The Running Thread Vol 2

[johnwilliams77]

okgo said:

Generally in cycling the ones who bang on about long distance are the ones that can't ride quickly over short distance, I'm sure there is an element of that in all endurance sports

Certainly marathon distance and less suffers from doing lots of ultras but I know a few 2hr 45 marathoners and slightly quicker and they can all do 17min or below 5km and equally good 3km's. The difference will become more noticeable at the professional level, of course.

I can do late 18's now for 5km and marathon last year was around 3hrs 30.

[lufbramatt]

There is a practical aspect as well though which I think puts a lot of people off. I love being able to put on a pair of running shoes and train from my front door, no driving anywhere. I think to train properly for anything under 5km race distance you need to be on the track. Yes you can do interval work on the street or round parks but it's so hard to get the consistency and other external factors affect your focus. Heading to the track 2-3 times a week, with the travel, time and expense it incurs is a big commitment. Longer distances are more convenient to train for in that respect.

[The jiffle king]

johnwilliams77 said:

Certainly marathon distance and less suffers from doing lots of ultras but I know a few 2hr 45 marathoners and slightly quicker and they can all do 17min or below 5km and equally good 3km's. The difference will become more noticeable at the professional level, of course.

I can do late 18's now for 5km and marathon last year was around 3hrs 30.

I know a few sub 2:45 marathon runners and 2 of them are 17:00 for 5k and 1 is 17:35 for 5k. Of course another guy who ran 2:45:04 is a 15:48 5km runner, and he is 58kg!! Generally though I think you are right, 17mins for 5km works out to about a 2:45 marathon

The interesting (to me) difference is what you have to run a half in to hit 2:45, 3:00, 3:30, 4:00 at a marathon. For many years my old club talked about 1:16, 1:23, 1:35 and 1:50 as the targets

I'd say that your marathon time is way above what I would expect given high 18's for 5k

[Cybertronian]

The jiffle king said:

The interesting (to me) difference is what you have to run a half in to hit 2:45, 3:00, 3:30, 4:00 at a marathon. For many years my old club talked about 1:16, 1:23, 1:35 and 1:50 as the targets

Funnily enough, that's a topic that a few friends and I recently discussed. As a recent victim of the conversion, I wholeheartedly agree on the 1:23 half being a pre-requisite for a sub-3 marathon, along with appropriate training.

Of course, there are always outliers in both directions. One such friend achieved 2:58:04 when his half marathon PB was only 85:58. In the other direction, another friend can run 2:53 for the marathon, but is only pushing out 1:25 in half marathons and can't even get under 19 minutes for 5k!

[okgo]

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx...

This chap I see often, he was a decent cyclist too (in ability stakes). His volume when not injured was nuts, he's on strava, but I'd be amazed if many did as much.

[johnwilliams77]

The jiffle king said:

I know a few sub 2:45 marathon runners and 2 of them are 17:00 for 5k and 1 is 17:35 for 5k. Of course another guy who ran 2:45:04 is a 15:48 5km runner, and he is 58kg!! Generally though I think you are right, 17mins for 5km works out to about a 2:45 marathon

The interesting (to me) difference is what you have to run a half in to hit 2:45, 3:00, 3:30, 4:00 at a marathon. For many years my old club talked about 1:16, 1:23, 1:35 and 1:50 as the targets

I'd say that your marathon time is way above what I would expect given high 18's for 5k

I think you're right, re: my time. Although there was some time between the marathon and the 5km (3/4months). The jack daniels running bible and another I think say do not attempt the sub 3hr plan if you cannot complete a 5km in under 19min as a minimum, ideally, low 18's/17's.

I would say those targets / numbers are close enough....everyone has different strength. Certainly the running race time predictors on garmin are absolute tosh!

[johnwilliams77]

okgo said:

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx...

This chap I see often, he was a decent cyclist too (in ability stakes). His volume when not injured was nuts, he's on strava, but I'd be amazed if many did as much.

Incredible pace and endurance. I can dream.

[The jiffle king]

johnwilliams77 said:

okgo said:

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx...

This chap I see often, he was a decent cyclist too (in ability stakes). His volume when not injured was nuts, he's on strava, but I'd be amazed if many did as much.

Incredible pace and endurance. I can dream.

He ran 2:24 on 2nd April for a marathon and then 2:23 in London 3 weeks later.....

He lso has taken 30 seconds off his parkruns every year.....

[okgo]

The jiffle king said:

He ran 2:24 on 2nd April for a marathon and then 2:23 in London 3 weeks later.....

He lso has taken 30 seconds off his parkruns every year.....

In his training he was running nearly 20 miles a day in the run up mind you, so suppose a mara wouldn't take as much out of him.

[tenohfive]

lufbramatt said:

There seems to be a bit of a thing in running where marathons are seen as a kind of blue riband event to aspire to, but running shorter distances faster is just as hard to be good at. So if it suits your build and muscle makeup to aim to smash it over 5k or shorter it's just as respectable as doing 24 miles.

I've only really seen this from non-runners or those just starting out running. Most people that I think of as runners (the ones who keep doing it, for fun - pace/distance irrelevant) discuss time spent training more than any other metric. Hence why Strava works - peer pressure to get out the door. Most recognise that there really are different challenges associated with different distances, and that you'll suffer more collective pain in your training than you will during your race.

But I'm going to be a little bit controversial here (and I open this up to contrary views) - I do think that all else being equal, a marathon is harder than a 5k and a decent ultra is harder than a marathon.
I will say that this is on the proviso of max effort - trying to go as fast as you can over the distance you're racing.

In some ways I think the different challenges suit different people - some can manage steady, high pain better and not slack off but fall apart when faced with an unexpected problem or discomfort (injury/the sts) and vice versa. And I know that people much slower than me have suffered way more than I have over the same distance - I was running faster, maybe even harder - but you really can't underrate how much the cumulative exhaustion multiplies other suffering, and that comes from time of effort.

I do wonder if things like Suffer Score/TRIMP can go some way to putting numbers to the pain - running longer you're generally running more easily. But you still end up in Zone 4 for significant periods of time (almost as much in my last ultra as I'd expect to when I do my first marathon.) It makes me wonder that if it were possible to measure pain quantitatively, would we be able to say that more accumulates over x distance than y distance?
And who knows how much individual preference affects perceived pain?

Probably the biggest reason that I pick ultras for focus races is the misery. I've rarely been so absolutely miserable as during dark patches in an ultra where I'd stuffed up something - nutrition, injury prevention, pacing, gear or a combination. Where I've been inches from pulling out and voluntarily DNF'ing. Finishing those races, the high was unbelievable. Largely because I'd never been so close to quitting but gutted it out - I'd run closer than ever before to my limit, run through the misery and not given up. Amazing feeling.

And since I'm trying to push the idea of doing longer distance, I'll mention this - when you've got to plan ahead of time to prevent issues with kit, injury, fuelling, navigation, pacing and all the other things that often go wrong - it changes them beyond just a running challenge. They become very 3-dimensional. And all that planning is like window shopping for me - you can really ramp up the anticipation.

Brass tacks though, whether you use distance or time as your willy measuring ruler it's all a bit meaningless anyway. You're not going to be the big fish (unless your surname is Bekele or similar.) It's about finding your limits. Indulging yourself by comparing yourself to others is nice, and it's nice to polish the ego - but you're really running against yourself. My money just says that once you've found your limits at 5km, finding them at 100km will be a more traumatic experience than the other way round.

[lufbramatt]

tenohfive said:

But I'm going to be a little bit controversial here (and I open this up to contrary views) - I do think that all else being equal, a marathon is harder than a 5k and a decent ultra is harder than a marathon.
I will say that this is on the proviso of max effort - trying to go as fast as you can over the distance you're racing.

In some ways I think the different challenges suit different people - some can manage steady, high pain better and not slack off but fall apart when faced with an unexpected problem or discomfort (injury/the sts) and vice versa. And I know that people much slower than me have suffered way more than I have over the same distance - I was running faster, maybe even harder - but you really can't underrate how much the cumulative exhaustion multiplies other suffering, and that comes from time of effort.

Good points.

From my experience as a middle distance runner I would find it very hard putting in lots and lots of hours/miles per week getting the endurance work in for long distance events. So for me I agree it would be harder. But I used to relish a hard track session, say 10x 200m reps @ 800m race pace with 1 min recoveries. They hurt. But I used to run in a closely matched group and the friendly competition made it great fun. it would be interesting to see how an ultra distance runner would get on running fast reps on the track.

When I did my 1500m PB I know I went as hard as I could- the worst lactate burn ever followed by throwing up 20 mins later. When you're on the start line you know you're going to have to go to that place but for some reason you still start running when the gun goes.

Some people excel at getting to that place in 4 minutes, some are better at stringing it out over multiple hours. It's still the same mindset once you're at the point where you know you can go that deep.

This year I want to get down near 17 mins for a 5k. Not amazing in the grand scheme of things but it's a realistic target for me, and as you say you're only really running against yourself. (unless you're into winning local 10k races for bottles of cheap wine). The days of doing sub 4 min 1500m races are behind me as with a young family I can't afford the time to do the speed work.

Edited by lufbramatt on Thursday 18th January 15:18

[Smitters]

The jiffle king said:

Witnessed a robbery at the end of my 10 mile run yesterday. 2 men went into a shop and grabbed the bag of a woman. I'd gone past by the time it happened, but went back and helped lock the gates at the front, but they hopped over a back wall. Woman was very shaken up and they took her car as the key was in the bag.

Crikey. That's not ideal. Hope you remembered to pause your watch...

Not sure what the weirdest thing I've had happen on a run is. Thankfully peaceful and drama free. Kudos for going back.

Anyway, the main post point is hurrah - first "run" after a four week chest infection, which was timed quite nicely to help me recover from shinsplints.

Anyhoo - I did 20 mins walking, 20 mins very easy running - 7min/km easy and then finished with ten more mins walking. My HR during the running was much higher than I'd like, so I'm clearly not recovered from the infection fully, but it feels so good that the physio exercises have paid off and I'm back moving again. I can go from here to a marathon in 14 weeks, right?

[smn159]

Smitters said:

I can go from here to a marathon in 14 weeks, right?

If it's London, then I make it 13 1/2 weeks

Of course you can
What does your training plan look like?

[tenohfive]

lufbramatt said:

Good points.

From my experience as a middle distance runner I would find it very hard putting in lots and lots of hours/miles per week getting the endurance work in for long distance events. So for me I agree it would be harder. But I used to relish a hard track session, say 10x 200m reps @ 800m race pace with 1 min recoveries. They hurt. But I used to run in a closely matched group and the friendly competition made it great fun. it would be interesting to see how an ultra distance runner would get on running fast reps on the track.

Some of the top US ultrarunners (Walmsley, Freriks etc) come from a track background so there are plenty that make the jump. Although there's no typical ultrarunner - there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how important speed work is in ultras, with even mates (and top UK ultrarunners) like James Elson and Dan Lawson taking different approaches to the subject.

But how someone would perform - and how much they would hurt (i.e. how hard it would be) in a track session are of course two different things. There's no doubt that a volume orientated runner wouldn't be as quick, but then that's comparing apples with oranges - if they were as quick, it would suggest that targeted training does little and that performance is purely based on how strong your engine is.

Since we're touching on performance, during a very dry podcast in which a Swiss performance scientist was interviewed he stated that based on their studies - purely of performance data - the 3 key performance indicators of top performing ultramarathons were marathon PB, speed in training and body fat percentage. Marathoners I've seen jump to ultras seem to have few fitness issues, just occasionally technical ones. It's made me seriously consider doing a marathon training plan in order to improve my own performance at ultras.

[Smitters]

smn159 said:

Smitters said:

I can go from here to a marathon in 14 weeks, right?

If it's London, then I make it 13 1/2 weeks

Of course you can
What does your training plan look like?

Newport, then a local trailie two weeks after that. My plan is:

1) don't get injured.
2) vaguely consider some running.
3) if in doubt, see point 1.

I did 20 mins today and the shin is a bit sore. I could be in for an emotional back half of the race...

[johnwilliams77]

Interesting discussion gents - short stuff v's longer. Lots of points raised better than I could have...

[AbzST64]

Smitters said:

smn159 said:

Smitters said:

I can go from here to a marathon in 14 weeks, right?

If it's London, then I make it 13 1/2 weeks

Of course you can
What does your training plan look like?

Newport, then a local trailie two weeks after that. My plan is:

1) don't get injured.
2) vaguely consider some running.
3) if in doubt, see point 1.

I did 20 mins today and the shin is a bit sore. I could be in for an emotional back half of the race...

Yip i have London the Glen Lyon Ultra 2 weeks later...! Going for a sub 3 at London so will see how good my recovery is but yes my main aim also is don't get injured...don't get injured...don't get injured!

[boyse7en]

My first post-injury speed(ish) session last night.

3 reps of 300m @ 5k pace with faster pace back to the start then 1 minute recovery

Did three lots of that and was completely hanging by the end.


The good news was that my glutes didn't hurt too badly. Bad news is that i'm seriously slower than i used to be.

[onedsla]

Funny timing to return to this topic to see the PoT profile of a former training partner (currently injured) and lots of marathon talk.

I've been struggling with injury for 4 years now. Seems as soon as I get fit, something breaks. Had some horrible PF, two stress fractures and, most recently, Achilles tendon problems.

I used to be in the 16:57/76/2:44 category but, over the years, learned how the marathon works and what my body needs to get there. Most recently I converted a 76:28 half into a 2:28 marathon a month later. Had I tapered more for the half and had more luck on that day, perhaps I could have run 70-71, so still achieved a 'double + 6-8' conversion which is about right for times in this ballpark and should be achievable for all. Incidentally I'd broken 15mins for 5km 8 weeks before that marathon,so perhaps there's not much difference between being 'fast' and being 'fit'.

Marathon experience, and in particular understanding your own body's reaction to training are very important factors. Whilst training from a text book gives you an idea of structure, the text book plan knows nothing about you, your background or how you're feeling on a certain day. Besides, most read to me like a 10km plan with a long run bolted on.

Anyway, I finally had a good 4 months of consistent training and beginning to resume my interest in running.

Created a long term target of running Berlin 2020 marathon, a month or so after I turn 40. To get a guaranteed place, I needed a sub 2:45 marathon in 2018 or 2019. Figured the easiest / most convenient (and probably cheapest) place to do that was London, and might as well do it sooner rather than later.

But to get into London you need a qualifying time - but thankfully there's a half marathon qualification available for the lazy. Picked a local-ish half and set out to run under 75mins. Surprisingly I found myself winning by a 30 second margin in a high 72; pleasing given poor preparation and sub optimal course / conditions. This inspired me to start training properly in anticipation of a very hard 6-8 week block in Feb/March/April.

Going well so far with 70-80 miles per week of volume. I don't run anything faster than target pace, and at the moment I'm limiting that to 10km/35mins. Would be great to bounce back and challenge 2:30, but family, work and body constraints are holding me back vs my younger days. Will hope my theory on experience holds true!

[johnwilliams77]

Wow, extremely impressive. All the best for that marathon, I am sure you will smash it. Any other insights are most welcome!