Dublin City marathon

geodesic

dukeraoul wrote: »

I'd say it didn't work for you because the rest of your training was ****... I repeat what I said earlier you have no ****ing clue what you're talking about and Tbh youre too far gone and too painfully pedantic to bother explaining anything to... Enjoy DCM!

Who died and made you the arbiter of everyone's marathon training plan?

You have no f'ing clue what my training pattern was like last year, yet you consider yourself qualified to preach about it.

But looking back at your posts on this thread, I see that venom is your stock-in-trade. Good luck with that, these boards really need more of your ilk :rolleyes:

chinguetti

adrian522 wrote: »

So is it your opinion that people just just run endless easy miles for marathon prep? I don't think I could do that to be honest.

Also not everyone on the novices thread took up running this year, I'd say most have been running at least a year.

No but some do and they turn up having run their race in training. I couldn't do it either now but I did in the past.

I'm sure that many in the novice thread have been running with a year and I haven't read the whole thread so I was making an assumption. No offence intended. I only dip in and out of that thread but from what I've seen, some seem to have only taken running up within the year and have aimed straight for a marathon as happens every year on the thread.

Rantan

adrian522 wrote: »

So is it your opinion that people just just run endless easy miles for marathon prep? I don't think I could do that to be honest.

Also not everyone on the novices thread took up running this year, I'd say most have been running at least a year.

..crikey, I just read the post..thats absolutely not what he is saying..read it again.

he/she said: ...if you haven't done a lsr of around 20 miles at least twice in training in my opinion

thats not endless easy miles

adrian522

I can only speak for myself obviously but as one of the people on that thread doing a bit of speed work it felt like a natural progression.

I spent last year training with the race series HM as the main goal and came back this year looking at the DCM. The first half of the year I followed a maintenance/fitness plan that had speed work in it and was doing 40 mile weeks from around March, so when it came to July and formally starting a marathon plan I wanted to keep that element.

I also wanted to run some shorter races (10K/10Mile/HM) in the build up so kept it in for that reason and also a bit of variety.

ultrapercy

There is merit in the short long run only if your skimping the training. In reality 22 miles is not long enough of a long run to run a marathon at your potential. The reason most people max out at 22 is not because its the ideal distance for a long run but rather they dont have an endurance base or they dont have the time or they may not have the mental staying power and all these are understandable and 22 miles seems to be a standard compromise. A better approach is to do a time on your feet run of the duration of your predicted marathon. Id agree that 16 miles is way too short for your longest run, its hardly over half the distance and in terms of effort Id estimate that a 16 mile LSR is 25% of the effort of your marathon race. But if your longest run up to this point is 14 miles stepping it up to 22 now is a risk and maxing out at 16 or 18 is the mos prudent option but the race will be way tougher than it need be, the time way slower and the recovery way longer but you will likely get trough and best of luck Everyone has there own approach some dot the eyes and cross the ts some wing it and nobody should be admonished for their preparation but if your seeking advice 16 miles long run is as bad as it gets.

dukeraoul

geodesic wrote: »

Who died and made you the arbiter of everyone's marathon training plan?

You have no f'ing clue what my training pattern was like last year, yet you consider yourself qualified to preach about it.

But looking back at your posts on this thread, I see that venom is your stock-in-trade. Good luck with that, these boards really need more of your ilk :rolleyes:

Yup and I'm ripping the piss in pretty much 90 percent of these the rest of the time I'm just a moody, narky ****head....

MrCreosote

I just don't get the way people slavishly keep to exact distances like they have to be hit in training. Surely with a bit of experience people know what works best for them and how their body reacts. You'll get plenty of 3x20mile+ long run people doing well in the marathon. You won't ever see the ones who it didn't suit, because they're going to get injured well before they get near the start line.

And I don't get the hating on Half ironman guy either- it's a fact that if most triathletes in Ireland focussed just on running, they'd make mincemeat of most of the race fields!

dukeraoul

MrCreosote wrote: »

And I don't get the hating on Half ironman guy either- it's a fact that if most triathletes in Ireland focussed just on running, they'd make mincemeat of most of the race fields!

hahahaha quote of the thread :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

dukeraoul

For the second time: I'm off this thread...started out as a bit of craic teeing off on the tri guy and a couple other assorted 3 weekers but has taken a kind of nasty turn. Reading back through my own posts think I'm crossing over the line from silly troll to total asshole and I don't really want that. Have fun and best of luck to the 6 week training plan/ 16 mile LSR guys may your medal be every bit as glorious as you've imagined.... :D:D:D

TFBubendorfer

<mod>Final warning. The next person to write a trolling/uncivil/abusive/<take your pick of unwanted behaviour> post will get some extra boards-free time to reflect on their behaviour</mod>

Seriously, the tone in this thread has dropped well below any acceptable standards. From now on don't write anything you wouldn't want your mum to read.

tunguska

On the subject of long runs and mileage Im with the Hanson's. I used to do 26 miles and over in prep for the marathon but I've discovered (for myself anyway) that the need to run 20+ miles isnt necessary. This year through more distraction than anything, I haven't put in any long runs. I did one double where it was 12 miles in the morning and 10 in the evening, but my longest continuous run was 15miles.
And I feel great. No niggles no injuries, I feel fresh and strong and I know I'm gonna have a pretty good marathon, which I'll enjoy. So I'm just not convinced anymore about long runs over 16 miles and of high mileage on general.

Rantan

tunguska wrote: »

On the subject of long runs and mileage Im with the Hanson's. I used to do 26 miles and over in prep for the marathon but I've discovered (for myself anyway) that the need to run 20+ miles isnt necessary. This year through more distraction than anything, I haven't put in any long runs. I did one double where it was 12 miles in the morning and 10 in the evening, but my longest continuous run was 15miles.
And I feel great. No niggles no injuries, I feel fresh and strong and I know I'm gonna have a pretty good marathon, which I'll enjoy. So I'm just not convinced anymore about long runs over 16 miles and of high mileage on general.

interesting comment...making me think twice now about my planned first ever 22miler this weekend....

tunguska

Rantan wrote: »

interesting comment...making me think twice now about my planned first ever 22miler this weekend....

Its hard for me to advise you on that one, but if it was me I wouldn't do it. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing your first ever 22mile run 4weeks out(assuming you're doing Dublin). Whatever you have in the bank at this stage is what you have, you're not gonna get any signficantly fitter between now and the marathon, but you could **** yourself up trying to get fitter.

ger664

tunguska wrote: »

On the subject of long runs and mileage Im with the Hanson's. I used to do 26 miles and over in prep for the marathon but I've discovered (for myself anyway) that the need to run 20+ miles isnt necessary. This year through more distraction than anything, I haven't put in any long runs. I did one double where it was 12 miles in the morning and 10 in the evening, but my longest continuous run was 15miles.
And I feel great. No niggles no injuries, I feel fresh and strong and I know I'm gonna have a pretty good marathon, which I'll enjoy. So I'm just not convinced anymore about long runs over 16 miles and of high mileage on general.

I agree with this if it is someone who has done several marathons/base phase with 16/20 mile easy runs. For someone who has never ran/trained for a marathon I think that 18-20mile/3 Hour runs are a necessary evil. IMO 22+ is too much this close to Dublin

Gavlor

One of the 3hr pacers for DCM ran a pb of 2.37 in berlin last year. His longest run in training was 18 miles. Wouldn't suit everyone but it's certainly something that I'd like to try for a future marathon

ecoli

tunguska wrote: »

On the subject of long runs and mileage Im with the Hanson's. I used to do 26 miles and over in prep for the marathon but I've discovered (for myself anyway) that the need to run 20+ miles isnt necessary. This year through more distraction than anything, I haven't put in any long runs. I did one double where it was 12 miles in the morning and 10 in the evening, but my longest continuous run was 15miles.
And I feel great. No niggles no injuries, I feel fresh and strong and I know I'm gonna have a pretty good marathon, which I'll enjoy. So I'm just not convinced anymore about long runs over 16 miles and of high mileage on general.

Glad to hear training has been going well man and good to see you injury free.

I think in your personal experience, context is important though.

- I know alot of elites say the same that they see huge improvements once they drop the mileage (I can think of a few cases dropping from say 140 mpw - 100/110 mpw) the only issue I would have with that is that they have built up a base from a few years of high mileage and long runs before dropping it to add more intensity. It would be similar to a 1500m runner ramping up the miles during winter before dropping it coming into track season (albeit on a more long term scale). I think this would be the difference between say you and someone coming from a relatively weaker aerobic base.

- Hansons book and the Hanson Elite are very different in the approach and I think UP made a critical point the 25% thing. The 16 mile runs in the book tends to be in line with most traditional training approaches that have a figure roughly between 20-30% of overall mileage to be the ball park figure of the long run. At some point this became interchangeable with the well established 20-22 mile LR. To me I think its more a case that the weekly mileage has dropped dramatically as the marathon has become more accessible and mass participation to the point where the LSR has not been modified to match up with the overall plan. Nowadays a number of people are running too hard for too long in relation to their overall training rather than the run itself as a standalone point of reference.

When comparing time on feet between a 2.10 and a 4 hour marathoner these days both are doing their long run at same percieved effort but the 4 hour marathon is actually working at that effort for up to 33% long in some cases in training

Wubble Wubble

I suppose it depends on what you want from it too. I completed the Paris Marathon this year having run three 18s and two 20s, but my mileage was relatively low otherwise and I ended up with a 1:54 first half and a 2:24 second half.

For various reasons (mainly due to injury) my longest so far since has been 16 and two 15ish runs (and racing two HMs).

Could I still run DCM and finish it?
Yes (and I'm registered to do so), still time to get some long runs in!!

Do I want to?
No. My mileage is so far below what I think I need to do, that it seems crazy to try and chase my intended sub 4. I could go around with the 5 hour pacers and just get it done, but finishing so much slower than what I think I'm capable of seems like a waste. I think it will be better to wait till next year, when fingers crossed touch wood I will be fitter, faster and stronger. But different strokes for different folks I suppose. Good luck to everyone who does make it to the start line.

Canine Marathoner

Some interesting points being made here about training; I'm trying for a 2.59 this year - a first sub 3. I enjoy 20-mile-plus runs too much to abandon them & do too many of them in a self-defeating way but anyway advice about this please:

I registered for DCM today & got a confirmation email back; but a warning pops up saying fraud detection test failed & that the message shouldn't be opened (so confirmation of entry can't be downloaded); did anyone else experience this?

tunguska

ecoli wrote: »

I think in your personal experience, context is important though.

- I know alot of elites say the same that they see huge improvements once they drop the mileage

Yeah I see what you're saying and i reckon theres a lot of validity to that school of thought. However its interesting that the Hanson's beginner plan is exactly the same as their elite plan.
I just think it would be an interesting experiment to take a first time marathon runner(with no big bases under their belt)and put them on a plan that maxes out at 16 miles.

Ososlo

tunguska wrote: »

Yeah I see what you're saying and i reckon theres a lot of validity to that school of thought. However its interesting that the Hanson's beginner plan is exactly the same as their elite plan.
I just think it would be an interesting experiment to take a first time marathon runner(with no big bases under their belt)and put them on a plan that maxes out at 16 miles.

Yeah we had 2 on the novice thread who were initially following Hanson but both have dropped off from it afaik. Pity. Was excited to see the outcome!
You should search for a guinea pig!

menoscemo

tunguska wrote: »

On the subject of long runs and mileage Im with the Hanson's. I used to do 26 miles and over in prep for the marathon but I've discovered (for myself anyway) that the need to run 20+ miles isnt necessary. This year through more distraction than anything, I haven't put in any long runs. I did one double where it was 12 miles in the morning and 10 in the evening, but my longest continuous run was 15miles.
And I feel great. No niggles no injuries, I feel fresh and strong and I know I'm gonna have a pretty good marathon, which I'll enjoy. So I'm just not convinced anymore about long runs over 16 miles and of high mileage on general.

Haha man, you have really changed

Just out of interest what would your weekly mileage look like?

Also do you think you're own injuries have tempered your approach? If you were 'bulletproof' like say KC, would you still be knocking out the long JD style runs/sessions?

ecoli

tunguska wrote: »

Yeah I see what you're saying and i reckon theres a lot of validity to that school of thought. However its interesting that the Hanson's beginner plan is exactly the same as their elite plan.
I just think it would be an interesting experiment to take a first time marathon runner(with no big bases under their belt)and put them on a plan that maxes out at 16 miles.

Their elite plan in the book or the actual Hanson Elite Group?

Will have to take a look at the book when I get home later but I know the elite group tend to opt for 20 milers (I think Desiree Davilla did 4-5 in build up to her break through in Boston few years back)

Personally I have mentioned before that I would prefer to see first timers not do 20+ milers until their aerobic base has been built up as I think it is the safer approach but they are specific enough to compensate for the lack of base for most novices to the point where even though injury wise its not the best approach for that first marathon off a short training cycle they are the thing that will give you best bang for your book*.

(Would prefer to see a runner not approach the marathon for 2-3 years till this aerobic base is built up but that is a different discussion for a different day)

geodesic

I'm happy to see that this thread has moved back to more constructive territory

Here's an interesting relevant quote from a runnersworld interview with the Hansons ... I don't have sufficient karma to post a link, but google will find it for you if you're interested in the full interview.

"The necessity of the 20-miler for marathon success is a farce," says Kevin Hanson, noting that it’s one of the first things he and his younger sibling Keith tell aspiring marathoners at clinics they sponsor at their suburban Michigan running stores. "It’s just a convenient round number that people have endowed with some mythical properties." To prove his point, Kevin notes that European training plans often top out at 30 kilometers (18.6 miles). "Does that mean they’re 1.4 miles less prepared than Americans? It’s ridiculous."

ecoli

geodesic wrote: »

I'm happy to see that this thread has moved back to more constructive territory

Here's an interesting relevant quote from a runnersworld interview with the Hansons ... I don't have sufficient karma to post a link, but google will find it for you if you're interested in the full interview.

The only problem is that it contradicts what he has his athletes do

What was your highest average weekly mileage for two to three months of base building several years ago and prior to Chicago 2010 and Boston 2011? How about your longest training runs and how many do you do?

Before my first Boston Marathon in 2007 I topped out at 110 miles for a week or two. My weekly mileage before the 2010 Chicago Marathon peaked at 115 miles and before this year’s Boston Marathon I got up to 120 miles for a couple of weeks. So it has just been a steady increase which isn’t much but I definitely notice the extra miles. The distance and number of my long runs is consistent as I don’t run long runs of over 20 miles and I do four or five of them before each marathon.

http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Davila.aspx

However falling in lines with my points previously this is roughly 20% of here weekly mileage and in this case I think the injury risk as not as great compared to a 40-50mpw runner

RayCun

Canine Marathoner wrote: »

I registered for DCM today & got a confirmation email back; but a warning pops up saying fraud detection test failed & that the message shouldn't be opened (so confirmation of entry can't be downloaded); did anyone else experience this?

The mail comes from
confirmation@eventmaster.ie
and contains a link to
em.eventmaster.ie with your confirmation slip

dublin runner

Surely the discussion about mileage/length of long run is somewhat arbitrary. Put simply, what works for one person doesn't always work for other.

I particularly like the argument that goes along the lines of:

'I know Joe Bloggs IV who's peak mileage was 50 miles a week, his longest run was 15 miles and he ran 2.32.'

It's completely meaningless. Joe could have struck upon the perfect training plan, maximising his potential or maybe, just maybe, he is selling himself short. Who knows?

Trial and experimentation (within limits) is what's needed, cycle after cycle. Tired of people of comparing themselves to others.

neilc

dublin runner wrote: »

I am never one to give out random advice but to run the few miles up to Castleknock at marathon pace will in my opinion, end most peoples race. It will take a lot of discipline to allow yourself lose some time. Some of us ran the section after Castleknock and it's super fast. You will get back the lost time without any real increase in effort.

I thought initially it might be a faster course but having run large sections I think it's certainly slower. God, it pains me to say that.....

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It ain't so

Calm down, calm down. I don't think it will make much of a difference. 90% of the course is still the same as always and it's not as if there is a major mountain climb in the new section.

Kurt Godel wrote: »

I've looked at the previous years profile versus this years... there isn't any extra climb this year. Previous years also went up Chesterfield (granted not as far); the vast majority of the route is identical. If people want to suggest banking time or whatever as race strategy's, well and good- but its disingenuous to suggest there are significant material differences between this years course and previous years. Be the judge for yourselves:

Previous years map with elevation.

This years course

This years elevation.

Just wanted to give a bit of feedback on this! Like dublin runner I was a bit worried about this section of the race as well. It was niggling away at me so decided to run it from the start out to Myo's after work this evening.
Have to agree with TFBubendorfer and Kurt Godel, it's not near as bad as I thought. Yeah there's a decent rise between Heuston and the Zoo but the rest isn't that bad except for the monotony of the long straight drag that's the Park.
In fact I think a bigger threat to people's race is controlling the really fast 3 mile section after this.

Stazza

dublin runner wrote: »

Surely the discussion about mileage/length of long run is somewhat arbitrary. Put simply, what works for one person doesn't always work for other.

I particularly like the argument that goes along the lines of:

'I know Joe Bloggs IV who's peak mileage was 50 miles a week, his longest run was 15 miles and he ran 2.32.'

It's completely meaningless. Joe could have struck upon the perfect training plan, maximising his potential or maybe, just maybe, he is selling himself short. Who knows?

Trial and experimentation (within limits) is what's needed, cycle after cycle. Tired of people of comparing themselves to others.

I know a guy who did the 2002 Kona Ironman. After this he concentrated on running marathons. He's now run nearly 50 marathons with 17 wins ( I think). His best time is 2:20:XX. He nearly always runs sub 2:30; he's been sub 2:25 many times. But here's the rub: he hardly ever runs. He trains on the bike, the rower, the elliptical and stairmaster. He will run sometimes but more often than not he doesn't. And when he does run, he doesn't do too much. He will do runs longer than 20 but he ran his pb off pretty much no running. Maybe, just maybe you don't need to run at all to run a decent marathon.

dublin runner

neilc wrote: »

Just wanted to give a bit of feedback on this! Like dublin runner I was a bit worried about this section of the race as well. It was niggling away at me so decided to run it from the start out to Myo's after work this evening.
Have to agree with TFBubendorfer and Kurt Godel, it's not near as bad as I thought. Yeah there's a decent rise between Heuston and the Zoo but the rest isn't that bad except for the monotony of the long straight drag that's the Park.
In fact I think a bigger threat to people's race is controlling the really fast 3 mile section after this.

I agree, it's not that bad. My point continues to be (cemented by the session did on Tuesday) that it is quite deceptive. As it's early in the race people will be full of energy and simply take it too fast. I am just sounding a word of caution.

For example, I ran up the Avenue @6.07 pace. I had to work hard to get it down but as soon as turned off the pace dropped to 5.37, despite maintaining the same effort. That's just my experience.

I guess it's the old mantra: Don't go out too hard!

davedanon

Stazza wrote: »

I know a guy who did the 2002 Kona Ironman. After this he concentrated on running marathons. He's now run nearly 50 marathons with 17 wins ( I think). His best time is 2:20:XX. He nearly always runs sub 2:30; he's been sub 2:25 many times. But here's the rub: he hardly ever runs. He trains on the bike, the rower, the elliptical and stairmaster. He will run sometimes but more often than not he doesn't. And when he does run, he doesn't do too much. He will do runs longer than 20 but he ran his pb off pretty much no running. Maybe, just maybe you don't need to run at all to run a decent marathon.

I assume you're joking with your conclusion, given the previous post, but, I can tell you how 90% of running people would respond to one of these "I know a guy who..." stories. How fast could he be if he trained properly? Or at all, taking your post to be literally true.