The Official Thread for Runners

[Pheidippides]

On the 301, I can set the "interval" and the recovery separately by distance or time. With nikuman's workout, for example, I can set x number of 1/2-mile repeats with x number of 1/4-mile recovery periods in between. I can't vary the distances within each category, though (i.e., all "interval" distances/times and all recovery distances/times are the same).

910 is the same. I can do whatever to the intervals and rest periods - choose .5 and .25 like I did, for example - but I can't set it up to do one .5, a .25 rest, a 1.0, a .33 rest, etc. I'd have to manually count that.

[Joe Public]

I don't think I've used the 305 to it's greatest capacity - and that's simply because I haven't gotten to know everything it can do. Especially if I know of a simple way to get what I want with what I know - such as setting laps at .25 and then just doing intervals in sets that add up to 400 (which is what I'm normally doing anyway).

Looks like I need to crack open the book and look at what the 305 can do when it comes to interval training - because it is even easier than I thought.

Same here. I've had my 301 for five years and just figured out the interval thing two months ago. I also discovered the automatic recording of mile splits at the Disney half earlier this month. I manually pressed the "lap" button for splits before that, which is why I almost never recorded splits.

[Eddie]

Same here. I've had my 301 for five years and just figured out the interval thing two months ago. I also discovered the automatic recording of mile splits at the Disney half earlier this month. I manually pressed the "lap" button for splits before that, which is why I almost never recorded splits.

That's funny...and familiar. My first marathon I downloaded the race onto my computer and couldn't figure out why it wouldn't give me the mile splits. People always talked about them, I couldn't figure out how to get them. So then I started using the lap button. I had it a couple of years before figuring out it could be set for automatic.

But frankly - the dumb thing is recording the entire time you are running. Why can't they set up the software so that you can automatically find the splits after the fact. Or even discover what your fastest 5K, 10K, or half marathon is - even if it occurs at some random point in the middle of a longer race. Just seems silly to me that they haven't done this yet.

[Pheidippides]

That's funny...and familiar. My first marathon I downloaded the race onto my computer and couldn't figure out why it wouldn't give me the mile splits. People always talked about them, I couldn't figure out how to get them. So then I started using the lap button. I had it a couple of years before figuring out it could be set for automatic.

But frankly - the dumb thing is recording the entire time you are running. Why can't they set up the software so that you can automatically find the splits after the fact. Or even discover what your fastest 5K, 10K, or half marathon is - even if it occurs at some random point in the middle of a longer race. Just seems silly to me that they haven't done this yet.

Training Peaks does precisely this. It's a great feature to that software. Not sure if it's available in the free version.

[lambdacoug]

That's funny...and familiar. My first marathon I downloaded the race onto my computer and couldn't figure out why it wouldn't give me the mile splits. People always talked about them, I couldn't figure out how to get them. So then I started using the lap button. I had it a couple of years before figuring out it could be set for automatic.

But frankly - the dumb thing is recording the entire time you are running. Why can't they set up the software so that you can automatically find the splits after the fact. Or even discover what your fastest 5K, 10K, or half marathon is - even if it occurs at some random point in the middle of a longer race. Just seems silly to me that they haven't done this yet.

I'd be extremely interested in the entire series of data. If one could then get this into a spreadsheet/database/csv/whatever, the data that one could glean from it, as you mentioned, would be interesting and informative.

[Eddie]

Training Peaks does precisely this. It's a great feature to that software. Not sure if it's available in the free version.

Never heard of Training Peaks. I'll have to look into it.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

This morning's run was pretty rough. My training schedule called for 8 miles with 4X1600 in 7:39 with 800 jogs. And this was my first true run after bringing home my newborn Saturday afternoon. (I did a 20 on Saturday, but my wife decided to stay in the hospital a second night so that I could get some sleep.) After getting to bed at 10:45 last night and a couple of diaper changes in between, 4:30 came awfully early this morning.

The biggest problem that I have with speed work is that I don't have access to a track and therefore have to run them on the open road in an area that doesn't have any flat. So I spend my 1600's downhill, turn around and do my 800's uphill. I have no idea how effective these things end up being. But until I can find a way to break into my local high school track, I probably won't really know.

What's crazy is that outside of the speed and tempo work, my marathon training schedule has me running my long runs at about a 9:40 pace. I've always been under that pace, but the program supposedly sets me up to run a 3:51:30 marathon. That seems like a big jump from the long runs to race day. Almost a full minute/mile faster. Is that normal? Is there enough adrenaline on race day to give you that kind of boost?

[Pheidippides]

This morning's run was pretty rough. My training schedule called for 8 miles with 4X1600 in 7:39 with 800 jogs. And this was my first true run after bringing home my newborn Saturday afternoon. (I did a 20 on Saturday, but my wife decided to stay in the hospital a second night so that I could get some sleep.) After getting to bed at 10:45 last night and a couple of diaper changes in between, 4:30 came awfully early this morning.

The biggest problem that I have with speed work is that I don't have access to a track and therefore have to run them on the open road in an area that doesn't have any flat. So I spend my 1600's downhill, turn around and do my 800's uphill. I have no idea how effective these things end up being. But until I can find a way to break into my local high school track, I probably won't really know.

What's crazy is that outside of the speed and tempo work, my marathon training schedule has me running my long runs at about a 9:40 pace. I've always been under that pace, but the program supposedly sets me up to run a 3:51:30 marathon. That seems like a big jump from the long runs to race day. Almost a full minute/mile faster. Is that normal? Is there enough adrenaline on race day to give you that kind of boost?

It's counterintuitive until you understand how your heart rate works in training. I was confused too.

You want your long runs to be very slow to keep your HR low. At lower HRs, you are building endurance. I view long runs as a function of mental exercise and time more than actual distance. That is to say, you want to be on your feet for a long time, and you want to mentally be able to go 20+ miles. They're not the same thing.

I ran my 20s for my first marathon at 9:00 or better pace. I finished in 4:10 because I blew up over the last 10k, even though I hit 20 in 3:00 or so. Contrast the first time I went under 4:00 - I ran my only 20 miler at about 13:00/mile.

To get fast, you have to run fast. That's what your intervals are for. To go far you have to run slow. That's what long runs are for. To get fast over distance, you have to run your intervals AND run long slow runs. And then you taper down to get one last effort together for the marathon itself. You are running faster/further because you've been building up, and the marathon is the peak. You don't want the peak to be three weeks before.

My marathon predictors have me as being capable to run a 3:22 (I don't believe it because I apparently can stay just above my lactate threshold for a long time, from what they tell me, so my short races are disproportionately fast, but I digress). I'm shooting for a 3:35 if everything goes perfect, which is an 8:12 pace.

My long run target pace was 9:30 per mile. I went as fast as 9:15 on one. It made my Monday recoveries much better, and I don't feel trashed after the training for once - I feel ready. Cowboy told me all of this before my first one and I didn't believe him - and I crashed and burned. I told my brother all of this before his first and he did believe me - and he finished his first in 3:30.

[Eddie]

It's counterintuitive until you understand how your heart rate works in training. I was confused too.

You want your long runs to be very slow to keep your HR low. At lower HRs, you are building endurance. I view long runs as a function of mental exercise and time more than actual distance. That is to say, you want to be on your feet for a long time, and you want to mentally be able to go 20+ miles. They're not the same thing.

I ran my 20s for my first marathon at 9:00 or better pace. I finished in 4:10 because I blew up over the last 10k, even though I hit 20 in 3:00 or so. Contrast the first time I went under 4:00 - I ran my only 20 miler at about 13:00/mile.

To get fast, you have to run fast. That's what your intervals are for. To go far you have to run slow. That's what long runs are for. To get fast over distance, you have to run your intervals AND run long slow runs. And then you taper down to get one last effort together for the marathon itself. You are running faster/further because you've been building up, and the marathon is the peak. You don't want the peak to be three weeks before.

My marathon predictors have me as being capable to run a 3:22 (I don't believe it because I apparently can stay just above my lactate threshold for a long time, from what they tell me, so my short races are disproportionately fast, but I digress). I'm shooting for a 3:35 if everything goes perfect, which is an 8:12 pace.

My long run target pace was 9:30 per mile. I went as fast as 9:15 on one. It made my Monday recoveries much better, and I don't feel trashed after the training for once - I feel ready. Cowboy told me all of this before my first one and I didn't believe him - and I crashed and burned. I told my brother all of this before his first and he did believe me - and he finished his first in 3:30.

I never understood how it works as well as niku describes it, but the outcome is spot on. I've had two marathons now that were both much faster than I ever imagined - around an 8:15 pace - and for both I was trying to keep my long runs right around a 60-90 min/mile slower pace.

If you are doing some pacing and speed work it can be hard to run that slow. It is counter intuitive and you have to pay attention or you end up speeding up more than you want. But it works.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Thank you for taking the time to spell this out for me. I find it very interesting and educational. So your response begs the question, has running long runs faster than the training plan has called for been at a detriment?

It's counterintuitive until you understand how your heart rate works in training. I was confused too.

You want your long runs to be very slow to keep your HR low. At lower HRs, you are building endurance. I view long runs as a function of mental exercise and time more than actual distance. That is to say, you want to be on your feet for a long time, and you want to mentally be able to go 20+ miles. They're not the same thing.

I ran my 20s for my first marathon at 9:00 or better pace. I finished in 4:10 because I blew up over the last 10k, even though I hit 20 in 3:00 or so. Contrast the first time I went under 4:00 - I ran my only 20 miler at about 13:00/mile.

To get fast, you have to run fast. That's what your intervals are for. To go far you have to run slow. That's what long runs are for. To get fast over distance, you have to run your intervals AND run long slow runs. And then you taper down to get one last effort together for the marathon itself. You are running faster/further because you've been building up, and the marathon is the peak. You don't want the peak to be three weeks before.

My marathon predictors have me as being capable to run a 3:22 (I don't believe it because I apparently can stay just above my lactate threshold for a long time, from what they tell me, so my short races are disproportionately fast, but I digress). I'm shooting for a 3:35 if everything goes perfect, which is an 8:12 pace.

My long run target pace was 9:30 per mile. I went as fast as 9:15 on one. It made my Monday recoveries much better, and I don't feel trashed after the training for once - I feel ready. Cowboy told me all of this before my first one and I didn't believe him - and I crashed and burned. I told my brother all of this before his first and he did believe me - and he finished his first in 3:30.

[BigPiney]

I never understood how it works as well as niku describes it, but the outcome is spot on. I've had two marathons now that were both much faster than I ever imagined - around an 8:15 pace - and for both I was trying to keep my long runs right around a 60-90 min/mile slower pace.

If you are doing some pacing and speed work it can be hard to run that slow. It is counter intuitive and you have to pay attention or you end up speeding up more than you want. But it works.

I still think it is bunk.

[Pheidippides]

Thank you for taking the time to spell this out for me. I find it very interesting and educational. So your response begs the question, has running long runs faster than the training plan has called for been at a detriment?

Maybe. Maybe not. The biggest rule of all when it comes to marathoning is that sometimes it's just a crapshoot. The marathon I did after my then-best cycle of training was the one I did very worst in, by like an hour (there was an injury involved - testament to the dangers of overtraining; also, I'd neglected hill runs).

I'm also very, very convinced that there is a cumulative effect to marathon training. I'm three years older than when I started, and those three years have been away from my prime, not towards it, but I am much faster than when I began. And each time I do a training cycle the 20+ runs get that much easier.

[Eddie]

I still think it is bunk.

It could be. But there is no doubt that recovery is much easier after a slower long run than a faster long run. Really - I'm not sure I could do 20-25 fast on Saturday and then be ready to turn around and even do a short 4-5 mile run on Monday.

Maybe the real issue is related to injuries. Maybe you are less likely to get injured if you don't push it too hard on those long runs in conjunction with all of the other training going on.

Either way - I an really happy with my last two times. And that was after taking the long runs slower than race pace.

Maybe. Maybe not. The biggest rule of all when it comes to marathoning is that sometimes it's just a crapshoot. The marathon I did after my then-best cycle of training was the one I did very worst in, by like an hour (there was an injury involved - testament to the dangers of overtraining; also, I'd neglected hill runs).

I'm also very, very convinced that there is a cumulative effect to marathon training. I'm three years older than when I started, and those three years have been away from my prime, not towards it, but I am much faster than when I began. And each time I do a training cycle the 20+ runs get that much easier.

As with any muscle work - I think your body adjusts to it. Lifting weights you may plateau, but if you break down and begin again your next plateau will be higher. I'm convinced that it is the same with running. I've only done 3 marathons - but recovery from each was successively more easy.

The race I finished most strong and felt the best after was also the one that I only trained 3 days a week. That said - the one that I hit a wall hard the last 3 miles and even ended up walking half a mile in there is still my PR - after upping my training I never expected to hit that wall after not hitting it on less training the year before.

I think your last piece of advice is the most relevant. Just like any other run during the week - sometimes you have it and feel great. Others you don't and you're just trying to get through the run. Race day is like any other run in that way.

[ERCougar]

Stroke Volume, not cardiac output!!!

About 5 minutes after I sent that last message I realized the error of my physiological ways. Imagine those terror-filled 20 or so minutes with me thinking that cardiaccoug or ercoug would come along and read my post, passing it around to all of their colleagues as they LOLed at my amateurish statement.

I couldn't get to the computer fast enough.

Ha...I was just reading this thread backwards and came across the thread where niku quoted you. Almost pulled the trigger, but held off. I'm all over cardiac physiology like DDD on irony.

With reference to long run training--there's still plenty of controversy here. Most agree that these can be 60 seconds off your race pace, and you can still expect to reach your goal, assuming you get in your speed and tempo workouts in, where you really work your anaerobic and lactate thresholds. But I would disagree that a fast long run is counterproductive, provided you're recovering quickly enough to get in quality speed and tempo workouts--most 3-day/week schedules recommend you get these within 30 seconds of race pace. A commonly prescribed long workout is to run the first 2/3 - 3/4 easy, then speed up to race pace for the last portion to simulate "fatigued" race pace. I think that at least helps mentally. Maybe a simple guide is to ensure that you're still reaching your time goals on speed and tempo workouts--if you are, you could probably speed up your long runs and benefit. In any case, I definitely wouldn't worry about a bad or slow long run--like niku says, the chief purpose is time on your feet, not speed.

Anyway, this is all theoretical because I bonked hard in my marathon, when I ran fast long workouts, but I'm 90% convinced that was a hydration issue. Guess we'll see in St G.

[Pheidippides]

Ha...I was just reading this thread backwards and came across the thread where niku quoted you. Almost pulled the trigger, but held off. I'm all over cardiac physiology like DDD on irony.

With reference to long run training--there's still plenty of controversy here. Most agree that these can be 60 seconds off your race pace, and you can still expect to reach your goal, assuming you get in your speed and tempo workouts in, where you really work your anaerobic and lactate thresholds. But I would disagree that a fast long run is counterproductive, provided you're recovering quickly enough to get in quality speed and tempo workouts--most 3-day/week schedules recommend you get these within 30 seconds of race pace. A commonly prescribed long workout is to run the first 2/3 - 3/4 easy, then speed up to race pace for the last portion to simulate "fatigued" race pace. I think that at least helps mentally. Maybe a simple guide is to ensure that you're still reaching your time goals on speed and tempo workouts--if you are, you could probably speed up your long runs and benefit. In any case, I definitely wouldn't worry about a bad or slow long run--like niku says, the chief purpose is time on your feet, not speed.

Anyway, this is all theoretical because I bonked hard in my marathon, when I ran fast long workouts, but I'm 90% convinced that was a hydration issue. Guess we'll see in St G.

To bolster this, I do the exact type of 3/4 type run ER describes when I do long runs. Not every run, but some of them. I do that for the reasons you suggest - learning to run with fatigue.

More than anything marathons are about making it through the training in one piece. That's success in and of itself.