Make No Little Plans

Jerry wrote:

But I don't really understand why people are so serious on HS football training, some twice a day with one at 2:00pm.

High School and College training camps, with 8-10 days of doubles every day, is much harder than any training week of running I've ever done. Its just necessary to get into playing shape.

Dave-O wrote:

Chris M wrote:
What are you...Michael Mitchell reporting on weather you never actually run in? Besides, haven't seen 93 degrees there since May? Say what? It is 76 degrees in Katy, Texas TONIGHT. In July 2011, it got to the mid to low 70s every single day in Katy. I run in hotter temps than any of you Texas folks. Seeing you guys report on the weather from the comfort of A/C when you ran when it was 80 degrees out doesn't impress me. Ooooh its hot outside.....of my office window. Let's talk about runs done in weather....Texas runners have a chance to post about some epic numbers on the weather side of things but never seem to rise to the task. Instead, its always "I woke up at 4am and ran in the dark because I am scared to death of the sun". Kevin and I have been doing races in 90+ degree temps with high humidity and all of my daily training is in the 90+ degree heat with the sun fully up. You Texas people fear your own weather so much that you won't actually run in the worst of it. Sure it hits 100 degrees there more often than here....but you never run in weather like that.....here in DC, we do.

Don't mess with my boy during high mileage weeks.

No kidding! Why you gotta make him so grouchy?

Oh, wait, that's Chris' silly decision to run in uber hot and humid conditions!

Dave-O wrote:

Jerry wrote:

But I don't really understand why people are so serious on HS football training, some twice a day with one at 2:00pm.

High School and College training camps, with 8-10 days of doubles every day, is much harder than any training week of running I've ever done. Its just necessary to get into playing shape.

Agreed. 3 1/2 hour hoops practices starting the week after the XC season ended were brutal, and that was inside in a gym. Just a totally different animal than straight line running for 3-5 miles as hard as you can.

mul21 wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

Chris M wrote:
What are you...Michael Mitchell reporting on weather you never actually run in? Besides, haven't seen 93 degrees there since May? Say what? It is 76 degrees in Katy, Texas TONIGHT. In July 2011, it got to the mid to low 70s every single day in Katy. I run in hotter temps than any of you Texas folks. Seeing you guys report on the weather from the comfort of A/C when you ran when it was 80 degrees out doesn't impress me. Ooooh its hot outside.....of my office window. Let's talk about runs done in weather....Texas runners have a chance to post about some epic numbers on the weather side of things but never seem to rise to the task. Instead, its always "I woke up at 4am and ran in the dark because I am scared to death of the sun". Kevin and I have been doing races in 90+ degree temps with high humidity and all of my daily training is in the 90+ degree heat with the sun fully up. You Texas people fear your own weather so much that you won't actually run in the worst of it. Sure it hits 100 degrees there more often than here....but you never run in weather like that.....here in DC, we do.

Don't mess with my boy during high mileage weeks.

No kidding! Why you gotta make him so grouchy?

Oh, wait, that's Chris' silly decision to run in uber hot and humid conditions!

I'm just feisty because I had a good MP run today. Joel knows I kid, I kid. Ironically, the conditions were better than they have been for my midday run today...let's call them "wimpy Texas middle of the night running" conditions! 85 degrees, 79% humidity, 70 dew point....in March, that would feel overwhelmingly bad but that's a big improvement over what I've been running in for the past two weeks and my pace showed it.

mul21 wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

Jerry wrote:

But I don't really understand why people are so serious on HS football training, some twice a day with one at 2:00pm.

High School and College training camps, with 8-10 days of doubles every day, is much harder than any training week of running I've ever done. Its just necessary to get into playing shape.

Agreed. 3 1/2 hour hoops practices starting the week after the XC season ended were brutal, and that was inside in a gym. Just a totally different animal than straight line running for 3-5 miles as hard as you can.

I've never in my life felt as bad as I would during college soccer doubles. And this is late August in Maine so the weather really was not that bad. But the practices.....aiyeee....I literally would just spend the hours between passed out on a couch in our common room on the ground floor because there was no way I could expend the energy to climb a flight of stairs to a 2nd floor dorm room. I felt that bad or maybe even worse after I finished the National Marathon in 2009....but I didn't have to go practice again in 4 hours.

Dave-O wrote:

Jerry wrote:

But I don't really understand why people are so serious on HS football training, some twice a day with one at 2:00pm.

High School and College training camps, with 8-10 days of doubles every day, is much harder than any training week of running I've ever done. Its just necessary to get into playing shape.

That I have no doubt of your experience.

What I am saying is under 110+ degree? For those who can get state championship and/or college scholarship, maybe. I don't really know, but get a feeling everyone is sticking to the plan regardless of the weather?

But just curious, not my business.

Chris M wrote:

Joel H wrote:Did you just whine about it being above 93?



Next 7 days for us, 101/101/100/98/98/98/99...oh and I don't think we have seen 93 since May!

What are you...Michael Mitchell reporting on weather you never actually run in? Besides, haven't seen 93 degrees there since May? Say what? It is 76 degrees in Katy, Texas TONIGHT. In July 2011, it got to the mid to low 70s every single day in Katy. I run in hotter temps than any of you Texas folks. Seeing you guys report on the weather from the comfort of A/C when you ran when it was 80 degrees out doesn't impress me. Ooooh its hot outside.....of my office window. Let's talk about runs done in weather....Texas runners have a chance to post about some epic numbers on the weather side of things but never seem to rise to the task. Instead, its always "I woke up at 4am and ran in the dark because I am scared to death of the sun". Kevin and I have been doing races in 90+ degree temps with high humidity and all of my daily training is in the 90+ degree heat with the sun fully up. You Texas people fear your own weather so much that you won't actually run in the worst of it. Sure it hits 100 degrees there more often than here....but you never run in weather like that.....here in DC, we do.

Dude, you deal with that heat for like 2 months at most...CRY ME A FREAKING RIVER!!!! Try 6 months of 90+ temps and 70+ dew points. Oh and the dew point was 74 (81 temp) this morning at 4am when I ran, the dew point for you today at your highest temp is 70 dew point (85 temp). 85 freaking degrees...it was 85 degrees when I got done at 6am this morning on my run. Ask Schuey if Dew Point matters on a run? I don't care if yours was done in the sun or not, I have to survive longer with bad weather (2 vs 6 months) so I have to do what I have to do to survive. Plus I ran so early today because I am going out of town tonight. I am now usually getting up at 5am and start getting the sun half way through the run.

Sorry but your argument holds no water compared to the crap we have to deal with for most of the year. By the way, I did 2 races in 90 degree weather with high humidity back in May and June, what is your point? Oh I know, that we are both crazy for thinking it was a good idea?



Is it October yet?

Chris M wrote:

mul21 wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

Chris M wrote:
What are you...Michael Mitchell reporting on weather you never actually run in? Besides, haven't seen 93 degrees there since May? Say what? It is 76 degrees in Katy, Texas TONIGHT. In July 2011, it got to the mid to low 70s every single day in Katy. I run in hotter temps than any of you Texas folks. Seeing you guys report on the weather from the comfort of A/C when you ran when it was 80 degrees out doesn't impress me. Ooooh its hot outside.....of my office window. Let's talk about runs done in weather....Texas runners have a chance to post about some epic numbers on the weather side of things but never seem to rise to the task. Instead, its always "I woke up at 4am and ran in the dark because I am scared to death of the sun". Kevin and I have been doing races in 90+ degree temps with high humidity and all of my daily training is in the 90+ degree heat with the sun fully up. You Texas people fear your own weather so much that you won't actually run in the worst of it. Sure it hits 100 degrees there more often than here....but you never run in weather like that.....here in DC, we do.

Don't mess with my boy during high mileage weeks.

No kidding! Why you gotta make him so grouchy?

Oh, wait, that's Chris' silly decision to run in uber hot and humid conditions!

I'm just feisty because I had a good MP run today. Joel knows I kid, I kid. Ironically, the conditions were better than they have been for my midday run today...let's call them "wimpy Texas middle of the night running" conditions! 85 degrees, 79% humidity, 70 dew point....in March, that would feel overwhelmingly bad but that's a big improvement over what I've been running in for the past two weeks and my pace showed it.

Those conditions are normal here for March, again what is your point?



Oh and for anyone reading any of this and thinks I am offended, I am not. I know he is kidding but I agree with Jim that Chris is the crazy one for running in uber hot conditions and high humidity.

Chris M wrote:82 mile week for me.

Just checking in and catching up - holy smokes you are logging a lot of
miles. Great job and great job with the heat. It's hot here too, but
the "winters" sure are nice! Its funny how someone always has it
hotter, colder, rainier, more humid, too many tourists, too little
places for water, too little time, yada, yada... Yet we all find ways
to make what we want to happen happen barring injuries. I'm impressed
and you are a good inspiration for me - if I can accomplish a portion of what you have in three years I will be happy!!!

Dave-O wrote:
Don't mess with my boy during high mileage weeks.

Now that's funny !

Joel H wrote:Did you just whine about it being above 93?



Next 7 days for us, 101/101/100/98/98/98/99...oh and I don't think we have seen 93 since May!

You probably don't want to know that it hasn't even hit 90 so far this summer in Vancouver-Portland, and there's a decent chance we might not get there all year. Which probably explains all the moss on my neighbor's roof.

Boom.

[img][/img]

John Kilpatrick wrote:

Chris M wrote:82 mile week for me.

Just checking in and catching up - holy smokes you are logging a lot of
miles. Great job and great job with the heat. It's hot here too, but
the "winters" sure are nice! Its funny how someone always has it
hotter, colder, rainier, more humid, too many tourists, too little
places for water, too little time, yada, yada... Yet we all find ways
to make what we want to happen happen barring injuries. I'm impressed
and you are a good inspiration for me - if I can accomplish a portion of what you have in three years I will be happy!!!

Dave-O wrote:
Don't mess with my boy during high mileage weeks.

Now that's funny !

Thanks for the nice comment, John. I've said this before but I certainly didn't start off with particularly fast running 3 years ago. I couldn't do anything faster than a 10:00 pace and failed to break 30:00 for 5k. It still surprises me to now routinely do stuff below 6:00. But the "secret" for me just became running some every day. It wasn't fast and it wasn't particularly long at first but I went to 5 days of running and then 6 very quickly once I decided to start running. I've never been one to think that running fewer days a week is a recipe for getting faster. Not only that, I really think that running each day keeps me from getting hurt. Now I do 7 days a week of running with an off day maybe once a month. The mega mileage just kind of sneaks up there if you just develop the habit. For me, it became like brushing teeth....you take "will I run today?" out of the equation just like you don't ask yourself "will I brush my teeth?"....well if you do ask that and say no, that's just gross....



But anyway my own admittedly narrow and biased view about running volume and injuries is that people should run more often but slow way down and then they would avoid injuries better. I'm always shocked that people who might only do something like 30 miles a week still go on long runs of 10+ and sometimes even really long ones of 15 or more. That just seems to be begging for an injury to me. That would me like me doing a 40 mile run this weekend - no, actually I think a 40 mile run for me on Sunday (as truly insane and stupid as that would be for my training) would be less harmful than a 20 miler to someone doing 40 mile weeks. I think a lot of runners training for marathons do too many big jumps with the long runs and yet don't have the base for it....in my view, it would be better to run 5 every day and get to 35 miles per week that way than the run-day off-run-TWO days off-run I see from a lot of people to get to similar mileage levels. And why are runners who are doing so few runs a week doing such complicated workouts like tempos? I didn't get into doing workouts like those until I had a pretty signifcant mileage base under me. My own thing was "do an hour a day" and I still think of that as my base bread and butter workout. An hour a day was not even 6 miles when I was initally getting going and now I typically get 8 but the concept hasn't changed. An hour a day is locked in - like teeth brushing - for running every day. I was at 40+ miles pretty quickly doing that and then built up to doing long runs of 2-3 hours once a week and then eventually doubles....2 one hour runs. I'm making it sound too complicated because my own view is that its easier than people make it.



Here it is all boiled down for me - Run an hour a day. Run 2+ one day on the weekend. In no time and with no doubles done, you are at 60+ miles per week. No fancy workouts like 800s, tempos, ladders, fast finishes, MP runs....just log those hour runs until it truly becomes habit. It seems like so many runners I see jump way past that base building habit forming piece and go right into specific pace workouts and races and stuff that I think does bring on injury.



You get a base of 50+ miles per week built up for a couple of months, then the gains really start to come in. I dropped from 3:50 to 3:09 in one year and my half went from 1:46 to 1:25 because once I had that base at around 50-60 miles per week, I could safely add in weekly tempos, track work etc. and then my turnover and comfort at speed could be developed. Now I'm off in phase 2 of this running thing which is doing a lot of doubles and runs of significantly longer than my "one hour" base workout more often. Lots of additional effort for not as many minutes carved off as you would think. But all made possible because I started off very very slowly and ran often and without concern about pace for a good year plus.



Sorry for the tangent....long story short, you can go way further than I did in 3 years. Anyone can. All it takes is a commitment to....teeth brushing.



Here are some pics from the 10K on Saturday. Luckily they took them in the 1st half when I was still running low 6s and not in the 2nd half when Kevin and I lollygagged it in fully cooked and D-U-N done in the Summer heat. Joel would have gone out and done this race alone at 4:45am and been waiting us in the shade when we showed up to do it at 96 degree time.

Chris M wrote:

But anyway my own admittedly narrow and biased view about running volume and injuries is that people should run more often but slow way down and then they would avoid injuries better. I'm always shocked that people who might only do something like 30 miles a week still go on long runs of 10+ and sometimes even really long ones of 15 or more. That just seems to be begging for an injury to me. That would me like me doing a 40 mile run this weekend - no, actually I think a 40 mile run for me on Sunday (as truly insane and stupid as that would be for my training) would be less harmful than a 20 miler to someone doing 40 mile weeks. I think a lot of runners training for marathons do too many big jumps with the long runs and yet don't have the base for it....in my view, it would be better to run 5 every day and get to 35 miles per week that way than the run-day off-run-TWO days off-run I see from a lot of people to get to similar mileage levels. And why are runners who are doing so few runs a week doing such complicated workouts like tempos? I didn't get into doing workouts like those until I had a pretty signifcant mileage base under me. My own thing was "do an hour a day" and I still think of that as my base bread and butter workout. An hour a day was not even 6 miles when I was initally getting going and now I typically get 8 but the concept hasn't changed. An hour a day is locked in - like teeth brushing - for running every day. I was at 40+ miles pretty quickly doing that and then built up to doing long runs of 2-3 hours once a week and then eventually doubles....2 one hour runs. I'm making it sound too complicated because my own view is that its easier than people make it.

Hey Chris, Your training is looking good and your miles are really getting up there.

I would like to take this opportunity to put your narrow and biased view to the test in Chicago. That way we can compare and contrast our training philosophies and see what kind of results they produce. Perhaps I will be able to show you why someone would do complicated workouts like tempos, repeats and run long runs equal to nearly half of their low weekly mileage. And perhaps you could show me why I should run every day and do away with my cross training regimen. God help us if either one of us gets injured during this cycle.

We don't have to bet any money or age grade our times or anything. It can just be a mono y mono test of sorts so that we can evaluate the merits of our training. I know that you are preaching high mileage but I also know that you do speed work. I'm preaching low mileage w/ speed work with an emphasis on recovery and cross training.

I know you might think that it's not a fair comparison because of our current PRs but I can tell you that from looking at your training that we are at a very comparable place right now. It may even motivate us to step up our games and do even better than we would otherwise do in Chicago. There's nothing to lose so what do you say?

T Miller wrote:

Chris M wrote:

But anyway my own admittedly narrow and biased view about running volume and injuries is that people should run more often but slow way down and then they would avoid injuries better. I'm always shocked that people who might only do something like 30 miles a week still go on long runs of 10+ and sometimes even really long ones of 15 or more. That just seems to be begging for an injury to me. That would me like me doing a 40 mile run this weekend - no, actually I think a 40 mile run for me on Sunday (as truly insane and stupid as that would be for my training) would be less harmful than a 20 miler to someone doing 40 mile weeks. I think a lot of runners training for marathons do too many big jumps with the long runs and yet don't have the base for it....in my view, it would be better to run 5 every day and get to 35 miles per week that way than the run-day off-run-TWO days off-run I see from a lot of people to get to similar mileage levels. And why are runners who are doing so few runs a week doing such complicated workouts like tempos? I didn't get into doing workouts like those until I had a pretty signifcant mileage base under me. My own thing was "do an hour a day" and I still think of that as my base bread and butter workout. An hour a day was not even 6 miles when I was initally getting going and now I typically get 8 but the concept hasn't changed. An hour a day is locked in - like teeth brushing - for running every day. I was at 40+ miles pretty quickly doing that and then built up to doing long runs of 2-3 hours once a week and then eventually doubles....2 one hour runs. I'm making it sound too complicated because my own view is that its easier than people make it.

Hey Chris, Your training is looking good and your miles are really getting up there.

I would like to take this opportunity to put your narrow and biased view to the test in Chicago. That way we can compare and contrast our training philosophies and see what kind of results they produce. Perhaps I will be able to show you why someone would do complicated workouts like tempos, repeats and run long runs equal to nearly half of their low weekly mileage. And perhaps you could show me why I should run every day and do away with my cross training regimen. God help us if either one of us gets injured during this cycle.

We don't have to bet any money or age grade our times or anything. It can just be a mono y mono test of sorts so that we can evaluate the merits of our training. I know that you are preaching high mileage but I also know that you do speed work. I'm preaching low mileage w/ speed work with an emphasis on recovery and cross training.

I know you might think that it's not a fair comparison because of our current PRs but I can tell you that from looking at your training that we are at a very comparable place right now. It may even motivate us to step up our games and do even better than we would otherwise do in Chicago. There's nothing to lose so what do you say?

I think both of you guys make some very good points for the way you both train. I think it would be a very interesting comparison. Although I'm willing to bet that you both will have very good outcomes come Oct.. The reason I say that is that I feel that both of you believe in how and what you are doing with your training. I truly believe the key to success in running is all about finding out what works best for each of us in training and that there is really no right or wrong way but only a right and wrong with for each of us as individuals, if that makes sense.

I really think that high volume works well for some and that low volume or the FRIST approach works very well for others.

I think the key for Chris this coming fall will be that he has the sodium imbalance in check and he doesn't have the cramping issue. I truly hope you both do awesome because both of you guys train hard and put a lot of time into training.

First off for Tim's proposal....it is ON! I'm crazy to be going 1v1 against a runner as fast as you but sure, why not?! In Chicago, you'll drop me by the time we exit that tunnel in the 1st half mile but I'm game to at least make you work for it.



Now on to the more interesting training discussion.



Tim specifically is the best example I've seen of quality over quantity. I specifically cited him recently to my buddy Scott as someone who is killing it race-times wise but not having to mash monster weekly mileage. Scott is a biker, too, so he was particularly interested in Tim's story.



Now, with that said, here's a couple of clarifications and points to consider:



- My suggestion of daily hour runs was more what I'm calling "Phase 1" of being a marathoner and I think that's enough to carry just about everyone to a BQ. 8-10 hours of running a week, no workouts, a 2-3 hour long run every weekend....boom....the quantity IS the quality at that point and just by dint of effort, I think marathoners doing 7 days a week of 8-10 hours of running WILL BQ if done for a year plus.



- So while Tim is 100% right that I do a fair amount of speed work or targetted pace workouts now (2-3x per week) I was more generally referring to the "Phase 1" concept I experienced 2 years ago going from nothing to running marathons. I stick by the view that for a runner just getting into things or at least just getting into training seriously, simple volume and days of running per week trumps specific workouts.



- Now another thing about Tim is that its my understanding or at least assumption that Tim had a pretty huge fitness base he works off of. If you take the past, what, 5 years, I think Tim has run plenty of miles so the endurance base from running is way up there. Injuries in part (right?) have had Tim move away from being a mega miles guy but don't confuse that with thinking Tim hasn't done more than his share of 60+ mile weeks.



- And another thing about this Tim fella.....the dude is killing it on his bike often each week too! You add up all the hours that he trains per week, especially if swim training is being done for tri prep too and I'll bet it exceeds (often by a lot) the 10 hours of running I was recommending above as the commitment needed to get into BQ shape. So Tim is sandbagging things when he says I only run x miles or x number of days. Not like he's sitting on the couch those other days!



- But Tim is the best counterpoint to the "just run a lot" training approach I advocate for "Phase 1" of getting people to a BQ. I think sometimes Tim only does 3 runs a week. And his race results are awesome. But I feel like that should have one of those TV warnings "Do Not Try This At Home - Tim Is An Unusual Runner!" Tim's way clearly works for him but I think for the vast majority of us trying to improve our marathon times, the answer is unfortunately more boring days of running boring slow miles.



I feel like I have to uphold my side of the argument on October 9 in Chicago! I'd better step up my game.

Geez Chris. Instead of typing a novel, you could have just went with the tried and true argument of "Just imagine how fast Tim would be if he logged the big mileage." It's kind of like the crain kick from Karate Kid. If executed properly, it's indefensible.

GregC wrote:Geez Chris. Instead of typing a novel, you could have just went with the tried and true argument of "Just imagine how fast Tim would be if he logged the big mileage." It's kind of like the crain kick from Karate Kid. If executed properly, it's indefensible.

...Or maybe, if Chris biked 120 miles per week and swam another 10 miles per week like Tim, he'd have already gone sub 3:00 on fewer miles.



Tim, maybe you should be coaching Chris. What do you think Dave-O? Time to cry uncle if Chris fails to go sub180 in October?

While it is a little downgrade of Tim's status, I feel also he is trying to setup a statement that he creates sub 3 marathoners.

Don't disappoint me, you both!

Chris M wrote:First off for Tim's proposal....it is ON! I'm crazy to be going 1v1 against a runner as fast as you but sure, why not?! In Chicago, you'll drop me by the time we exit that tunnel in the 1st half mile but I'm game to at least make you work for it.

Awesome, lets do this.

Chris M wrote:
Now on to the more interesting training discussion.

Tim specifically is the best example I've seen of quality over quantity. I specifically cited him recently to my buddy Scott as someone who is killing it race-times wise but not having to mash monster weekly mileage. Scott is a biker, too, so he was particularly interested in Tim's story.

Now, with that said, here's a couple of clarifications and points to consider:

- My suggestion of daily hour runs was more what I'm calling "Phase 1" of being a marathoner and I think that's enough to carry just about everyone to a BQ. 8-10 hours of running a week, no workouts, a 2-3 hour long run every weekend....boom....the quantity IS the quality at that point and just by dint of effort, I think marathoners doing 7 days a week of 8-10 hours of running WILL BQ if done for a year plus.

I agree, I run many 1 hour-ish runs during the week and usually a long run or two on the weekends. My cross training rides are also around an hour most days.

Chris M wrote:
- So while Tim is 100% right that I do a fair amount of speed work or targetted pace workouts now (2-3x per week) I was more generally referring to the "Phase 1" concept I experienced 2 years ago going from nothing to running marathons. I stick by the view that for a runner just getting into things or at least just getting into training seriously, simple volume and days of running per week trumps specific workouts.

I never really trained with just volume but I did develop some chronic injuries as I tried to up my miles in the early years.

Chris M wrote:
- Now another thing about Tim is that its my understanding or at least assumption that Tim had a pretty huge fitness base he works off of. If you take the past, what, 5 years, I think Tim has run plenty of miles so the endurance base from running is way up there. Injuries in part (right?) have had Tim move away from being a mega miles guy but don't confuse that with thinking Tim hasn't done more than his share of 60+ mile weeks.

Actually I've peaked out a around 60 miles a few times but for the most part I've always been under 60.

Chris M wrote:
- And another thing about this Tim fella.....the dude is killing it on his bike often each week too! You add up all the hours that he trains per week, especially if swim training is being done for tri prep too and I'll bet it exceeds (often by a lot) the 10 hours of running I was recommending above as the commitment needed to get into BQ shape. So Tim is sandbagging things when he says I only run x miles or x number of days. Not like he's sitting on the couch those other days!

I do cross train on my running recover days and I also double up on my running days with a bike or swim or both. I would probably benefit from some p90x too but it is difficult to find the time.

Chris M wrote:
- But Tim is the best counterpoint to the "just run a lot" training approach I advocate for "Phase 1" of getting people to a BQ. I think sometimes Tim only does 3 runs a week. And his race results are awesome. But I feel like that should have one of those TV warnings "Do Not Try This At Home - Tim Is An Unusual Runner!" Tim's way clearly works for him but I think for the vast majority of us trying to improve our marathon times, the answer is unfortunately more boring days of running boring slow miles.

I run 4 days a week with the occasional double or stray run in there somewhere. I think of my training as simply replacing the boring slow running miles with a moderate effort ride.

Chris M wrote:
I feel like I have to uphold my side of the argument on October 9 in Chicago! I'd better step up my game.

[/quote]
Bring It!

GregC wrote:Geez Chris. Instead of typing a novel, you could have just went with the tried and true argument of "Just imagine how fast Tim would be if he logged the big mileage." It's kind of like the crain kick from Karate Kid. If executed properly, it's indefensible.

Very funny Greg. I will try becoming a high mileage runner at some point in the future when my current training regime fails to produce results. I've had chronic injury problems with high mileage in the past but that may not be the case now that I have more of a base.

Tim, isn't your half-marathon PR in the 1:18 range? If you don't crush Chris (1:24 HM PR) at Chicago, doesn't that validate that you lack the volume for the marathon?

Not trying to stir the pot (too much) but that's a pretty drastic HM discrepancy.

Dave-O wrote:Tim, isn't your half-marathon PR in the 1:18 range?

3 minutes faster than me? Not in recent years, or I would've heard it.

Dave-O wrote:Tim, isn't your half-marathon PR in the 1:18 range? If you don't crush Chris (1:24 HM PR) at Chicago, doesn't that validate that you lack the volume for the marathon?

Not trying to stir the pot (too much) but that's a pretty drastic HM discrepancy.

Nope, sorry to say that my half PR is 1:23:45 and my most recent attempt was 1:25:xx. I think we're right inline. My PR predicts a 2:56:38 and my actual marathon PR is 2:57:17. I don't see any validation in these numbers.

And now for a brief banal interlude simply for the record. Here are a few more images from the hot evening race Chris and I ran ... well ... completed anyway on Saturday and Chris posted about ages ago ... well it seems ages ... but it was only this morning. She dauwgies guys. Here are my pics from the Friends of the W&OD 10K:


Hey, do I look fat in this outfit?

I think I'll go brush my teeth.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program ...

Ah, the 14.5 mile mark of the W&OD in Kevin's picture. I know it so well. I pass it almost every day on my leisurely runs. I associate that little mileage sign with good pleasant runs. So much nicer than the rip your face off, 95 degree temp sprint past it we had to do Saturday night. That was definitely one of those races where I found myself asking "WHY do we do this stuff and actually pay for it?"



My half PR is 1:25:05 from March 2010 although I like Dave rounding me down to 1:24. Or maybe he thinks he's getting me there when we run Philly next month. Hope so! The 1:25 I ran HURT.LIKE.HELL. Kevin was there and on a bike coaching me through the last mile. It sucked. There was a lesson in there about not going out at 6:08 pace for the first 5K when you want to run a 6:30 half but if I learned that lesson that day, I've since forgotten it. More pics so here's mine from the finish that day....I never wanted to run again.



Now....back to Tim. BRING IT! Hmm, given what I said above, how are you at race day pacing....hmmm.....a plan for October 9 is forming.....hmmmm....

All this talk of ~1:25 HM PRs reminds me that I was supposed to run a sub 1:25 this summer. Oops.

Looking forward to watching this 1v1 play out.

This should be an interesting 1v1. I know that W&OD trail, well at least a little bit.