If you got faster by going slower... (HR training)
Replies
-
This page has a calculator that will let you put in your Max HR (by adjusting age) and resting heart rate. After saying I'm not a numbers guy in my previous post I do like to be as accurate as possible if I'm going to look at the numbers. Yes, I am an engineer.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm0 -
Thanks Carson!CarsonRuns wrote: »To clarify, I really am not running anywhere near race pace. I have an 8:50 HM pace and I run my 12mi+ runs at around 9:45-10:30. But reading this thread I feel like I should maybe be running more like 12:00/mi. I think I am going to go out with my HRM next run. I was regularly running around 165bpm when I was using it, but I have two years under my belt.
In your case, I don't see any need to slow down. You are doing your "easy" runs at the faster end of aerobic pace. If you are taking a day off between runs, then you are getting recovery in.lporter229 wrote: »As I understand it, by running at a slower (aerobic) pace, you are essentially training your body to use it's own natural reserves for fuel rather than depleting your glycogen stores, which helps to avoid hitting the wall during a marathon. It also helps you to develop a more efficient gait through muscle memory. Repeated miles at a slower pace means your body will more naturally adopt this same movement even when you increase your speed. (Anyone feel free to correct me if that's not accurate info).
This really only applies to the long run when you get over 90 minutes.
When you do easy runs, you are building the aerobic pathways, like mitochondria, in the body which allows you to get more O2 to the muscles, with the same amount of blood flow.
0 -
I just ran across two earbuds that synch with RunKeeper and contain HRM's in the earbuds. Not as accurate as the chest strap though. SMS BioSport ($150, not wireless, meaning you need to carry your smartphone) and Jabra Sports Pulse ($200, wireless and gives you a voice check of your hr).0
-
OldNoobJohn wrote: »This page has a calculator that will let you put in your Max HR (by adjusting age) and resting heart rate. After saying I'm not a numbers guy in my previous post I do like to be as accurate as possible if I'm going to look at the numbers. Yes, I am an engineer.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm
I used runningforfitness.org. I plugged in my numbers and it generated a custom table with my numbers and explanation of each and i copied and emailed it to myself. I also compared it to Garmin's numbers, to get a feel for my ranges. Then, I just listen to my body within those numbers.
One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance. BUT, I find that the lower you go, the better it seems to be for the whole body...for the muscles and ligaments, etc. It seems that when i start to creep up over the lower number (the Maffetone number), I start to feel my tendon aching (which I have to be careful about my Achilles) and when I stick to the lower number I tend to feel as though I've done resistance training in my hip flexors and calves (like slowly hopping on one leg for a couple of hours)--which I think is beneficial. I wonder sometimes if pushing harder introduces an inflammatory response or something shifts (obviously there is a degree of catabolism happening, which you want to keep towards fat and away from muscle) which might cause the body to ever-so-slightly start to breakdown on itself. IDK, just one of those many, many things that goes through my head when running. But, tl;dr, I find when I let my hr creep up, I experience more non-cardiovascular-related negative effects. Therefore, I will definitely be keeping to 80/20 when I complete my 12 week aerobic zone training.
0 -
Fromhereonout - it sounds more likely to me that when you start pushing too hard your running form is just not as good because you're tired. Either way, it sounds like training at an easy pace is working better for you.
0 -
lporter229 wrote: »Yes! I read Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 and used his recommendations to develop a good base before starting my last marathon training plan. I was a 10 min/mile casual runner for years. I never tried to get faster. After following this plan for less than a year, I ran a 1:43:52 HM (7:56 pace) and a 3:52:37 FM (8:52 pace).
To be fair, I was already getting faster by virtue of running more after doing my first marathon in 2013, but it wasn't until I started monitoring my HR and running in the recommended zones that I really noticed a difference.
That's amazing! I'm still such a novice that I'm trying to build a base of long, slow runs, but I do use some of Matt's coached PEAR runs with my HRM so I'm excited to hear that 80/20 worked so well for you.
To the OP: my first 5K in November was 32:17. A month later, I ran a 29:57. Then, last week, I ran a 4-mile race in 36:06, and that's through nothing more than more miles.0 -
That's one of the reasons why many runners don't use HR based training and go by perceived exertion (Google "Borg scale"). One factor is "cardiac drift" but there's also the fact that, for many runners, mile 10, for example, is a lot more demanding than mile 2.One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance.
What I haven't seen mentioned, and, if you're of a techie bent might be of interest, is HR being used a proxy for %VO2Max. HR measurement is ubiquitous and directly observable whereas VO2Max requires either a lab (for measurement) or a high end HRM, a computer running Windows, and $80 of software (for a calculation).
I've found only one reference in the "popular press" detailing what parts of the system are enhanced at what levels of VO2Max and, wouldn't you know, it corresponds fairly closely to the HR values that we discuss. :-)0 -
That's one of the reasons why many runners don't use HR based training and go by perceived exertion (Google "Borg scale"). One factor is "cardiac drift" but there's also the fact that, for many runners, mile 10, for example, is a lot more demanding than mile 2.One thing I will say about using higher numbers...I was tempted to do it, and did briefly for a much-needed emotional boost. And on longer runs, my hr creeps up towards the end of the run and it becomes difficult to keep it down and I try to let it stay within a tolerance.
What I haven't seen mentioned, and, if you're of a techie bent might be of interest, is HR being used a proxy for %VO2Max. HR measurement is ubiquitous and directly observable whereas VO2Max requires either a lab (for measurement) or a high end HRM, a computer running Windows, and $80 of software (for a calculation).
I've found only one reference in the "popular press" detailing what parts of the system are enhanced at what levels of VO2Max and, wouldn't you know, it corresponds fairly closely to the HR values that we discuss. :-)
Well, my Fenix2 and HRM-run strap estimate VO2max and it may be close, but I don't pay it much mind. Not really sure what to do with it.
As for perceived exertion, I've never been able to judge that because I never have anyone to talk to* and don't want to look like a crazy person. They also say to try to say the pledge of allegiance, but I don't live n USA, so again there's the danger of looking like some insane American, lol.
* never anyone to talk to UNTIL today when someone I've seen around pulled up next to me and started a convo. Since I don't speak his language very well, I failed at telling him that I was going slow for HR training, and since I was enjoying practicing language skills and he is a very consistent runner, I just hung in with him. Then I found out he's a 10k racer! (much, much older...but quick and consistent lifelong runner) Oops! I got way out of HR range, especially on uphill, but I was able to hold a conversation easily everywhere else (on the hill too, but mor labored). But I don't know what any of that means vis-a-vis my HR ranges. Gonna download and look at the data. Should be interesting.
0 -
Hey.... I am starting to think this slow running stuff works. Since my 1/2 marathon last fall (1:53:58), I have been running slowly almost exclusively. And by slow I mean 9:30+ on the long runs. I signed up for a 10k as a speed check for an upcoming 1/2 marathon in April. A did a one mile speed test in the middle of a slow run last week and discovered that 7:30 didn't seem too crazy so when the starting gun figuratively fired this past Saturday I just ran hard. Negative split, negative schmit. I ran fast early (7:35 for the first two miles) and faded my way to a 48:57 10k PR for me. Now it's back to running slowly until the 1/2 marathon.
0 -
Not sure how to edit a post on here... I will plug the 10k result into the usual calculators and use that as a target pace for the 1/2 marathon. I'm not trying to argue against the conventional negative split race philosophy, I just felt like I didn't have enough information to approach the 10k with any real pace plan.0
-
@OldNoobJohn , that's great! Congrats and thanks for sharing. It's great to hear successes. I'm still plodding along and continuing to see slight improvement (in my case it's still very connected to faster HR recovery and slightly better hill speed...but I'm hoping it will eventually translate into actual speed improvements too). So, did you do any speed or interval since Fall, or pretty much just long slow distance or ?? Do you go by HR numbers/zone when training, or just "feel" for an easy pace and go with that?
Thanks, congrats, and good luck with your training til your half!0 -
I used a mixture of feel, HR monitor, and forcing myself to run my long runs slower than my previous 1/2 marathon pace. No intervals. My thinking is I don't really run fast enough to benefit from that yet.
I've read various thoughts on breathing, but for me breathing is a good gauge of effort and heart rate. I breath rhythmically in time with the foot steps.
4 steps breathing in, 4 steps breathing out == easy
3 steps breathing in, 3 steps breathing out == 1/2 marathon pace
2 steps breathing in, 2 steps breathing out == Max effort
If your cadence is fairly steady, this makes sense. Breaths/minute determine oxygen coming in == work being done. If I find myself breathing harder than intended I slow down.
This is all a bit premature, of course.... I'm assuming my 10k time bodes well for the upcoming 1/2 marathon. Time will tell. I wasn't kidding when I called myself an old noob so take any of my musings with several grains of salt.
You mentioned hills and those are a challenge when you're trying to run by heart rate. To stay in the lower zones you'd probably have to stop and walk (with breaks?) on some hills. I slow down as much as possible and let the HR creep up and then recover when I get to the top.0 -
@OldNoobJohn , that all makes perfect sense to me. I breathe similar rhythms but travel some very disruptive urban terrain, so lots of pace changes for traffic and crossings etc. Re: hills, yes I was walking them at first, but am able to slow down enough to get up some of them now, that's why I say it's where I've probably seen the best gains. Of course I have to laugh at you saying you aren't fast enough to do intervals etc, because you're running at 9:30 long runs and I'm at 13:30! And that depends on your definition of "long"! Lol! But thats from about 16:00 when I first restarted in January after several months break. So, there is at least improvement.0
-
In some ways, I was lucky in this regard. When I began running again (2013), I bought an HRM (a Zephyr Bluetooth). I already had a good aerobic base from all the walking, hiking and backpacking I had been doing since 2010. What got me interested was realizing how slow my sitting heart rate had become compared to when I was heavier and out of shape. A rate of 55-60 bpm seemed to be the norm.
If we use the standard max HR formula of 220-age, for me that would be 159 BPM (which is wrong).
Initially I paired it with Endomondo and there are some things about Endomondo I really like. I found my ranges for walking, hiking and dealing with my treadmill (I don't run on it because it is on the second floor of my house). But for running I was clueless. I ran my first race (no training, just ran it) with the HRM. A 10K race and I mostly maintained my HR to a range of 160-165 bpm. It didn't feel like a real stretch of my capacity because I felt like I could still run another six miles (whether I really could is a completely different matter), but it gave me a nominal pace of 11:40/mile.
I also paired it with Runtastic for awhile because I liked the idea that my wife could see where I was when I was out on one of my long runs. Runtastic allowed me to set custom heart rate zones but in the earlier versions I don't recall a specific set of tests to guide you through the process. I think those tests are included now in both Runtastic and Endomondo.
MapMyFitness (MapMyRun) would not pair up with the HRM because the app required a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) monitor but my phone didn't support that form of Bluetooth. Once I upgraded to a new phone, I have my choice of standard Bluetooth or BLE monitors.
My program of choice, however, is iCardio by Digifit. Yes, you have a one-time charge to get the gee-whiz features of the app like the various test programs and the HRM support but it gives the most detailed of information of all the programs I've played with.
Matt Fitgerald has a series of tests to establish heart rate/pace/effort zones in his most recent book on the 80/20 training program as mentioned by Carrie.
Digifit uses several similar tests to set your HR zones (which can be related to pace) but is clear that the best test in its suite of tests is the CP30 (Critical Power 30 minute) test. You run at the maximum sustained pace you can maintain over 30 minutes. You need the HRM, your weight for the test, your morning resting heart rate, and a nice flat place to run (I usually run it on a track or on a very flat and straight course where I can maintain an uninterrupted speed). This is not an easy test.
At the end of the test it suggests a range for each of the five HR zones (which you can edit) as well as an estimate of your VO2max and your lactic acid threshold heart rate. The first time I took the test in July 2013 in the early stages of my training, I managed to run 2.77 miles in 30 minutes. My resting HR was 64 bpm. It was a very warm day and my maximum HR that day was 179 bpm. The estimated VO2max (based upon a factor time the ratio of my maximum tested HR and my resting HR) was 43. Was that the true maximum HR? maybe not, but that day it was. And my pace was fairly constant throughout the run (I slowed down just a bit towards the last 5 minutes, but my HR was in a slow climb after the 10-minute mark).
It has been a couple of months since I did the last CP30 test. My highest sustained HR is 195 bpm (actually have hit 199 bpm during the last race during 385 yard sprint to the end of the marathon). My estimated VO2max is about 60 and my resting HR is about 42-43 BPM. And in 30 minutes, I ran almost 4.0 miles. A really big improvement. Of course, I can now do a single mile run on the track in less than seven minutes. I didn't take me long to drop through the 10 minute per mile range in the the nines and then the upper eights. But it has taken me the last year to drop through the seven minute range to where my mile track trial time value starts with a "6."
My "easy" run now averages about 145 bpm and is about 11:00/mile. So, in two years I have gone from age 59 to 61, my HR has dropped from and average of 163 bpm while running 11:40/mile down to 145 bpm while running about 11:00/mile. My tempo runs (approximately 7.25-7.50 miles over the course of 60-65 minutes) have an average HR of 159-163 bpm (max of 174-179 bpm), while running at about a 9:05/mile pace.
My most recent half-marathon was run at a 9:16/mile pace with an average HR of 163 bpm over the span of two hours (2:01:33). Even my last marathon, which was run at a 10:27/mile pace, had an average HR of 159 bpm (4:34:00).
There has been a lot of slow running in the process. But I am gradually getting faster. And I can see it in the HRM data I've collected over the past two years since I returned to running).0 -
I was running too hard for years and not making any progress. Finally went for V02 max testing last fall. I knew my max hr was over 200 from previous races, but still couldn't figure out my zone 1 (139-154 for me) and lactate threshold (172). It cost $200, but I am fairly confident it will turn out to be money well spent.
I had to start out walking to keep my heart rate in my new zone 1 (139-154 for me). I have gotten almost 1 mph faster in 17 weeks, so it is very slow progress (still at a fast walking pace for some).
I am just starting to add in Zone 3 (168-174) training after working in Zone 1 the entire time. I also am wondering if it will take years to get to a regular runner's speed. But I did just run my first 5k trail race, and my breath control was fantastic (for me). My time was worse than I'd expected, but it was very hilly and a trail so I have nothing to compare it too.
I am signed up for my 2nd half marathon in October, which will be a good test to see if going slower has paid off compared to the years when I primarily trained in the anaerobic zone (high zone 3 and 4). I primarily trained with an average of 180 before getting my zones tested, which I am told is why I didn't get any faster or was ever able to run for very long without walking breaks.0 -
My "easy" run now averages about 145 bpm and is about 11:00/mile. So, in two years I have gone from age 59 to 61, my HR has dropped from and average of 163 bpm while running 11:40/mile down to 145 bpm while running about 11:00/mile. My tempo runs (approximately 7.25-7.50 miles over the course of 60-65 minutes) have an average HR of 159-163 bpm (max of 174-179 bpm), while running at about a 9:05/mile pace.
My most recent half-marathon was run at a 9:16/mile pace with an average HR of 163 bpm over the span of two hours (2:01:33). Even my last marathon, which was run at a 10:27/mile pace, had an average HR of 159 bpm (4:34:00).
There has been a lot of slow running in the process. But I am gradually getting faster. And I can see it in the HRM data I've collected over the past two years since I returned to running).
Wow! Congrats! That's great! A lot of great info there, thank you!!
0 -
@HopeToRun you sound a lot like me, running too hard and not progressing for far too long. I'm wondering if the aerobic zone according to the test you had done compares well to what the Maffetone calculation would give you? He basically says to subtract your age from 180 and that's the top of the range and subtract 10bpm to get the bottom of the range. However, if you've been running for years, he lets you add 5bpm.
I was considering the tests, because I wasn't sure I trusted the Maffetone number at first (I think everyone goes through doubt, because it puts you so slow), but I've sped up some within the hr range already and feel as though there's a lot of structural conditioning that takes place in my body at that super slow pace. If I hit a plateau at some point, I might look into help from the sport lab, but I'm still progressing within the low hr, for now.
Good luck with your training!0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »@HopeToRun I'm wondering if the aerobic zone according to the test you had done compares well to what the Maffetone calculation would give you?
I was considering the tests, because I wasn't sure I trusted the Maffetone number at first (I think everyone goes through doubt, because it puts you so slow), but I've sped up some within the hr range already and feel as though there's a lot of structural conditioning that takes place in my body at that super slow pace. If I hit a plateau at some point, I might look into help from the sport lab, but I'm still progressing within the low hr, for now.
Good luck with your training!
@FromHereOnOut My tested zones didn't match any of the standard online recommendations. My max hr is too high above standard. Maffetone puts me at 129-139 for age. But 139-154 is my recovery zone and 145-154 is my goal zone 1. I still have to go very slow to stay there, often walking. I am happy to hear you are having results by going slower. And I think if your max hr fits the average then you can probably use the online guides and testing isn't necessary like it was for me.0 -
All winter on the treadmill I went at the same pace as I did outside (5.0 to 5.2 with 1% incline)
My pace improved almost 10 minutes on my first outdoor 5k so I guess there is some merit to that thought.0 -
All winter on the treadmill I went at the same pace as I did outside (5.0 to 5.2 with 1% incline)
My pace improved almost 10 minutes on my first outdoor 5k so I guess there is some merit to that thought.
That is seriously impressive. I would love to drop 10 minutes off my 5K time!
Thanks to everyone for sharing and for OP for this thread. I needed to hear some success stories!0 -
Thanks, I was shocked tbh0
-
All winter on the treadmill I went at the same pace as I did outside (5.0 to 5.2 with 1% incline)
My pace improved almost 10 minutes on my first outdoor 5k so I guess there is some merit to that thought.
That is definitely impressive. Tbh, I've never run on a treadmill. I'm lucky to live in a nice climate and not sure I could manage more than 5minutes on a dreadmill, unless I had a favorite movie playing.
0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »All winter on the treadmill I went at the same pace as I did outside (5.0 to 5.2 with 1% incline)
My pace improved almost 10 minutes on my first outdoor 5k so I guess there is some merit to that thought.
That is definitely impressive. Tbh, I've never run on a treadmill. I'm lucky to live in a nice climate and not sure I could manage more than 5minutes on a dreadmill, unless I had a favorite movie playing.
Yeah it sucked for sure, needless to say I didn't do it regularly.0 -
FromHereOnOut wrote: »@HopeToRun I'm wondering if the aerobic zone according to the test you had done compares well to what the Maffetone calculation would give you?
I was considering the tests, because I wasn't sure I trusted the Maffetone number at first (I think everyone goes through doubt, because it puts you so slow), but I've sped up some within the hr range already and feel as though there's a lot of structural conditioning that takes place in my body at that super slow pace. If I hit a plateau at some point, I might look into help from the sport lab, but I'm still progressing within the low hr, for now.
Good luck with your training!
@FromHereOnOut My tested zones didn't match any of the standard online recommendations. My max hr is too high above standard. Maffetone puts me at 129-139 for age. But 139-154 is my recovery zone and 145-154 is my goal zone 1. I still have to go very slow to stay there, often walking. I am happy to hear you are having results by going slower. And I think if your max hr fits the average then you can probably use the online guides and testing isn't necessary like it was for me.
While my Maffetone isn't as low as yours, I know the feeling of having a fairly stupid max HR. What calc are you using for zones? I have seen a max HR of 210 on my garmin. So I have calced my training zones off a max HR of 215, since I am sure I had more in me.0 -
While my Maffetone isn't as low as yours, I know the feeling of having a fairly stupid max HR. What calc are you using for zones? I have seen a max HR of 210 on my garmin. So I have calced my training zones off a max HR of 215, since I am sure I had more in me.
@taeliesyn Are you saying I'm old? LOL
I'm using the zones from my VO2 max and lactate test. I tried different calculators for years, and usually ignored the results as I would always go above them easily. My resting heart rate is 55, and my tested max is 201. The highest hr on my old Garmin was 240, but I think that was a glitch. I did have a string of runs around 210-220, but that was on my old Garmin. The highest on my new Garmin is 205. They suggested my max will be higher on my next test as I had to do the first one walking with incline raises instead of running with speed increases (I couldn't run for the 25-30 minutes required at the time) so it took longer (almost 50 minutes); I am sure I had more in me too.
I just tried the calculator here: http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp?using MaxHR=201 Age=41 RHR=55 and the Zoladz modified [4] method comes pretty close to what my tested zones actually are. The other two are much too low; I could reach the first zone just doing some gentle stretching
It seems to be a real challenge to find the correct zones if your heart rate doesn't fit the average.0 -
I have no clue what my VO2 max or resting heart rate are. I quit running with the HRM in the fall. Mostly it's not worth the hassle and I was too focused on the specific heart rate. I just run with how I feel now. If it's an easy run (most of the time) then I just do what feels casual and easy. I've seen HUGE improvements this marathon cycle by increasing my weekly miles and just being a bit more relaxed on my long runs. Want to run faster? Run more often. That's what I'm seeing.
I have another race coming up in April and I feel confident that I can drop 15 minutes off my marathon PR. Maybe more if the weather cooperates. I don't know that you need to worry about scientific specifics unless you're trying to qualify for the Olympic team. Just run and enjoy it.0 -
Well I'm not trying for the Olympic team, lol!!!! But I'm presently trying to decide whether to try to run a marathon or not (would be my first, and possibly only race). Registration just started and the race is in November (I only re-started running in January, after 3-5mo break for achilles problems).
I can and will increase miles regardless of whether I register (thanks mainly to running easier/slower; because previously I was running too hard to put in enough miles). But to run the race, I really need to improve my speed (and/or cardiovascular ease) or else I'm going to be out there for too long. The thought of being on my feet, pounding away for 6 hours isn't something I'm up for. I need to get closer to 4:30-4:50 (so...goes to look at pace charts...10-11min/mi). I have no idea how hard people usually push during a marathon (re: effort, such as into which heart zone??), nor what level of effort I could sustain for that long. I know most of these questions will become answered as I increase miles and increase my long run, but that all goes in tandem with slowing down/easing up enough to be able to run more without injuries/problems and HOPING that my pace will pick up for the same level of effort as I go.
Not sure when I'll have the epiphany I'm waiting for to tell me 'yes' or 'no' for registering for this year's race. I feel like I have such a long way to go. (It doesn't help that the race I want to do is very difficult, but it's the only race I've ever wanted to do and since I may only ever run one, I'd like it to be this one.)
If any of you lovely experience runners have advice for me, I'd really appreciate it.0 -
I think if you really only want to do this one race, once, but do plan to keep running long term, then you should wait until at least next year or even the year after. Why push yourself to rush into something that's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for you? Be patient and make sure it's a good experience.0
-
Sounds just like me. My first attempt I ended up dropping out of because my achilles was bothering me. Funny thing is that they ended up cancelling the race due to ice so I didn't have a choice.FromHereOnOut wrote: »Well I'm not trying for the Olympic team, lol!!!! But I'm presently trying to decide whether to try to run a marathon or not (would be my first, and possibly only race). Registration just started and the race is in November (I only re-started running in January, after 3-5mo break for achilles problems).
I did my first marathon in December this last year. I loved the experience but those last 4 miles kicked me straight in the teeth. My quads were just flat out shot. Gone. Finished around mile 22. Part of that was me babying my achilles. The injury flared up again after doing a Tough Mudder a couple months before the race.
First half I clocked in at 2:03. It felt easy. A 2 hour half isn't a big deal for me at all so I thought I was going to coast in on about a 4:10 time. I ended up with a 4:32 chip time. When the energy is gone. It's gone and it doesn't come back. I ran/walked the last few miles. It wasn't a total loss. I learned a lot actually. My decision to drink Gatorade was stupid. I didn't drink that in training. It messed with my stomach a bit in the race and I didn't feel like taking gels. It was hot and humid and I got a bit dehydrated. Drink more water. Orange slices taste and make me feel so much better. I'd never tried them but I liked it.
I have another race April 4th. I've added in a lot more easy miles this time. I've been over 50 MPW the last couple weeks and pretty close to that before. I could tell a huge difference on my 20 mile run this last weekend. HUGE. I had so much energy left at the end and my legs felt fantastic. I've been doing some 15 mile long runs on a course that has 3 nasty hills. I'm not even tempted to walk the hills now.
If you can wait till you can do a 2 hour (or close) half you'll have a much better experience. How to get there? Add in miles to your training. Lots of miles. Do that and your speed will improve for sure.0 -
I think if you really only want to do this one race, once, but do plan to keep running long term, then you should wait until at least next year or even the year after. Why push yourself to rush into something that's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for you? Be patient and make sure it's a good experience.
Good point and I've thought maybe next year. I think the reason I'm thinking this year is because I'm already really focusing on running, but mainly because tbh I never know if I'll still be living here in a year or two. (Background: I'm an expat in Athens and although I would love to live here indefinitely, my husband has been rumbling about moving to the US--but who knows! The race I'd like to run is the classic/original Athens Marathon.) Also, I've been a SAHM and my youngest is finally starting kindergarten in Sept, totally changing my program and making me not really know what's around the next corner for me. But, yes, I absolutely will continue running long term, just don't think I'll be a big fan of races, as I actually prefer my urban obstacle course running vis-a-vis clear open paths and I prefer running in solitude and for my sortof "zen" time--but, I should try to challenge myself to run a marathon at least once, I think.
0
This discussion has been closed.