June 2017 Running Challenge

MobyCarp wrote: »

girlinahat wrote: »

cburke8909 wrote: »

@MobyCarp @PastorVincent and @girlinahat that's the plan she listed. The reason for additional run is because it's lack of runs makes me less than 100% confident in the plan. I like the three workouts quality but I think at least one more easy day of running makes more sense. I would even think 2 easy runs a week wouldn't hurt. I think the designer of the plan is emphasizing recovery and rest, which can come from those intentional slow paced runs. The plan suggests two additional workouts a week.

But it's a plan that has been tested AS IS. It may make more sense to you to add in an extra easy workout, but isn't the whole point of the plan that you SHOULDN'T add in an extra run? if you add in runs, you are no longer following the plan.

I would follow it as it is set for a period of say 6-8 weeks and see what improvements you can get. Add in easy runs after that if you are not seeing improvement

It's an interesting plan, with an interesting story behind hit. The first thing that struck me was, this is not a plan that was used for first time marathon runners. It is a plan that was used by experienced, established distance runners who were substantially cross-training in other sports. I question how well it would work for people who have not already established a record of consistent marathon finishes.

The next thing that I found interesting was the target paces, which are all based off a 10K race pace. If I take my two most recent 10K races and round the pace up to the nearest half minute, that gives me some numbers I can work with and think about. Long run, 10K pace + 60 to 75 seconds per mile. That's a range between what I was targeting for MP and the fast end of my easy range. Okay, I get that for a plan that generally wants faster paces.

Long tempo, 10K pace + 30 to 35 seconds. A bit slower than the T pace that features prominently in my plan, so I'm guessing "long tempo" means 7 to 10 miles. Mid tempo, 10K pace + 15 to 20 seconds. Right around my T pace. Short tempo, 10K pace. I'm not sure where the break between short and mid tempo should be on runs of 3 to 6 miles.

Then we get to the intervals. 1600m at 10K pace - 35 to 40 seconds. That puts me under a 6 minute mile. I don't think I have 3 reps of 1600m at that pace. 1200m, 10K pace - 40 to 45 seconds. Essentially my mile race pace. Like running 1200s at R pace. When 600s at R were as much as I could handle yesterday. 800m and 400m paces are a little faster. I might pull out all the stops and hit the target for 400m. I'm not going to hit it for 8 intervals in a row on the first day of training, even if I take full recovery.

Wow. This target is for runners who are very, very good. It's for runners who are better at short distances than I am, relative to their 10K race pace.

I note that the plan also encourages 40-45 minutes of cross training on two other days. Since I'm not much of a cyclist and I'm not a swimmer, I have to think in terms of running. Say the cross training is the equivalent of easy running, for cardio purposes. The plan as a whole would be roughly equivalent to a 5 day a week running plan, except replacing two of the easy days with training for the cycling or swimming legs of a tri.

Yeah, it makes sense in the context of the population of athletes it was developed for. The volume of very fast speed work on Tuesdays looks really aggressive to me, and I think I'd go nuts without the mental release of easier running on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, or Friday.

I also noticed that the article was posted in 2006 and describes a program that started in autumn 2003. There's been more than a decade for people to try this and similar ideas and see how it's gone for a larger population of runners than the original group. I suppose people must have tried it; I wonder what the results have been, beyond that initial study? Dr. Google found a contrary opinion of the FIRST Training plan. I don't necessarily agree with everything the critical article says, but it does make some good points.

I'd be interested to read what @Stoshew71 thinks about the FIRST training plan. He's done a lot more research on training methods than I have.

Modifying plans are quite common. You cannot expect than any canned plan will work for everyone as is. In fact, you cannot expect than any canned plan is the most appropriate for YOU (whoever "YOU" happends to be).

The best plans are ones that includes coaching so the coach can provide a custom plan for your current fitness and goals and then tailor it as you report back improvements or concerns on a regular basis. This would also assume the coach would be constantly asking you relevant questions on a very regular basis. Questions like what is your resting heart rate now? What is your current sleep habits like? Any recent stressors? How do you feel while you are doing "x" workout? how do you feel after doing "x" workout? I know Moby is constantly talking to his coach and his coach constantly provides feedback and plan modifications based upon Moby's feedback and honestly answering all of his coach's questions. That's a very good thing to have. Short of that, then you have to have enough knowledge on how to make any canned plan work for you.

Any plan that concentrates too much on the long run and building the long run mileage in poor proportion to the rest of your week is a poor plan. I know there are a bunch of popular canned plans that do this (i.e. Hal Hidgeons) that I do not agree with. Many of these plans will have your long run represent 40 and even up to 50% of your weekly mileage. Doing this on a regular basis is a recipe for injury. I seen too many of my running friends in my running group follow a plan like Hal's only to end up in a boot (or some other ailment) after they finish their marathon. I am constantly asked how can I keep up my high mileage all year long and not get injured? I always say, there is a formula to it.

Paces. Threshold or tempo paces should not be based upon 10K time unless your 10K finish represent it. Your true threshold pace can only be measured in a lab on a treadmill with tubes connected to you and I believe they prick your finger for blood. At least the self-test machines will prick your finger for blood. But this pace will be represented in a perfect indoor environment on a treadmill. So even that is at best an estimate. many factors factor in when it comes to your Threshold pace. Is it hot out? if so? how hot? add 30 seconds for every 5 degrees above 60. Hills? Increase your pace by a factor. Didn't get much sleep in the last 3 days? Add a little bit to the pace. Work has you stressed out because of a deadline? You get the point. You can estimate threshold pace by HR (about 80-88% of maximum HR) or a "comfortably hard" if going by effort. It's not quite past your ventilator threshold (the point you begin to breath very labored). The last characteristic says that your threshold pace should be maintained for about an hour I a race environment. Very inexperienced runners, it's probably closer to 40 minutes while elites are actually closer to the 60 minute point. So if it takes you about 50-55 minutes to run a 10K, then 10K pace can be a good estimation of your threshold or T pace for your tempo runs or cruise intervals.

I know Jack Daniels has paces for I (interval) and R (repeats) based upon your 1 mile pace. I would have to look them up.

Personally, a first time marathon should be concerned with 3 things. Being able to meet the distance (time on your feet), improve your tempo pace (threshold workouts), and using fat for energy (long slow runs- and some of them fasted or near fasted). If your marathon has hills, maybe it's not a bad idea to include some in your training.

I and R track workouts would be better once you have experience with the other things I mentioned above or if your goal is for shorter races.