2015 will be my third year of running. I'm considering running my first marathon late 2015 or early 2016. For the first six months of 2015, I'll be running 3 HM's (two are a 2-in-one-weekend challenge) and a 25km (15.8 miles) trail race in late April.

For me, running has been about training for a reasonable goal and enjoying what I accomplish. I have been injury free in running, but having injured myself in other sports, I've had brief reminders that injury can really sideline you and makes me miserable.

I've enjoyed all the PR's I hit in 2014, including placing in my age group twice in the 5K distance.

I'm personally glad I wasn't in a rush to go for the marathon distance. Looking forward to my first 25km distance and gaining speed improvements just by running more miles.

Good luck in whatever you do.

I'll throw this out there too. My physiology professor gave an interesting lecture on the filtration membrane of the kidneys. Towards the end, he talked about damage to this membrane from hypoxia and a lot of the data we looked at compared endurance athletes over years of training. In that data, we saw that weight bearing endurance sports like running caused excessive damage in many recreational runners - common among these? First and second year runners new to the sport training for marathons, most with far less than 60 miles in a week. Those running 90+ miles had little to no damage seen but they were also more experienced runners.

I think there is an interesting thesis to be written here!

And I think it speaks to the biology of slowly working your way into the trainjng.

CarsonRuns wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

...
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.

So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.

An interesting read. I'm doing my first - London in April (and second - Snowdon in Oct) marathons this year having started running at 300lbs Apr-13. I did my 1st 5k in Aug-13 and took 50mins. I did my first HM in Jun-14 in 2:40. I'm still around 25lbs overweight. However, my current 5k PB is 24:34 and HM 1:55. I haven't yet run 20 miles (longest is 15 miles) so don't know my time (but am averaging 30-35miles a week for the last couple of months). So on the one hand I really only have about 12-18 months 'proper' running experience but I'm also hitting the times that should make a 4-4:30 marathon possible if my training goes to plan.

CarsonRuns wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.

How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.

I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.

I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.

So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.

I think you've misunderstood the theory behind "no long runs more than 3:30" mantra. The idea isn't that your marathon needs to fit within that pace, it's that your not going to see any physical benefits pushing beyond that point in training. Thus many plans that support this theory do longish runs day before the big long run as cumulatively it gives you the mental training needed to run tired without overtaxing the body.

ArchyRunner wrote: »

CarsonRuns wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.

How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.

I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.

I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.

So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.

I think you've misunderstood the theory behind "no long runs more than 3:30" mantra. The idea isn't that your marathon needs to fit within that pace, it's that your not going to see any physical benefits pushing beyond that point in training. Thus many plans that support this theory do longish runs day before the big long run as cumulatively it gives you the mental training needed to run tired without overtaxing the body.

I completely understand the theory behind the mantra. I simply extrapolated it into times and paces to show what it translates to in marathon training. If your easy run pace is 12:00 minute miles and you stick to the mantra, your 3:30 run isn't going to be anywhere close to 20 miles for your long run and will leave you woefully unprepared for a marathon. So I say, keep running, but train for other distances, ALL of which require that you increase your mileage, but don't require that you do a long run of over 3:30 just to get the mileage in that you need to for marathon training.

ArchyRunner wrote: »

vcphil wrote: »

CarsonRuns wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.

How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.

I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.

I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.

So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.

I agree! My first marathon I had been running ~2 years. My "peak" mileage was 40-45. The marathon was a disaster [4:10] walked, cried, hated myself. I upped my miles over time to the 70-80 peak range. Within 2 years I was able to "race" more marathons taking over 45 min off my time. I gradually got faster & able to recover quickly because of increased mileage.

Bottom line, rushing into things you aren't properly trained for will:

A- cause injury

And/or

B- not allow you to reach your full potential as a runner

:-)

4:10 is a disaster? Ummm. To each their own. I call a race successful if I gave it my all, ran smart and didn't give into the mental naysayers kicking around in my brain.

Perhaps I did not explain fully. My goal for the first marathon was to run sub 3:40. I thought that was a very realistic goal for me at the time. In training leading up to the marathon I ran a 34:50 5 mile race & a sub 21 5k. When I ran these through a calculator, I was told around 3:20-3:24 as a "prediction", so I added 15-20 min on it because it was my "first time". I started with the 3:50 pace group and said I would ditch them around mile 6. I never left the pace group, they left me.

Bottom line, by mile 10 I knew it wasn't going to end well. Yes, I "trained". Yes, I did the long runs. But 40-45 miles for a peak week was not cutting it. It was a "disaster" because my body was not prepared for "racing" a marathon. I was not in shape to even come close to my "potential". I ran like 1:53/2:07.

At the time after the marathon, I didn't know what happened. In retrospect, 2 years later, after several more marathons/ultras I know exactly what happened.

Part of me wants to vehemently disagree with Carson, but no matter what I do, I just can't discount his opinion on when to train for a marathon.

I say this from the perspective of making 2014 all about running my first full marathon as a relative newcomer to running (I started running in January 2012 and by the end of 2013 had completed five half marathons.)

Here's my story for illustration:

I ramped up the mileage to average 25 - 30 mpw for the first 7 months of 2014 - very successfully... I felt strong, I felt better than ever about my running. I then plowed into Hanson's beginner plan en route to my first full in Philly at the end of November.

I had good success all along the way with the plan - hitting my mileage, workout and pace targets... adjusting and tweaking my pace target as my training was paying off. I even came very close to a HM PR in the middle of training - even though I didn't give an all-out effort because of being in the midst of training for the full.

Race day came and I felt prepared and ready to take on the challenge, but it did not turn out the way I expected. It was a beautiful run, and I had a wonderful day, but it was not in the time I had expected or hoped for. It was "one of those days" where I was not able to control my heart rate and I had to slow down - a LOT. Fortunately, I was not wedded to the idea of finishing in a certain time - the distance was the goal for me so I let go of the goal time I had in mind and I walked a good bit of miles 20 - 25... it wasn't a death march for me - more of a victory lap.

Here's the thing - I am SLOW... very slow. My INITIAL target time was 5:45... that was if everything were to break perfectly for me. I was mentally prepared to be ecstatic with anything sub 6:00 as a solid effort given where I am on my running journey. As it turned out by letting go of time, I came in at 6:51... REALLY slow and a big miss.

Was it a "disaster"? Nope, not as far as I am concerned. It was a choice - one that I was very happy with at the time and I am still happy with today. I could probably have toughed it out and come in somewhere between 6:15 and 6:30 if I had really been concerned with the clock on that race day, but I would have run the very real risk of blowing up and DNFing the race.

Now, having said all of that, I obviously disagree with Carson's opinion of what constitutes a "successful" marathon... my initial GOAL time was over an hour and a half slower than his upper limit. Does that make him a snob? Maybe a little, but I don't even think so. Everyone has to take what they need/want from running and do with it what you can. I'm not concerned with what Carson believes is a successful marathon - all I'm concerned with is what I believe. That's what matters to me.

BUT... and here's the big thing...

In a way, a part of me DOES wish I had followed Carson's recommendations for myself (not that I was really aware of them at the time). I started 2014 with a two-year running history having average 15 - 18 mpw in those first two years... a great accomplishment from nothing before 2012 - and enough for me to be pretty successful in 5Ks, 10Ks and half marathons (based on my own definition of success, of course).

But... in retrospect, it really wasn't enough of a base - enough basic mileage - to allow me to perform my best at the full marathon. I did average over 30 mpw for 2014 up to race date in late November... ended with an easy month in December to drop my yearly average back to 28. I hit all of my training runs on the Hanson plan... most right on the prescribed pace for my planned for marathon pace... but in the aftermath of my race day experience I have come to realize that I had overtrained for this race. Going from a high week EVER of 32 miles before January 2014 to having ten 40+ mile weeks in a row leading up to my taper (with peak weeks of 55, 56 and 57 miles) was too much of a stretch. I was, by race day, burned out.

I'm not regretting the plan or the results, exactly, I did what I wanted (needed to do)... the full marathon was out there waiting for me and I was a bit impatient to get it over and done with. Now I am looking at a 2015 with a renewed love of the half marathon and I am excited to run at least 5 HMs this year. But, I do feel that if I had taken 2014 and run a similar amount of mileage (something like the 25 - 30 mpw that Caron suggests) without burning myself out, I could be standing here today with a full on the plan for 2015 and a LOT more likelihood of not burning myself out training.

Again, I disagree with Carson's opinion of what makes a successful marathon... but his opinion or mine on that subject doesn't matter - just your own. What I can't disagree with is his more fact- or evidence-based advice. More miles logged over more time will better prepare you for the rigors of marathon training. The marathon will always be out there... there's no need to rush to take on the challenge.

Ted

wombat94 wrote: »

Again, I disagree with Carson's opinion of what makes a successful marathon... but his opinion or mine on that subject doesn't matter - just your own. What I can't disagree with is his more fact- or evidence-based advice. More miles logged over more time will better prepare you for the rigors of marathon training. The marathon will always be out there... there's no need to rush to take on the challenge.

Ted

You have my utmost respect, Ted. Thoughtful post and respectful disagreement. The gen pop forums could take a lesson from this post.

Sign up for a 5K that takes place in about 6-8 weeks; pick a training plan & stick to it up to the day of the race; finish the 5K and then check back here again for further instructions....see you in February.

I ran a 4:27 trainwreck of a marathon. And I've heard of 3:30 trainwrecks too. It's all relative to where you want to be, tempered by where you actually are, along with the conditions you can't control. I came off the heels of running a 1:45 half, "fast" by most peoples' standards, and immediately [irrationally] thought I had a sub-4 marathon in me 9 months into running. Learned a valuable lesson about respecting the marathon distance and took a year off from my next raced marathon, and built my easy base mileage up. Shaved 57 minutes off of my marathon a year later by doing so. I'd rather run a flawlessly executed 3:30 than a miserable deathmarch 3:25.