Jack Daniels Running Formula
Options
Replies
-
I think for a lot of people, including me, the mid-week medium-long run of 13-15 miles to back up the long run really helps with endurance. I actually remember in my first marathon (not making this up) getting to 11 miles and thinking 'oh good, only a Wednesday run to go'.
yeah, that seems like the JD formula, longer mid week runs than I'm accustomed to, from 11-15 miles or so, and then another 15-17 mile long run with some tempo work mixed in on the weekend.
0 -
Well... I was doing a Pfitzinger plan that also had a long run of up to 22 miles. But I was probably doing higher mileage overall. It all depends how much you can manage and have time for.0
-
beeblebrox82 wrote: »beeblebrox82 wrote: »
I find it interesting in all your comments that, over the course of a 500 mile, 18 week training cycle, so much emphasis is placed on about 13 miles: the tips of those long runs. Are those really the most important miles in a marathon training plan?
I am not so sure what is so magical about mile 13. Personally, it's after mile 18 or mile 20 when it really starts to become interesting. :-)
You're not reading what I wrote. so if your average plan has say 5 runs from 18-22 miles in it, and this one tops out at a bunch of 17s, you're looking at a total difference of about 13-15 miles summed up in long run time over the plan. If you're doing those miles on different days, does it really matter that much?
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.0 -
Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks
0 -
lporter229 wrote: »Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks
I agree completely. I'm currently on a 17 day streak of just general fitness running between 6-7 miles per day with a 12 mile long run on Sunday. Running 48 miles one week and 50 miles the next and i have zero fatigue in my legs. After a 50 mile week with a 19 or 20 mile run there was a lot more stress on my body than the same mileage broke up differently.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.
90 minutes for me is 11-12 miles. So on a 17 mile run, I'm spending almost an hour running past that 90 minute mark. I would certainly agree that someone who runs say, a 7 minute easy pace, would run 20 miles to get the same time and intensity that has me at 17 miles at an 8.5 minute pace. but If you have more of those 17 milers in a training plan that gives you the same amount of time overall in that "happy zone" after 90 minutes, is there a difference? Nets out the same in theory.
One thing where i agree for sure, the psychological benefits of running longer is pretty darn important. Keeping those legs churning is mental as much as anything else. That's definitely something lost in this plan. I think that aspect alone warrants tacking on a few extra miles somewhere in the plan.
0 -
lporter229 wrote: »Regardless of the science behind it, to me at least two 20 mile long runs are critical for two reasons: The mental aspect of running that long and also getting used to the feeling of running on truly tired legs. Yes, you can argue that a high weekly cumulative mileage has the same effect, but personally, there is a difference in how my legs feel at 13 miles vs. 20, regardless of how many miles I ran that week. And I like to do at least 2 in case one of them sucks
I can also agree that just the mere confidence you get after a 20-miler is encouraging. Even if science tells us it doesn't do anything physiologically.
I even done a 22 miler once just before my first full. I am not sure yet if i will do that the second time around tho.
0 -
12 miles in 90 minutes is 7:30 pace. You said you are doing 8:30 pace. I'm confused about that and it needs clarification.beeblebrox82 wrote: »CarsonRuns wrote: »
Yes, it does. The adaptations targeted in the long run start to occur around 90 minutes into a run. If you spread those 13 miles out over other shorter runs, you aren't receiving those adaptations which are critical for success in the marathon.
90 minutes for me is 11-12 miles. So on a 17 mile run, I'm spending almost an hour running past that 90 minute mark. I would certainly agree that someone who runs say, a 7 minute easy pace, would run 20 miles to get the same time and intensity that has me at 17 miles at an 8.5 minute pace. but If you have more of those 17 milers in a training plan that gives you the same amount of time overall in that "happy zone" after 90 minutes, is there a difference? Nets out the same in theory.
One thing where i agree for sure, the psychological benefits of running longer is pretty darn important. Keeping those legs churning is mental as much as anything else. That's definitely something lost in this plan. I think that aspect alone warrants tacking on a few extra miles somewhere in the plan.
If you are running 8:30 pace, then 90 minutes will put you at around 10.5 miles. If you are indeed running the long run at 7:30 pace with a 3:36 marathon PR, then you are running too fast.
So, let's square that away before I respond any further.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
12 miles in 90 minutes is 7:30 pace. You said you are doing 8:30 pace. I'm confused about that and it needs clarification.
If you are running 8:30 pace, then 90 minutes will put you at around 10.5 miles. If you are indeed running the long run at 7:30 pace with a 3:36 marathon PR, then you are running too fast.
So, let's square that away before I respond any further.
Even at 8:30 pace those long runs are only :15 sec slower than MP. With a 40MPW volume of that intensity it's no wonder his lower body feels wrecked.
0 -
Sorry, pencil-whipped it, definitely not doing long runs at 7:30. typically between 8:30 and 9:00. Still the math is good from the other end, a solid hour running after the 90 minute mark on a 17 miler for me.
I guess I'm just nervous, I have only been running a few years and I seem to have hit a mileage wall where I'm getting diminishing returns, and I'm trying to get over it.
2012: 249
2013: 612
2014: 1296
2015: 1600? That would be up another 20% and would be 160miles per month for the rest of the year, on average (I'm a bit behind, broke a toe at the end of last year, unrelated to running.)
0 -
I run a 3:05 marathon, going for sub 3, and I run my easy runs at 8:10-8:30 (or currently doing my best to stay in that window!). Maybe you would feel good slowing down your easy runs a little and this would help you extend mileage.0
-
I agree with Carrie. It's hard to imagine that a healthy male in his thirties is already hitting diminishing returns from training with a 3:36 marathon. Run slower and run more miles!0
-
beeblebrox82 wrote: »Sorry, pencil-whipped it, definitely not doing long runs at 7:30. typically between 8:30 and 9:00. Still the math is good from the other end, a solid hour running after the 90 minute mark on a 17 miler for me.
I guess I'm just nervous, I have only been running a few years and I seem to have hit a mileage wall where I'm getting diminishing returns, and I'm trying to get over it.
2012: 249
2013: 612
2014: 1296
2015: 1600? That would be up another 20% and would be 160miles per month for the rest of the year, on average (I'm a bit behind, broke a toe at the end of last year, unrelated to running.)
I see where you keep talking about your long run, but I am not sure if I missed what you do for the rest of the week. I apologize if I missed it. The long run whether it is 13 miles or 17 or 20 miles is only one component of your over all training.
What other runs do you do? The long run should only be 25-33% of your over all weekly miles. Closer to 25% the better. So if you do a 17 mile long run, then your total weekly miles to support it should be between 51-68 miles.
That means the week you are doing a 17 miler, you should have already ran between 34-51 miles. I know most 18 week plans for beginners and intermediates don't have you doing this or have you doing it for too long. I hate those 18 week plans. They break so many rules of smart running.
0 -
Carrieendar wrote: »I run a 3:05 marathon, going for sub 3, and I run my easy runs at 8:10-8:30 (or currently doing my best to stay in that window!). Maybe you would feel good slowing down your easy runs a little and this would help you extend mileage.
Watch the Born To Run video I posted yesterday in the group about the Kenyons. Pay attention to how slow they do their long runs. Very insightful. Then halfway through, one of the Kenyens (Kip Keino - 2 time Olympic Champion) says that "First and foremost, you build him up by making him to compete in cross country [distance running] then from there you move to track and field [shorter faster runs] and you build it up. And you can be able to advise the atheletes this is the way forward for improving..." (29:04-29:59)
0 -
It's an hour long! Can you just tell us how slow they do their long runs?
Actually, cross country and then track and field is pretty much how kids come up through the club system in the UK too. I'm not sure I'd be hugely keen on the shorter track stuff coming to running at my age, though this may just be because I don't want to be lapped by much faster-than-me teenagers in crop tops and hotpants.0 -
It's an hour long! Can you just tell us how slow they do their long runs?
Actually, cross country and then track and field is pretty much how kids come up through the club system in the UK too. I'm not sure I'd be hugely keen on the shorter track stuff coming to running at my age, though this may just be because I don't want to be lapped by much faster-than-me teenagers in crop tops and hotpants.
OK, just watch from 5:34-7:45.
0 -
Also, 8:54-9:300
-
Done it! And I can safely say I have never wanted to do a session that made me feel sick at the end (like the man says about his athletes in Ireland). That's a boy thing.0
-
I agree with Carrie. It's hard to imagine that a healthy male in his thirties is already hitting diminishing returns from training with a 3:36 marathon. Run slower and run more miles!
This pretty much hits the nail on the head.
@beeblebrox82 , I think you are over-thinking this. Slow down. Run more miles and the PRs will come. I ran a 3:10 for a PR a couple years back at age 45 running my long runs slower than 9:00 per mile. Most of my weekday runs were that pace or slower too.
0 -
Seems my last post didnt go through. Thanks for the input guys, I'll work on ramping up my miles, and try to figure out how to make these long legs run slow. 0
