This is the same plan that I followed for the Hartford Marathon. I was a slave to this plan and got pretty fit--fit enough to think that I could actually run a 3:30 marathon with my initial goal at 4:00. Given my history of injury, I think a good goal for the SF marathon is 4:00 (or to just finish)...for real. The idea is not to run my fastest marathon but to travel the country and see SF. I hope that I will remember this when I want to push myself.To ensure that I get all 16 weeks of training in, I must start the marathon-specific workouts tomorrow. Since having the hardware removed from my left foot, I've been running 10-20 miles per week in Nike Free. There are about 220 miles on them. I'm going to continue using these for my shorter runs but need to decide on a more supportive shoe for my longer runs. I think I'm going to go with the Asics DS Trainer. I tried this on once and remember liking its feel but didn't buy it because they wanted way too much money for it. The current model is 14. Maybe I can find a 12 or 13 at a discounted price.
5 comments:
Sounds great! Good luck with your marathon training. If you are really worried about injuries, you should check out the most recent issue of Runner's World. There is an article about marathon training where the longest run is only 14-16 miles. I guess the thought is that without the grueling 20 milers you can run more consistently and get more "quality" miles in. I've been considering trying this approach for my next marathon (whenever that will be). Anyhow, like I said, good luck and stay healthy!
Thanks, Geoff. Glad to see that you're still reading. I hope that you're still able to get out and run as much as you'd like with your now being a father and all.
I haven't read that article yet. Interesting approach. For the marathon, I didn't think that there was a substitute for plain, old mileage, and getting in those 20-milers.
I still subscribe to Runner's World, but I don't think that I'm going to renew my subscription. I'm bored with it. The articles seem to be rehashings of articles I've read in the past. The tried and true training techniques have already been developed and at some point you just can't spin them anymore.
What say you?
Cheers.
My running has been going quite well. I've been getting in lots and lots of mileage (I'm doing an ultra marathon in less than 3 weeks). It helps that my son seems to enjoy riding in the jogging stroller and I've recently gotten my wife interested in completing her first 5K.
As for the new marathon approach, it seems like it might have good potential. I don't think you run less total miles, just less really long runs. The article suggests doing two 12 milers on back-to-back days rather than doing one 20 miler. You are suppose to get the same training benefits without the excessive beating that comes with a 20+ mile run. And I can attest that those runs can beat you down (I've done two training runs that were 27 and 28 miles long...ouch).
To answer your question about Runner's World, I still find it worth reading. There are often good tips and training ideas but really like it for the inspiration. It helped get me out the door this winter when it was zero degrees.
Wow! Good luck with the ultra. Which one are you doing?
Thanks. I'm doing the Jack Bristol Lake Waramaug 50K. It basically circles the lake about 4 times. I selected the "shortest" of the 3 concurrent races. There is also a 50 miler and 100K. Maybe next year...
Post a Comment