Running a marathon with no specific trainng

--amadeus--

I haven't come across any formal studies on HR Drift as such but it would be interesting to read (or research). It does seem to be one of those unquestioned beliefs though, I suppose we all know that if we measure our HR over a set distance and a given time we will see the average HR fall as we get fitter.

Hypothetical example though - a runner has a max HR of 200. Starts a marathon well within themselves and at a target pace of (for example) 8 min/miles and with a HR of 150. If after 15 miles fatigue sets in and his HR "drifts" by 5 beats per mile then by mile 20 he is working at over 87% of his MHR (rather than a comfortable 75% at the start). That level is unsustainable regardless of how strong the legs are feeling. Knowing at the end of a 20 mile training run that your heart has increased by an average of x beats per mile helps you plan your strategy accordingly. That said I don't think that is an issue here - the crossfit training means he has good CV fitness and it's his legs that need the conditioning.

Bang on about people depending on HR monitors too much though - in fact all the gadgets and gizmos (GPS watches, virtual training partners, nike / iPod link ups, HR monitors) tend to be used as crutches to a greater or lesser extent. No technical t-shirt or gee-whizz trainers ever completed a marathon on thier own!

brianon

Week 3 done and dusted. More of the same really.
Mid week run was 6 miles. Saturdays run was 20 miles.

A bit stiff by the end but not too bad once I got a cold bath/shower. Felt a little stiff yesterday but almost 100% fine now.

Time was 2:57 so pretty slow. Heading for sub 4 hours alright but Connemara will be a lot tougher. Could have run it quicker for sure.

In fact I am finding that if I go too slow (about 8:45+min mile pace) it seems tougher than when I run what seems a more natural slightly faster pace. But I don't want to be in 10 miles into a marathon to discover I've gone out too quick

--amadeus--

Another good run, the consecutive weeks of long runs will be doing you the world of good (it's as if you're on a proper schedule!! )

Everyone has a natural pace that they feel comfortable running at and running more slowly than that (on your long runs for example) does feel weird at first. Keep with it though - you really don't want to set off to fast on the day and ruin all the good work so far.

brianon

Well. A long time since I posted but with only a few days left I'll do a little summary.

9 weeks of training....
Total Mileage thus far: 171m (maybe 3/4 more this week).

Complete rest on Week 5. Resumed training Week 6 but only ran once on that weekend. This was due to a foot injury...or at least the start of one and I decided to rest rather than risk it.

Total runs were...16.
Also 4 speedwork sessions.
Also 4 Rowing specific sessions of Easy/Hard intervals (about 25minutes each session)
All other work was Crossfit.

Have to say that for the last few weeks the training has been sporadic. Anywhere from 2 to 5 sessions a week. Due to all sorts of things.


Anyway,
the long runs were...
16, 18, 20, 11, 0, 13, 15, 13, 10.

Wk 4 should have been 15. Foot was getting very sore so finished the run early. Wk 5 was supposed to be 20 but felt the foot needed another week. Other than those two the longs runs went pretty much to schedule.

the short (mid-week) runs were...
8, 8, 6, 10, 0, 0, 5 + 5, 8, 6.

Wk 7 I ran mid-week and the day afer the long run also.

Thats where I am today. Crossfit tonight. Row tomorrow. Short run Wed. Crossfit Thursday.


So the plan I had initiialy seems to have been followed more closely than I later planned to. Its just how it panned out really.

Will let you know how it goes

--amadeus--

Well whatever has been done has been done, no point fretting over lost runs now.

The only advice I'll offer is to start 15 - 30 secs per mile slower than you think you can run. I haven't run Conn but I do know that the second half is tougher than the first so you'll need to conserve some energy. And it's better to finish strongly passing people than weakly and being passed!

Best of luck and let us know how you do...

brianon

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Well whatever has been done has been done, no point fretting over lost runs now.

The only advice I'll offer is to start 15 - 30 secs per mile slower than you think you can run. I haven't run Conn but I do know that the second half is tougher than the first so you'll need to conserve some energy. And it's better to finish strongly passing people than weakly and being passed!

Best of luck and let us know how you do...

That sounds like a plan I might just stick to

brianon

Well had a great day yesterday. Injury held up pretty well and only had to walk to for a couple of minutes around mile 22/23 to rub the ole quads before they cramped up.

Was v.sore afterwards and v.stiff today . No lon term damage I think

Managed to meet my goal of sub 4 hours as well 3:58:49 by my watch.

So 171mile in 10 weeks with some rowing and lots of crossfit. Happy today.

Thanks to all who gave me advice. All much appreciated.

Racing Flat

That's a great time on 17miles a week and limited long runs. Well done. Hope you're not too sore for too long.
Now I wonder how fast you could go with more mileage????

hunnymonster

Congratulations.

brianon

Racing Flat wrote: »

That's a great time on 17miles a week and limited long runs. Well done. Hope you're not too sore for too long.
Now I wonder how fast you could go with more mileage????

Don't you mean...how much slower I'd be ?

copacetic

brianon wrote: »

Well had a great day yesterday. Injury held up pretty well and only had to walk to for a couple of minutes around mile 22/23 to rub the ole quads before they cramped up.

Was v.sore afterwards and v.stiff today . No lon term damage I think

Managed to meet my goal of sub 4 hours as well 3:58:49 by my watch.

So 171mile in 10 weeks with some rowing and lots of crossfit. Happy today.

Thanks to all who gave me advice. All much appreciated.

well done.

aburke

Fair play.
Thought you were nuts to take it on like you did.

Alan

--amadeus--

Well done!

I agree I thought you were nuts but I think the adapted plan was a good mix of running and cross training, it's just a shame that injury and niggles disrupted it a bit.

As outside observers I think we all thought that stamina and recovery would be the issues that more long runs would have probably helped you avoid. That said it was good going to only need one short walk break.

What I think you've proved is that intensive aerobic cross training can compensate for fewer runs than a traditional plan (something close-ish to the Furman Institute program of 1 long run, 1 shorter run and 1 speed session per week in fact). A variation on what you've done could be ideal for an injury prone runner (or a wannabe marathon runner who hates running!).

Well done again!

thirtyfoot

Well done brianon on meeting your target and especially with the late injury scare it proves you are a gutsy fecker to have got through, maybe the bang your head against the wall tabata sessions have a purpose for a marathon runner!

--amadeus-- wrote: »

What I think you've proved is that intensive aerobic cross training can compensate for fewer runs than a traditional plan (something close-ish to the Furman Institute program of 1 long run, 1 shorter run and 1 speed session per week in fact). A variation on what you've done could be ideal for an injury prone runner (or a wannabe marathon runner who hates running!).

Unfortunately we can't presume that this plan works as well as a traditional program as there is no control to compare to. Perhaps if brianon followed a traditional plan next year for the same timeframe and compared to this years run that would be very interesting, any chance brianon?:D I'd be from the Seb Coe school of "long slow runs make long slow runners" but your program seems to have been the extreme convenience store EuroSpar version instead of the more respected Superquinn version but at the end of the day the smell of freshly baked I finished the marathon bread is the same whether its EuroSpar or Superquinn (thats a bit cantona seagull there I know!), even though Superquinn does taste better and would probably get you a 3:30:)

When I compare a program like this to what I'm more used to (sprints/middle distance), following a massively curtailed volume program and focusing on quality only in these track events is asking for trouble and you will get found out in relation to guys you should be beating. You may finish the 400 or 1500 in a decent time but not as fast as you could and I'm thinking the same for a marathon. Running training in all distances does follow the pyramid structure in some way and if the base and foundation isn't strong you won't get as high as you can.

Brianon - did you get any mile splits as this would be interesting to look at too?

--amadeus--

Tingle wrote: »

Unfortunately we can't presume that this plan works as well as a traditional program as there is no control to compare to.

To clarify I wasn't suggesting that the crossfit worked as well as a "proper" running program, just that it would compensate (to some degree) for the lack of miles. It would be interesting to see how Brian got on with a "proper" schedule though!

Generally I'd agree though, lacking a strong base and foundation you will be beaten by people you shouldn't be beaten by. Perhaps even more so in endurance events than shorter track stuff? Regardless though it depends on your motivation - getting through a marathon with minimal running? This worked in this case. Completing a marathon as fast as possible? I'll stick to a higher mileage program as it's been proven time and time again to work.

hunnymonster

Brianon, what is next for you?

Odysseus

Congrats mate, glad to hear to finished it.

brianon

Only just getting online for the first time in a few days

Anyway...

Thanks for all the support

What I think you've proved is that intensive aerobic cross training can compensate for fewer runs than a traditional plan (something close-ish to the Furman Institute program of 1 long run, 1 shorter run and 1 speed session per week in fact).

CrossFit is as much about anaerobic (probably more so the way I followed it) as it is about aerobic. Yeah, I pretty much got my running stuff from the Furman programme. Except I ended up only doing the two runs - time constraints that come with having a young daughter

Unfortunately we can't presume that this plan works as well as a traditional program as there is no control to compare to. Perhaps if brianon followed a traditional plan next year for the same timeframe and compared to this years run that would be very interesting, any chance brianon? I'd be from the Seb Coe school of "long slow runs make long slow runners" but your program seems to have been the extreme convenience store EuroSpar version instead of the more respected Superquinn version but at the end of the day the smell of freshly baked I finished the marathon bread is the same whether its EuroSpar or Superquinn (thats a bit cantona seagull there I know!), even though Superquinn does taste better and would probably get you a 3:30

When I compare a program like this to what I'm more used to (sprints/middle distance), following a massively curtailed volume program and focusing on quality only in these track events is asking for trouble and you will get found out in relation to guys you should be beating. You may finish the 400 or 1500 in a decent time but not as fast as you could and I'm thinking the same for a marathon. Running training in all distances does follow the pyramid structure in some way and if the base and foundation isn't strong you won't get as high as you can.

Brianon - did you get any mile splits as this would be interesting to look at too?

Well while its not possible to compare my training results to that of say a Hal Higdon plan I can compare my results to that of 2003 when I followed Hals programme for 3/4 months before getting ITBS.

Back in '03 I ran two half marathons...Longford (1:50) & Dublin (1:45).
My Connemara run had me at 1:55 I think for the half. Mind you I had 3 pee breaks in the first half which cost me near 3 minutes

The half times from '03 were actual races. Had I had another 13.1 to go in those then I would have been MUCH slower on those. On Sunday I was comfortable enough after 13.1. I reckon I could easily enough match my '03 times in a similar circumstance. But hard to say for sure unless I ... go again

Brianon, what is next for you?

Well the running bug has not bitten ... BUT... I might be interested in seeing what I could do in a 5 mile/10 mile/13.1 mile race to see just how this training does compare to a traditional plan. I think I'll enter the Addidas series of races for the Dublin marathon and see how they go.

I won't do ANY extra running at all. So other than the few 10k/5k runs as part of my normal CF training I won't do any running for these.

TBH I think I peaked too early. I think I could have ran the marathon the day I ran my first 20 miler. I reckon if I do decide to do the Dublin marathon I'll just do like 5 weeks training. No taper.

A good solid 5 months of CrossFit (and Tag Rugby) should see me ready for that.

I think next week I'll do a CrossFit Total workout. Its where you perform Squats, Deadlifts & Standing Press. You get three attempts at each (plus full warmup) in one session. Your best in each is your score. You then add em together to get your Total. I want to see how much my score has come down over the past few months.

Again. Thanks for the support.

And the Tabata stuff, besides being a great form of exercise...it certainly did help build a bit of mental toughness that got me through the last few tough miles in a reasonable time

*As for mile splits...
1st Half: All sub 9 except for 3 toilet breaks.
13->22: Mostly around 8:30.
23/24/25: 10:00/11:00(walked some)/9:30/9:45.
+ a FAST last .2. Which I will probably pay feel for some time to come

Looks like I faded over the last few but if you've not run Connemara...there is a SAVAGE hill near the end that could make you cry

Best Lap ? Mile 21 (8:18)