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



"TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

Good grief, tkb, our replies to the obnoxious one cross and I find that you
say the same thing as me? What's going on? Are you me too?
 
Harold Buck wrote in message ...
>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 also think you don't *have* to do high mileage weeks to do reasonably well
in long-distance running events. My highest mileage week was about 35
leading up to my 50k, with most being 15-20 mpw. I normally run 3 times a
week and bike 3 times. But I agree with those who say specificity is
important and that running higher mileage would improve my performance. By
doing long training runs, one can certainly do ok in long events. I enjoy
my running more when I only do it 3 times a week, so it works for me.

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

>
> How many miles is your long run?
>

It varies, of course. Some weeks, 9 miles. Some weeks, over 20.

> > 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?

usually 3-4 miles

> > 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.
>

With a long run of 9-20 or so miles, plus a 1-3 runs of 3-4 miles, I
think I average about 20 miles per week. It might be a little more than
that, but not much. In any case, I think citing 25 mpw as a minimum for
a *half* marathon is absurd.

And, BTW, I am NOT a genetically gifted runner, but I'm also not
breaking any speed records with this training.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
 
In article <Z%F3d.5027$QB1.3290@trndny02>,
Tony <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Harold Buck wrote in message ...
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "np426z" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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.

More accurately, _you_, specifically and personally, need far less training
than most people believe.

I know people who have done marathons on less than 20 miles per week total,
and a longest run of 10 miles. They could do it.

But there's also the matter of 'do' versus 'enjoy' or 'race'. Depending
on who it is, what other factors are around, and which of the goals (do/enjoy/race)
the person has, some very low mileages can be sufficient.

On the other hand ... in making suggestions as to what someone should
attempt -- _should_ -- barring a lot more information than we're usually
given, it's sensible to make suggestions based on what is generally the
case.

In a general low-end mileage approach to a half marathon, one would
top out at about 9 miles for the long run, have a next run of 6, and
maybe 2 of 4. Total of 23 miles per week as a low end figure. Note,
by the way, that I'm including any aerobic activity here. If it's 40 minutes
of swimming, and your pace for a comparable effort of running is 10 minutes
per mile, I'm counting that as a 4 mile run. Certainly there are people
who _get by_ with less, and an even smaller group who run well (as they
consider it) with less.

But, if someone were to approach and ask about a minimal figure for
doing a half marathon, I'll quote the 20-30 miles per week with 9-12 mile
long run. Even though they might get by with less, chances are good that
they won't.

>>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?
>>
>I also think you don't *have* to do high mileage weeks to do reasonably well
>in long-distance running events. My highest mileage week was about 35
>leading up to my 50k, with most being 15-20 mpw. I normally run 3 times a
>week and bike 3 times. But I agree with those who say specificity is
>important and that running higher mileage would improve my performance. By
>doing long training runs, one can certainly do ok in long events. I enjoy
>my running more when I only do it 3 times a week, so it works for me.

No, 'have to' is probably not the case. I survived my marathon last
year with a peak weekly mileage of 50 km, average of something like 30,
and most of the week being in the long run. But that was survived, not
enjoyed, and certainly not raced.

I enjoyed my trail ultra, 50 km, far more, approaching it with an average of
about 55 km/week, and peak of 75 km/week. That was still on the low end
of what people tend to do in training for such a race, but it was at least
in the range of typical.

--
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
 
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > How many miles is your long run?
> >
>
> It varies, of course. Some weeks, 9 miles. Some weeks, over 20.
>
> > > 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?
>
> usually 3-4 miles
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> With a long run of 9-20 or so miles, plus a 1-3 runs of 3-4 miles, I
> think I average about 20 miles per week.

How is it that you can run a long run of 20 miles and have even 1 more
run and still call that an average of 20 miles per week?


> In any case, I think citing 25 mpw as a minimum for
> a *half* marathon is absurd.

We are talking about 2 different things here. You just want to do the
half, marathon, bizillion km ultra marathon, whatever. I am talking
about finishing it knowing that you did appropriate training to finish
in a respectable time.

> And, BTW, I am NOT a genetically gifted runner, but I'm also not
> breaking any speed records with this training.

Ah! So you do admit that running 20 MPW is not going to give you
anything but average, if not sub-standard results. Finish it - yes, but
that's about it.

tbk
 
Robert Grumbine wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>In article <Z%F3d.5027$QB1.3290@trndny02>,
>Tony <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Harold Buck wrote in message ...
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "np426z" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>
> More accurately, _you_, specifically and personally, need far less
training
>than most people believe.
>
> I know people who have done marathons on less than 20 miles per week
total,
>and a longest run of 10 miles. They could do it.
>
> But there's also the matter of 'do' versus 'enjoy' or 'race'. Depending
>on who it is, what other factors are around, and which of the goals
(do/enjoy/race)
>the person has, some very low mileages can be sufficient.
>
> On the other hand ... in making suggestions as to what someone should
>attempt -- _should_ -- barring a lot more information than we're usually
>given, it's sensible to make suggestions based on what is generally the
>case.
>
> In a general low-end mileage approach to a half marathon, one would
>top out at about 9 miles for the long run, have a next run of 6, and
>maybe 2 of 4. Total of 23 miles per week as a low end figure. Note,
>by the way, that I'm including any aerobic activity here. If it's 40
minutes
>of swimming, and your pace for a comparable effort of running is 10 minutes
>per mile, I'm counting that as a 4 mile run. Certainly there are people
>who _get by_ with less, and an even smaller group who run well (as they
>consider it) with less.
>
> But, if someone were to approach and ask about a minimal figure for
>doing a half marathon, I'll quote the 20-30 miles per week with 9-12 mile
>long run. Even though they might get by with less, chances are good that
>they won't.
>
>>>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?
>>>
>>I also think you don't *have* to do high mileage weeks to do reasonably
well
>>in long-distance running events. My highest mileage week was about 35
>>leading up to my 50k, with most being 15-20 mpw. I normally run 3 times a
>>week and bike 3 times. But I agree with those who say specificity is
>>important and that running higher mileage would improve my performance.
By
>>doing long training runs, one can certainly do ok in long events. I enjoy
>>my running more when I only do it 3 times a week, so it works for me.
>
> No, 'have to' is probably not the case. I survived my marathon last
>year with a peak weekly mileage of 50 km, average of something like 30,
>and most of the week being in the long run. But that was survived, not
>enjoyed, and certainly not raced.
>
> I enjoyed my trail ultra, 50 km, far more, approaching it with an average
of
>about 55 km/week, and peak of 75 km/week. That was still on the low end
>of what people tend to do in training for such a race, but it was at least
>in the range of typical.
>

Yes, I agree, more training is better. I don't think my experience is
typical. I was just trying to point out that the long run seems to be the
most important thing, and that cross-training can help create a strong
general aerobic base. Incidentally, I think that if my goal was to run a
road marathon - and enjoy it - I would have to do higher running mileage,
particularly on roads of course. The variation of terrain in a trail race
makes it easier on the body not just because it's a softer surface, but
because the running motion is more varied also. I've always found it more
difficult to run long stretches on flat roads than on more varied terrain.

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

> > With a long run of 9-20 or so miles, plus a 1-3 runs of 3-4 miles, I
> > think I average about 20 miles per week.
>
> How is it that you can run a long run of 20 miles and have even 1 more
> run and still call that an average of 20 miles per week?
>
>

Do you not know what the average of a list of numbers is?

Suppose my weekly mileage was

Week 1: 16 miles
Week 2: 20 miles
Week 3: 24 miles (20 mile long run plus another 4-mile run)

That averages out to 20 miles per week.

> > In any case, I think citing 25 mpw as a minimum for
> > a *half* marathon is absurd.
>
> We are talking about 2 different things here. You just want to do the
> half, marathon, bizillion km ultra marathon, whatever. I am talking
> about finishing it knowing that you did appropriate training to finish
> in a respectable time.
>

I'm pretty confident I could do my marathon in under 4 hours. I'm going
to go a little slower because I'm using it as a training run for a 50k
three weeks later.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
 
In article <[email protected]>,
np426z <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

Nonsense. Races are meant to be won.

But for the rest of use who can't perform anywhere close to Olympic
qualifying times, personal goals are just that, personal. Paying an
entry fee to hurt oneself sounds masochistic. Many people pay an entry
fee because they get a nice stroll with lots of company and a portion
of the fee goes to charity. Perhaps a middle ground goal, going for
the best time one can without hurting might be more appropriate for many.

Unfortunately, one needs to "read between the lines" when using those
performance calculators to figure what pace to go out at for that kind
of middle ground goal.


IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
 
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > With a long run of 9-20 or so miles, plus a 1-3 runs of 3-4
miles, I
> > > think I average about 20 miles per week.
> >
> > How is it that you can run a long run of 20 miles and have even 1
more
> > run and still call that an average of 20 miles per week?
> >
> >
>
> Do you not know what the average of a list of numbers is?
>
> Suppose my weekly mileage was
>
> Week 1: 16 miles
> Week 2: 20 miles
> Week 3: 24 miles (20 mile long run plus another 4-mile run)
>
> That averages out to 20 miles per week.

Got it.

> > > In any case, I think citing 25 mpw as a minimum for
> > > a *half* marathon is absurd.
> >
> > We are talking about 2 different things here. You just want to do
the
> > half, marathon, bizillion km ultra marathon, whatever. I am talking
> > about finishing it knowing that you did appropriate training to
finish
> > in a respectable time.
> >
>
> I'm pretty confident I could do my marathon in under 4 hours. I'm
going
> to go a little slower because I'm using it as a training run for a
50k
> three weeks later.

Again, that's just dandy to finish it. What *is* absurd is suggesting
that someone should adopt your training methods any more than they
should adopt mine. There are very few that would recommend running a
marathon with an average of 20 MPW. Some might even call that
irresponsible. But I do understand your point. If you can do well (by
your standards) with such low volume, then more power to you.

tkb



>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Again, that's just dandy to finish it. What *is* absurd is suggesting
> that someone should adopt your training methods any more than they
> should adopt mine. There are very few that would recommend running a
> marathon with an average of 20 MPW. Some might even call that
> irresponsible. But I do understand your point. If you can do well (by
> your standards) with such low volume, then more power to you.


I'm not saying everyone should do a Marathon with an average of 20 mpw.
I'm saying it's wrong to say people shouldn't do a HALF-Marathon unless
they're doing at least 25 mpw.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
 
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Again, that's just dandy to finish it. What *is* absurd is
suggesting
> > that someone should adopt your training methods any more than they
> > should adopt mine. There are very few that would recommend running
a
> > marathon with an average of 20 MPW. Some might even call that
> > irresponsible. But I do understand your point. If you can do well
(by
> > your standards) with such low volume, then more power to you.
>
>
> I'm not saying everyone should do a Marathon with an average of 20
mpw.
> I'm saying it's wrong to say people shouldn't do a HALF-Marathon
unless
> they're doing at least 25 mpw.

I understand. However, I said 20 MPW not 25

This is my quote:

> You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that
> for several months before even thinking about a half marathon

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

> > I'm not saying everyone should do a Marathon with an average of 20
> mpw.
> > I'm saying it's wrong to say people shouldn't do a HALF-Marathon
> unless
> > they're doing at least 25 mpw.
>
> I understand. However, I said 20 MPW not 25
>
> This is my quote:
>
> > You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that
> > for several months before even thinking about a half marathon
>


Sorry. I think the other guy said 25 mpw and I got confused.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
 
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> But there's also the matter of 'do' versus 'enjoy' or 'race'. Depending
> on who it is, what other factors are around, and which of the goals (do/enjoy/race)
> the person has, some very low mileages can be sufficient.

Don't forget the question of what the person _can_ do. Programs
that require only 25 mpw for a marathon open it up to intermediate
and even beginning runners. They may be slow, but after going
through that program they'll be comfortable doing 10-13 mile long
runs during the off season and can build the base to join a "more
serious" training program the following year.

Given my experience I would put it in even stronger terms. If
I've trained to run for 5+ hours, however slowly, in only 8 months
why should I limit myself to mere marathons as I continue to
improve? 5+ hours near AT is 5+ hours near AT, and as I continue
to improve I would quickly be into ultra territory.
 
Get back to us on this after you run those races.

I will say that more miles increases the chances to finish any race and to
do so more comfortably.


"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.
>
> 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
 
What is the term "AT" that you keep throwing around?


"Bear G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pLJ3d.127927$3l3.93408@attbi_s03...
> Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > But there's also the matter of 'do' versus 'enjoy' or 'race'.
Depending
> > on who it is, what other factors are around, and which of the goals
(do/enjoy/race)
> > the person has, some very low mileages can be sufficient.
>
> Don't forget the question of what the person _can_ do. Programs
> that require only 25 mpw for a marathon open it up to intermediate
> and even beginning runners. They may be slow, but after going
> through that program they'll be comfortable doing 10-13 mile long
> runs during the off season and can build the base to join a "more
> serious" training program the following year.
>
> Given my experience I would put it in even stronger terms. If
> I've trained to run for 5+ hours, however slowly, in only 8 months
> why should I limit myself to mere marathons as I continue to
> improve? 5+ hours near AT is 5+ hours near AT, and as I continue
> to improve I would quickly be into ultra territory.
 
Sam wrote:
> What is the term "AT" that you keep throwing around?

Anaerobic threshold. I've determined mine to be 158 bpm,
coincidentally just under 85% my real max HR. I've run over 4
hours without problems by keeping my average HR around 158 (and
eating plenty of gels). After 159 for just an hour I drag, and at
160 and above I'm toast and spend the rest of the day curled up in
a ball watching TV.

In practical terms this is as fast as I can run distance, plus a
kick of 30 minutes at 162-163. Any faster and I'll crash inside
of 90 minutes as some of my runs will attest.

P.S., I do allow for cardiac drift. Fortunately I have an hour or
two to get a grip on how I feel that day so I can run by feel
for the rest of the run. On the longer runs my pulse often drifts
to the high 160s - where I usually do my speedwork.
 
Bear G wrote in message ...
>Sam wrote:
>> What is the term "AT" that you keep throwing around?
>
>Anaerobic threshold. I've determined mine to be 158 bpm,
>coincidentally just under 85% my real max HR. I've run over 4
>hours without problems by keeping my average HR around 158 (and
>eating plenty of gels). After 159 for just an hour I drag, and at
>160 and above I'm toast and spend the rest of the day curled up in
>a ball watching TV.

If you can run 4 hours at 158, then your AT is higher than that. Most
descriptions of AT that I've seen define it as the highest effort level you
can maintain for up to about an hour. Most people will run a 5k at about
105-110% of AT, and 10k at 100-105%, depending on your time of course. A
marathon can't be run at AT, but at about 95% of AT. The reason for this is
that it's not a clear threshold, but a continuum, so there is muscular
damage from acid buildup at sub-AT efforts as well. Top marathoners,
running closer to 2 hours, probably approach AT more closely.

How did you determine your AT? A HR average for a 10 mile race done at full
effort is a good estimate. There are many ways to test for estimated AT.
From recent tempo work, I estimate my AT at about 170 right now. Of course
AT changes as you move in and out of peak form. Last week I ran a 50k trail
race at HR 159, which is about 93% of my estimated AT of 170, appropriate
for the distance.

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

> 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.

I'm not sure how this adds up. Describe the mileage and terrain of the
four hour run and 3 other runs with a total 20 miles?

-DF
 
Tony wrote:
> If you can run 4 hours at 158, then your AT is higher than that. Most
> descriptions of AT that I've seen define it as the highest effort level you
> can maintain for up to about an hour.

My memory is going. :) I just checked my logs - the 4:23 run had
an average HR of 153. My memory is probably skewed since I
remember seeing it in the 160s as I was coming in.

The numbers cited earlier were based on long runs of around 90
minutes (~8 miles at that time). Before I was always trashed
after my long runs, afterwards I had no problems and felt I was
making much better progress.

> How did you determine your AT? A HR average for a 10 mile race done at full
> effort is a good estimate. There are many ways to test for estimated AT.

I used the approach suggested by Lorraine Moller (Olympic bronze
medalist, local coach) at one of her talks. Even a novice can
figure out whether they're trashed after a training run, but if
you're just starting to run 10 miles in training you'll have no
idea how to race one.
 
Bear G wrote in message
>Tony wrote:
>> If you can run 4 hours at 158, then your AT is higher than that. Most
>> descriptions of AT that I've seen define it as the highest effort level
you
>> can maintain for up to about an hour.
>
>My memory is going. :) I just checked my logs - the 4:23 run had
>an average HR of 153. My memory is probably skewed since I
>remember seeing it in the 160s as I was coming in.

Hmmm, are you sure your AT is not much higher? Most of my long training
runs are about HR 140 to 145 at most, and tempo runs at HR 155 to 165, while
my AT is around 170. Racing over 5 hours at 159 is a very hard effort for
me, that I could never approach in a long training run. In the past couple
of years when I've trained for shorter races, my AT has been as high as 175,
and I've raced orienteering races about 80 mins at HR 178+ (slightly higher
than running AT because running off-trail in the woods uses the arms and
other muscles more). Doing long training runs at 153 if your AT is 158 is
too close - your AT must be higher.

>
>The numbers cited earlier were based on long runs of around 90
>minutes (~8 miles at that time). Before I was always trashed
>after my long runs, afterwards I had no problems and felt I was
>making much better progress.
>
>> How did you determine your AT? A HR average for a 10 mile race done at
full
>> effort is a good estimate. There are many ways to test for estimated AT.
>
>I used the approach suggested by Lorraine Moller (Olympic bronze
>medalist, local coach) at one of her talks. Even a novice can
>figure out whether they're trashed after a training run, but if
>you're just starting to run 10 miles in training you'll have no
>idea how to race one.

Agreed, the 10 mile race (~ one hour) best effort is for an experienced
runner.

- Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back