quote:<HR>Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Laker and others,

If this is indeed the case physiologically, then the question becomes how does that affect training.

Here are some thoughts:

1) Obviously, less MP runs and more LT/Half-Pace runs. I suppose this means shorter distance @ tempo.

2) The long run becomes less crucial: in other words, those 2:30-3 hrs to deplete glyocogen are not as crucial.

3) VO2 max plays a larger role (albeit not that large as compared to a 10k).

At the end of the day, I think the half may be one of the most difficult events to train for in that there is such a large variable btw front-pack runners, mid-pack, and penguins...<HR>

#1 I don't necessarily agree with. I think long tempos are still gold, but certainly I agree less long MP runs. I think the half , at least for me, is the easiest race to train for. Far less variables to affect outcome than either a marathon or shorter races where anaerobic issues become much more important.

Proper HM training is certainly different from proper marathon training. The physiological needs are different; HM is very close to threshhold for fast runners. Marathon not so much so. Look at the likes of Tergat, Geb, etc.....very lightning fast HM I can think of, they failed to convert on the full marathon that followed. Hall's recent races were the closest I have seen someone come.

I know a master's runner who was a mid-28 10K, 1:03-1:04 HM runner in his prime. He tried the marathon several times, finally breaking 2:20 as a 40-yr-old. Clearly his great fitness HM and under did not translate into comparable marathon ability.

To take my example, my HM was 2 months before the marathon. Halfway in between the two I ran a 30:57 10K, which converts to something like 1:08:50/2:25. I couldn't peak for all 3 races, so I was training thru the HM and got an injury during the 10K that left me sub-optimal for the marathon. So even in a very short period of time, it's impossible to really compare the 3 performances.

I still see my greatest potential in the marathon, but having a max of 2 good opportunities per year makes it very hard to convert...I can't just run one when I feel good. Though since I'm not sure I can get into Chicago I might end up doing just that this fall.

As for training for the HM, if you're on the faster end I like long tempos and interval tempos (ie 3X15min), medium-long runs (14-16 miles) with fast finishes, and short recovery/moderately paced inverval workouts (8X800m 90sec reovery, 6-8X1000m 2min recovery at 3k-5k pace).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by afletche:
aharmer - what was your ave weekly mileage for the marathon?

Here's some analysis based on the limited dataset (16 responses)....

I first converted all times to VDOT values from Daniels' tables.

Only 2 people met/beat their projected time (ie their full VDOT was equal/higher than their half VDOT) - everyone else did "worse" than predicted. Average was about 2.5 VDOTs lower for the full vs the half.

On a graph of "VDOT gap" vs weekly mileage the best fit line shows that at low mileage the gap was higher (25mpw was -4), and at high mileage lower (100mpw was -1).

Obviously not enough data to prove anything but enough to tell me that attempting to run a 3:10 (VDOT 50) full off of 65mpw after a 1:30 (VDOT 51) is going to be hard. Instead, I'm going up 3-4 VDOTs and will be aiming for 3:20 (VDOT 47ish).

thanks, Alan<HR>

Sorry about that...don't have exact numbers but it was pretty low. Definitely didn't average over 45, probably closer to 40.

Yeah, trained through it. I was not too fresh for the race. One of these days I am going to have to stop using shorter races as training runs for the marathon to see what I could do...I tend to get better as the distance gets longer so I am not quite ready to give up marathons...

June 2006 - half - 1:27:41
October 2006 - mar - 3:00:40
Avg. .MPW - 77

February 2007 - half - 1:23:31
April 2007 - mar - 3:01:30
Avg. MPW - 74


------------------
- Chris -