Re: What is a non-pathetic 1/2 marathon performance?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Dot, Sep 18, 2004.

  1. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Ignoramus7876 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, Ignoramus7876 wrote:
    >
    >>What would be a result of a half marathon where you would not start
    >>laughing and saying "that person should never have run it"? Say, 5
    >>hours is probably pathetic. How about, say, 2.5 hours? Or 2 hrs 15
    >>min?

    >
    >
    > Okay, let me rephrase my question. What would be the running time,
    > such that I do barely better than 50% of worst participants? (the mean
    > running time)
    >
    > i


    Hmm, do you mean median running time?
    Are you most concerned about the times on the course you're planning on
    running or all half-marathon courses? Is it a competitive race with
    qualifying times? or one with lots of walkers? Is the course known as a
    "fast" or "tough" course?

    FWIW, there was a 14 mi race (the last mile was downhill) near my home
    recently (I watched) where the course record is a tad over 3 hr. And I
    have nothing but respect for the folks who ran in at 6+ hrs. Yes, they
    were running the last leg. IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just
    haven't challenged themselves with terrain and/or are probably in the
    younger age classes. I know that's not your question, but just pointing
    out some issues with your question.

    If you're really concerned about what people will think, just run your
    own route of appropriate distance and time yourself. Run your experiment
    the way you want. But you might want to allow some escape routes, if
    needed. I know I do when I'm experimenting.

    Dot

    --
    "I couldn't do a winter like that on the treadmill. I don't know if I
    could ever be that anal again."
    -Chris Clark
     
    Tags:


  2. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    "Dot" <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just haven't challenged themselves
    > with terrain and/or are probably in the younger age classes.


    Aint that the truth. Today I ran a 9 mile race in 2:08:06. If it wasn't
    the contour lines I was fighting, it was the knee deep bogs.

    Tim

    --
    Remove the *obvious* to reply by mail
     
  3. On 2004-09-18, Dot <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote:

    > FWIW, there was a 14 mi race (the last mile was downhill) near my home
    > recently (I watched) where the course record is a tad over 3 hr. And I
    > have nothing but respect for the folks who ran in at 6+ hrs. Yes, they
    > were running the last leg. IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just
    > haven't challenged themselves with terrain and/or are probably in the
    > younger age classes.


    I had a nasty shock when I ran a 10k race once. I'd heard the course wasn't
    that hilly (this was true). I looked up last years times, and the winner was
    36:xx. Everyone else was slower than 37. So I showed up expecting a reasonable
    time, and thought I had a reasonable chance of a win, or at least a top 3
    overall. Anything slower than 37:00 in reasonable conditions on a reasonable
    course would be slow for me right now.

    Unfortunately, it appears the course was quite long ! The winner, who typically
    runs just over 5 minutes per mile was awarded an official time of 36:xx. Who
    knows what time he really crossed in though -- I was awarded a 39:30 though I
    crossed the time in 38:48. I noticed the guy in front of me was awarded a
    38:48, so maybe the times got "shifted" (it was tag scored).

    Between terrain, heat, and all the other variables (some that don't usually
    occur to us), race times don't mean a whole lot unless they're put in context.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  4. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Ignoramus23984 wrote:

    > It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a good
    > goal for the first try. Thanks.


    Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as your
    first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get a feel
    for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the half
    marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week? This is
    not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that for
    several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also, once
    you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
    numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up with a
    reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites for
    that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz

    Here's a good training program for beginners attempting their first
    half marathon: http://www.halhigdon.com/halfmarathon/novice.htm

    Also, this same site has a lot of good information for beginning
    runners: http://www.halhigdon.com/beginrunner/intro.htm

    It seems that you are getting into this half marathon obsession for all
    the wrong reasons. You should take the time to learn about what you are
    doing before making up your mind.

    I admire you for your weight loss and I respect your determination to
    achieve your goals. But your determination is getting in the way of
    clear thinking, IMO.

    tkb
     
  5. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,

    TenKBabe wrote:
    > > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >
    > >> It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a

    good
    > >> goal for the first try. Thanks.

    > >
    > > Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as your
    > > first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get a

    feel
    > > for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the half
    > > marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week? This

    is
    > > not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that

    for
    > > several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also,

    once
    > > you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
    > > numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up with a
    > > reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites for
    > > that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz

    >
    > I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A couple of
    > days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was fine. I
    > think that 20k is within reach.


    OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs? Plug
    those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know how you
    can expect to do for the half marathon.

    tkb
     
  6. teknofyle

    teknofyle Guest

    There are assholes out there who will mock this, but this, IMHO is one very
    good reason why we run.

    Thank you for cheering the auld fella and I'm sure he is thanking you too.

    "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:user-F9C9[email protected]
    > There was
    > no one left at the finish line and they were starting to tear everything
    > down. My friend and I both stopped and appluaded and cheered the guy on.
    > He was an older fellow and he was running for a local charity... and he
    > looked pretty overjoyed when he walked across that finish line. It made
    > us smile as well.
     
  7. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,

    TenKBabe wrote:
    > >
    > > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >> In article <[email protected]>,

    > > TenKBabe wrote:
    > >> > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a

    > > good
    > >> >> goal for the first try. Thanks.
    > >> >
    > >> > Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as

    your
    > >> > first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get

    a
    > > feel
    > >> > for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the

    half
    > >> > marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week?

    This
    > > is
    > >> > not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that

    > > for
    > >> > several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also,

    > > once
    > >> > you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
    > >> > numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up

    with a
    > >> > reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites

    for
    > >> > that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz
    > >>
    > >> I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A couple

    of
    > >> days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was fine.

    I
    > >> think that 20k is within reach.

    > >
    > > OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs? Plug
    > > those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know how

    you
    > > can expect to do for the half marathon.

    >
    > I never ran a 10k, but my 5K result was 25 minutes 13 seconds.


    Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
    assuming appropriate training for the distance.

    tkb
     
  8. Sam

    Sam Guest

    "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 2004-09-18, Dot <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote:
    >
    > > FWIW, there was a 14 mi race (the last mile was downhill) near my home
    > > recently (I watched) where the course record is a tad over 3 hr. And I
    > > have nothing but respect for the folks who ran in at 6+ hrs. Yes, they
    > > were running the last leg. IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just
    > > haven't challenged themselves with terrain and/or are probably in the
    > > younger age classes.

    >
    > I had a nasty shock when I ran a 10k race once. I'd heard the course

    wasn't
    > that hilly (this was true). I looked up last years times, and the winner

    was
    > 36:xx. Everyone else was slower than 37. So I showed up expecting a

    reasonable
    > time, and thought I had a reasonable chance of a win, or at least a top 3
    > overall. Anything slower than 37:00 in reasonable conditions on a

    reasonable
    > course would be slow for me right now.
    >
    > Unfortunately, it appears the course was quite long ! The winner, who

    typically
    > runs just over 5 minutes per mile was awarded an official time of 36:xx.

    Who
    > knows what time he really crossed in though -- I was awarded a 39:30

    though I
    > crossed the time in 38:48. I noticed the guy in front of me was awarded a
    > 38:48, so maybe the times got "shifted" (it was tag scored).
    >
    > Between terrain, heat, and all the other variables (some that don't

    usually
    > occur to us), race times don't mean a whole lot unless they're put in

    context.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > --
    > Donovan Rebbechi
    > http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/


    There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than laziness or
    not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
    proper?

    Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate results.
    That would not play in my town.
     
  9. On 2004-09-20, Sam <[email protected]> wrote:

    > There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than laziness or
    > not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
    > proper?


    Maybe it's not the same people. Some of the NJ races are pretty small (just
    a few hundred people). I'm trying to get a handle on how to identify "good"
    NJ races. I think from now on I'm going to stick to the ones that draw the
    top regional runners -- less chance of a trophy, but more chance of running a
    good race.

    > Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate results.
    > That would not play in my town.


    Doesn't play well with me either (-; For the most part, I'll be avoiding NJ
    races, as they are always manually scored, by the same mob who scored this
    race, and generally not as well organised. But for the 10k distance, I'm
    largely stuck with NJ. NY has good half marathons, 4 mile and 5 mile races, but
    not much at the 10k distance. So I'm just going to have to choose my races
    wisely.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  10. On 2004-09-20, TenKBabe <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
    > assuming appropriate training for the distance.


    And proper nutrition (sorry, couldn't resist)

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  11. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than
    > laziness or
    > not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
    > proper?


    Great question and we seem to have a local 10k example which attracts
    many people and is one or two tenths shy. I'm going to use the poll
    feature on my local yahoo group to see how they answer. Maybe many
    people are like me and don't really care - the course is the same each
    year. What adds to the caldron is that some people may have PR's and not
    know this.

    I'll be interested to see how many care.

    > Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate
    > results.
    > That would not play in my town.


    I don't know if the RD knows.

    -DF
     
  12. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,

    TenKBabe wrote:
    > >
    > > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >> In article

    <[email protected]>,
    > > TenKBabe wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >> >> In article

    <[email protected]>,
    > >> > TenKBabe wrote:
    > >> >> > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would

    be a
    > >> > good
    > >> >> >> goal for the first try. Thanks.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon

    as
    > > your
    > >> >> > first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least

    get
    > > a
    > >> > feel
    > >> >> > for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then

    the
    > > half
    > >> >> > marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a

    week?
    > > This
    > >> > is
    > >> >> > not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold

    that
    > >> > for
    > >> >> > several months before even thinking about a half marathon.

    Also,
    > >> > once
    > >> >> > you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug

    those
    > >> >> > numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up

    > > with a
    > >> >> > reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite

    sites
    > > for
    > >> >> > that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A

    couple
    > > of
    > >> >> days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was

    fine.
    > > I
    > >> >> think that 20k is within reach.
    > >> >
    > >> > OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs?

    Plug
    > >> > those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know

    how
    > > you
    > >> > can expect to do for the half marathon.
    > >>
    > >> I never ran a 10k, but my 5K result was 25 minutes 13 seconds.

    > >
    > > Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
    > > assuming appropriate training for the distance.

    >
    > How did you calculate this?


    You must have skimmed my post. Go here http://tinyurl.com/34haz
    Put in your 5k time and you'll see what your expected times should be
    at most distances up to a marathon. Of course the closer the race is to
    the half marathon distance the more accurate it will be. When was the
    5K? If it was quite a while ago, then these numbers will not mean much.

    Much of this also depends on your training? Are you training for the
    distance? What is your miles per week? What are your longest weekly
    runs? Maybe you've already said this, but I'm not finding it anywhere.

    > I would love to accomplish that, but it seems out of the realm of

    possibility
    > for me at the moment.


    Why?

    > My added difficulty is that I have no experience running halves, so,
    > budgeting my strength and energy over the run is problematic.


    This is exactly why I think you need to get some more race experience
    in at a distance such as a 10K, then maybe a 10 mile, then a half
    marathon.

    > Hence, I will try to err on the conservative side.

    That's a good idea.

    tkb
     
  13. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Ignoramus30067 wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,

    TenKBabe wrote:

    > > Go here http://tinyurl.com/34haz

    >
    > Thanks, a great calculator.
    >
    > > Put in your 5k time and you'll see what your expected times should
    > > be at most distances up to a marathon. Of course the closer the

    race
    > > is to the half marathon distance the more accurate it will be. When
    > > was the 5K? If it was quite a while ago, then these numbers will

    not
    > > mean much.

    >
    > The 5K was on April 26.
    >
    > > Much of this also depends on your training? Are you training for

    the
    > > distance?

    >
    > Not too much.
    >
    > > What is your miles per week?

    >
    > Probably about 6 miles per week.
    >
    > > What are your longest weekly runs? Maybe you've already said this,
    > > but I'm not finding it anywhere.

    >
    > No problem. I experimented recently and ran about 9 miles in 1 hour

    35
    > minutes. That was my longest run in quite a while. Usually, I run for
    > 30 minutes, 40 at most, recreationally.
    >
    > >> I would love to accomplish that, but it seems out of the realm of

    > > possibility
    > >> for me at the moment.

    > >
    > > Why?

    >
    > I don't think that I could run that fast, that long... Maybe I am
    > wrong and your calculator is right.


    No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
    even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
    at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half. Maybe you
    are one of those rare genetically gifted individuals that can do it on
    virtually no training, but don't count on it.

    Anyway, like I said before, your determination is getting in the way of
    clear thinking. Just my opinion, FWIW.

    > >> My added difficulty is that I have no experience running halves,

    so,
    > >> budgeting my strength and energy over the run is problematic.

    > >
    > > This is exactly why I think you need to get some more race

    experience
    > > in at a distance such as a 10K, then maybe a 10 mile, then a half
    > > marathon.

    >
    > You have a great point.


    But will you do it? I guess my main concern is seeing someone that is
    so motivated that they end up destroying themselves in the process. Do
    you want to make running part of your lifestyle or do you want to self
    destruct and end up hating running?

    tkb
     
  14. Harold Buck

    Harold Buck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
    > even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
    > at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.



    This is a ridiculous claim. I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
    little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon in
    2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday and then get
    1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
    some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days). I ran 3 hours this past
    weekend and 4 hours the week before, and felt plenty strong at the end
    of each.

    What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance slowly
    to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing the
    racee.

    --Harold Buck


    "I used to rock and roll all night,
    and party every day.
    Then it was every other day. . . ."
    -Homer J. Simpson
     
  15. np426z

    np426z Guest

    "Harold Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
    > > even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
    > > at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.

    >
    >
    > This is a ridiculous claim. I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
    > little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon in
    > 2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday and then get
    > 1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
    > some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days). I ran 3 hours this past
    > weekend and 4 hours the week before, and felt plenty strong at the end
    > of each.


    Proof, if proof were needed, that H. Buck Esq. is clinically insane.

    > What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance slowly
    > to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing the
    > racee.


    Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic) training system
    of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in the face
    of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a luddite
    needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training. Tell all
    by return.
     
  16. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Harold Buck wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is

    not
    > > even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be

    running
    > > at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.

    >


    > This is a ridiculous claim.


    Then you didn't read the rest of my post. You didn't quote it, so I
    assume you didn't. Here it is:

    > Maybe you are one of those rare genetically gifted individuals that
    > can do it on virtually no training, but don't count on it.


    > I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
    > little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon

    in
    > 2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday


    How many miles is your long run?

    > 1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
    > some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days).


    How many miles are those runs?

    > I ran 3 hours this past weekend and 4 hours the week before, and
    > felt plenty strong at the end of each.


    I'm really bad at math so help me to understand how this can add up to
    20 miles per week. You didn't give me any distances only times.

    > What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance

    slowly
    > to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing

    the
    > racee.


    I agree with that.

    tkb
     
  17. Harold Buck

    Harold Buck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "np426z" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic) training system
    > of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in the face
    > of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a luddite
    > needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training. Tell all
    > by return.


    You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.

    You need far less training to complete endurance events than most people
    believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
    schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc., My
    biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
    about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.

    The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
    long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try to
    run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run in.
    The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
    fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some intervals
    on another day.

    But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
    good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if I
    did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably
    end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.

    Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
    training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?

    --Harold Buck


    "I used to rock and roll all night,
    and party every day.
    Then it was every other day. . . ."
    -Homer J. Simpson
     
  18. TenKBabe

    TenKBabe Guest

    Harold Buck wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "np426z" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic)

    training system
    > > of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in

    the face
    > > of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a

    luddite
    > > needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training.

    Tell all
    > > by return.

    >
    > You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.
    >
    > You need far less training to complete endurance events than most

    people
    > believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
    > schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc.,

    My
    > biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
    > about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.
    >
    > The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
    > long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try

    to
    > run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run

    in.
    > The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
    > fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some

    intervals
    > on another day.
    >
    > But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
    > good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if

    I
    > did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably


    > end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.
    >
    > Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
    > training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?


    The key words in that sentence are "have to" and "do." You don't "have
    to" do high-volume to merely "do" a half-Marathon or Marathon. If you
    just want to do them, then very little training is required other than
    a few long runs, like you said. Personally, I don't want to just do a
    race, I'd rather train for it properly and complete it to the best of
    my ability. And I don't think that suggesting someone be running 25
    miles per week is out of line. If you build up to it, 25 MPW is not the
    type of mileage that is gong to break you down.

    tkb
     
  19. np426z

    np426z Guest

    "Harold Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.


    Hell, you're an idiotic, closed-minded individual, but I speak to you too.

    > You need far less training to complete endurance events than most people
    > believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
    > schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc., My
    > biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
    > about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.


    I think the key word here is 'complete'. Sure, I wouldn't take serious
    exception with anything you've written thus far if your aim is merely to
    take part. However, I was talking about 'racing', not 'competeing'.

    > The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
    > long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try to
    > run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run in.
    > The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
    > fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some intervals
    > on another day.
    >
    > But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
    > good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if I
    > did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably
    > end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.


    Perhaps. But perhaps not. If you don't try you'll never know.

    I guess it all comes down to personal goals. If you're happy floating
    around a course at 60%-70% effort and finishing fresh as a spring lamb then
    fine, your theory works. Personally, I'd view that as a long training
    session. Races are *meant* to hurt.

    > Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
    > training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?


    Yunno, I come from a world where we rarely have conversations about professi
    onal matters, we simply cite studies. It isn't very fulfilling nor, I
    suspect, does it lead to better medicine. It does, however, fully
    compensate of a lack of insight or innovative thought on behalf of both
    parties to the conversation. Here I prefer to throw out an opinion or
    two - totally without thought - and see what comes back. Guess that's my
    roundabout way of saying "no, I wouldn't care to cite any studies".
     
Loading...
Loading...