The February 2016 Running Challenge

As my race season starts getting closer, my life is once again starting to look and feel like this...

http://relentlessforwardcommotion.com/2015/11/what-its-really-like-to-train-for-an-ultra-marathon/

I can dazzle.

Goal of 70 Miles for February

2/3 – 3.58 Mi
2/4 – 3.63 Mi
2/6 – 4.24 Mi
2/7 – 6.12 Mi
2/9 – 4.41 Mi
2/11 – 5.40 Mi
2/13 – 4.69 Mi
2/14 – 7.15 Mi
2/23 – 5.64 Mi

Progress toward Goal 44.86 / 70

@skippygirlsmom When you make it through all this PT and come out the other side, you're gonna be killin' it!

MorningGhost14 wrote: »

As my race season starts getting closer, my life is once again starting to look and feel like this...

http://relentlessforwardcommotion.com/2015/11/what-its-really-like-to-train-for-an-ultra-marathon/

I loved #8.
So glad you are back and feeling better. Cracked up at this post and your new shirt!

Date      Miles      MTD
------    -----    -----
Feb 02      4.4T     4.4
Feb 20      3.7      8.1
Feb 21      3.7     11.8
Feb 23      3.7T    15.5

@Stoshew71 @kristinegift while I'm some months to years from needing this training information, it's still interesting. Personally, I never thought I'd be able to "run" more than an hour. If I get gain the ability to run more than 3 hours, I plan on it.

2/1 6.11
2/3 7.02 — good, slow run, snow, water, real slushy. not fun for the feet!
2/4 3.67 — easy short run at 10’20” per mile.
2/6 5.32
2/14 3.61
2/18 3 — first day training for HM
2/20 6.15
2/21 2.13 -- easy, short run
2/23 3.35

40.36/80

@Stoshew71 @kristinegift - Just skimmed through 60 posts, have found the discussion of training plans (and Stan's blog on the subject) very interesting.

My take on the subject is, there's a huge illusion of accuracy. Much of what we think we know is a compilation of what worked out well for elites. We don't really know how to extend that to average runners. I think there's a lot more play in what will work than most training systems allow, and I think that what the runner's goals are is under-emphasized. In particular, I think training plans have too much speed work for people whose only goal is to finish. If speed isn't important, why introduce an additional injury risk from running hard in training?

Much of what Stan wrote about the problems with canned training plans resonates with me. I used a group training program to get to my first half. Over time, I have come to understand that this program is really aimed at beginners, people training to complete their first half or first marathon. I think any successful mass market training plan will need to have a similar bias. There are simply a lot more beginners than experienced distance runners who will buy plans or buy the ancillary products that accompany the plans. The plans out there are better than nothing for those beginners . . . and still have all the flaws Stan talks about.

I don't see eye to eye with Daniels on the long run. Right now, I'm working an aggressive marathon training plan. It nominally calls for 75 miles per week at peak, with a long run of 20-22 miles on peak weeks. Because I didn't achieve the recommended 50 mile per week base before starting the plan, my peak week is scaled down to 68 miles. 22 / 68 = 32.4% of the weekly distance in the long run at peak. Oops, it flunks the Jack Daniels requirements even though the plan uses Daniels' pacing system. The long run is both more than 25% of my weekly mileage and longer than 2.5 hours. I did run the first 22 miler in just under 3 hours; I might or might not run the next one in under 3 hours.

Let's think about this: 2.5 hours is 150 minutes. Divide by 20 miles, and we get an average pace of 7:30 to run 20 miles within Jack's 2.5 hour limit. The implication of limiting the long run to 2.5 hours is, only a runner with an easy pace of 7:30 or faster is going to hit 20 miles within the time limit. I get around pretty well for a 60 year old, but I'm not going to be doing any 20 mile runs in under 2.5 hours. Suppose I can hold an 8:00 pace for a long run. (I'm close, but not quite there. I averaged 8:05 for my last 22 mile run.) At 8:00, 2.5 hours gets me to 18.75 miles. That's probably long enough to prepare me for a marathon physiologically. But someone who runs at a 9:00 pace would only get up to 16.67 miles, someone who runs at a 10:00 pace would only get up to 15 miles, and someone who runs at a 12:00 pace wouldn't even get up to a half marathon distance.

The 20 mile long run is here to stay. The 2.5 hour limit is not realistic for the non-elite runner. While Jack makes some good points, I think his solution is unrealistically restrictive for most of us.

Maybe instead of saying, "An elite runner will only run 2.5 hours on a long run, so an average runner should only run 2.5 hours," we should say, "An elite runner will run X% of the time it takes him to complete a marathon on a long run, so an average runner should run X% of the time it will take to run the marathon." At that point, we could be right back to the 20 mile long run, assuming only that the average runner's ratio of long run pace to marathon pace is similar to the same ratio for an elite runner.

Can you really prepare to run for 5 hours if your longest session is only 2.5 hours? I don't know. My longest run before my first marathon was a bit over 3 hours, and I ran a 3:21 marathon. The question doesn't arise for me unless I want to train for an ultra. (Not this year, thank you.)

And I recall a conversation with a *very* experienced marathon runner who claimed that the 4 hour training run was a wonderful thing. If I can run a marathon in 3.5 hours without running hard, I don't see the point in a 4 hour training run until I get into ultra distances; but opinions like this are out there.

@kristinegift @Stoshew71 @MobyCarp - I was super slow training for my fulls, averaging 15 minute miles on the big runs. I did a few 16 milers and two 20 mile training runs, requiring 4 to 5 hours. There was a point around 3:45 into these runs that I felt a new level of tired, reaching the wall. The 16 milers were not difficult to finish this way becauae I just had to push one more mile. Those 20 mile 5 hour runs were different beasts altogether and took a toll. It was when I ran these that I fell back from my 52 mile/week high as I required more rest (unplanned of course). That extra 15 minutes on the 16 milers did not take that toll. I honestly think I could have maintained weekly 16 milers (4 hour runs). I believe this due to seeing that I repeated these, particularly repeating weeks with 16 miles (4hrs) saturday, 12 miles (3hrs) sunday, and 12 miles (3hrs) on wednesday, with 6 to 8 mile easy runs or rest days in between. It was after trying to do 20 milers (5hrs) two weeks in a row that I petered out.

As for my personal view on how beneficial those 20 milers were is mixed. Mentally it actually made the upcoming full rather daunting knowing I needed to push another full 10k on top of that so my confidence had zero boost (maybe negative). Physically it overtrained me and cost me training time. At the same time though, when running the fulls and hitting that wall I was not only familiar with running through it, but I was able to use all of that suffering on those runs to push me through so that all of that ridiculous effort was not wasted. So it hurt and helped.

Long runs of 3 to 3.5 hours were really inconsequential. I could recover enough to do 2 or 3 of those length runs per week so long as I refueled both on the runs and followed my recovery routine.

I know this does not refute any science about injury risk, and it does not even support 3 to 4 hour long runs. But I really had no fears last year of 3 to 4 hour runs and did a great many of them with no problems (2 to 3 times per week even as a new marathoner).

Whatever it's worth. Probably only the sunny side of a hill of beans. But that was my experience. I had even planned on 3 to 4 hour long runs this summer too without too much concern. Well, until now perhaps. But I would probably still do them.

Oh, and nobody here should do what I do. Repeat that until it sticks. I only want to be responsible for whatever stupidity I bring upon myself.

I do plan to base build following Stans suggestions, up until I need to do 16 milers which will take me about 3 hours (and I'll do those). Even better, once I get there I will be peaking around 60 mpw and after getting accustomed to that will add in 80/20 easy/workout efforts. I'm excited as crazy with this plan!

I would never cut my long runs off at 2.5 hours.... doing my 50k trail race in May will have me on my feet for about 7 hours.... my October race has a 40 hour cut-off... so not doing anything over 2.5 hours isn't particularly helpful to me. I need those long "time on feet" runs of 5-7 hours to be prepared.

I'm sure the 2.5 hour limit might make sense for road marathoners who want to keep running faster times, but I can't see how that translates over to trail ultras.

Feb 1 - 4.1 km
Feb 6 - 5.2 km
Feb 8 - 5.3 km
Feb 10 - 4.1 km
Feb 11 – Hurt my back
Feb 15 – 6 km
Feb 17 – 4.1 km
Feb 20 – 5 km - PB at parkrun!
Feb 22 – 4.3 km
Feb 24 – 4.2 km

Total 42.3 km
Goal 45 km

Upcoming Events:
Willaura Farm to Pub 8.6 km – Saturday Feb 27

No more runs till Saturday's event.

Elise4270 wrote: »

@Stoshew71 @kristinegift while I'm some months to years from needing this training information, it's still interesting. Personally, I never thought I'd be able to "run" more than an hour. If I get gain the ability to run more than 3 hours, I plan on it.

I'm with you Elise! It feels like I'm a long way away from worrying about if I should run more than 2.5 hours. Just happy to have my HMs under that!

2/1 6.11
2/3 7.02 — good, slow run, snow, water, real slushy. not fun for the feet!
2/4 3.67 — easy short run at 10’20” per mile.
2/6 5.32
2/14 3.61
2/18 3 — first day training for HM
2/20 6.15
2/21 2.13 -- easy, short run
2/23 3.35
2/24 3.48

43.84/80

WhatMeRunning wrote: »

@kristinegift @Stoshew71 @MobyCarp - I was super slow training for my fulls, averaging 15 minute miles on the big runs. I did a few 16 milers and two 20 mile training runs, requiring 4 to 5 hours. There was a point around 3:45 into these runs that I felt a new level of tired, reaching the wall. The 16 milers were not difficult to finish this way becauae I just had to push one more mile. Those 20 mile 5 hour runs were different beasts altogether and took a toll. It was when I ran these that I fell back from my 52 mile/week high as I required more rest (unplanned of course). That extra 15 minutes on the 16 milers did not take that toll. I honestly think I could have maintained weekly 16 milers (4 hour runs). I believe this due to seeing that I repeated these, particularly repeating weeks with 16 miles (4hrs) saturday, 12 miles (3hrs) sunday, and 12 miles (3hrs) on wednesday, with 6 to 8 mile easy runs or rest days in between. It was after trying to do 20 milers (5hrs) two weeks in a row that I petered out.

As for my personal view on how beneficial those 20 milers were is mixed. Mentally it actually made the upcoming full rather daunting knowing I needed to push another full 10k on top of that so my confidence had zero boost (maybe negative). Physically it overtrained me and cost me training time. At the same time though, when running the fulls and hitting that wall I was not only familiar with running through it, but I was able to use all of that suffering on those runs to push me through so that all of that ridiculous effort was not wasted. So it hurt and helped.

Long runs of 3 to 3.5 hours were really inconsequential. I could recover enough to do 2 or 3 of those length runs per week so long as I refueled both on the runs and followed my recovery routine.

I know this does not refute any science about injury risk, and it does not even support 3 to 4 hour long runs. But I really had no fears last year of 3 to 4 hour runs and did a great many of them with no problems (2 to 3 times per week even as a new marathoner).

Whatever it's worth. Probably only the sunny side of a hill of beans. But that was my experience. I had even planned on 3 to 4 hour long runs this summer too without too much concern. Well, until now perhaps. But I would probably still do them.

Oh, and nobody here should do what I do. Repeat that until it sticks. I only want to be responsible for whatever stupidity I bring upon myself.

I do plan to base build following Stans suggestions, up until I need to do 16 milers which will take me about 3 hours (and I'll do those). Even better, once I get there I will be peaking around 60 mpw and after getting accustomed to that will add in 80/20 easy/workout efforts. I'm excited as crazy with this plan!

Haha, yes I think it is good advice not to do as you've done! You are a unique specimen. I have no clue how you ran 3 marathons in a month and are still running! You were putting in huge miles, and putting in way more hours than most of us here. It was impressive and also insane But your training also had you running high volume all the time; your lowest mileage day was 6 miles! That probably prepared your more physically and mentally than any 20 mile/5 hour run might have.

I think where most people would have a problem is doing those 4-5 hour training runs to "get the miles in" without the base during the week; if the midweek runs are just 3 to 4 miles and then someone tries to do 16-20 on the weekend, that's where you really set yourself up for a big fall. I experienced this in my first training cycle; my midweek runs were 3-4 miles, with ony 6-7 miler, then I was doing 15, 16, 18 miles on a Sunday... no wonder I spent half my training weeks toward the end babying injuries!