Running • Page 105

Sometimes, false shows of happiness/excitement/strength can help generate the real thing. I got a lot of energy from high-fiving people in the crowd, fist-pumping at the top of hills, and trying to encourage other runners after my own race went south on Monday. It's easy to get locked in your own brain out there, so anything that can help you get beyond that when things aren't going well is good.

 

Guy behind you has gotta be so pissed he didn’t get a pic

 

Every race picture I’ve ever seen of me has me looking like total shit. My sister took some candid shots of me during the SF marathon when we somehow ran into each other when the full and half merged together and they are god awful lol I would pay good money to have someone photoshop my face on Craig or Garrett’s picture so I have at least one good, but fake, running picture lol

 

He got one! (no, totally didn't go check)

 

Hey, worth a try, right?!

 

I think it was the marathon I did in Illinois, I was near the end, new cameras were around so tried to look awesome with great posture and whatnot and the nearest person was ahead me by like 50 feet and suddenly she stops as her kids race out to join her and all of my pictures end up blocked/covered by her and her family lol

but since I always look like shit in running pics I wasn’t that bothered that they were “ruined” by not really being able to see me in them

 

Every time I see all these families out there running with kids and stuff at the end is always so cute, but like... let me get to the finish line please, haha.

I can't stress how much I'm usually like you when it comes to looking awful in my race photos. That one up there is a fluke.

 

I can't decide whether I think that kind of thing (families/kids/non-racers in general coming out onto the course) is heartwarming or a potentially dangerous violation of the rules and marathon etiquette in general. I think it might be both!

 

I feel like it has its place to be ok to happen and also to be a major issue. Like, if a family member or someone runs into the course near the end while it’s packed with runners - I have big problem with that. If it’s when only a few people are finishing at a particular time and there is room where they’re not interrupting / getting in the way of a runner, then I don’t see it as much of an issue.

I totally get why it’s an issue from a logistical and safety perspective at any point to have people on the course that aren’t running and that the rules are very black and white with not allowing it to happen, but I get it if that’s the only runner in the area, they don’t pose much risk or an issue.

I find it very interesting when an event states that if people enter the route / join you / are seen as being someone you’re there with that the runner gets disqualified. Yes, the runner should emphasize that their cheering people should not come on the course ahead of time but if it still happens idk if the runner should be blamed and responsible for someone else’s actions.

 

When it comes to the runners in here, do you prefer the 3 week or the 2 week marathon taper?

I'm basically running into a problem with my last 20 mile run falling on a weekend I'm out of town at a music festival this fall if I stick to a 3 week taper (which I've done my first two fulls). For my first marathon, three weeks had me BUZZING come race week with extra energy. This time around, with a much heavier peak eight weeks, I had energy but not actively fidgeting like I was the first time. I'm hoping to match or slightly increase that mileage, so I'm still leaning 3 week taper, but the idea of running 20 miles before day three of a festival sounds... awful.

 

The two-week taper is something that's worth trying out, for sure. I did a three-week taper for my first three marathons, and the first two, I had a similar feeling to what you're describing, of buzzing with energy on race day. That's a good thing. The flip side is that I absolutely felt like I lost fitness, especially before my third marathon, and I wished I'd done a two-week taper instead of a three week.

Then again, my only two-week taper so far was Boston, and that was my slowest marathon -- albeit, for reasons having nothing to do with fitness. I'm doing the two-week into my next race, too, but this one is going to be totally different from the others given the six-week gap between races.

The other option is to try getting your long run in earlier in the week, if possible, and then leaving yourself an open weekend. I did that last year when my sister got married because I didn't want to have to go get 20 miles on her wedding day or the day after.

 

Yeah, I've found a bit of back and forth "research" online that suggested going for 20 four weeks out, then only dropping to 18 but reducing intensity by 50% three weeks out before dropping into the normal taper cadence. Which, doesn't really solve my problem so I was leaning towards that two week one. That just moves my 20 mile run to the day after Yom Kippur... which is fasting, haha. I'd have to devour a pizza the night before (not a problem).

Getting a 20 mile run in after work in October, I suppose, would be possible if I'm staying right around that 3 hour pace I was this spring in that. Just would have to aim for well-lit areas towards the end. The other option is the Monday after the festival and driving back home, I suppose. I hope to be a smidge faster come the fall. But who knows how hot a mid-day run would be in early October, too.

Currently got a calendar in front of me with everything for the summer and fall on it trying to plan out how to handle this smartly. I aimed for 40 mile weeks training for this last marathon and was hoping to up this routine to 45 mile weeks. It's just such a time commitment at my pace that I have to really figure it out well in advance.

 

I don't think your taper should be any longer than three weeks, so I'd probably disregard that four-week plan. Getting a 20-miler in two or three weeks out is pretty essential, IMO. Your body gets used to NOT running that long way too quickly. I got nine long runs of 20-23 miles in before Boston, the last one being two weeks out, and the endurance for 26 still wasn't quite where I wanted it to be on race day.

If you're tapering down from 45 miles, that's also easier to do with a two-week taper than tapering down from, say, 90 or 100. Longer tapers can be nice for higher mileage because you stave off some of the shock to the body that would come from a dive from 100 miles to 60 miles in the space of one week. Going from 45-50, to 30-35, and then to race week is less of a shock, which makes the two-week taper arguably even better for you than it is for me.

 

That’s a pretty good point. I often feel like I’m reading plans and seeing stuff for people who are either much faster/running further than me or novices/“slow runners”.

I’d love to make a jump to where I could get more than 2 20 milers in as eventually that lends itself greatly to pace, but I definitely hit that major wall in this training program knowing my next true long run needed to be the race at mile 18 of the second 20.

Feel like it’s learning more all the time, adjusting your plans, adjusting again on your body’s response, and learning more again. Just gotta keep showing up.

I just know my job is killing me lately and I gotta get onto a routine asap to combat it in a healthy way.

 

To me and for me, 3 week tapers for marathon are too long. Depending on what you can do (I haven’t caught up on all the posts yet), I’d maybe recommend splitting the taper up, so if you can get the 20-mile run in and then start “week 1” taper, and then do some part of the taper for week 2 but actually do the tapering in what would be “week 3” may work.

but overall, it would be less risky to simply have 3 weeks of tapering vs maybe trying to do too much only one week out.

 

@Craig Manning I meant to ask how you liked the Vaporflys?

I bought a pair, but haven’t run in them yet. This will be my first foray into carbon plate shoes. My plan is to test them on a speed workout before my half and then race in them for the half. After that, maybe another key session or two in marathon training and then race the marathon in them. They are expensive and wear quickly, but I also want my legs to be doing most of the training. I know there are some different approaches though.

 

I adore them. They’re like cheat codes for faster running. I definitely recommend wearing them for a training session or two before your race, or better yet, a tune-up 5K or 10K. You don’t want to lean on them in training too much, for a lot of reasons, but I’ll break them out for extended pace work sessions or time trials, both because it’s super fun to just fly and because it’s good to get a feel for how much easier race pace feels in them.

 

Tested the Vaporflys last night on my workout and holy smokes those shoes are fun. Being a workout of 10 total miles, I more so noticed the carbon plate pushing my feet forward. But I am curious to see how the foam helps save the legs over time on a longer run.

 

For anyone who might know, what difference is there between a Vaporfly and the Cloudmonster? Google isn't helping me out here, haha. Maybe it's more comparable to the Cloudboom Echo sine that's the official racing On?

I've been running in On since 2020. The pair of Nikes I've got make my feet feel real weird when I run in them.

Edit: I think these Nikes are Air Zoom Pegasus

 

I'm deciding right now between Alphafly/Vaporfly and one of the Saucony Endorphins for a race next month. I'm a Saucony devotee (worn basically only Kinvaras for over a decade) but have never owned proper flats before, so not really sure if I should stick closer to what I know, or try out one the Nikes since they're so popular

 

i'm firmly team endorphins.

 

Which one do you have? Everything I've read so far suggests that the Pros would be a less jarring transition for me than the Elites so I'm leaning Endorphin Pro 4

 

The Cloudmonster is technically a trainer, not a racing shoe/super shoe, so the difference is pretty vast. The simplest way of putting it is that there’s no carbon plate in the Cloudmonster (or really any trainer) which means you’re not getting the enhanced energy return that a carbon-plated super shoe like the Vaporfly gives you. When you run, you lose a certain amount of energy with every footfall. Carbon shoes are designed to give more of that energy back to you, in such a way that you can feel super shoes propelling you forward in a way that even the quickest-feeling trainer can’t replicate. The result is that you can run faster with less effort. Over the course of a marathon, that can translate to literal minutes of improvement.

Everything I’ve heard tells me that Nike’s super shoes are still the gold standard, but there are a lot of options available out there now. If you like On, maybe try the Cloudboom Echo 3.

 

Gotcha. Cloudmonster has a “speed board” but it’s not carbon. Thanks for breaking that down.

 

Yeah, it sounds like there's a similar concept there, but the carbon fiber plate is going to put much more "snap" in your step, so to speak.