Taper vs. One Last Long Run

autumnblade75

As a first time marathoner whose goal is just to finish the race, would you consider it more beneficial to back off the running for 2 weeks prior to the race, or making sure that you were absolutely confident that the distance isn't beyond your ability by running 26.2 the week before?

I'm a month out and haven't gotten beyond 22 miles, ever. Ideally, I'd like to hit 26.2 two weeks before the race and accept a slightly shorter taper. I'm just running out of time and worried about Everything.

autumnblade75

stealthq wrote: »

autumnblade75 wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

autumnblade75 wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

autumnblade75 wrote: »

edited to add:
I'm impressed with myself for keeping it down to the level that I ran in training. I know that means I probably ran all my long runs too fast. I'm impressed with how even my pacing was. I never could have done that a year ago. I attribute it to spending all that time working on my cadence. And that got easy when I started editing all the music in my playlist to the same tempo.

Good job on HR, usually studies show by perceived effort that people go faster off-treadmill than on, with normal increase in HR and that means carb-burning as energy source increase too.
Which I'd wager is a major reason why so many hit the wall - excitement at the start with faster pace than intended being other reason.

That cadence aspect is so true, especially as getting tired and usually sloppy with form, usually at really the wrong time to do so.

What did you find that allows getting the tempo out of a song? I have a Windows program that samples the MP3's then writes it into the file tagging field for it. Sadly I have no player I use normally that reads or sorts by that field, so I have to make playlists to use just those songs.
I was surprised how few are in the right range of stuff I liked.

Thank you, about the HR. It would seem strange not to be impressed by the evenness of it, and the fact that it was so well-matched with what I had done in training. I have gone out much too quickly in other races, so I do recognize how easy that can be.

I use MixMeister BPM Analyzer to find the tempo, then Audacity to change it. Some things sound really strange at 170 BPM - Ministry's Just One Fix is probably the goofiest one that still works. Some songs have tempo changes that really confuse the Analyzer, and just don't work out in practice. I had to dump Kid Rock's American Badass for that. And a lot of 80's Hair Metal seems to be offbeat - Like, the verse of the song is sung on the beat, but the drummer is working the spaces between beats? That's really hit or miss. Motorhead's Ace of Spades does that, too. I don't want to drop it, but it makes it harder to run to.

I use that MixMeister too, I have older version (noticed an update that removed some features) that writes the file tag.

I hadn't thought about tweaking some song speeds that were close to get them to 88-92. That would increase the amount of songs which would be great for treadmill. Barring them sounding too distorted.

As opposed to @stealthq - I found that around 180 turn-over to provide best efficiency at most speeds, slower purposeful jogging, to fast pace interval sprints.
I do tend to slow it down when tired, and may hold to almost same pace, but HR and form and tired muscles all suffer more then. But I think I'm going to revisit the form aspect when jogging slower, if longer strides slower cadence doesn't help keep form better.

I think that's where treadmill comes in great, even if not a pace that can translate to road, but at least the other stuff that can - if you can duplicate it.

I'm still working towards 180 bpm. In the beginning, it did seem more draining to run with quicker turnover, but it seems to come much more naturally, now. I did start at around 125-130, so it's a bit of improvement. I use Zombies, Run! (story segments interrupt the music) and it's like singing along with the radio when you go through a tunnel - so satisfying to match right back up with the song on the other side.

Are longer strides and slower cadence supposed to conserve form? I hadn't heard that.

No, no - not really. It's more that there are 'sweet spots', I suppose, where your cadence and stride length combined are more efficient. I'd expect it's entirely an individual thing due to training and physiology.

For me, If I run around 11:00 with a cadence of 180 my HR is somewhere in the 170-180 range. I can't put much oomph into the push-off, my stride is purposefully shortened, and my legs are churning away much, much faster than necessary for me to travel at that pace. If I were to back off of my cadence to around 160, I could run that same pace with a HR down around 140 and keep it going for longer.

On a similar note, if I run the way I 'naturally' do, my cadence is around 170, I put a decent amount of kick in the push-off and I can run 9:30 and my HR will be in the 160-170 range.

I wouldn't know any of this except that I was trying a training plan where the point was to run long and slow and keep HR low (as a measurement of effort). Independently, I had been making a point of keeping my cadence at 180+. Had been for a at least a year. Turns out I couldn't do all three. I couldn't get my HR below 150 with a cadence of 180 unless I literally ran in place. Slow cadence down, and suddenly I could run at my slow pace with my HR in the 130-140 range.

That's useful information. While I had gotten a little stuck around the 170 mark, I still fully intend to get to 180, someday. This feels like confirmation that it's probably not too important until I get a little faster. I might even back off a few beats, to see if helps me go slower outdoors.