The Sub 3 Support Thread

Swashbuckler

AuldManKing wrote:

I follow a plan as a template - sometimes I change a workout because my body isn't able for it or life gets in the way. The next day I look at the plan/template and go with it.

Out of curiosity (because I can't remember) have you always done this or did the year of coaching help you make more informed assessments?

eyrie

Don't know what I'm doing posting in the sub-3 thread but here goes

El CabaIIo wrote: »

I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?

I think you're addressing the question to the people who have already been debating this, but from the outside and from the perspective of someone like me who is newer to all of this it seems like there's huge common ground.

I think there are lots of runners here and in general who don't yet have the experience to confidently make changes to plans. Maybe some of us are starting to know a bit more about how we work and what suits us, but it's a slow learning curve. Plans are useful or we wouldn't have a clue what to do when we went out the door with our runners on, but I personally would much rather be able to make adjustments based on individual knowledge if/when I have that knowledge. It just makes sense I think. So personally I agree with your approach, and would like to be able to utilise it more than I am.

The problem I encounter, which you referred to earlier I think, is that it seems overwhelming at times. There's so much information, and some of it contradictory too. The best way I've found so far to learn and make sense of some of it is from reading posts here from people whose knowledge and opinions I've come to trust, and digging back through the archives. And in many cases, it is from conversations like these that I can start to learn something. I've already learned that training by time rather than distance works better for me, and similarly training by effort over pace (though not always easy to judge) seems preferable, so in any plan I am following I would rather trust my own judgment on that. But it can be hard to know when you're getting it right or not along the way.

Ray's post above seemed spot on in terms of connecting to what I have experienced:

RayCun wrote: »

For example, a common thing in marathon training is to reach a point where you feel exhausted. Do you follow the plan or change it?

If you are an experienced runner, you can make a judgement on whether this level of fatigue is normal, or is a sign of over-reaching, or is less fatigue than usual.

If you are an experienced coach you can compare how your athlete is doing to how previous athletes have done.

If you don't have either experience, you can't really tell. A plan might say "it is normal to be tired" but can't tell you exactly how tired is normal. So you follow through the plan or you adjust it, and at the end you have learned something to use next time.

It's confusing being in that third category of "not really sure what's going on here or if this is how it's meant to feel". More information helps, but the real knowledge probably comes from applying that information to practice and gaining experience. To be honest, I think that's what most people who post here probably try to do, otherwise we wouldn't all spend so much time thinking and talking about running.

Huzzah!

I'm only here because my Hanson spidey senses were tingling, but this debate is gold and worthy of a thread in its own right.

shotgunmcos

RayCun wrote: »

" why is it that people don't have the knowledge to follow a plan or self-coach?"

Following a plan is what you do when you don't have the knowledge.

Self-coaching, or changing a plan, is where knowledge comes in handy.

For example, a common thing in marathon training is to reach a point where you feel exhausted. Do you follow the plan or change it?

If you are an experienced runner, you can make a judgement on whether this level of fatigue is normal, or is a sign of over-reaching, or is less fatigue than usual.

If you are an experienced coach you can compare how your athlete is doing to how previous athletes have done.

If you don't have either experience, you can't really tell. A plan might say "it is normal to be tired" but can't tell you exactly how tired is normal. So you follow through the plan or you adjust it, and at the end you have learned something to use next time.

I agree with most of what you say Ray but experience alone doesn't account for learning. I've seen people shell money out to coaches year after year, take the lessons but apply none of it and keep coming back. The coaches become as disillusioned.

At least you have a chance with a coach, if you are listening. Generic plans don't talk back but it should be understood that its a structure to be applied to every individual, individually. The ability to listen to ones own body and adapt to what the plan has in front of you is the key skill. I'd still challenge if experienced runners can pin point the symptoms of overreaching, and take appropriate action! Luckily here on boards we have curious people following our logs and keeping us accountable

I like how Hansons described the LR as being 25% of weekly volume and max of 30%. Since most people tend to backend the week with the LR you know what volume you put in during the week and should know if the 16 or more mile is risk. But even reading the book over and over doesn't trump experience, and experience doesn't trump learning. Some could learn more about themselves off 1 marathon cycle than another could off 10.

RayCun

I was on my phone earlier so I couldn't write much...

El CabaIIo wrote: »

Pfitzinger is a perfect example of some of the stuff I'm talking about. a) because he never trained like that(listen to some of the top runners over on letsrun who trained with him and the problems with that plan). b) mileage based plans always lead to trouble when marketted at everyone from a 2:30 maarathon to 4 hour marathon. Pfitz methodology makes sense but it doesn't fit everyone perfectly just because they can run the requisite mileage. A big example is the 6/7 mile tempos at LT:

Just on this, I think mileage in the Pfitz plans is a proxy for ability. The low-mileage plans are for slower runners, the higher mileage for faster runners.

I don't have the plan to look at, but I'm guessing if someone has a problem running 6/7 mile tempos, there are going to be a whole lot of other things in the plan that cause problems, it isn't just one session to adjust.

El CabaIIo wrote: »

I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?

I don't think we're polar opposites. It's like those galaxy brain memes (I of course am the galaxy brain :pac:)

Tiny brain - Follow the plan

Expanding brain - Understand the training philosophy and use it to adjust the plan

Galaxy brain - Have the experience to know when it is necessary to adjust the plan, in line with the training philosophy

The Hansons provide a plan, which is the output of a training philosophy. You have to understand the philosophy to understand the plan.

BUT to know whether to choose that plan over Magness, Pfitz, Higdon, a plan written by Gary O'Hanlon... you can't just read more and more of the philosophy behind each plan. You have to have the experience to think, "My weaknesses are this type of run, but I'm good at that type of run, how is this plan going to work for me?", or "Last year the group I coached followed a plan based on Magness. Who did it work for? Do I need to adjust it for some people? Should I start over with something based on Hanson?"

(And a complicating factor is that pretty much everyone will improve if they train consistently from a low level, so you can't just think "I went from 4:00 to 3:30 with Pfitz, therefor Pfitz is great (or great for other people going from 4:00 to 3:30)"

RayCun

shotgunmcos wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say Ray but experience alone doesn't account for learning.

:pac:
oh completely, some people could run into the same brick wall every day without learning from it. And experienced runners aren't immune to over-reaching by any means, any more than having an experienced coach means you'll never get injured. But it can help!

El CabaIIo

Just on this, I think mileage in the Pfitz plans is a proxy for ability. The low-mileage plans are for slower runners, the higher mileage for faster runners.

I don't have the plan to look at, but I'm guessing if someone has a problem running 6/7 mile tempos, there are going to be a whole lot of other things in the plan that cause problems, it isn't just one session to adjust.

Yes, they will have problems across the whole plan but even a single sessions is enough to add serios repercussions nevermind adding all the other flaws in. 7 mile tempos are a staple of Pfitz across the board iirc so the mileage doesn't really matter as the stress and recovery will be similar for someone who is only running 55mpw vs 75mpw. I'm using the tempo as the blindingly obvious case to illustrate my point, I'm not going to attempt to deconstruct a whole plan here:)

I don't think we're polar opposites. It's like those galaxy brain memes (I of course am the galaxy brain :pac:)

Tiny brain - Follow the plan

Expanding brain - Understand the training philosophy and use it to adjust the plan

Galaxy brain - Have the experience to know when it is necessary to adjust the plan, in line with the training philosophy

The Hansons provide a plan, which is the output of a training philosophy. You have to understand the philosophy to understand the plan.

BUT to know whether to choose that plan over Magness, Pfitz, Higdon, a plan written by Gary O'Hanlon... you can't just read more and more of the philosophy behind each plan. You have to have the experience to think, "My weaknesses are this type of run, but I'm good at that type of run, how is this plan going to work for me?", or "Last year the group I coached followed a plan based on Magness. Who did it work for? Do I need to adjust it for some people? Should I start over with something based on Hanson?"

(And a complicating factor is that pretty much everyone will improve if they train consistently from a low level, so you can't just think "I went from 4:00 to 3:30 with Pfitz, therefor Pfitz is great (or great for other people going from 4:00 to 3:30)"

So if we are not polar opposites, what do we have? This was the one question I asked but you dodged it. They problem I see with the galaxy brain meme is that you've included the ability to interpret a plan and added to experience. I know I'm been awkward as fook here but couldn't you put the evolving brain as just experienced based instead and do a switcheroo on that theory above.

What I mean by this is that I don't believe one is more important than the other as your magness post and my reply to FBOT was saying. We are literally saying the exact same thing. It's why I asked that question. You see, you're not looking at what I'm saying, you are just going he is the science guy and I'm saying you are the experience guy but it's the identical, one doesn't exist without the other. Especially when I'm always preconcieved as the science guy when I have literally never used a training plan in my life and I've had to learn through both experience and understanding when I've always been self coached or coached from the first day I ran and had to learn everything the hard way.

Can we not check our bias at the door here and look at the content rather than notions? I'm sorry if this comes across as OTT but that is the way I see this thread evolving. Here is the Magness post you wrote again:

It's like his discussion on balancing scientific research and practical experience. If you don't pay attention to the science, you end up doing the same sessions as everyone has always done, because that's what everyone has always done. Too much attention to the science and you jump on things that have been tested for six weeks on a group of novice runners, that of course aren't going to be applicable to the people you coach.

You have to strike the balance between being open to new training ideas and being able to observe how those ideas are working out in practice, either as applied to your own running or applied to the people you coach. And being able to observe that requires that you have a good idea of what the alternative is, how people would be developing under a different plan.

And here's a paragraph I wrote in response to FBOT 5 pages before:

I think it's something that works both ways re Experience/understanding the philosophy. I think that's why they devote so much time in the books to try and get people to understand the why's and when's of the method and why we end up here discussing these things in detail.

Training is always going to be interpretation and opinion driven. Some people are experience driven, others are scientifically driven and you have a glut of people in between who borrow bits from each.

What I do stick by and believe is that reading about the training in the books is more valuable than the plan so you can stand on the shoulders of those before you and avoid making as many mistakes as possible you learn the hard way through experience. Does that knowledge of training more valuable than experience as a whole? No in my opinion but they are just more valuable in different ways.

I'm not sure how we ended up this far away for the original point which was is it better to run through a generic plan blindfolded first and gain experience from what goes wrong or to try and understand the training first and avoid as many pitfalls as you can from that gained knowledge. And surely, we can agree there is only one answer to this?

KSU

Not really to sure what exactly people are arguing here persay but my 2c

Generic plans are designed on the premise that everything goes according to plan, as such those who are successful on them are the ones whose background fits with the approach rather than the plan or philosophy itself. In my experience every time I have see a presentation from the likes of Hanson, Daniels,Canova, Lydiard etc. etc when dealing in specific cases it would directly contradict peoples interpretations (or indeed a coaches writings)

Coaching comes into play in tweaking it when things don't line up perfectly, in this regard the best athletes don't show a coach to be good it is often the athletes who don't fit conventional plans. Majority of people either don't stay with a plan or the sport long enough to make these tweaks in the current instant gratification society, as such coaching has become an obsolete skill for the most part in the sport (even those that call themselves a coach wouldn't truly fit this mold)

Everyone should interpret as many plans as possible to make a more educated choice initially even if they don't have the knowledge to tweak. It is the first stage in a persons development. I would say personally that not many of us make it through stage 2-3 in our whole running careers.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.habitsforwellbeing.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FHfW-Stages-of-Learning-300x289.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.habitsforwellbeing.com%2Fstages-of-learning%2F&docid=rnmzlqnln20qZM&tbnid=y5WvUUy19K3d3M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjGnsLamvDgAhUMkRQKHXLfDTgQMwhNKAAwAA..i&w=300&h=289&bih=913&biw=1280&q=5%20stages%20of%20learning&ved=0ahUKEwjGnsLamvDgAhUMkRQKHXLfDTgQMwhNKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

RayCun

El CabaIIo wrote: »

So if we are not polar opposites, what do we have? This was the one question I asked but you dodged it. They problem I see with the galaxy brain meme is that you've included the ability to interpret a plan and added to experience. I know I'm been awkward as fook here but couldn't you put the evolving brain as just experienced based instead and do a switcheroo on that theory above.

Yes, you could say it is a cycle of reading -> experience -> reading -> experience

But I think experience - and learning from experience, as shotgun says - is harder to get. We're all on a forum talking about running, on an internet full of talk about running, having read plenty of books about running. The reading bit is probably covered. But consciously applying a plan, at a point when gains are not automatic, and weighing up the results in practice - either in our own training or in a group we coach? I think that's rarer here.

Murph_D

To attempt to sum it all up...

On the question "Is it OK to deviate from a generic plan?"

the answer is Yes, as long as

- you've read the whole book and understand the training philosophy;
- you know (from 'listening to the body') why you are changing things;
- you know (from experience, learning, and taking competent advice) how to change things for better effect;
- you are following the correct plan in the first place (sometimes it's best to abandon the plan completely)

(On that last point, Runner B attempting the 7-mile tempo @ 8:30 possibly should not be doing "Advanced Marathoning" at all.)

healy1835

I've a tiny brain

Sacksian

In terms of sub-3 support, don't forget the wisdom of Tergat!

He hasn't been mentioned in a while but I think a lot of posters would have used his contributions on this thread as a resource when putting together their own training. I think he started posting on this thread in 2010.

A couple of posts by him on this very thread got me under 3 on my first marathon. So, if you haven't read them, have a look.

spc78

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Just looking at the generic book plans from a different perspective.
Why are they all based on miles? To ElCs point

7 miles at LT would be 38 odd minutes for runner A(A minorly stressful workout)
7 miles at LT would be over 60 minutes for runner B(impossible)

So 2 people take a 50 mile a week book plan. Person A is 50% faster. Person A spends 8 hours running that week and person B spend 12 hours running.. both following the plan to the letter

The 12 hours is simply more volume and the volume eats into life which eats back into the plan.

Back to Hansons and the 16m LR - Person A runs it in 1:40 and person B in 2:30... are they both getting the same benefit for a long run?

+1 great to see some good debate on this Forum again

Problem with Generic plans is people don't read the books behind them. Daniels plans are all miles but if you read the book, he is very clear that when he writes miles he means 'elite' miles - so the plan prescribes a tempo of 6 miles at so called T pace - thats based on a T pace of 5min/ml so if your T-pace is 5min/ml you do 6 miles/30min at T pace. If your T pace is 7min/ml you don't do 6 miles you still just do 30min so just over 4 miles. He discusses the nonsense of the slower runner potentially ending up doing 30% more volume of high intensity training if they try to do the same intense mileage as a faster runner.

KSU

spc78 wrote: »

Problem with Generic plans is people don't read the books behind them. Daniels plans are all miles but if you read the book, he is very clear that when he writes miles he means 'elite' miles - so the plan prescribes a tempo of 6 miles at so called T pace - thats based on a T pace of 5min/ml so if your T-pace is 5min/ml you do 6 miles/30min at T pace. If your T pace is 7min/ml you don't do 6 miles you still just do 30min so just over 4 miles. He discusses the nonsense of the slower runner potentially ending up doing 30% more volume of high intensity training if they try to do the same intense mileage as a faster runner.

He deals with some of these topics below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LuwGIGju2o&index=6&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1hQ_kplgo&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=7

Here he specifically mentions 20-30 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1FPuqy9iu8&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=9

RayCun

I was thinking about this more on the way home, and I think

Worry less about the plan you are following

Worry less about changing this session or that session

Run consistently, run a lot, and keep challenging yourself.

If you do that for a few years and you've reached a plateau, then you can spend some time on the ins and outs of different training plans.

Itziger

KSU wrote: »

He deals with some of these topics below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LuwGIGju2o&index=6&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1hQ_kplgo&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=7

Here he specifically mentions 20-30 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1FPuqy9iu8&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=9

The first one is some of the funniest $hit I've watched in a long while!

The Linger kid doing a 360 mile week!!! Averaging 240 miles/week for a year. Hehehe. But where Daniels says, "He'd go to the loo at 1 a.m. and think, heck I'm awake, I might as well go for a run. And he would! He'd do 10 miles" I have a new role model!!!!

Not.

Swashbuckler

healy1835 wrote:

I've a tiny brain

Or another way to look at it is between you and your coach you share a very big brain. Haha

EI Caballo

RayCun wrote: »

I was thinking about this more on the way home, and I think

Worry less about the plan you are following

Worry less about changing this session or that session

Run consistently, run a lot, and keep challenging yourself.

If you do that for a few years and you've reached a plateau, then you can spend some time on the ins and outs of different training plans.

Honestly and sorry for making a scene but every thread always ends back here with the beginners. You know it's possible to be consistent and challenge yourself but to also work efficiently by doing the right things?

If this is the approach you think is best, why doesn't everyone just go out and run like a headless chicken? We might as well close the Novice thread, not offer club coaching to people who haven't reached a plateau, never give or ask for advice from anyone until you/they hit a wall. Close the forum while we are at it because there is nothing to discuss.

All that is a worthless soundbite because the sooner people people realise or can point out mistakes, the better they can run and more efficiently they can train. This is the sub-3 thread and if this is the level of discussion we are going to have on it, this is place isn't worth visiting for anyone as no one will learn nothing.

Knowledge is a powerful tool that can aid in you been able to run more, run consistently and run faster. If your not thinking about these things and trying to learn. You will hit the plateau earlier, won't have a clue about anything when you do and will have to try learn more at once and be stuck at the plateau longer.

All you are doing with approach is stunting your progression. As the old saying goes:

Don't train harder, train smarter.

All that happens every time these debates come up these days is debate is shutdown with all these absolute beginner focused soundbites. The days of all the fantastic threads like the boards plan by debates and training ideas threads are dead. The less those threads happen, the less knowledge thhat will be on the forum which means the level of general knowledge falls further.

There is nothing like discussion to help you put your thoughts together and learn more but that's never going to happen because these threads always go back to this.

RayCun

But it's not just for beginners
Year 1 - do whatever, reach a certain level
Year 2 - run more, challenge yourself in training - improve
Year 3 - run more, keep challenging yourself - improve more

It doesn't really matter whether you follow a Pfitz plan or a Hanson plan, or if you do each session exactly as prescribed or swap some things out. If you follow any decent plan 90% of the way, you'll improve. If you do the same plan the next year but make things a bit harder, or a different plan that is a bit harder - you'll improve again! As long as you are training consistently, and increasing the difficulty in each block, you'll keep improving - for a few years at least.

Eventually you will reach some limits - you can't run more, you aren't getting faster in sessions, and you need to think about how to change things. But most people could run more, and could do better sessions (I mean more regularly, more variety, in a group to keep pushing on rather than "800s instead of 600s")

I'm probably just old and jaded (and lazy and slow and overweight ), but I think most people could spend less time reading and talking and thinking about running, and more time running.

It's like the discussions about diet and weight loss. Everybody has a decent idea of what is healthy food and what is junk food. Most people, if they want to lose weight, all they have to do is eat less, eat healthy food instead of junk food, and do some more exercise. It doesn't matter precisely how much, or which exact healthy foods, or what form of exercise.

shotgunmcos

EI Caballo wrote: »

Honestly and sorry for making a scene but every thread always ends back here with the beginners. You know it's possible to be consistent and challenge yourself but to also work efficiently by doing the right things?

If this is the approach you think is best, why doesn't everyone just go out and run like a headless chicken? We might as well close the Novice thread, not offer club coaching to people who haven't reached a plateau, never give or ask for advice from anyone until you/they hit a wall. Close the forum while we are at it because there is nothing to discuss.

All that is a worthless soundbite because the sooner people people realise or can point out mistakes, the better they can run and more efficiently they can train. This is the sub-3 thread and if this is the level of discussion we are going to have on it, this is place isn't worth visiting for anyone as no one will learn nothing.

Knowledge is a powerful tool that can aid in you been able to run more, run consistently and run faster. If your not thinking about these things and trying to learn. You will hit the plateau earlier, won't have a clue about anything when you do and will have to try learn more at once and be stuck at the plateau longer.

All you are doing with approach is stunting your progression. As the old saying goes:

Don't train harder, train smarter.

All that happens every time these debates come up these days is debate is shutdown with all these absolute beginner focused soundbites. The days of all the fantastic threads like the boards plan by debates and training ideas threads are dead. The less those threads happen, the less knowledge thhat will be on the forum which means the level of general knowledge falls further.

There is nothing like discussion to help you put your thoughts together and learn more but that's never going to happen because these threads always go back to this.

Every discussion is worth something to someone, even if you don't see any value yourself.

Also, quit apologizing, you are driving a good discussion and its interesting to read.

On using plans for sub3 and staying on topic of experience, learning etc.
What were boardies experience of using a generic plan for getting or nearly getting a sub3? What have you or would you do differently based on what you learned?

AuldManKing

RayCun wrote: »

I was thinking about this more on the way home, and I think

Worry less about the plan you are following

Worry less about changing this session or that session

Run consistently, run a lot, and keep challenging yourself.

If you do that for a few years and you've reached a plateau, then you can spend some time on the ins and outs of different training plans.

I think I'm with El C on this one Ray.

The above is like a philosophy and one that we can subscribe to - yes we can 'worry less........' - but we can still put thought into the sort of training that suits us and works for us.

A few years back, I spent the bones of 2 years putting myself into the hands of a club coach - I was fantastic at running 800's & 400's on a track. But became crap at racing 5k's or longer.
I wasn't worried about the training plan or changing sessions as it was all prescribed. & I ran as much then as I did now.

It was only when I changed training plan, started to use a structured plan like Daniels that I found it worked better for me - I tried other plans that didn't work - so I went back to Daniels.
This is what knowledge and knowing your body is about and knowing what works for you.

I see a lot of people still doing the 400's/800's with the club and not improving - but more importantly (to this discussion), they are still trusting the same old flawed process.

RayCun

AuldManKing wrote: »

A few years back, I spent the bones of 2 years putting myself into the hands of a club coach - I was fantastic at running 800's & 400's on a track. But became crap at racing 5k's or longer.
I wasn't worried about the training plan or changing sessions as it was all prescribed. & I ran as much then as I did now.

Was the entire week's training prescribed by the club coach?

AuldManKing

RayCun wrote: »

Was the entire week's training prescribed by the club coach?

2 sessions and the long run. Both sessions done at 'stupid pace' - no tempos.

RayCun

Worry less about the plan you are following, because most * plans are fine.

* but for god's sake, don't join MSB

Murph_D

Well you are certainly better off taking your training into your own hands if there’s no individual attention, or sustained group attention, from a competent coach, which is the case for the vast majority of us, including club runners. But you still need the discipline and self awareness to train properly. We all know runners who hammer out fast sessions but don’t race well, and if we have researched the basics, we know why.

To paraphrase the Martin Sheen character in Apocalypse Now, it’s not that there’s a flaw in the process, it’s more that there is no process at all.

AuldManKing

Lets move away from discussing a specific clubs training methods - probably wasn't fair of me to mention as it did benefit others.

Lets get back onto more important matters such as why Ray is grumpy?

RayCun

AuldManKing wrote: »

Lets get back onto more important matters such as why Ray is grumpy?

How long do you have? :pac:

shotgunmcos wrote: »

On using plans for sub3 and staying on topic of experience, learning etc.
What were boardies experience of using a generic plan for getting or nearly getting a sub3? What have you or would you do differently based on what you learned?

I followed a Daniels plan for my first sub-3 attempt. Well, in theory I followed the Daniels plan. It's based on two quality sessions a week iirc, and I missed a lot of the midweek sessions. The weekend sessions were tough - long runs with tempos at start and finish. Got injured about a month before the marathon and missed a week or two, but held it together long enough on the day.

Second was later that year. Can't remember if I was following a plan as such, but all through the autumn I was running tempos midweek (2 x 20, towards the end at least) with theboyblunder and another bunch from the club. Medium long run the next day, and I think some marathon pace efforts in the weekend long run? A few minutes faster in the end.

Training for Rotterdam, I followed the Magness plan in Science of Running, but scaled way back (no, I will not be running 120 mile weeks). Followed the plan pretty closely aside from that. I was certainly capable of going faster again, but not as fast as I started

Dublin last year, less of a plan. Club tempo sessions most Saturdays, long run Sundays, and I ran with a group who were also running Dublin and we added some marathon-paced miles as we went along. Midweek I did sessions on my own, so did faster intervals, progressively longer. Overall I didn't train as hard as I had for Rotterdam.

Training at the moment is basically fitting things around what I can get to
Can get to Tuesday club session (whatever it is)
Can go to gym on Wednesday (programme set for me)
Can do tempo on Saturday morning
Can do long run on Sunday (if I get out early)
Can run in to work/at lunch/home from work, depending on the sessions above and getting clothes in and out, so get the rest of the miles in then

Tommy Max

what races have you found very good preparation in training for DCM?

browne_rob5

Tommy Max wrote: »

what races have you found very good preparation in training for DCM?

Charleville half marathon is 5 weeks before hand so gives a good indication of fitness level heading into the DCM. Very flat course and well organised so good chance of a PB. Nice spread afterwards too.

shotgunmcos

browne_rob5 wrote: »

Charleville half marathon is 5 weeks before hand so gives a good indication of fitness level heading into the DCM. Very flat course and well organised so good chance of a PB. Nice spread afterwards too.

Is 2019 registration not open yet or gone already?