    >a sub-3 if there wouldn't be any injury.
    >
    >At km 10, I was in 41'48", although I couldn't make anything out of it,
    >as I didn't bring any timetable to place it in context.
    >Since a few races, I run only by watching kilometers splits on my watch,
    >that's it.
    >
    >I ran really easily until HM in 1h28'24", with good feel and confidence
    >(km 17, is a hill, again I ran slow only to avoid wasting energy)
    >At this point, I knew I was doing great, still, I didn't know how long
    >that'd hold.
    >
    >Kilometer 23, I ran foolishly (remember what I wrote the day before,
    >about being wise and all...) @ 3'56"/km (6:19/mi) but everything was ok
    >though. I slowed a bit, and continued very well until km30 (2h05'49")
    >where I was happy to see that everything was still fine.
    >Particularly since between km 26 and 30, there are 4 treacherous steep
    >ups and downs (tunnels) but I took them gently, they didn't cost me that
    >much.
    >
    > From 30 to 35, again an uphill, slight, but always in good form,
    >especially since there were less and less people, and most of them, I
    >would overtake with great pleasure.
    >
    >This is also the part of the race when I realized something new, which
    >is that for the first time since my first marathon, I was way more
    >conscious of the outside world. I could do some sighseeing and wave to
    >the public and musicians along the way, things I never did before, being
    >too much into the race (or too tired?)
    >
    >So at about kilometer 32 there is this slight uphill road, almost 1km,
    >and after it I began to feel my quads a little bit hard.
    >I never had a cramp while running, but I know from my first 2 marathons,
    >that there are always so many people with cramps after km 35.
    >This made me be cautious and somehow I seemed to have slowed a little
    >bit to 4'20" /km between 35 and 40, or is it simply that I was a little
    >bit tired? I really think I felt good, if it wasn't for my legs.
    >
    >So I continued a little bit slower, still passing a lot of people, until
    >km 40 when I thought, for 2km I can push the pace again, which is just
    >what I did.
    >
    >km41 I ran in 4'18" (6:55/mi)(at that point a fellow runner told me
    >"head up, you're falling asleep!" so I went head up, and acceleratedd a bit)
    >km42 was in 4'13" (6:47/mi)(avg pace of the race) and the last .195km I
    >sprinted in 42" which made it a 3'35" pace (5:46/mi) and showed that I
    >still had some reserves.
    >
    >I was so glad I finished it and in less than 3hours, that was really great!
    >
    >I'm quite content with the race and the way I ran it, although it wasn't
    >as well paced as I hoped. I don't think I could have done way better
    >with only two marathons before, and knowing my tendency to pace myself
    >unwisely. The only seconds that I could have won, were the 25 lost
    >between km35 and 40, but that's not a lot.
    >
    >Another question, the same as ever, is how best would I've fared, had I
    >run a tad slowlier in the first part?
    >
    >3/ the splits
    >
    >km time splits HR
    >1km 0:04:06 4'06" 155
    >2km 0:08:12 4'05 155
    >3km 0:12:28 4'15" 155
    >4km 0:16:31 4'03" 152
    >5km 0:20:41 4'10" 158
    >6km 0:24:58 4'17" 155
    >7km 0:29:07 4'08" 155
    >8km 0:33:32 4'24" 158
    >9km 0:37:39 4'07" 154
    >10km 0:41:48 4'08" 166
    >11km 0:46:06 4'18" 159
    >12km 0:50:14 4'08" 162
    >13km 0:54:24 4'09" 160
    >14km 0:58:38 4'14" 159
    >15km 1:02:55 4'16" 157
    >16km 1:07:07 4'12" 159
    >17km 1:11:33 4'25" 159
    >18km 1:15:35 4'02" 159
    >19km 1:19:41 4'06" 159
    >20km 1:23:52 4'10" 157
    >21km 1:28:00 4'07" 162
    >21.1km 1:28:24 0'24"
    >22km 1:32:15 4'14" 159
    >23km 1:36:12 3'56" 163
    >24km 1:40:30 4'18" 161
    >25km 1:44:39 4'09" 176
    >26km 1:48:50 4'10" 160
    >27km 1:53:00 4'10" 165
    >28km 1:57:20 4'20" 160
    >29km 2:01:36 4'16" 162
    >30km 2:05:49 4'12" 161
    >31km 2:10:01 4'12" 164
    >32km 2:14:11 4'10" 165
    >33km 2:18:28 4'17" 164
    >34km 2:22:40 4'11" 165
    >35km 2:27:01 4'20" 164
    >36km 2:31:23 4'22" 167
    >37km 2:35:45 4'21" 165
    >38km 2:40:05 4'20" 166
    >39km 2:44:28 4'23" 165
    >40km 2:48:55 4'26" 164
    >41km 2:53:14 4'18" 165
    >42km 2:57:28 4'13" 167
    >42.195 2:58:10 0'42" 169
    >
    >4/ weekly mileage before the race :
    >
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >week 1 : 85 km 53 mi 06h34'
    >week 2 : 68 km 42 mi 05h23'
    >week 3 : 31 km 19 mi 03h06'
    >week 4 : 34 km 21 mi 01h40'
    >week 5 : 68 km 42 mi 05h28'
    >week 6 : 81 km 50 mi 07h04'
    >week 7 : 84 km 52 mi 07h12'
    >week 8 : 79 km 49 mi 06h19'
    >week 9 : 65 km 40 mi 04h45' (with HM race)
    >week 10 : 78 km 48 mi 06h19'
    >week 11 : 78 km 48 mi 06h13'
    >week 12 : 67 km 42 mi 05h37'
    >week 13 : 55 km 34 mi 04h24'
    >week 14 : 76 km 47 mi 05h41' (with M race)
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >last 8 weeks' average : 73 km 45 mi 05h49'
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >year : 948 km 589 mi 75h52'
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >5/ next goals
    >
    >At some point during this race I thought that I could probably run a
    >4'06" pace sometime with proper training, and I hope I can do it either
    >this fall or next year (sub 2h55 goal!)
    >I'll try a 10k and a HM before this summer, I believe I can run a sub-83 HM.
    >
    >Thanks for reading *and* for your support over all those months of training!
    >
    >m
     
  3. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    marko wrote:

    >
    > Thanks for reading *and* for your support over all those months of
    > training!


    Congratulations Marko, another runner joins the sub-3 club! Nice report
    too.

    Tim
     
  4. Ed Prochak

    Ed Prochak Guest

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    Nice report and nicely run race. your training shows. Good luck in
    improving your time.
    Ed
     
  5. > 42.195 2:58:10 0'42" 169

    Marko:

    KICK! ASS!!!

    as we like to say on this side of the pond. Stellar job in recent
    months, and for those three hours, and also with your report.

    Of course what I really want to know is what you ate and drank later in
    the day but if you don't want to volunteer that I'll make up my own
    story involving most of France's Greatest Hits.
     
  6. On 2006-04-10, marko <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 1/ Background :
    > As a background, I'd like to come back 2 years before when I ran my then
    > 3h04 PR. At the time, I thought I could run sub-3, but the kind of
    > training I did was probably too hard for me, with too much track and not
    > enough recovery days (although I ran less miles on average than this
    > time) so that coming off that marathon I realized that it would be way
    > better to be undertrained than overtrained, and that I do more enjoy
    > running in the woods (be it only those of the bois de vincennes in
    > paris) than round a track.


    The track is fine but it needs to be part of a balanced program.

    Seems to me the pendulum has swung in the other direction for you. I think
    given the choice, a pure-base oriented program (what you did) would be more
    effective than a pure speed program though. My experience was that I could
    hammer out track work, but if I was only doing 20 miles per week, I'd be slow
    regardless of how hard the track sessions were.

    But the most effective would be a foundation backed up with a solid speed
    program (see Lydiard, Daniels, etc)

    THe important thing is, the base work is more important for long term
    development, so you've already laid down a solid foundation for continued
    improvement.

    > I didn't have the opportunity to try another marathon before this one,
    > that I choose in october '05. In between, I unsuccesfully tried last
    > summer to beat my 10k PR with again much track sessions and very little
    > aerobic runs. My times were great on the track workouts, but pathetic in
    > races.


    Just curious -- what were those track workouts ? It seems that they were not
    very specific. FWIW, I found that some track sessions are highly predictive
    of 10k performance (e.g. the DeCastella workout that I do is a great 5k
    predictor), but something like a typical quarters session is more predictive of
    mile performance.

    I would be prepared to bet that if you were to attempt one of your old track
    workouts, you could probably blow away your old performances immediately or
    in a few weeks at most, because your aerobic fitness will improve performance
    on those workouts (but the reverse isn't necessarily true! which is why a base
    oriented approach proved more effective.

    I'm pretty sure you'd be well under 1:23 for the half now (well, with a bit
    of training and some long interval work)

    Anyway, thanks for the report and congrats on a very well executed race.

    Cheers
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  7. Dot

    Dot Guest

    marko wrote:
    > Let me just quote myself for a start :
    >
    > > Also, I think I really got into my brains not to start
    > > too fast, to race at my pace, evenly and wisely.

    >

    <snipped excellent race report>
    >
    > I was so glad I finished it and in less than 3hours, that was really great!
    >
    > I'm quite content with the race and the way I ran it, although it wasn't
    > as well paced as I hoped. I don't think I could have done way better
    > with only two marathons before, and knowing my tendency to pace myself
    > unwisely. The only seconds that I could have won, were the 25 lost
    > between km35 and 40, but that's not a lot.
    >


    > 42.195 2:58:10 0'42" 169
    >


    Congratulations, marko!! Sounds like your consistent training paid off.

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people"
    -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
     
  8. anders

    anders Guest

    marko kirjoitti:


    > (a prelude to a story with a happy ending, about a seminal piece of training advice and an insight that lead to a breakthrough.)


    ..
    > After a good night sleep, which was helped with a good nap the afternoon
    > before, I woke up at 5:30 to get my breakfast, 3 hours before the race.
    > Weighing myself, I noticed 2 more kilos from the carbo-loading (home
    > made fresh noodles, and rice-cake...)
    > Breakfast was as usual, 1 liter skimmed milk with cocoa, and 200g bread
    > with marmelade.


    That's what: 4 cups or 2 bowlfuls and 6-8 slices?! Jolly good for you,
    not everyone can handle that kind of pre-marathon breakfast.


    > Got back in bed for one hour, then in my car, and off to paris (I didn't
    > want to ride my bike for the 6km, to avoid any unnecessary fatigue).


    Not everyone is able to get any sleep after waking up on race day, but
    maybe it was that breakfast that knocked you out...


    > I tried to run slow, but still did 4'06" which was 7secs under target...
    > bad for a marathon.
    > I tried to slow down, but as with CP, I didn't that much, as I was
    > probably way faster when I hit the first km, and indeed I did hit 4'05"
    > at the second km.
    > On the 3rd I did perfect 4'15", but then again, too fast, feeling really
    > good this morning.


    That's the way it tends to go, but in your case there was a
    healthy-sized safety margin; it's those whose realistic race pace" is
    borderline realistic at best for whom the same amount of overspeeding
    means going seriously in the red and usually ends up costing too much
    in the end.


    > For the first 7k, the HR is just approximate, as the HRM went up and
    > down, probably due to the crowd (even though it's supposed to be coded...)


    This is just hearsay, but apparently there are only about 28 different
    codes in use, which would make it quite likely that someone within 2
    metres of you could have another Polar HRM sending the same code, which
    would in turn typically result in high (<200) readings.


    > At km 10, I was in 41'48", although I couldn't make anything out of it,
    > as I didn't bring any timetable to place it in context.


    Many people complain that their ability to do simple arithmetic
    calculations is severy impaired while they run:) FWIW I have it
    indelibly printed in my mind that under 42 minutes for each 10 km (or
    21 minutes for 5 km) means exactly 4:12min/km and is therefore an
    excellent guideline or road sign for sub-3 success: 0:21 0:42 1:03 1:24
    HM 1:45 2:06 2:27 2:48 \o/



    > I ran really easily until HM in 1h28'24", with good feel and confidence
    > (km 17, is a hill, again I ran slow only to avoid wasting energy)
    > At this point, I knew I was doing great, still, I didn't know how long
    > that'd hold.


    The important thing is to know that it will for sure hold for longer
    than it did last time.


    > From 30 to 35, again an uphill, slight, but always in good form,
    > especially since there were less and less people, and most of them, I
    > would overtake with great pleasure.


    This is the fun part, the best thing that can happen in a marathon
    (unless you are still up there in the leading pack, of course...).


    > This is also the part of the race when I realized something new, which
    > is that for the first time since my first marathon, I was way more
    > conscious of the outside world. I could do some sighseeing and wave to
    > the public and musicians along the way, things I never did before, being
    > too much into the race (or too tired?)


    If I had an inch of envy inside of me, I'd say this was so because you
    were only running a "Marathon Light" this time:) But since I'm able to
    be quite objective here, I'll just comment that it was a result of a
    positively reinforcing chain of events: you were morre adequately
    trained and therefore less mentally and physically taxed at this pace
    and at this moment and since you were less taxed you were more relaxed,
    which made the pace less taxing etc.


    > So at about kilometer 32 there is this slight uphill road, almost 1km,
    > and after it I began to feel my quads a little bit hard.


    Quite frankly, I don't think it greatly matters whether it's a short ot
    a long, steep or slight uphill at tjis point:)


    > I never had a cramp while running, but I know from my first 2 marathons,
    > that there are always so many people with cramps after km 35.
    > This made me be cautious and somehow I seemed to have slowed a little
    > bit to 4'20" /km between 35 and 40, or is it simply that I was a little
    > bit tired? I really think I felt good, if it wasn't for my legs.


    This is whete you no doubt paid the price for the absence of the real
    long runs and of the hill reps, but then again, it was a price you
    could afford to pay.

    I hope you don't mind if I skip the next few bits here?:) (I did read
    them, I just don't wish to comment...)


    > Another question, the same as ever, is how best would I've fared, had I
    > run a tad slowlier in the first part?


    I really don't think it's time to second guess your race now! But FWIW
    I don't think we would be talking about more than 30-40 seconds, maybe
    up to one minute and two cents if you had been able to stop worrying
    about your quads and gone in "Hell is for heroes!" style.



    > At some point during this race I thought that I could probably run a
    > 4'06" pace sometime with proper training, and I hope I can do it either
    > this fall or next year (sub 2h55 goal!)


    You'll certainly still improve with a dose of more of the same and your
    10K PR suggests that you have plenty of room for improvement in the
    Haddian sense. But as Donovan suggested you would probably reaach
    optimal points at this point with periodisation: an aerobic base,
    possibly more mileage than you've done so far, and then some kind of
    hill/track period, with some genuine marathon-specific long runs fitted
    in.

    But since the master has finally been surpassed by the pupil, I shall
    not try to sketch a plan for you. Besides, the former isn't at all
    true: it happened on the first opportunity, I wasn't the mastar and you
    weren't the pupil:)


    > I'll try a 10k and a HM before this summer, I believe I can run a sub-83 HM.


    It wouldn't surprise me if you ran sub-1:22 under the right conditions,
    but are you sure it is a good idea to run a HM before summer? I'm not
    saying it's a bad idea, but it certainly wouldn't be among the firat
    ideas in my head. The temptation to get the maximum out of the training
    you've done is no doubt there and taking it a little bit easier after
    such a grand slam of PBs would be nice when the summer is hot...


    Anders
    > m
     
  9. marko

    marko Guest

    Donovan Rebbechi a écrit :
    > Seems to me the pendulum has swung in the other direction for you. I think
    > given the choice, a pure-base oriented program (what you did) would be more
    > effective than a pure speed program though. My experience was that I could
    > hammer out track work, but if I was only doing 20 miles per week, I'd be slow
    > regardless of how hard the track sessions were.


    this might be an explanation, as my mileage when I was doing mainly
    speed workouts, was like yours, at about 20mpw...

    >
    > But the most effective would be a foundation backed up with a solid speed
    > program (see Lydiard, Daniels, etc)


    I would say that it depends what kind of race your training for!
    For a marathon, I'm not sure speed is an issue, cause all the track
    worjouts that I would have run, would have been way faster than my MP.

    I understand that for a 5k you can't make any improvements without
    track-w, but from HM distancce to marathon, there isn't much rationale
    behind running intervals faster than say LT pace. Anaerobic speed has
    probably no role in marathon speed.
    For a 10k, it might be a bonus to run some speed-w though.

    As for me, I think the only thing that I missed to run say 2h57, was
    some more 20miles long runs (only did 2 because of injury) otherwise, I
    won't say that for this marathon I would have run a better time with
    speed sessions.

    I guess that if I do start now to get back to the track, and if I work
    toward lowering my 10k time, and my HM time, then next fall I could run
    a better marathon.
    I don't really see how I could work only on my marathon time out of
    speed workouts seeing it rather like a whole (10k => HM => 'thon)

    >
    > THe important thing is, the base work is more important for long term
    > development, so you've already laid down a solid foundation for continued
    > improvement.


    I do agree with that

    > Just curious -- what were those track workouts ? It seems that they were not
    > very specific. FWIW, I found that some track sessions are highly predictive
    > of 10k performance (e.g. the DeCastella workout that I do is a great 5k
    > predictor), but something like a typical quarters session is more predictive of
    > mile performance.


    Here are the track workouts I did on about 20mpw with 10k race times.
    Last two numbers, a track workout and a 10k race PR out of pure
    endurance training this fall :

    begin march 22 2005 :
    10*200m rec 200
    40" 1'05"

    6*400m rec 200
    1'25" 1'05"

    3*1000m rec 400
    3'52" 2'05"

    apr 17 10k race 42'08"

    4*800m rec 400
    2'55" 2'10"

    LT 5km @ 4'02"/km

    5*800m rec 400
    2'56" 2'10"

    LT 5km @ 3'55"

    5*800 rec 400
    2'55" 2'20"

    3*1000m rec 400
    3'53" 2'20"

    5*200m rec 200
    45" 1'

    may 22 10k race 40'06"

    10*400 rec 200
    1'25" 1'10"

    3*1600 rec 800
    5'55" 4'50"

    4*1000 rec 600
    3'49" 3'10"

    10*200 rec 200
    39" 1'05"

    june 12 10k race 39'05"

    stop speed training

    nov 17 :
    5*1000m rec 400
    3'40" 1'55"

    nov 20 10k race 36'58"


    >
    > I would be prepared to bet that if you were to attempt one of your old track
    > workouts, you could probably blow away your old performances immediately or
    > in a few weeks at most, because your aerobic fitness will improve performance
    > on those workouts (but the reverse isn't necessarily true! which is why a base
    > oriented approach proved more effective.


    I hope you're right, and to say the truth I would tend to agree with
    you. As I said, I think I'm gonna try to run some 10ks in may/june to
    beat my PR out of some track workouts. As you say, it should work way
    better now with my base training.

    >
    > I'm pretty sure you'd be well under 1:23 for the half now (well, with a bit
    > of training and some long interval work)


    Yes I'll try also at least one HM before the summer, I would really like
    to get sub-83!
    >
    > Anyway, thanks for the report and congrats on a very well executed race.


    thanks Donovan, and congrats to you too for your very good results!

    m
     
  10. marko

    marko Guest

    Tim Downie a écrit :
    > Congratulations Marko, another runner joins the sub-3 club! Nice report
    > too.


    thanks Tim!
     
  11. marko

    marko Guest

    Ed Prochak a écrit :
    > Nice report and nicely run race. your training shows. Good luck in


    thanks!

    > improving your time.


    Yes, this is the un-ending side of running : as soon as one barrier is
    passed, there is another one! (a new version of the joycean work in
    progress?)
    Next step is to get in the first 1000place of the paris marathon, ie.
    sub-2h55' (30.000 finishers)

    m
     
  12. marko

    marko Guest

    [email protected] a écrit :
    > as we like to say on this side of the pond. Stellar job in recent
    > months, and for those three hours, and also with your report.


    thanks Charlie

    > Of course what I really want to know is what you ate and drank later in
    > the day but if you don't want to volunteer that I'll make up my own
    > story involving most of France's Greatest Hits.


    you're not that far from the picture ;-)

    m
     
  13. marko

    marko Guest

    anders a écrit :
    >> (a prelude to a story with a happy ending, about a seminal piece of training advice and an insight that lead to a breakthrough.)


    ;-)

    > That's what: 4 cups or 2 bowlfuls and 6-8 slices?! Jolly good for you,
    > not everyone can handle that kind of pre-marathon breakfast.


    that's my every-day breakfast, and 3hours before the start I think is
    quite ok! (rather 6 slices of bread)

    > Not everyone is able to get any sleep after waking up on race day, but
    > maybe it was that breakfast that knocked you out...


    I was quite relax this morning, having had my fair share of sleep the
    nights before, so I could easily take a little nap!

    > That's the way it tends to go, but in your case there was a
    > healthy-sized safety margin; it's those whose realistic race pace" is
    > borderline realistic at best for whom the same amount of overspeeding
    > means going seriously in the red and usually ends up costing too much
    > in the end.


    exactly what happened to me 2 years ago (although at the time I slowed
    down at the half point, losing "only" 6 minutes in the second half)

    > This is just hearsay, but apparently there are only about 28 different
    > codes in use, which would make it quite likely that someone within 2
    > metres of you could have another Polar HRM sending the same code, which
    > would in turn typically result in high (<200) readings.


    ....those finns! ;op

    > Many people complain that their ability to do simple arithmetic
    > calculations is severy impaired while they run:) FWIW I have it


    the problem with me is my arithmetic ability is always impaired ;-)
    but anyway, at this point I knew I was on the mean sub 4'13"/km so
    everything was fine...

    > indelibly printed in my mind that under 42 minutes for each 10 km (or
    > 21 minutes for 5 km) means exactly 4:12min/km and is therefore an
    > excellent guideline or road sign for sub-3 success: 0:21 0:42 1:03 1:24
    > HM 1:45 2:06 2:27 2:48 \o/


    yeah, I know numbers are tricky, it looks so easy that way ;-)

    > This is the fun part, the best thing that can happen in a marathon
    > (unless you are still up there in the leading pack, of course...).


    yes, that was great, like Steve said /jouissif/, and it's the first time
    I pass so many people in a race, so that was all the more great!

    > If I had an inch of envy inside of me, I'd say this was so because you
    > were only running a "Marathon Light" this time:) But since I'm able to
    > be quite objective here, I'll just comment that it was a result of a
    > positively reinforcing chain of events: you were morre adequately
    > trained and therefore less mentally and physically taxed at this pace
    > and at this moment and since you were less taxed you were more relaxed,
    > which made the pace less taxing etc.


    yes, you're right, when things are ok, everything seems to work like a
    clockwork: perfectly well. And that was part of the pleasure to really
    run through the race with most of my consciousness (I still had some
    moments where I was out...)

    > Quite frankly, I don't think it greatly matters whether it's a short ot
    > a long, steep or slight uphill at tjis point:)


    anyway it was easier than the short steep tunnel entries (only 50 meters)

    > This is whete you no doubt paid the price for the absence of the real
    > long runs and of the hill reps, but then again, it was a price you
    > could afford to pay.


    I see we have the same reading of the matter. This is just what I wrote
    while answering Donovan, about the long runs. Now about hill reps, I
    don't know, I'm sure that could help, but I did a little bit bicycle ;-)

    > I really don't think it's time to second guess your race now! But FWIW
    > I don't think we would be talking about more than 30-40 seconds, maybe
    > up to one minute and two cents if you had been able to stop worrying
    > about your quads and gone in "Hell is for heroes!" style.


    yes, you're right, and anyway, I'm quite content with my race, I don't
    have anything -- like I sometime do-- to regret about it, I think it was
    a great experience!

    > You'll certainly still improve with a dose of more of the same and your
    > 10K PR suggests that you have plenty of room for improvement in the
    > Haddian sense. But as Donovan suggested you would probably reaach
    > optimal points at this point with periodisation: an aerobic base,
    > possibly more mileage than you've done so far, and then some kind of
    > hill/track period, with some genuine marathon-specific long runs fitted
    > in.


    this is probably what I'll do : increasing mileage in the fall.
    I don't know if I'll be able to run (schedule wise) a marathon in the
    fall, but I'll run one next spring, so if I increase mileage in the
    fall, I could easily add some speed work in winter.
    But before that I'll do some speed work this spring for 10k races.
    I'll first take this week off.

    > But since the master has finally been surpassed by the pupil, I shall
    > not try to sketch a plan for you. Besides, the former isn't at all
    > true: it happened on the first opportunity, I wasn't the mastar and you
    > weren't the pupil:)


    ;-)
    You have only one option now Anders : you need to go sub-3 too!
    And I believe it will be easy for you with all the endurance base you've
    built with XC-skiing, and now the running again!

    > It wouldn't surprise me if you ran sub-1:22 under the right conditions,
    > but are you sure it is a good idea to run a HM before summer? I'm not
    > saying it's a bad idea, but it certainly wouldn't be among the firat
    > ideas in my head. The temptation to get the maximum out of the training
    > you've done is no doubt there and taking it a little bit easier after
    > such a grand slam of PBs would be nice when the summer is hot...


    I don't know, I think that a few 10k won't hurt, and at least one HM
    won't be that bad if it's in june!
    Do you think that's too much for an old chap like meand that I should
    rather take time to fully recover?
    But anyway, I do really want to try a few 10k to go sub-36 if possible
    (my PR is 36'58" ...)

    m
     
  14. On 2006-04-11, marko <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Donovan Rebbechi a écrit :
    >> Seems to me the pendulum has swung in the other direction for you. I think
    >> given the choice, a pure-base oriented program (what you did) would be more
    >> effective than a pure speed program though. My experience was that I could
    >> hammer out track work, but if I was only doing 20 miles per week, I'd be slow
    >> regardless of how hard the track sessions were.

    >
    > this might be an explanation, as my mileage when I was doing mainly
    > speed workouts, was like yours, at about 20mpw...


    Yeah, that would do it. It's counterintuitive that you could hammer out speed
    workouts that hard and still be slow, but that's the way it works.

    I suppose mile through 5k is largely about endurance -- when I think about it,
    even when untrained, you would be able to run 200m at your current 1 mile pace
    quite easily.

    >> But the most effective would be a foundation backed up with a solid speed
    >> program (see Lydiard, Daniels, etc)

    >
    > I would say that it depends what kind of race your training for!
    > For a marathon, I'm not sure speed is an issue, cause all the track
    > worjouts that I would have run, would have been way faster than my MP.


    Again -- see Lydiard, Daniels, etc. These guys do discuss reasoning behind
    running very fast in training.

    > I understand that for a 5k you can't make any improvements without
    > track-w, but from HM distancce to marathon, there isn't much rationale
    > behind running intervals faster than say LT pace. Anaerobic speed has
    > probably no role in marathon speed.


    Basically, it's about VO2 max, and running economy. Running economy plays a big
    role in marathon pace, but to develop it optimally (even to develop economy
    *at marathon pace*, surprisingly!) you must run much faster than marathon pace.
    So these still play a role in marathon racing. So that's why many top
    marathoners still do a lot of work that is much faster than marathon pace.

    Gotta "run" now.

    Cheers and all the best with your 10k training,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  15. marko

    marko Guest

    Donovan Rebbechi a écrit :
    > Gotta "run" now.


    yeah, based on what you write (and on what I've read) it looks like I'll
    have to shake my ol' lazy body! ;-)

    > Cheers and all the best with your 10k training,


    thanks!

    m
     
  16. Tony S.

    Tony S. Guest

    ....
    > 5/ next goals
    >
    > At some point during this race I thought that I could probably run a
    > 4'06" pace sometime with proper training, and I hope I can do it either
    > this fall or next year (sub 2h55 goal!)
    > I'll try a 10k and a HM before this summer, I believe I can run a sub-83

    HM.
    >
    > Thanks for reading *and* for your support over all those months of

    training!
    >
    > m


    Nice job marko, a bit of positive split notwithstanding! Seems like you can
    get a lot faster with more Km, and considering you did only MP efforts. Even
    a trail guy like me appreciates a strong marathon effort.

    -Tony
     
  17. marko

    marko Guest

    Tony S. a écrit :
    > Nice job marko, a bit of positive split notwithstanding! Seems like you can
    > get a lot faster with more Km, and considering you did only MP efforts. Even
    > a trail guy like me appreciates a strong marathon effort.


    Thanks Tony!
    I do also hope that I can run faster next time with more mileage and
    some speed work, we'll see next year!
    m
     
  18. Marko - I enjoyed the report. Nice almost even splits and the
    heart-rates look spot on.
    (except for those couple of blips...)

    Looks like the race is on now for first to go sub-2:55 ;-)

    As you say, with some increased mileage it looks like a very strong
    chance for you!

    Anthony.
     
Loading...
Loading...