-
• #12977
gone now sorry.
-
• #12978
Ok no harm, thanks for checking and enjoy
-
• #12979
Stockholm marathon, 4th of June, should I?
-
• #12980
I might be doing the half in stockholm in sept.
-
• #12981
Agreed. I don't think he intended me to stop but as I couldn't tell what he was saying at first I paused to listen better.
-
• #12982
What's the furthest distance people are routinely running in marathon training?
I have a real push on running at the moment.
-
• #12983
1st marathon
Weekly: built up to 11km of speed work (8x1000, 10x800 or 5x1600) with 1km warm up and cool down jogs, 11.5km easy run commute, 5k tempo (park run)
Long run building up from 10k to 21km, fast 10k, 24, 29, 24, fast HM, 35, taperJust google a bunch of training plans for more ideas.
-
• #12985
Got my numbers for Guernsey easter.
3
Bound to make me run faster -
• #12986
Think I went up to 21 miles for my first marathon, and since then topped out around 23/24. I don't think I'd ever have any intention of going up to or over marathon distance. Most people I know who do are either elite, close to elite, or slightly deranged. If you can't cover the distance in under 3 hours at a jog, I think it just takes too much out of you. Save it for race day.
-
• #12987
Good luck! Advice for pre race breakfast -Guernsey gauche (local traditional fruit bread) with local butter.
-
• #12988
That's an interesting idea- stop at three hours rather than at a distance. Longest period I have run for is around two hours I think, possibly less- So something to aim for.
-
• #12989
3
The magic number.
-
• #12990
One for the crazies:
-
• #12991
@Dammit @PhilPub
First marathon here. Just finished my last long run, 21.7 miles.
Had another planned but going to do Paddock Wood half instead, so will try and remember how to run faster rather than steady for that and see what happens. I've done three now at 20+ so I'm happy with the idea of a fast half instead of a long slow run.
The 22 took 3 hours. Could have trudged on for longer but... excuses. -
• #12993
weekly volume is probably more important than how far you go on your long run.
-
• #12994
^This.
-
• #12995
Cross post from Ultracycling, this is a book I really like and I just discovered it was on Google Books so I thought I would share with you running people.
It's a bunch of stories from American ultras with a range of people from first timers through to David Horton. It's quite old now but worth a read.
-
• #12996
Sign me up!
-
• #12998
Definitely in.
-
• #12999
Another crazy one:
http://ultrarunningcommunity.com/13-report/1077-last-one-standing-sammy-daye
-
• #13000
Ok runners, riddle me this - hardware issue or Dammit issue?
Here's todays long, slow run (featuring an initial 10k, then some sightseeing, then me eventually running on to hit two hours/a half marathon distance):
This is showing SMO2, essentially the oxygen saturation in the muscle, in this particular case my right calf. Here are the traditional metrics:
As I said at the top, initial 10k then some dicking around, as you can see.
What I'm wondering about is the first quarter of an hour:
Which (if accurate) shows my SMO2 trending down very sharply pretty much as soon as I set off, hitting ~30%, then slowly coming back up. This is repeated in another run I did in January:
It's a shorter run so less compressed, but you have the time stamp at the bottom. The whole run actually follows a very similar pattern:
Ultimately my question is are these graphs an accurate representation of what my body is doing (start from cold, massive drop in SMO2, eventually comes back up during exercise) or is the sensor likely to be borked?
If the former this indicates that it's essential for me to warm up for at least 15 minutes before a race, and also might explain why I have a "3k of pain" at the start of every run I do, during which my legs feel like sticks, but then come back to me after (strangely, or maybe not so strangely) 15 minutes of running.
Over to you, Internet experts!
@user49586 will check now.