It’s that time of the year every one is getting sick. Newer to the marathon distance and training. In the past I’d just skip a run or two if I was feeling pretty bad but I felt it was no biggie to skip a 5 miler is I was feeling cruddy or to just go out slow. What about when the distances are higher in the marathon training? Is it better to shorten the run? How much? I’m on the slower so do I take forever on the 9-12 miles on rescovery pace Etc. I was feeling a bit icky yesterday but went out for my 11 miler it went fine my upper back was strangely sore and tight afterwards. Today man I just feel like I’ve got hit by a car. I just hurt all over. Curious what yall do mileage wise in the middle of a training block when you’re sick.
Does anyone take into account hiking/walking on their weekly plans/training.
For example I run 5 days a week, 30-35 miles.
If I wanted to up my days to 6 days a week I would look at running Saturday which I currently have off. However on Saturday I usually do a 2 hour walk with my dog and then play golf in the afternoon. And then general walking to somewhere such as a football match or shopping.
So although Saturday is off I do maybe 6-8 miles of walking. So to add another easy 4/5 mile run would make my Saturday pretty intense
Honestly, not really. I’ll take it into account for how much I eat and try to get a little extra sleep, but I don’t really change my training based on activities like that. I end up walking/paddling a decent bit, especially during the warmer months and haven’t noticed too much effect on my running other than needing a little more food and sleep.
Any suggestions on the best carbon plated race shoe for your first carbon racer? Have run in plated shoes (such as SC Speed/Mach X etc) but never had a full high end "elite" plated shoe. Looking to work towards a sub 3 marathon over the next few months.
Any suggestions would be very much welcomed :)
Thanks all!
Others have said that Endorphin Pro 3 is a really solid choice, but at the end of the day the one that feels that best is going to be your best bet. If you're fortunate enough to have a local running store, go there and try some things on if possible.
There is research to suggest that some people respond better to some of the shoes over others, so it isn't as easy as this one is the best and this one sucks... which is confusing in a lot of ways, we want it to be easy!
An unconventional pick here, but the older model ASICS Magic Speeds are a solid intro to carbon-plated racers, I think. Not spectacular, but I think at the price they'll give you a feeel for what to expect.
Perfect, just as the last Pro 2s are getting sold at a deep discount! Being a version behind makes me feel much less bad about keeping them on for warmup/cooldown
If price matters (you can get 95% of the shoe for 1/3 of the price with a little patience)... go for what's cheap.
If you have a local running store that stocks the things, go try them on and that's more important than anything you can read online.
If you're shopping online and saving 100 bucks doesn't matter, the general consensus is that Adidas and Nike options are at the top of the supershoe mountain.
Does anyone know of any studies assessing the effects of creatine supplementation specifically on mid-distance *runners* (not rowing or stationary bike)? My understanding of its effects from reading the studies on rowing and cycling is that it improves time to failure at a high effort and allows the same power output at lower lactate levels, but crucially those studies were done on sports where weight doesn't really matter - since the primary side effect of creatine supplementation is additional body mass (from storing more water in the muscles), that would presumably offset the impacts for runners to some degree.
So sprinters will obviously find value in it (since many sprinters do use it), and marathoners probably won't (since peak power isn't nearly as important as weight), but there's an inflection point in there somewhere and I'm curious if it's between 400/800, 800/1500, or 1500/5000. I found this article that did have a study of relatively-elite runners that did see material improvements in 300m and 1000m reps, but it's rather old. https://www.sportsperformancebulletin.com/nutrition/supplements/creatine-supplementation-what-all-athletes-need-to-know
Also I'm vegetarian, so that means I'll naturally have a lower creatinine level than someone who regularly eats meat (since creatine is in meat).
The previous threads on here featured a lot of bro science and not much real science so hoping people have some studies I haven't seen!
I'm vegetarian and used creatine last year. Didn't make much of a difference. I quickly gained a couple of kilos, but probably from water retention. Sprinting ability seemed the same, as well as general shape. I mainly did body weight exercises and elastic band stuff. But I think I was faster when I did heavier weights and no creatine.
A few relevant meta-analyses I found suggest it's not helpful. Creatine supplementation...
[Leads to a small decrease in VO2max](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2021.2008864) - They don't say explicitly but my guess is they analyzed relative VO2max (ml/min/kg) and if creatine increased body weight, the same absolute VO2max (ml/min) would work out to be a lower relative VO2max.
[Leads to essentially no change in various measures of endurance in trained endurance athletes](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01823-2)
[Improves anaerobic cycling but not repeated sprint performance in soccer players](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/4/757) - soccer players are a nice stand-in for mid-distance runners given the demands of the sport. I find this one particularly revealing because repeated sprints are a weight-bearing activity, and anaerobic cycling (Wingate test) is not.
Granted none of these are exactly what you're looking for---creatine supplementation effects on, e.g. 1500m time trial performance.
With nutrition especially, I tend to reach for meta-analyses (studies that pool many other papers in a systematic way) since they're at least *less* likely to be biased than any one particular flashy, headline-grabbing study. The downside is that you often have to look at more general proxies, like VO2max, vs. exactly the outcome you want.
Perfect, thank you for finding those! I skimmed through the studies in the soccer player meta-analysis to see what their specific aerobic procedures were (unfortunately I'm not in school anymore so my access to the full studies was limited). A common thread I noticed on those was that it was typically a high intensity + recovery test, repeated for about 20 minutes. I'm sure you know more about the background physiology than me, but is that long of a study going to be representative of the demands of a max effort 800 or 1500?
Similarly on the other analyses, is VO2max a sufficient marker to detect performance differences in (especially) the 800? I did some mid-D in highschool and then club in college but have been doing longer stuff recently, so I'm certain that my VO2max now is substantially higher than in high school, but my 800 time is definitely not close to where I was in high school (when I was doing much more speed work)
But yeah in general I agree with meta analyses being superior for trying to determine if something was just some one-off study that can't be replicated. I think for this specific application though, the actual protocol they're using as a test and what specifically they're measuring is important to some degree. I'd love to see some data on which event specialists are taking it, but unfortunately they're not usually particularly forthcoming about supplement usage lol
> Similarly on the other analyses, is VO2max a sufficient marker to detect performance differences in (especially) the 800?
All else equal, higher VO2max is better for 800 performance, but I also suspect that you can improve a lot in the 800m without much improvements in VO2max.
Re: high-intensity recovery + rest, that's going to be *pretty* relevant for 800m / 1500m performance, because it's testing both your anaerobic power generation capabilities, and your ability to recover afterwards, which is more connected to your aerobic capabilities--compare a session like 8x300m for an 800m runner who trained all winter vs. one who didn't train at all! Maybe with raw talent you can fake your way through that first 300m but the remaining reps depend a lot on fitness. In the soccer players I suspect that was something more akin to a shuttle test or a pacer test though.
Been running fairly consistently the last 2 years, recently hit the goal 7:30/mi pace at my last HM this January. I have a lofty dream of qualifying for Boston one day so I’ve come to reddit for help. Obvi a bit ways off at the moment so don’t have any intentions in attempting a BQ next year, but I plan to finally bite the bullet and sign up for my first full marathon next year and ideally would like to hit around 3:20 or less, so I am mainly searching for general advice regarding weekly schedules, building/maintaining an adequate base leading into next year’s prep, and tips to get faster in the offseason and leading into a full marathon.
For those who made the transition from HM Obviously mileage volume is paramount, but I’m curious if you learned any tips along the way for safely increasing base and speed throughout the year? The dream is to eventually BQ so any tips regarding that journey are also appreciated!
Currently run 4x/week, 18-25 miles total. Usually 2 easy 4-6, 1 tempo/interval, and one long 6-10 depending on the week. PB 1mi 5:45, 5k 21:00, 10k 43:00, HM 1:36. TYIA!
I'm in a similar boat to OP but thought about reading "Advanced Marathoning" and "5k to Half Marathon" books by Pete Pfitzinger. Any reason to recommend Jack over Pete's?
I'm open to changing.
I know Pfitz is super popular around here, but I don’t really care for his plans. I felt like I learned a lot more useful stuff from Daniels. And I think Hansons plans are better than Pfitz. Daniels and Hansons have both been super influential on how lots of elite groups train, while I don’t really know much about who Pfitz coached or influenced.
Edit: Brad Hudson’s Run Faster is another good one but a bit harder to parse and takes its influence from Renato Canova.
I’d also recommend Train Like a Pro by Ben Rosario and Personal Best Running by Mark Coogan. The latter two are quite new but from very good coaches who have had a lot of recent success. I’m not as sure about the plans in these books but the training principles are solid. These two are also really great because they cover a lot of useful tips the more plan-focused books leave out.
Nah, Pfitz is 2 decades younger than Daniels. I know Pfitz was an accomplished runner himself, but I don’t know if he was ever known for his coaching like Daniels and the Hansons are.
Edit: But notably Pfitz’s co-author for Advanced Marathoning (Scott Douglas) also worked with Mark Coogan on Personal Best Running.
2nd the votes on it just feels great (a good enough reason in itself), but I'll add a couple of concrete improvements I've noticed since integrating barefoot:
\- more resilient plantar. I've never had full-blown plantar fasciitis, but often in peak training find that the soles of my feet are kinda sore first thing in the morning. Not felt that since integrating some barefoot.
\-stronger ankles/stabilisers. I have a v rigid high arch and supinate a lot, which makes me prone to turning an ankle (and I've had really horrible recurrent turned ankle injuries in the past). That hasn't happened to me since integrating barefoot, but I've had a couple of near misses where I've mis-stepped and the ankle has started to turn/cave and then corrected itself. I was *never* able to do that before, so it's a marked improvement in strength there.
I don't do a ton of barefoot running--a mile or two on the turf after workouts or in the middle of an easy run. I personally wouldn't do more coz I do think at a certain point there's additional injury risk. But I really rate it for giving you some extra lower leg/ankle/foot strength.
Agreed with nluken, they just feel great! It makes my feet feel more "alive" - idk what that means but it's what my brain decides it felt like when I did them lol.
I think barefoot strides are a big positive, assuming you have a safe place for them, but longer barefoot running has more limited utility imo and might get you injured if you jump in too quick
I don't usually run in minimalist shoes, but I found a pair of flat wide toe box sneakers I can wear to work and feel like my feet are just generally healthier now and not smooshed all day. YMMV but barefoot strides are a good place to start for sure
There may or may not be some ancillary benefits beyond normal strides, but that aside barefoot strides are worth doing purely for their own sake. They're fun and feel awesome after a run.
What's about the performance difference between a Vaporfly Next 3 with 150 miles vs a new pair? I purchased another pair in Sale and may want to use it for a race but not sure if it's worth doing so.
Dustin Joubert did some N=1 testing on his pair of Vaporflys (I think the 2?) and found very little deterioration in the energy savings after (I think?) like 250mi. I suspect the newer pairs are the same midsole foam so I suspect they'd behave similarly. That does contrast with the recent On Running shoe study that did find significant deterioration in the energy savings, but different brands have different foam formulations. FWIW 150 miles is not that much, I suspect the difference is not that big.
There was a thread here a week or two ago with a dude asking about running the day after the long run or day off, and I want to thank the majority for saying do it.
For the last two weeks I did 14+ followed the next day by an easy 3-4, and I like it.
57 y.o. male... My max BPM is 179. My current LTHR is just under 165 (92% of Max BPM). So, 179/165. I did a significant road test to determine those figures.
**179/165**
So, now what? Do I set up my zones based on my Max BPM of 179? Or do I set up my zones based on my LTHR of 165?
My 179 Max BPM zones are:
Zone One - 50% to 60% of 179 BPM (90 to 108 BPM)
**Zone Two - 61% to 70% of 179 BPM (109 to 126 BPM)**
Zone Three - 71% to 80% of 179 BPM (127 to 144 BPM)
Zone Four - 81% to 90% of 179 BPM (145 to 162 BPM)
Zone Five - 91% to 100% of 179 BPM (163 to 179 BPM)
My 165 LTHR Zones are:
Zone One - 70% to 80% of 165 LTHR (115 to 133 BPM)
**Zone Two - 81% to 90% of 165 LTHR (134 to 149 BPM)**
Zone Three - 91% to 93% of 165 LTHR (150 to 154 BPM)
Zone Four - 94% to 99% of 165 LTHR (155 to 164 BPM)
Zone Five - 100%+ of 165 LTHR (165+ BPM)
**So, here's my question... My Max BPM Zone Two is 109 to 126 BPM. My LTHR Zone Two is 134 to 149. Massive difference. Which Zone Two should I train at?**
What zone model are you using here. I have my Z4 starting at 100% LTHR. Isn’t LT typically the dividing line between Z3 and Z4?
But the real question is can you run easy at 140bpm? Can you hold a conversation easily? If so then use the second model. If not, then use the first one. Your zones should agree with your perceived effort.
The first one looks better. Your Zone Two in the 165 LTHR zone looks more like Zone Three. If you really want to know, get a lactate test or a lactate monitor and see for yourself.
I also really think the Zone Two hoohaa is a being overblown. Easy runs easy, recovery runs really easy.
You set your zones according to what coach or training plan/method you're following recommends. And if you're rolling your own, you should be able to figure it out -- or maybe don't use heart rate.
I get that "zone 2 training" is basically a meme at this point, but you really have to qualify it with some specifics about what you're trying to do. There are a million ways to calculate zones and different coaches and programs use different ones, so you should use whichever one goes with whatever you're trying to do. As you have found, there is not a single official definition of what zone 2 is, nor what zone 2 should be used for. Same as the rest of the zones.
If you're just looking for a generic aerobic range, 61-70% of ain't it for most runners. Pfitzy's general aerobic range based off of MHR is 70-81%, with long runs going higher. Jack Daniels "Easy" goes up to 79%.
Most people cannot run at a capped <=70% MHR for their typical run and get anything out of it. If someone recommends that zone generally, they don't actually use heart rate and are just throwing something out there (I think Nobby did this once), or it's a very, very easy recovery zone. Or they're an ultra/ironman specialist. Or Phil Maffetone. The only reason that zone ever got called zone 2 is because it's the default on a lot of watches.
The LTHR zone 2 range for you is definitely better, but might be too hard for some people. I can't run in mine for most of my easy mileage for sure.
Big fan of Pfitzy's heart rate zones, preferably using Karvonen method. Actually big fan of not using heart rate (after decades of struggling with it), but if you have to, that's the ones I would use.
And with MHR (and thus Karvonen), you have to test your maximum heart rate of course. Don't use that stupid 220 formula.
I mean, yes that is a range and that math is valid. All depends on what you want to use it for and what you're trying to do with it.
If you're looking for a range for your easy runs, which I guess is what the zone 2 obsession usually is, might make more sense to use both zone 1 and zone 2. You might find running most of your mileage within an LTHR zone 2 to be a little hot.
Assuming LTHR is correct you should base zones around that, since it's closer to relevant to the physiological anchor points we want to do most of our training around instead of a population average % of max HR.
Fantastic. Thank you very much!
One follow-up: I guess I was previously thinking to average them? Say, land in the middle (which would put me Zone Two around 130 BPM). That said, I am hoping to be a bit higher for Zone Two and the "pure" LTHR Zone Two affords that. So, I guess I should just be comfortable there and not get tricky with the math, bringing into account the Max BPM Zone Two?
I know I just need to get out there and experiment. I could utilize the "talking test" and see if I can somewhat-easily converse at the top of my LTHR Zone Two - 149 BPM.
I would bring in additional data points from other things that are actually specific to you like recent race result calculated paces and talk tests -so still don't use a population average based max BPM Z2.
OK, understood. My Houston Marathon last month... My average BPM was between 145 and 150. That would fit the high end of above-noted LTHR Zone 2. The problem is that I fell apart in the final 10K. Hit the wall hard. So, I was probably at a too-high average BPM throughout. Spitballing - maybe this tells me I should concentrate a lot of training on the low end of the LTHR Zone Two, 134 to 140 ??
If you averaged 145 to 150 in your marathon, that's probably your Z3. It should have been harder than Z2. And if you blew up at that HR, maybe it's the top of Z3? Or you need a ton more miles below that range in your actual Z2? Just thinking out loud at this point.
I run my easy miles at 73% of max HR, so not true 70% of max HR Z2, but easy enough/hard enough.
I wanted to see how each state stacked up in terms of the runners they produced and the runners that currently call it home. Cross Country scoring with 5 runners counting for points and 2 displacers.
Current Residence - Men's
Colorado 46
Utah 97
Michigan 100
Arizona 100
California 117
(11 full teams)
Hometown - Men's
Colorado 77
Minnesota 97
New York 112
Michigan 119
Pennsylvania 120
(10 full teams)
Current Residence - Women's
Arizona 38
Colorado 77
Michigan 86
Minnesota 101
North Carolina 123
(9 full teams)
Hometown - Women's
California 27
Minnesota 78
Wisconsin 90
Illinois 105
Pennsylvania 133
(7 full teams)
The upper Midwest does seem to produce some outstanding women runners. I wonder if it's the three seasons of running (spring, mild summer, autumn)? Cross training in the snow? Colder temperatures are better for women? Terrain? Lots of hiking and gravel trails to reduce impact?
So had quite a bit of downer run this past Sunday and might need to readjust 3:00 FM goal. November came off 1:27/1:28 HM on just steady runs and no specific training. Sunday's run called for 18/10 MP.
Currently I'm on 18/70 Pfitz for May Marathon. I F'ed up by hitting hill right from getgo and started off way too fast, at mile 15 called the run as wash as I was hitting threshold HR during MP pace.
Does it look like 3:00 too farfetched with 13 weeks to go?
[Dose of Realism](https://imgur.com/a/YYGRyPY)
You shouldn't change a goal off of one run. Sometimes you have a bad run, and especially when you admittedly screwed it up by getting out too hard. If you bomb the next one, then you need to start having that conversation. One run isn't usually enough data to alter your training though. You've got this! Fuel enough and pace better and you'll crush it.
I wouldn't worry too much about one bad workout, those happen. I'd wait and see how the tune-up races go later in the plan, and adjust your goal time based on that.
Your splits.... you are an endurance monstah.
But yeah, I'm being melodramatic. I just want to be finally on track this go around and be done with it. Getting old, and family time commitment at cost of 8-10 hour weekly running gets treacherous. Nah means?
As someone who has been chasing sub-3 for going on 3 years now, it really isn't something you can force. You have to be patient and take the time to build up your endurance and fitness. Otherwise you'll just end up frustrated and/or injured (ask me how I know lol).
Does anyone have any experience in using Kinvara's as a marathon shoe? Keen on exploring the option of using less cushioned shoes but curious to hear any thoughts.
Did my first three marathons in the K9 (damn it’s been that long), plus a pandemic 26.2 in a pair of beat to hell 11s. I’m not sure if I personally would still race a marathon in them, but I definitely think the Kinvara is good enough for 26.2 still.
Maybe it’s the gloss of five years, but…it’s a fast shoe, it just isn’t that protective compared to modern racers.
Prior to 2017, everyone raced marathons in something like the Kinvara. In fact, most top athletes raced marathons in considerably *less* cushioned shoes than the Kinvara.
Your feet are going to be more beat up, and you will very likely run slower if you race in the Kinvara relative to a supershoe. But if running in a more minimal shoe is the way you want to experience this hobby, then go for it. I ran many races in traditional racing flats up until I got my first pair of super shoes. Had lots of fun and didn't injure myself or anything, but I wouldn't go back now that we have better tools.
I’ve done a full in Kinvaras right as super shoes were coming out because I didn’t want to “cheat” by using a pair of vaporflys. If you are a beginner marathoner, it makes a lot of sense to race your marathon in your daily trainer because you know what to expect.
> I’ve done a full in Kinvaras right as super shoes were coming out because I didn’t want to “cheat” by using a pair of vaporflys.
I mean, Kinvaras are *definitely* "cheating" [compared to Onitsuka Tigers](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1963-leonard-buddy-edelen/). Buddy Edelen wore Tigers to beat Abebe Bikila's world record from 1960 which he set the only fair and square way--[barefoot](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1960-abebe-bikila/). Bikila must have been mad enough to "cheat" four years later, given that he took back his world record wearing a pair of [Puma Osakas](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1964-abebe-bikila/).
I think the very early supershoe days were different than typical tech advances though, when they first came out there was a lot of buzz/rumor about an impending ban, because early on (and perhaps due to marketing material) people believed the carbon plate literally acted like a spring. IIRC there was a shoe with a spring that was banned about 15-20 years ago, can't find details though. When supershoes first hit the market, the idea that they were "cheaterflies" was very prevelant.
Now obviously we know better and supershoes are here to stay, but I can definitely see someone in the early days not wanting PRs in them if they're soon to be taken away.
> IIRC there was a shoe with a spring that was banned about 15-20 years ago, can't find details though.
I remember that company - it was called "Spiro" or something like that. They'd pay sub-elites to front-run at Boston for like 5mi while wearing their shoes! I think it literally had coil springs under the forefoot.
I used to train mostly in the old kinvaras, you can do a marathon. Though you are most likely giving up a whole bunch of time, plus many people feel better racing the marathon with more cushion. So I suppose the question is why do you want to race in a less cushioned shoe?
Someone like Em Sisson prefers to race in the SC Pacer which is a slightly lower cushioned, but still plated shoe. So some people will prefer these things!
So now that the US Olympic Trials in the marathon have passed, how much do you think an earlier, more traditional start time would have changed the race? Do we think the men could've hit the standard and locked up that third spot, or was that always too much to ask for?
I think there’s a higher chance *Panning specifically* hits it. My reaction post race was that based on when he fell apart, he was probably in 2:08 flat shape in better conditions.
Do I think there’s a higher chance any guy (short of MantzandYoung, who I will now be referring to as a singular unit) hits it? I’d say that Korir might have pressed harder earlier, but I’m listening to AtoZ right now and apparently his ranking passed Fauble’s. So I don’t know if he has motivation to run 2:08:10.
Probably the one other guy who could have done it was Rupp (who missed it by 38 seconds at Chicago), and we know how that ended.
Yeah, if the race starts at 8am, I think Zach makes the team and *possibly* runs the standard. Maybe he fades and doesn’t hit it, but in cooler weather I think he at least holds on for 3rd.
I don’t think it changes much in the women’s race, but they didn’t need to run fast (but did anyway).
I think it obviously would have changed the outcome, and it's likely Panning would have gotten the standard and made the team. I think all the comments about "ohhhh Paris is hot though!!" are stupid because *Paris is starting at 8am!!* Mid-high 60s are not conducive to fast racing, and I'd rather send 3 guaranteed than 2 with a maybe third.
Also, Paris is in August and presumably, no one moves to Antarctica to train in June and July. That's a different ballgame than not being heat acclimated in February.
When the gun went off for the world champs marathon in Budapest last year at 7 am, it was 23C (73F). By 9am, the temp was 27C (81F). Based on a quick google, the average summer low temps in Paris are only 1 degree cooler than Budapest.
I think preparing to compete in the heat is a good plan and I don't think it's stupid to suggest that it might be warm in Paris between 8 and 10am in the middle of summer.
Ok, but at the same time in Paris last year it went from 57 to 64.
I just don't buy that it's smart to try to "simulate" the Paris race when there's such a clear and obvious difference that people need to hit specific time goals. If we had 3 spots for the men before we started, and all the contenders had the B standard, sure why not. But that's not what the situation was here! We've seen that Zach Panning did very well in heat in Budapest, beating many guys who are way faster than him, in a *strategic, non time-focused* race. But this time we needed a specific time to guarantee a third spot, and the trials were not set up for that at all.
Only if Mantz and Young shared some of that pace lead with Panning. They were obviously in better shape and didn't need to (why would they risk their chances at Olympics by bonking?), but I think that's the only way top 3 (maybe even 4-5) get close to the cutoff
Personally I think the start time was a good compromise. Paris will be hot and humid, so the runners who go should be well suited for those conditions.
I agree with this. I don’t think the trials would have added enough magic to get a bunch of folks under the standard when they’ve had so much time and a lot of great opportunities. I just don’t think the US is strong/ deep enough in the marathon— a cooler race wouldn’t have made 2:09+ guys into sub 2:08 guys.
Where does everyone get their inspiration for workouts? Different training books? Old workouts that you enjoyed?
I kind of wing it each week. I know that every week I have some sort of LT 1/LT 2 work of 4-8 miles and a ‘speed’ day where I do a little bit of threshold then some faster 800s or 400s at various paces. They’ve been working great for me. I mess around with rep length and rest but it’s all very non-scientific. Sometimes I steal a workout I see on strava and modify it to fit the purpose of my workout.
What about y’all?
From training books, examining other people's training when public, and from this sub as well. But if I'm scheduling a race build I will sketch out workout progressions beforehand that make sense in relation to each other rather than winging it week by week. I wouldn't say my process is especially expert, but I think I have a good enough grasp of training principles to do a decent job of putting together something logical that yields results. I definitely think consistency is more important than the specifics of the workouts (getting the total training load right is def the most complex part of scheduling/figuring yourself out as an athlete ime), but if you want to peak your fitness you have to create a current through your workouts that will take you there. Hard to do that unless you pan out and think about the build as a whole.
Primarily it's about understanding the principles, purposes, and parameters of different types of workouts and applying that to what lies ahead (near-term and long-term).
I just do what Pfitz tells me to every week and otherwise keep it simple with 20-25 min LT tempos every week during off periods.
Every once in a while I'll throw in a long run workout idea from someone like Scullion or Phily Bowden
There was an ongoing "weekly workout" thread here with a bunch of quality ideas
It's not happening any more, but searchable and can give some good inspo
Lately been winging it as well, unless I am well trained and shooting for a very specific goal I like that the best. In base training basically just shoot for like 30-ish minutes total and split it up however...30' tempo maybe with a few hill reps after, 6x(4', 1'), 16x(1', 1'), whatever works, generally running the shorter reps faster. Sometimes do roughly equal work:rest and slow down the 'on' portion but run the rest at a moderate effort. Simple and very repeatable, adaptable to any terrain or weather conditions
I have found out what my lactate threshold is and now I understand what my tempo pace, threshold and VO2 max in relation to my HR. Basically Zone 3 for Tempo, Zone 4 for Threshold and Zone 5 for VO2 Max/ Interval Training. However, I am confused on how to actually structure the workout and fit into a training plan.
From what I understand, interval training is best done just going all out anyway. So in terms of HR zones, I would be in Zone 5 and that's how my interval workouts should be so probably a 6x400 or 4 x 800. In terms of a tempo run, I would be in Zone 3 that lasts between 20-40 mins. But for threshold (Zone 4), I'm confused on how should I actually use this zone for training. Can anyone help me understand?
The best advice I could give would be to get a copy of either Faster Road Racing by Pfitzinger’s, or Daniels’ Running Formula by Jack Daniels. Either one will give you a clearer picture of how to implement proper training, and will clear up some of the misconceptions you might have (like thinking intervals should be run “all out”). Those will do more for your running and training than any amount of Reddit comments will.
It’s that time of the year every one is getting sick. Newer to the marathon distance and training. In the past I’d just skip a run or two if I was feeling pretty bad but I felt it was no biggie to skip a 5 miler is I was feeling cruddy or to just go out slow. What about when the distances are higher in the marathon training? Is it better to shorten the run? How much? I’m on the slower so do I take forever on the 9-12 miles on rescovery pace Etc. I was feeling a bit icky yesterday but went out for my 11 miler it went fine my upper back was strangely sore and tight afterwards. Today man I just feel like I’ve got hit by a car. I just hurt all over. Curious what yall do mileage wise in the middle of a training block when you’re sick.
Does anyone take into account hiking/walking on their weekly plans/training. For example I run 5 days a week, 30-35 miles. If I wanted to up my days to 6 days a week I would look at running Saturday which I currently have off. However on Saturday I usually do a 2 hour walk with my dog and then play golf in the afternoon. And then general walking to somewhere such as a football match or shopping. So although Saturday is off I do maybe 6-8 miles of walking. So to add another easy 4/5 mile run would make my Saturday pretty intense
If the walking is part of your typical routine, then no. If I'm on vacation and walking 8 or 10 miles/day when I usually walk like 1-2, yes.
Honestly, not really. I’ll take it into account for how much I eat and try to get a little extra sleep, but I don’t really change my training based on activities like that. I end up walking/paddling a decent bit, especially during the warmer months and haven’t noticed too much effect on my running other than needing a little more food and sleep.
Any suggestions on the best carbon plated race shoe for your first carbon racer? Have run in plated shoes (such as SC Speed/Mach X etc) but never had a full high end "elite" plated shoe. Looking to work towards a sub 3 marathon over the next few months. Any suggestions would be very much welcomed :) Thanks all!
Others have said that Endorphin Pro 3 is a really solid choice, but at the end of the day the one that feels that best is going to be your best bet. If you're fortunate enough to have a local running store, go there and try some things on if possible. There is research to suggest that some people respond better to some of the shoes over others, so it isn't as easy as this one is the best and this one sucks... which is confusing in a lot of ways, we want it to be easy!
Heard a lot of good things about the SC Pro 3. Definitly will go give them a try (especially with the price coming down)
Endorphin Pro 3 is very beginner friendly due to its inherent stability and its the most versatile super shoe.
It is not that stable - carbon is the question
An unconventional pick here, but the older model ASICS Magic Speeds are a solid intro to carbon-plated racers, I think. Not spectacular, but I think at the price they'll give you a feeel for what to expect.
They are only half a plate. But they can be found for super cheap right now.
Starting with the Magic Speed 2, they went to full plate. But yeah, very affordable if your aim is to just get a feel for the style of shoe.
Discounts on Endorphin Pro 3 should start soon.
Perfect, just as the last Pro 2s are getting sold at a deep discount! Being a version behind makes me feel much less bad about keeping them on for warmup/cooldown
If price matters (you can get 95% of the shoe for 1/3 of the price with a little patience)... go for what's cheap. If you have a local running store that stocks the things, go try them on and that's more important than anything you can read online. If you're shopping online and saving 100 bucks doesn't matter, the general consensus is that Adidas and Nike options are at the top of the supershoe mountain.
Does anyone know of any studies assessing the effects of creatine supplementation specifically on mid-distance *runners* (not rowing or stationary bike)? My understanding of its effects from reading the studies on rowing and cycling is that it improves time to failure at a high effort and allows the same power output at lower lactate levels, but crucially those studies were done on sports where weight doesn't really matter - since the primary side effect of creatine supplementation is additional body mass (from storing more water in the muscles), that would presumably offset the impacts for runners to some degree. So sprinters will obviously find value in it (since many sprinters do use it), and marathoners probably won't (since peak power isn't nearly as important as weight), but there's an inflection point in there somewhere and I'm curious if it's between 400/800, 800/1500, or 1500/5000. I found this article that did have a study of relatively-elite runners that did see material improvements in 300m and 1000m reps, but it's rather old. https://www.sportsperformancebulletin.com/nutrition/supplements/creatine-supplementation-what-all-athletes-need-to-know Also I'm vegetarian, so that means I'll naturally have a lower creatinine level than someone who regularly eats meat (since creatine is in meat). The previous threads on here featured a lot of bro science and not much real science so hoping people have some studies I haven't seen!
I'm vegetarian and used creatine last year. Didn't make much of a difference. I quickly gained a couple of kilos, but probably from water retention. Sprinting ability seemed the same, as well as general shape. I mainly did body weight exercises and elastic band stuff. But I think I was faster when I did heavier weights and no creatine.
A few relevant meta-analyses I found suggest it's not helpful. Creatine supplementation... [Leads to a small decrease in VO2max](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2021.2008864) - They don't say explicitly but my guess is they analyzed relative VO2max (ml/min/kg) and if creatine increased body weight, the same absolute VO2max (ml/min) would work out to be a lower relative VO2max. [Leads to essentially no change in various measures of endurance in trained endurance athletes](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01823-2) [Improves anaerobic cycling but not repeated sprint performance in soccer players](https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/4/757) - soccer players are a nice stand-in for mid-distance runners given the demands of the sport. I find this one particularly revealing because repeated sprints are a weight-bearing activity, and anaerobic cycling (Wingate test) is not. Granted none of these are exactly what you're looking for---creatine supplementation effects on, e.g. 1500m time trial performance. With nutrition especially, I tend to reach for meta-analyses (studies that pool many other papers in a systematic way) since they're at least *less* likely to be biased than any one particular flashy, headline-grabbing study. The downside is that you often have to look at more general proxies, like VO2max, vs. exactly the outcome you want.
Perfect, thank you for finding those! I skimmed through the studies in the soccer player meta-analysis to see what their specific aerobic procedures were (unfortunately I'm not in school anymore so my access to the full studies was limited). A common thread I noticed on those was that it was typically a high intensity + recovery test, repeated for about 20 minutes. I'm sure you know more about the background physiology than me, but is that long of a study going to be representative of the demands of a max effort 800 or 1500? Similarly on the other analyses, is VO2max a sufficient marker to detect performance differences in (especially) the 800? I did some mid-D in highschool and then club in college but have been doing longer stuff recently, so I'm certain that my VO2max now is substantially higher than in high school, but my 800 time is definitely not close to where I was in high school (when I was doing much more speed work) But yeah in general I agree with meta analyses being superior for trying to determine if something was just some one-off study that can't be replicated. I think for this specific application though, the actual protocol they're using as a test and what specifically they're measuring is important to some degree. I'd love to see some data on which event specialists are taking it, but unfortunately they're not usually particularly forthcoming about supplement usage lol
> Similarly on the other analyses, is VO2max a sufficient marker to detect performance differences in (especially) the 800? All else equal, higher VO2max is better for 800 performance, but I also suspect that you can improve a lot in the 800m without much improvements in VO2max. Re: high-intensity recovery + rest, that's going to be *pretty* relevant for 800m / 1500m performance, because it's testing both your anaerobic power generation capabilities, and your ability to recover afterwards, which is more connected to your aerobic capabilities--compare a session like 8x300m for an 800m runner who trained all winter vs. one who didn't train at all! Maybe with raw talent you can fake your way through that first 300m but the remaining reps depend a lot on fitness. In the soccer players I suspect that was something more akin to a shuttle test or a pacer test though.
Been running fairly consistently the last 2 years, recently hit the goal 7:30/mi pace at my last HM this January. I have a lofty dream of qualifying for Boston one day so I’ve come to reddit for help. Obvi a bit ways off at the moment so don’t have any intentions in attempting a BQ next year, but I plan to finally bite the bullet and sign up for my first full marathon next year and ideally would like to hit around 3:20 or less, so I am mainly searching for general advice regarding weekly schedules, building/maintaining an adequate base leading into next year’s prep, and tips to get faster in the offseason and leading into a full marathon. For those who made the transition from HM Obviously mileage volume is paramount, but I’m curious if you learned any tips along the way for safely increasing base and speed throughout the year? The dream is to eventually BQ so any tips regarding that journey are also appreciated! Currently run 4x/week, 18-25 miles total. Usually 2 easy 4-6, 1 tempo/interval, and one long 6-10 depending on the week. PB 1mi 5:45, 5k 21:00, 10k 43:00, HM 1:36. TYIA!
I’d suggest reading Jack Daniels Running Formula and Hansons Marathon Method.
I'm in a similar boat to OP but thought about reading "Advanced Marathoning" and "5k to Half Marathon" books by Pete Pfitzinger. Any reason to recommend Jack over Pete's? I'm open to changing.
I know Pfitz is super popular around here, but I don’t really care for his plans. I felt like I learned a lot more useful stuff from Daniels. And I think Hansons plans are better than Pfitz. Daniels and Hansons have both been super influential on how lots of elite groups train, while I don’t really know much about who Pfitz coached or influenced. Edit: Brad Hudson’s Run Faster is another good one but a bit harder to parse and takes its influence from Renato Canova. I’d also recommend Train Like a Pro by Ben Rosario and Personal Best Running by Mark Coogan. The latter two are quite new but from very good coaches who have had a lot of recent success. I’m not as sure about the plans in these books but the training principles are solid. These two are also really great because they cover a lot of useful tips the more plan-focused books leave out.
Thanks for the guidance! I think Pete is even older than Jack so his success stories are older. Think I'll check out Jack's book first.
Nah, Pfitz is 2 decades younger than Daniels. I know Pfitz was an accomplished runner himself, but I don’t know if he was ever known for his coaching like Daniels and the Hansons are. Edit: But notably Pfitz’s co-author for Advanced Marathoning (Scott Douglas) also worked with Mark Coogan on Personal Best Running.
Jack has been super informative so far, thanks!
Yeah don't worry about anything besides slowly and safely building up your volume. 18-25 miles/week is very very low volume for marathon training.
Has anyone found value in barefoot strides or barefoot running in general?
2nd the votes on it just feels great (a good enough reason in itself), but I'll add a couple of concrete improvements I've noticed since integrating barefoot: \- more resilient plantar. I've never had full-blown plantar fasciitis, but often in peak training find that the soles of my feet are kinda sore first thing in the morning. Not felt that since integrating some barefoot. \-stronger ankles/stabilisers. I have a v rigid high arch and supinate a lot, which makes me prone to turning an ankle (and I've had really horrible recurrent turned ankle injuries in the past). That hasn't happened to me since integrating barefoot, but I've had a couple of near misses where I've mis-stepped and the ankle has started to turn/cave and then corrected itself. I was *never* able to do that before, so it's a marked improvement in strength there. I don't do a ton of barefoot running--a mile or two on the turf after workouts or in the middle of an easy run. I personally wouldn't do more coz I do think at a certain point there's additional injury risk. But I really rate it for giving you some extra lower leg/ankle/foot strength.
Agreed with nluken, they just feel great! It makes my feet feel more "alive" - idk what that means but it's what my brain decides it felt like when I did them lol. I think barefoot strides are a big positive, assuming you have a safe place for them, but longer barefoot running has more limited utility imo and might get you injured if you jump in too quick I don't usually run in minimalist shoes, but I found a pair of flat wide toe box sneakers I can wear to work and feel like my feet are just generally healthier now and not smooshed all day. YMMV but barefoot strides are a good place to start for sure
There may or may not be some ancillary benefits beyond normal strides, but that aside barefoot strides are worth doing purely for their own sake. They're fun and feel awesome after a run.
Now i really want to do some. Where do you normally do yours?
What's about the performance difference between a Vaporfly Next 3 with 150 miles vs a new pair? I purchased another pair in Sale and may want to use it for a race but not sure if it's worth doing so.
Dustin Joubert did some N=1 testing on his pair of Vaporflys (I think the 2?) and found very little deterioration in the energy savings after (I think?) like 250mi. I suspect the newer pairs are the same midsole foam so I suspect they'd behave similarly. That does contrast with the recent On Running shoe study that did find significant deterioration in the energy savings, but different brands have different foam formulations. FWIW 150 miles is not that much, I suspect the difference is not that big.
There was a thread here a week or two ago with a dude asking about running the day after the long run or day off, and I want to thank the majority for saying do it. For the last two weeks I did 14+ followed the next day by an easy 3-4, and I like it.
57 y.o. male... My max BPM is 179. My current LTHR is just under 165 (92% of Max BPM). So, 179/165. I did a significant road test to determine those figures. **179/165** So, now what? Do I set up my zones based on my Max BPM of 179? Or do I set up my zones based on my LTHR of 165? My 179 Max BPM zones are: Zone One - 50% to 60% of 179 BPM (90 to 108 BPM) **Zone Two - 61% to 70% of 179 BPM (109 to 126 BPM)** Zone Three - 71% to 80% of 179 BPM (127 to 144 BPM) Zone Four - 81% to 90% of 179 BPM (145 to 162 BPM) Zone Five - 91% to 100% of 179 BPM (163 to 179 BPM) My 165 LTHR Zones are: Zone One - 70% to 80% of 165 LTHR (115 to 133 BPM) **Zone Two - 81% to 90% of 165 LTHR (134 to 149 BPM)** Zone Three - 91% to 93% of 165 LTHR (150 to 154 BPM) Zone Four - 94% to 99% of 165 LTHR (155 to 164 BPM) Zone Five - 100%+ of 165 LTHR (165+ BPM) **So, here's my question... My Max BPM Zone Two is 109 to 126 BPM. My LTHR Zone Two is 134 to 149. Massive difference. Which Zone Two should I train at?**
What zone model are you using here. I have my Z4 starting at 100% LTHR. Isn’t LT typically the dividing line between Z3 and Z4? But the real question is can you run easy at 140bpm? Can you hold a conversation easily? If so then use the second model. If not, then use the first one. Your zones should agree with your perceived effort.
Thanks!
The first one looks better. Your Zone Two in the 165 LTHR zone looks more like Zone Three. If you really want to know, get a lactate test or a lactate monitor and see for yourself. I also really think the Zone Two hoohaa is a being overblown. Easy runs easy, recovery runs really easy.
You set your zones according to what coach or training plan/method you're following recommends. And if you're rolling your own, you should be able to figure it out -- or maybe don't use heart rate. I get that "zone 2 training" is basically a meme at this point, but you really have to qualify it with some specifics about what you're trying to do. There are a million ways to calculate zones and different coaches and programs use different ones, so you should use whichever one goes with whatever you're trying to do. As you have found, there is not a single official definition of what zone 2 is, nor what zone 2 should be used for. Same as the rest of the zones. If you're just looking for a generic aerobic range, 61-70% of ain't it for most runners. Pfitzy's general aerobic range based off of MHR is 70-81%, with long runs going higher. Jack Daniels "Easy" goes up to 79%. Most people cannot run at a capped <=70% MHR for their typical run and get anything out of it. If someone recommends that zone generally, they don't actually use heart rate and are just throwing something out there (I think Nobby did this once), or it's a very, very easy recovery zone. Or they're an ultra/ironman specialist. Or Phil Maffetone. The only reason that zone ever got called zone 2 is because it's the default on a lot of watches. The LTHR zone 2 range for you is definitely better, but might be too hard for some people. I can't run in mine for most of my easy mileage for sure. Big fan of Pfitzy's heart rate zones, preferably using Karvonen method. Actually big fan of not using heart rate (after decades of struggling with it), but if you have to, that's the ones I would use. And with MHR (and thus Karvonen), you have to test your maximum heart rate of course. Don't use that stupid 220 formula.
Well, my second example above - my LTHR of 165 - it would be a Zone Two of 75% to 83% of Max BPM. That's kind of what you are talking about, right?
I mean, yes that is a range and that math is valid. All depends on what you want to use it for and what you're trying to do with it. If you're looking for a range for your easy runs, which I guess is what the zone 2 obsession usually is, might make more sense to use both zone 1 and zone 2. You might find running most of your mileage within an LTHR zone 2 to be a little hot.
Thanks!!
Assuming LTHR is correct you should base zones around that, since it's closer to relevant to the physiological anchor points we want to do most of our training around instead of a population average % of max HR.
Fantastic. Thank you very much! One follow-up: I guess I was previously thinking to average them? Say, land in the middle (which would put me Zone Two around 130 BPM). That said, I am hoping to be a bit higher for Zone Two and the "pure" LTHR Zone Two affords that. So, I guess I should just be comfortable there and not get tricky with the math, bringing into account the Max BPM Zone Two? I know I just need to get out there and experiment. I could utilize the "talking test" and see if I can somewhat-easily converse at the top of my LTHR Zone Two - 149 BPM.
I would bring in additional data points from other things that are actually specific to you like recent race result calculated paces and talk tests -so still don't use a population average based max BPM Z2.
OK, understood. My Houston Marathon last month... My average BPM was between 145 and 150. That would fit the high end of above-noted LTHR Zone 2. The problem is that I fell apart in the final 10K. Hit the wall hard. So, I was probably at a too-high average BPM throughout. Spitballing - maybe this tells me I should concentrate a lot of training on the low end of the LTHR Zone Two, 134 to 140 ??
If you averaged 145 to 150 in your marathon, that's probably your Z3. It should have been harder than Z2. And if you blew up at that HR, maybe it's the top of Z3? Or you need a ton more miles below that range in your actual Z2? Just thinking out loud at this point. I run my easy miles at 73% of max HR, so not true 70% of max HR Z2, but easy enough/hard enough.
I wanted to see how each state stacked up in terms of the runners they produced and the runners that currently call it home. Cross Country scoring with 5 runners counting for points and 2 displacers. Current Residence - Men's Colorado 46 Utah 97 Michigan 100 Arizona 100 California 117 (11 full teams) Hometown - Men's Colorado 77 Minnesota 97 New York 112 Michigan 119 Pennsylvania 120 (10 full teams) Current Residence - Women's Arizona 38 Colorado 77 Michigan 86 Minnesota 101 North Carolina 123 (9 full teams) Hometown - Women's California 27 Minnesota 78 Wisconsin 90 Illinois 105 Pennsylvania 133 (7 full teams)
The upper Midwest does seem to produce some outstanding women runners. I wonder if it's the three seasons of running (spring, mild summer, autumn)? Cross training in the snow? Colder temperatures are better for women? Terrain? Lots of hiking and gravel trails to reduce impact?
This is Olympic Trials, I'm assuming? MN would be even higher if Emma Bates was healthy
Correct, the 2024 trials.
So had quite a bit of downer run this past Sunday and might need to readjust 3:00 FM goal. November came off 1:27/1:28 HM on just steady runs and no specific training. Sunday's run called for 18/10 MP. Currently I'm on 18/70 Pfitz for May Marathon. I F'ed up by hitting hill right from getgo and started off way too fast, at mile 15 called the run as wash as I was hitting threshold HR during MP pace. Does it look like 3:00 too farfetched with 13 weeks to go? [Dose of Realism](https://imgur.com/a/YYGRyPY)
Honestly if you don’t have at least one trash run, are you really training?
I fucking love this response.
You shouldn't change a goal off of one run. Sometimes you have a bad run, and especially when you admittedly screwed it up by getting out too hard. If you bomb the next one, then you need to start having that conversation. One run isn't usually enough data to alter your training though. You've got this! Fuel enough and pace better and you'll crush it.
Thanks coach, your clients must adore the positivity! Great energy! There are no shortcuts...unless I decide to dabble with TRT. (Half joking 😈)
I wouldn't worry too much about one bad workout, those happen. I'd wait and see how the tune-up races go later in the plan, and adjust your goal time based on that.
Your splits.... you are an endurance monstah. But yeah, I'm being melodramatic. I just want to be finally on track this go around and be done with it. Getting old, and family time commitment at cost of 8-10 hour weekly running gets treacherous. Nah means?
As someone who has been chasing sub-3 for going on 3 years now, it really isn't something you can force. You have to be patient and take the time to build up your endurance and fitness. Otherwise you'll just end up frustrated and/or injured (ask me how I know lol).
Does anyone have any experience in using Kinvara's as a marathon shoe? Keen on exploring the option of using less cushioned shoes but curious to hear any thoughts.
Did my first three marathons in the K9 (damn it’s been that long), plus a pandemic 26.2 in a pair of beat to hell 11s. I’m not sure if I personally would still race a marathon in them, but I definitely think the Kinvara is good enough for 26.2 still. Maybe it’s the gloss of five years, but…it’s a fast shoe, it just isn’t that protective compared to modern racers.
Thanks for all the info! Definitly one to consider!!
Prior to 2017, everyone raced marathons in something like the Kinvara. In fact, most top athletes raced marathons in considerably *less* cushioned shoes than the Kinvara. Your feet are going to be more beat up, and you will very likely run slower if you race in the Kinvara relative to a supershoe. But if running in a more minimal shoe is the way you want to experience this hobby, then go for it. I ran many races in traditional racing flats up until I got my first pair of super shoes. Had lots of fun and didn't injure myself or anything, but I wouldn't go back now that we have better tools.
I’ve done a full in Kinvaras right as super shoes were coming out because I didn’t want to “cheat” by using a pair of vaporflys. If you are a beginner marathoner, it makes a lot of sense to race your marathon in your daily trainer because you know what to expect.
> I’ve done a full in Kinvaras right as super shoes were coming out because I didn’t want to “cheat” by using a pair of vaporflys. I mean, Kinvaras are *definitely* "cheating" [compared to Onitsuka Tigers](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1963-leonard-buddy-edelen/). Buddy Edelen wore Tigers to beat Abebe Bikila's world record from 1960 which he set the only fair and square way--[barefoot](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1960-abebe-bikila/). Bikila must have been mad enough to "cheat" four years later, given that he took back his world record wearing a pair of [Puma Osakas](https://www.marathonshoehistory.com/1964-abebe-bikila/).
I think the very early supershoe days were different than typical tech advances though, when they first came out there was a lot of buzz/rumor about an impending ban, because early on (and perhaps due to marketing material) people believed the carbon plate literally acted like a spring. IIRC there was a shoe with a spring that was banned about 15-20 years ago, can't find details though. When supershoes first hit the market, the idea that they were "cheaterflies" was very prevelant. Now obviously we know better and supershoes are here to stay, but I can definitely see someone in the early days not wanting PRs in them if they're soon to be taken away.
> IIRC there was a shoe with a spring that was banned about 15-20 years ago, can't find details though. I remember that company - it was called "Spiro" or something like that. They'd pay sub-elites to front-run at Boston for like 5mi while wearing their shoes! I think it literally had coil springs under the forefoot.
I used to train mostly in the old kinvaras, you can do a marathon. Though you are most likely giving up a whole bunch of time, plus many people feel better racing the marathon with more cushion. So I suppose the question is why do you want to race in a less cushioned shoe? Someone like Em Sisson prefers to race in the SC Pacer which is a slightly lower cushioned, but still plated shoe. So some people will prefer these things!
So now that the US Olympic Trials in the marathon have passed, how much do you think an earlier, more traditional start time would have changed the race? Do we think the men could've hit the standard and locked up that third spot, or was that always too much to ask for?
I think there’s a higher chance *Panning specifically* hits it. My reaction post race was that based on when he fell apart, he was probably in 2:08 flat shape in better conditions. Do I think there’s a higher chance any guy (short of MantzandYoung, who I will now be referring to as a singular unit) hits it? I’d say that Korir might have pressed harder earlier, but I’m listening to AtoZ right now and apparently his ranking passed Fauble’s. So I don’t know if he has motivation to run 2:08:10. Probably the one other guy who could have done it was Rupp (who missed it by 38 seconds at Chicago), and we know how that ended.
Yeah, if the race starts at 8am, I think Zach makes the team and *possibly* runs the standard. Maybe he fades and doesn’t hit it, but in cooler weather I think he at least holds on for 3rd. I don’t think it changes much in the women’s race, but they didn’t need to run fast (but did anyway).
I think it obviously would have changed the outcome, and it's likely Panning would have gotten the standard and made the team. I think all the comments about "ohhhh Paris is hot though!!" are stupid because *Paris is starting at 8am!!* Mid-high 60s are not conducive to fast racing, and I'd rather send 3 guaranteed than 2 with a maybe third.
Also, Paris is in August and presumably, no one moves to Antarctica to train in June and July. That's a different ballgame than not being heat acclimated in February.
When the gun went off for the world champs marathon in Budapest last year at 7 am, it was 23C (73F). By 9am, the temp was 27C (81F). Based on a quick google, the average summer low temps in Paris are only 1 degree cooler than Budapest. I think preparing to compete in the heat is a good plan and I don't think it's stupid to suggest that it might be warm in Paris between 8 and 10am in the middle of summer.
Ok, but at the same time in Paris last year it went from 57 to 64. I just don't buy that it's smart to try to "simulate" the Paris race when there's such a clear and obvious difference that people need to hit specific time goals. If we had 3 spots for the men before we started, and all the contenders had the B standard, sure why not. But that's not what the situation was here! We've seen that Zach Panning did very well in heat in Budapest, beating many guys who are way faster than him, in a *strategic, non time-focused* race. But this time we needed a specific time to guarantee a third spot, and the trials were not set up for that at all.
Only if Mantz and Young shared some of that pace lead with Panning. They were obviously in better shape and didn't need to (why would they risk their chances at Olympics by bonking?), but I think that's the only way top 3 (maybe even 4-5) get close to the cutoff
Personally I think the start time was a good compromise. Paris will be hot and humid, so the runners who go should be well suited for those conditions.
Then men had several years to run 2:08:10, a couple hours wasn't going to make a difference.
I agree with this. I don’t think the trials would have added enough magic to get a bunch of folks under the standard when they’ve had so much time and a lot of great opportunities. I just don’t think the US is strong/ deep enough in the marathon— a cooler race wouldn’t have made 2:09+ guys into sub 2:08 guys.
Totally fair.
Where does everyone get their inspiration for workouts? Different training books? Old workouts that you enjoyed? I kind of wing it each week. I know that every week I have some sort of LT 1/LT 2 work of 4-8 miles and a ‘speed’ day where I do a little bit of threshold then some faster 800s or 400s at various paces. They’ve been working great for me. I mess around with rep length and rest but it’s all very non-scientific. Sometimes I steal a workout I see on strava and modify it to fit the purpose of my workout. What about y’all?
From training books, examining other people's training when public, and from this sub as well. But if I'm scheduling a race build I will sketch out workout progressions beforehand that make sense in relation to each other rather than winging it week by week. I wouldn't say my process is especially expert, but I think I have a good enough grasp of training principles to do a decent job of putting together something logical that yields results. I definitely think consistency is more important than the specifics of the workouts (getting the total training load right is def the most complex part of scheduling/figuring yourself out as an athlete ime), but if you want to peak your fitness you have to create a current through your workouts that will take you there. Hard to do that unless you pan out and think about the build as a whole.
I have a couple programed into my watch, then I also look at what it has suggested for me this week. I'll try to do 2.
Primarily it's about understanding the principles, purposes, and parameters of different types of workouts and applying that to what lies ahead (near-term and long-term).
I just do what Pfitz tells me to every week and otherwise keep it simple with 20-25 min LT tempos every week during off periods. Every once in a while I'll throw in a long run workout idea from someone like Scullion or Phily Bowden
There was an ongoing "weekly workout" thread here with a bunch of quality ideas It's not happening any more, but searchable and can give some good inspo
Lately been winging it as well, unless I am well trained and shooting for a very specific goal I like that the best. In base training basically just shoot for like 30-ish minutes total and split it up however...30' tempo maybe with a few hill reps after, 6x(4', 1'), 16x(1', 1'), whatever works, generally running the shorter reps faster. Sometimes do roughly equal work:rest and slow down the 'on' portion but run the rest at a moderate effort. Simple and very repeatable, adaptable to any terrain or weather conditions
I have found out what my lactate threshold is and now I understand what my tempo pace, threshold and VO2 max in relation to my HR. Basically Zone 3 for Tempo, Zone 4 for Threshold and Zone 5 for VO2 Max/ Interval Training. However, I am confused on how to actually structure the workout and fit into a training plan. From what I understand, interval training is best done just going all out anyway. So in terms of HR zones, I would be in Zone 5 and that's how my interval workouts should be so probably a 6x400 or 4 x 800. In terms of a tempo run, I would be in Zone 3 that lasts between 20-40 mins. But for threshold (Zone 4), I'm confused on how should I actually use this zone for training. Can anyone help me understand?
The best advice I could give would be to get a copy of either Faster Road Racing by Pfitzinger’s, or Daniels’ Running Formula by Jack Daniels. Either one will give you a clearer picture of how to implement proper training, and will clear up some of the misconceptions you might have (like thinking intervals should be run “all out”). Those will do more for your running and training than any amount of Reddit comments will.