| |
Main
Date: 22 Sep 2006 15:00:54
From: Harold Buck
Subject: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
I'm intending to run the Philadelphia Marathon in November and I'm
hoping to break 4 hours. I ran 4:13 last year at a different race on
about 3 days per week training, and now I'm running 5 days and doing
intervals once per week (in addition to some tempo runs, which I did do
last year). I'm pretty good at race nutrition; I drink a lot of sports
drink and can easily stomach 2 gels per hour for about 3 hours. My
longest run will be 22 miles, 3 weeks from race day.
Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run a
mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the end.
Any thoughts on this?
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 01:18:59
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
In article <no_one_knows-B20137.15005422092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote:
>I'm intending to run the Philadelphia Marathon in November and I'm
>hoping to break 4 hours. I ran 4:13 last year at a different race on
>about 3 days per week training, and now I'm running 5 days and doing
>intervals once per week (in addition to some tempo runs, which I did do
>last year). I'm pretty good at race nutrition; I drink a lot of sports
>drink and can easily stomach 2 gels per hour for about 3 hours. My
>longest run will be 22 miles, 3 weeks from race day.
>
>Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
>makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
>use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run a
>mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
>latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
>beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the end.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
The answers already up mostly focus on what would be best for you,
in the magical world where you got to do exactly and only what you
plan on.
Unless this is that magical case, you don't have much choice. At
the time you'll want to be doing your warmups, there will be massive
crowds throughout the area you want to do your warmup in, and you won't
be able to hold your desired running pace (much less a steady line)
anyhow. Once the race starts, you'll have several minutes working
your way to the start line, not starting straight away at your desired
starting pace. Once past the start line, you'll have time winding your
way through the crowds (or patiently waiting for them to crash and
burn, and then you pass them).
So, I'll recommend what I would do (did do) anyhow, and which
Doug mentions doing for his long races -- take the trek to the start
line and your first mile or three of the race as your warmup.
Walk as long as possible (which may be well past the start line,
waiting for the crowds to break) and then move to an easy jog as
you wait for clear space to settle in to your marathon-grade pace
and form.
In this latter way, you have the chance to view the crowds as helping
you -- to hold back your pace for the warmup -- rather than a hindrance
which will be wasting energy and adrenaline.
The 4:00 is probably in reach. Burning too much energy (mental
and physical) fighting the crowds in the first mile or two is one of
your biggest barriers to getting it.
In different vein, the training will be in the bag by then. The
final obstacles to your goal are (will be) mental. Taper time is
time to think about how you'll deal with them.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 16:10:08
From: bluezfolk
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
Harold Buck wrote:
> I'm intending to run the Philadelphia Marathon in November and I'm
> hoping to break 4 hours. I ran 4:13 last year at a different race on
> about 3 days per week training, and now I'm running 5 days and doing
> intervals once per week (in addition to some tempo runs, which I did do
> last year). I'm pretty good at race nutrition; I drink a lot of sports
> drink and can easily stomach 2 gels per hour for about 3 hours. My
> longest run will be 22 miles, 3 weeks from race day.
>
> Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
> makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
> use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run a
> mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
> latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
> beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the end.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
>
> -Homer J. Simpson
One may consider the time it takes to get over the starting line to be
warmup time, especially in a large race with several thousand runners
if you're starting near the back of the pack.
Eric
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:42:00
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-B20137.15005422092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> I'm intending to run the Philadelphia Marathon in November and I'm
> hoping to break 4 hours. I ran 4:13 last year at a different race on
> about 3 days per week training, and now I'm running 5 days and doing
> intervals once per week (in addition to some tempo runs, which I did do
> last year). I'm pretty good at race nutrition; I drink a lot of sports
> drink and can easily stomach 2 gels per hour for about 3 hours. My
> longest run will be 22 miles, 3 weeks from race day.
>
> Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
> makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
> use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run a
> mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
> latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
> beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the end.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> --Harold Buck
If it were me I wouldn't do any kind of a warm-up before a marathon unless
there was some stiffness in my legs or something that I wanted to loosen up
first. A few minutes walking mixed with a little jogging would probably be
fine for that, but other than that, save everything you have in your legs
for the race. Sounds like a sub-4 is do-able on the improved training.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:29:01
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
On 2006-09-22, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote:
> Any thoughts on this?
9:00 pace should be fairly safe even without a warmup. But be careful not to storm
out of the gates at 8:50 or so, or the sudden jolt of speed could result in a
hamstring tear or a ruptured achilles.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 20:51:51
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote
> 9:00 pace should be fairly safe even without a warmup. But be careful not
> to storm
> out of the gates at 8:50 or so, or the sudden jolt of speed could result
> in a
> hamstring tear or a ruptured achilles.
Well 9:00 is safe for me, but that's just a 130 heartrate for me --
nevertheless I start out every run at 12-13 min/mile, a stumble, really, for
a couple of minutes. I assume 9:00 represents a decent effort for Harold,
so a warmup would be indicated. I'd say do some walking to warm up.
Walking burns fat, so you won't dip into the cherished glycogen stores in
any meaningful way.
For a marathon, I usually jog 10 minutes or so, at a real slow pace (3
minutes slower than MP), which has the same effect. The last thing you want
to do is do some fast quarters, like Hutch ;-). If your MP is 9:00, then
walking would likely be the analogous warmup.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 03:03:53
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote
> The
> last thing you want to do is do some fast quarters, like Hutch
> ;-).
Now, now... you know very well that's warmp-up routine for 5K's only.
I don't do any warm-ups for marathons. In fact, I usually have
myself carried to the starting line on a stretcher to conserve my
precious glycogen stores and optimize my blood osmolality.
--
__________________
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 21:34:38
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
On 2006-09-22, Dan Stumpus <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
[snip]
> a couple of minutes. I assume 9:00 represents a decent effort for Harold,
I don't believe it works like this. It's a decent effort for his aerobic
system, but warmup is based on the needs of the skeleto-muscular system.
An athlete with a strong aerobic system will be able to run closer to their
all-out sprinting pace for long distances, which makes warmups more critical,
because the skeleto-muscular load is substantial even for long distances.
To put it more simply, you're just not going to rupture an achilles tendon or
pull a hamstring at a 9 minute pace. A slow runner with a less powerful aerobic
engine may get tired quickly at that pace, but they probably won't rip their
muscles out of their sockets.
But a runner who is at about my pace for the mile (4:40 or so) and runs the
marathon at about 6:00 pace might be more concerned about warmups, because
they are pushing their muscles harder (since their aerobic system is able to
supply fuel to them quickly enough to do it)
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 22:53:11
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote
> An athlete with a strong aerobic system will be able to run closer to
> their
> all-out sprinting pace for long distances, which makes warmups more
> critical,
> because the skeleto-muscular load is substantial even for long distances.
I guess there are at least two ways to look at warmup -- as getting
everything loose to prevent damage, and to warm up the aerobic pathways in
advance so as to spare glycogen in the early going.
I was thinking about the latter.
> To put it more simply, you're just not going to rupture an achilles tendon
> or
> pull a hamstring at a 9 minute pace.
Yeah, that's probably true, although 9 min without warmup might be closer to
that for, say a 65 year-old. (Don't hit me, Doug -- who will be there in a
few years)
> But a runner who is at about my pace for the mile (4:40 or so) and runs
> the
> marathon at about 6:00 pace might be more concerned about warmups, because
> they are pushing their muscles harder (since their aerobic system is able
> to
> supply fuel to them quickly enough to do it)
Hmmm, 6:10 = 2:42, 6:00 = 2:37 ????
Good luck,
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 22:57:57
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
On 2006-09-22, Dan Stumpus <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Hmmm, 6:10 = 2:42, 6:00 = 2:37 ????
>
> Good luck,
Um, those guys would be my training partners. Some of them really are that fast (in
the marathon) or that slow (in the mile). I'm thinking more like 6:20-6:30.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 15:54:23
From: Roeret
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Hmmm, 6:10 = 2:42, 6:00 = 2:37 ????
>>
>> Good luck,
>
> Um, those guys would be my training partners.
and one mine (and that is marathon we talk about).
The really bad thing about it...
He is 56 years old (13 years older than me!) LOL
I'm glad I'm not competing Marathon :-)
martin, denmark
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 12:38:42
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-B20137.15005422092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
> makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
> use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run
> a
> mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
> latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
> beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the
> end.
FWIW I would not do any extra prerace mile(s). I would just take the
first mile or so nice and easy and wait your system to warm up. Those
few extra minutes you lose in the early miles warming up will not cost
you your 4 hour marathon. When you get to wanting to break 3:20 and your
miles are 60+ then a slow warm up would be helpful.
Good luck you right wing radical! :)
-Doug
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 14:44:54
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:no_one_knows-B20137.15005422092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> Anyway, I think 4 hours is attainable, but I'm wondering whether it
>> makes more sense to just do a bunch of walking for my warmup and then
>> use the first mile of the race to get up to speed, or if I should run
>> a
>> mile or so before the race to warm up. In past Marathons I've done the
>> latter. The former seems like it would have me running faster at the
>> beginning of the race, but then I have to run an extra mile at the
>> end.
>
> FWIW I would not do any extra prerace mile(s). I would just take the
> first mile or so nice and easy and wait your system to warm up. Those
> few extra minutes you lose in the early miles warming up will not cost
> you your 4 hour marathon. When you get to wanting to break 3:20 and your
> miles are 60+ then a slow warm up would be helpful.
>
> Good luck you right wing radical! :)
>
> -Doug
>
>
Looks like you're going to be cursed with wet trails again, at least the
bikers will smooth it out for you.
As for the original question, I did a warm up in a Marathon only once ,
the mile from the hotel to the start. I ran a good race but I think I
was too loose and started to fast. I averaged 7:30 in my first 3 miles
and finished averaging 7:52 for the race.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2006 02:05:33
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: 26.2 or 27.2?
|
"Parker Race" <someone@somwhere.not > wrote in message
news:GLbRg.55367$8j3.14728@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Looks like you're going to be cursed with wet trails again, at least
> the bikers will smooth it out for you.
We didn't have ut as bad as past years. We got about 20-30 minutes of
rain in the middle and we did have to traverse some sections if thick
mud that did not drain. Luckily most of the bikes had already passed
this section or it could havce been worse. A few of people like myself
that have run this course for years felt the slop cost us roughly 15
minutes.
Some speed irony. Two macho male speed demon running mates(names not to
mentioned) got a little carried away early in the race - gramps passed
one at 25 and the other at 38. Tony and I ended up running a lot of the
race together and I think the last 15 miles in unison. I don't do race
reports so I leave it up to Tony to pen the tale if he wants.
In general it was a good day. I really hadn't done a lot of training
since my July race and was satisfied to break 10 hours.
>
> As for the original question, I did a warm up in a Marathon only once
> , the mile from the hotel to the start. I ran a good race but I think
> I was too loose and started to fast. I averaged 7:30 in my first 3
> miles and finished averaging 7:52 for the race.
I used to warm-up before Boston and would go out at 6:45-6:50 pace and
suffer a bit at the end. After a few of those I quit warming up and
settle in at 7:00-7:05 and I'd run must better total times. I do not run
one inch before an ultra.
-Doug
|
|
