DFW running club part 4!! ALL ARE WELCOME!!

RichOneday_2

Totally agree, training plans in terms of time are nonsensical.

It is only beginners that would actually follow them and, understandably, they tend to take things very literally. A 1hr 30min run may be 13 miles for one runner and 5 miles for another, a totally different training session.

And also, unless you're running around a running track, how does a new runner work out where they're going to end up after 1hr 30mins - they dont know how far it is so how could they. Or more to the point, if they do know how far 1hr 30mins is going to get them why not just use distances in the first place?:rolleyes:

Idiophreak

Not so sure about training by time instead of distance...If you do an easy run for an hour, then an easy run for an hour and half then for two hours - you're going to run further in each one. Sure, the distance will be different for different people, but I don't see that as being a bad thing, as such - I'd have thought it was no more worrying than people to arbitrarily decide that they're going to do the 6 miles prescribed...

I think the idea is that they have an idea how much one's pace should develop over the course of a training plan, so by the end, they can make reasonable guesses about the distance you should be able to travel.

One of my friends trained for London in this way - and never actually did any more than 2.5 hours, I don't think - but made it round alright. She's now using the same technique for her iron man prep. Personally, I'd feel happier knowing I could cover the distance, but if it works for people, good luck to em, eh...

becky_rtw

If peeps want to run by time then that is fine...but the problems come as BJ and KYCU have suggested when they are slower than the pace of the person who wrote the plan (or at least who they have in mind). Because then every distance will be shorter than intended - it helps people if they put pace and time on there or at least approximate paces for each type of run...

But then again I'm not sure I agree with 16 week training plans for marathons either - they're alright if you are already fit but you cant really do one as a beginner and expect to enjoy the race!

And while I'm on a rant...the other problem with RW plans is that they are taking the sub 3 plan and scaling it up - but nobodies actually done any research about the total optimum time on feet for slower runners - if you are going to run a 5 hour marathon should you be training up to 4 hours 30 or will that leave you too tired?? I'm not sure on that. I realise it has to be a balance of time on feet and getting around the distance, but its a tough call to make.

RichOneday_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

Not so sure about training by time instead of distance...If you do an easy run for an hour, then an easy run for an hour and half then for two hours - you're going to run further in each one. Sure, the distance will be different for different people, but I don't see that as being a bad thing, as such - I'd have thought it was no more worrying than people to arbitrarily decide that they're going to do the 6 miles prescribed...

I think the idea is that they have an idea how much one's pace should develop over the course of a training plan, so by the end, they can make reasonable guesses about the distance you should be able to travel.

One of my friends trained for London in this way - and never actually did any more than 2.5 hours, I don't think - but made it round alright. She's now using the same technique for her iron man prep. Personally, I'd feel happier knowing I could cover the distance, but if it works for people, good luck to em, eh...

But,
If you're training to run a Half, you're training to run ...13.1 Miles.

If you're training to run a marathon, you're training to run......26.2 Miles.

You're not taining to run for a certain amount of time.


It the same as when you ask someone how far away a certain place is and they answer 'Its 2 hours away'. It drives me bonkers!:p:p How far?, how far?!!:rolleyes:

RichOneday_2

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/forum/forummessages.asp?dt=2&UTN=152755&V=6&SP=

Doesnt this just sum up perfectly what causes so much grief for St John's and the emergency services?

So, this person decided with no prior experience to enter a marathon. This was last April. So 12 months might just be reasonable for a gentle build up to get the body ready for what is a gruelling challenge. Right?

Oh no, not a bit of it. There's still months of sitting on !!!!! twiddling thumbs to do before any thoughts of getting prepared come into play.

So now with 14 weeks to go this bod starts to ask for help!:rolleyes: A large explosive device rammed up the posterior would be far more appropriate............

I really do feel sorry for the poor St johns peeps, who do a great job despite the overwhelming stupidity of a lot of the people they have to help....

becky_rtw

Sits back and waits for Morahgan to get on that one

RichOneday_2

becky_rtw wrote: »

Sits back and waits for Morahgan to get on that one

That was exactly my thought!:rotfl:

I like the mention of 2 week's illness, presumably as some sort of reason why she hasnt done any training yet!:rolleyes:

KeepYourChinUp_2

I noticed that the why cant I wear my ipod at the Reading half has been bumped, thats always good for a giggle.

kmstuart

The RW half plans i've looked at in the past have a distance with an approx time. Admittedly its the Garmin ready versions and i'm not looking at the beginner end, more the sub 1:50 and sub 2:00 ones.

becky_rtw

KYCU - is that you being cheeky over there

Tues - 6.2 miles in 59:57 9:38 mins/mile

That was supposed to be a recovery run but I felt good in the last few miles (still a bit stiff though) so pushed on a little - nothing crazy though...

Dont think I'll do my tempo tomorrow since I'm racing twice this weekend so just some more of the same I think