I know we've all spent a lot of time debating the merits of different training principals, but many of the issues still come back to appropriate pace and distance of workouts to maximize performance.
The hardest concept for me to accept from the majority of running experts is that to train for a sub-four hour marathon, easy runs should be at a pace much slower than what normally feels "easy" and that long runs should even be slower. And on top of that, most of the mileage during the week should be at those snail like paces. Check out this pace guideline from McMillan:
In case it is difficult to read, the above shows that "easy" runs should be at a pace 5:59 - 6:18, and long runs 5:59 - 6:36!
These same pace approximations are reiterated by Daniels, Galloway, and numerous Runners World coaches/authors.
So, for me, without ever having successfully completed a sub-four hour marathon, and with much of my running career spent trying to get daily and long runs completed at paces much faster than what is recommended (with the last several attempts ending up with injury) I am committed to run much slower this time around and hope to see success!
The key to the entire training plan is to incorporate focused speed work (tempo runs, cruise intervals, etc.) with adequate recovery to avoid injury.
On the other hand, if a specific time goal or improvement of performance is not an objective, nobody would argue that running at a naturally comfortable pace, at distances that are within moderation, is a great way to stay in shape, and enjoy the sport.
I would honestly say that the success I had back in 2007 was due to two things: Very slow runs and cruise intervals. Daniels all the way. Without CI there is no good races from a time perspective. Check my 2008 and 2009, no good times at all and almost no CI. So slow slow easy runs is very good except when it comes to fast races, you need both! But I don't think that we need those "inbetween runs". For me that would be running 5:30 pace. Better to go for 5:00 or stay with the 5:50 pace!
SvaraRaderaI also believe in most of those theories, but the most imortant thing of all is to get sufficient recovery, else the training is more or less meaningless.... Then when comes to individual goals I am getting more and more convinced that the HR should by the stearing parameter, not the pace. The pace differs a lot depending on how fresh you are, the weather & the tracks. For me at least, it has worked perfect....
SvaraRaderaAh, Mr. Legend & El Maco, I agree 100% with your comments above, but you are also highlighting the core of the discussion, which is 1) what is the optimal amount of distance (per week) to train for a given goal and 2) If you believe the science and the charts, given your current level of conditioning (based on Heart Rate data) you both are showing capability of running sub 3:30 marathon times in upcoming races!
SvaraRaderaHere's the logic:
Daniels and McMillian show that "easy" runs are best performed at Heart Rates from 65% to 79% of your max.
Mr. Legend, this falls into your comfort level, and from your comments on July 30th
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/42506549
your 12 KM run at 5:40 pace at 133 HR was "very slow".
Using Daniel's table 3.2 (on p. 52) based on your established current conditioning which allows you to run "easy" (65% - 79% HR) at 5:40 per KM, the corresponding VDOT level is 46.
Moving to table 3.1 (p.48) a VDOT level of 46 shows that with that level of conditioning, you should expect a marathon time of 3:24:39!
A couple of key assumptions are that we are using the correct Max HR for each of us, and that all other conditions are optimal (weather, health, hills, etc.)
The tables also assume that you have maintained the correct composition in training of distance, speedwork and rest.
But you can also see that it is not so much of a stretch. Mr. Legend, if you are currently running 12 KMs at what has been your recent marathon pace (5:40 per KM or 4 hours for a marathon) and it truly seems easy, then under optimal conditions (i.e. hopefully Vaxjo!) pushing to HR's in the 75% - 84% range, along with the support during the race should result in new Legendary times!
If you ask Mr Legend he honestly believes that he can do a sub 3 marathon. Please guys, let us be true to ourselves. I would say that Mr L could, on a very good day, make Växjö (easiest marathon in the world) 3:38. For me about the same time. 3:25? No f-ing way!
SvaraRadera"You have to expect things of yourself before you can do them!" - Michael Jordan
SvaraRadera"Half the things that people do not succeed in are through fear of making the attempt." - James Northcote
Very intresting theory, I believe I must read Daniels once again. And Mr USC, you are so right when caomes to fear of making a real attempt. In Stockholm this year my fear was the sprained ancle (for 35km, not to bad, but if I compare my HR-avg with earlier years I was far from optimizing this time... Ok 3;30 should not be to far away, but when I said sub3 to El Maco I was talking about my over all "life-goal", not my present level at all.....
SvaraRaderaThen also as Mr USC wrote, comparable conditions is crusial to be able to deliver acc. to the theories, and one thing I have really learned from running a number of different marathons is that so is not the case.... Växjö, yes El Maco that is one of the easiest marathons but the weather can always mess it up ....