Jack Daniels Running Formula
Options
Replies
-
Well guys we're T-minus 84 hours to marathon #3. For my first two marathons my 4 month training plan totaled 470 miles. For this one I have 624 miles in the book... about a 33% increase in mileage. I added some miles to the long runs as many suggested and topped out at ~22 miles, about 5 miles longer than prescribed by the Daniels plan. I ramped it up pretty slowly initially, and did slow my pace a good 20s/mile on average. I tried to listen to my legs and actually only ended up doing ~85% of my originally planned training mileage, most of what I missed was in the first month ramping up and around some non peak races.
Definitely feeling pretty strong, 5 days after that 22 miler I PR'd my 10th half marathon by 30 seconds at 1:38:30.
On the whole I loved working on this plan. Great flexibility and it seemed like I wasn't so worn out and was able to hit the quality days harder, despite the overall mileage increase.
I'm going to run the first 15 miles at a 8:00 flat pace and see how it goes, hopefully I'll break into the 3:30 club without incident! I'll report back after.0 -
beeblebrox82 wrote: »...it seemed like I wasn't so worn out and was able to hit the quality days harder, despite the overall mileage increase.
And this, in a nutshell, is why we run the easy miles easy.
Good luck at the marathon! Can't wait to hear about your results.
0 -
CarsonRuns:
"If it takes you 3:30 to run 22 miles, you are running at a 9:33 pace. This runner is going to be more fit and will have a more successful marathon (assuming proper pacing, etc)."
That would mean for me, as a 50 year old, female runner, to run my first marathon at a Boston Qualifier time...
"If it takes you 3:30 to run 17 miles, you are running at a 13:08 pace. That person is going to have a hard time being prepared for a marathon."
I ran my first marathon last Sunday successfully in just over 5 hours. I did not have a hard time, albeit I ran at a much slower time than you suggest. I did not hit a wall or collapsed at the end of the race.
I did train about 50 miles per week pretty consistently with my longer runs being around 20 miles.
Just thought I mention this as there might be "older" runners here or others who run at slower times. I am not sure whether the speed necessarily says to much about whether one is ready or not for a full marathon. Training volume and mileage might be equally important?
Stef.
0 -
Well I got to run two whole marathons two weeks apart.
First one I bonked a bit, ended up at 3:38. 2nd one my IT band crapped out, 3:46.
4 months training and I lost 2 minutes. Pisses me off to no end that I can run a 1:38 half without even tapering but I can't get under 3:30 on a full.
$#%&@!!!0 -
CarsonRuns:
"If it takes you 3:30 to run 22 miles, you are running at a 9:33 pace. This runner is going to be more fit and will have a more successful marathon (assuming proper pacing, etc)."
That would mean for me, as a 50 year old, female runner, to run my first marathon at a Boston Qualifier time...
"If it takes you 3:30 to run 17 miles, you are running at a 13:08 pace. That person is going to have a hard time being prepared for a marathon."
I ran my first marathon last Sunday successfully in just over 5 hours. I did not have a hard time, albeit I ran at a much slower time than you suggest. I did not hit a wall or collapsed at the end of the race.
I did train about 50 miles per week pretty consistently with my longer runs being around 20 miles.
Just thought I mention this as there might be "older" runners here or others who run at slower times. I am not sure whether the speed necessarily says to much about whether one is ready or not for a full marathon. Training volume and mileage might be equally important?
Stef.
At the risk of sounding elitist, our definitions of a "successful marathon" are probably different. You may define your experience as a success and that's great if that's what you set out to do. To me, a successful marathon is one that is run as fast as you can run it based on your current level of fitness. With your training, you probably could have run it faster, but you wouldn't have had the experience that you had. You might have collapsed at the end. You might have hit the wall. You might have had to endure excruciating pain.
This is independent of age. I'm 47. I could easily go out and cruise through a 4 hour marathon, but I'd much rather live on the razor's edge and try to beat my PR of 3:10. That's why I race. I concede that it's different for each runner, but I think this information is important for me to mention, if for nothing more than context of my comments.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
At the risk of sounding elitist, our definitions of a "successful marathon" are probably different. You may define your experience as a success and that's great if that's what you set out to do. To me, a successful marathon is one that is run as fast as you can run it based on your current level of fitness. With your training, you probably could have run it faster, but you wouldn't have had the experience that you had. You might have collapsed at the end. You might have hit the wall. You might have had to endure excruciating pain.
There is something to be said about running a marathon at a conservative pace, particularly your first marathon. Maybe it is a step along the way to achieving that goal of running your fastest possible race. This past weekend I ran what I feel to be my fastest possible marathon at this time and achieved my goal of qualifying for the Boston marathon by over 16 minutes. In January, I ran my second ever marathon at a pace that was conservative, knowing that I could have run it faster, but also knowing that I was going to use that experience to build upon in my next marathon so that I could avoid making some common mistakes. I did not want to risk laying it all on the line and losing the opportunity of gaining the valuable experience that I did. I definitely do not feel that my recent marathon would have been nearly as successful had I attempted it in January or had I attempted it without that previous experience behind me.
I have been friends with Stef for a while here on MFP. I know that she trained extremely hard for her first marathon and accomplished the goal she set out to achieve. But I also know that it is not going to be her last. She is going to build upon that experience and run many more "successful" marathons in the future.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
At the risk of sounding elitist, our definitions of a "successful marathon" are probably different. You may define your experience as a success and that's great if that's what you set out to do. To me, a successful marathon is one that is run as fast as you can run it based on your current level of fitness. With your training, you probably could have run it faster, but you wouldn't have had the experience that you had. You might have collapsed at the end. You might have hit the wall. You might have had to endure excruciating pain.
This is independent of age. I'm 47. I could easily go out and cruise through a 4 hour marathon, but I'd much rather live on the razor's edge and try to beat my PR of 3:10. That's why I race. I concede that it's different for each runner, but I think this information is important for me to mention, if for nothing more than context of my comments.
I wouldn't necessarily use the word "elitist." Rather, I would say your view lacks a certain perspective that comes with age. Although Stef is not much older than you are, I am considerably older than you are. The fact that my first race since 1986 was a marathon (at age 60) has a completely different context to it. Prior to that my longest race was 10K and that was in 1986. With fewer and fewer days left in your life, having passed your prime and perhaps having experienced one or more events that remind you of your mortality, the choice of margin to the "razor's edge" will probably get wider. You will probably not choose to be closer to hospitalization or death.
And so what constitutes a successful marathon is considerably different with age. That is not to say that any competitive tendencies tend to go away. I take a certain amount of pleasure in being able to place in the top 3 in my age group for some half marathon and shorter distances. Just as I take a certain amount of pleasure in completing a marathon and remaining feeling well after that completion and not becoming a piece of furniture for the next day or so. But as my marathoning neighbor (two doors down from me) has pointed, the capability of running at the sustainable speeds of your 30s and 40s begins to fade no matter how good your training. At your age, he ran marathons considerably faster than you do (2:41-2:43). His last marathon (just before his 60th birthday) was 3:32:56 and he could see the yearly gradual decline despite the training (he was 9th out of 143 in his age division). So, while he likes to go fast, the capacity and even the desire to continue the sort of wear and tear for the marathon distance has waned.
Racing, I an't compete with him. Out for a long run of 10-15 miles, no real problem.
0
