Thursday, December 20, 2007

Thursday 17 miles.

So, I pretty much ran today the way that I should be all the time. The trails are iced over so this was done on the roads.. Warm-up 3 miles.. then 14 miles at HR 155-165. The 17 miles was done in 1:43.. with the middle 8 miles at an average pace of 5:41. Shit, this run stung. My HR jumped at about 12 miles and my pace had to slow. No water because I honestly didn't think my pace would be that fast. I felt tired going in and it was quite chilly so I bundled up.

10 comments:

GZ said...

Okay - so I am still trying to understand some of the MAF stuff ... are you saying that (and I think you said this the other morning too, but I am not only slow at running) you should be running nearly all your miles at this 155-165 HR?

I know that CV has posted some stuff on it, but I think a few ... "explicit" posts on the specifics of MAF and how you guys incorporate it could be helpful.

at least to me. Most of your readers have probably already got it. But I am slow.

kerrie said...

so i'm curious, how is that heart rate determined and why that heart rate for that run?

scott said...

Hi Tim
have been reading your blog with interest the last few months.As an Ex Pat English guy when you look back to the time in the mid 80s when British Marathon running was at its zenith(ie London 1985 over 100 Brits under 2:20 and 250 under 2:25...these mostly were full time working family fathers
without coaches powerbars hr monitors etc)
What were they doing
Easy morning 4-5miler
Twice a week at the Running club around 10miles starting easy a shake out in the middle and a steady finish
Racing short most weekends and a 2hr run on the sunday
Rest was a mix of steady mileage
They peaked by running mile reps and hill repeats
Basic stuff repeated over 3-10 years
Diet was typical meat and 2 veg and fatty breakfasts....plenty of beer after club runs ...no obsession with high carb diets
The big key was they were training together in clubs with guys that could run sub 2:25s so the 3hr guys were saying these guys are not superstars and only have 2 legs and fulltime jobs as well so htey set their sites higher

Good luck with your next marathon

Brett said...

Interesting, I hope he posts something about it as well. Hope you and your family have happy holidays!

Dan Seifring said...

Great run Lucho, keep up the great work. Although I will never be the athlete you are it is still motivating to me to be able to see how hard you train.

Matt said...

Tim,

Do you prefer heat (say Kona heat and humidity) or an American winter?

Ironboom said...

I have a question with respect to increasing running volume: You have mentioned several times that you will gradually build up your volume to say 120 miles over the course of the next few years. However, most books and I guess the conventional wisdom is that you can increase volume by but no more than 10% per week. At your current volume, you could be up to 120 within just a matter of weeks. Can you please elaborate on your thought process behind your training philosophy and such a long-term increase rather than the 10% rule. Thanks. And thanks again for posting your training and being so accessible to answer questions.

Lucho said...

I have run 150 mile weeks in the past and will certainly run more 120+ weeks this coming year. My goal is to be more consistent at the 120 mile weeks. Stringing together 20-30 weeks in a row is going to be the most effective way for me to reach my goals. I think my only genetic gift is durability with my structure and I want to exploit that to it's fullest. There is also a huge difference between running "base" mileage of 120 miles and running 120 miles with quality specific workouts. I want to be able to run tempo, hill repeats and track while holding high mileage.
I actually believe the 10% rule is bunk. An athlete needs to be more fluid with their mileage and simply run what they feel they can with out getting injured.

GZ said...

I'd have to agree re: the mileage increase. The 10 percent rule is rule of thumb for starters, and while it generally works, it is not gospel.

Having recently played with 100 mile weeks, I'd also agree that it is important not to just have that mileage, but be able to handle a degree of intensity in that mileage. Otherwise, you are running long slow distance which will make you a long slow distance runner.

Small picture - higher quanitity with less quality is okay, big picture is you want to increase your ability to handle quantity and quality ... particularly for the marathon.

Chuckie V said...

I plan to go into the MAF tenet of training (its pluses and minuses and everything between) in great detail on my blog in the near future (and I hope Lucho will place a link to it when the time comes), but let me first mention that Lucho misinterpreted me a little.

I didn't quite want to sound so rigid in that he needed more MAF-styled training "all the time" as he mentions, and certainly not in terms of a long-term build up and his future goals as a marathoner. He'll need volume too.

Right now, however, with his focus on a marathon that's just around the corner, the quantity is less critical than the quality at which he runs most that volume. Conversely, if he were to hold off on entering these marathons for now, he would most likely benefit from the bigger volume at this juncture. There is a time for volume and a time for quality, and Lucho is stuck in a time zone closer to the latter. Volume, incidentally, *IS* quality when it comes to endurance athlete training. We are, after all, ENDURANCE athletes.

Mark Wetmore, the renowned CU cross-country coach tells a new runner when they first approach him to "run a hundred miles a week for a year and then get back to me." Almost all his best runners are redshirts and quite a few of them attain a world class level. It seems overly simplified, but his point is that he doesn't want to demolish a young kid with intense training until he or she can run consistently bigger volumes.

Wetmore's approach works, by the way. And it works because it's how our bodies work.