|
Sasha Pachev
|
 |
« on: April 17, 2008, 02:57:46 pm » |
|
In case you've missed it. Michael Wardian had recently run two marathons only 1 day apart, both under 2:30. He won the first (National Marathon in Washington) in 2:25:00, and was third in the second (Knoxville) with 2:29:50. He ran another marathon 13 days prior to National in Shamrock in 2:24:55 finishing second. Interestingly enough, his completely fresh PR in ideal conditions on a perfect course (Shamrock 2007) is 2:21:37. The National course is hilly, and this year's Shamrock was windy. Knoxville course is a beast as well. So it is not like we have a 2:10-2:15 guy going out for what Paul would call "loafing through a marathon". He is able to be within 5 minutes of his course/conditions adjusted PR equivalent the next day! Check out an article about him in Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/sports/articles/2008/04/17/keeping_a_tireless_pace/Interestingly enough, he is a vegetarian, according to the article. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Petersen
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2008, 04:15:26 pm » |
|
He also won the 100km Championships last week.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adam R Wende
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2008, 07:55:47 pm » |
|
Wow! I'm jealous. I wonder if he would go sub 2:10 if he tapered  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2008, 09:20:29 am » |
|
That is the whole point. He ran only 2:21:37 when he did taper. He possibly has the same problem as I do. The body is strong enough to run faster, but there is some hold back that keeps it from happening. So the only way to see that strength is in the rate of recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dale
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2008, 11:31:32 am » |
|
I think many folks with that particular problem tend to go longer and get into Ultras....their ability to burn fats efficiently, sustain over long distances repeatedly, and recover quickly make them naturals. Perhaps you're missing your *true* calling?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chad
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2008, 01:11:47 pm » |
|
Sasha, you would tear it up in an ultra. You should give it a shot one day to mix it up. Start with a flat 50k. If you enjoy the climbing, move up to a trail 50m or 100m. Your ability to recover would give you a huge advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2008, 03:42:21 pm » |
|
I run not only to win but also for good health. I want to go on several LDS missions after my kids are grown. I do not think ultras are good for your health, in fact, I think a marathon off less than 70 miles a week is not that good for your health either. And ultras do not pay nearly as well as marathons do both in terms of money or publicity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Allen
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2008, 04:53:09 pm » |
|
Yes, most people probably don't do ultras for the money or the publicity. But then again, few people run for the money or the publicity. I would say most do it cause they enjoy it and/or for health reasons. Though from speaking to several ultramarathoners, it isn't too much harder than a marathon (from what they claim).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
adam
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2008, 07:29:01 pm » |
|
"I do not think ultras are good for your health" I think Ted Corbitt would beg to differ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_CorbittIf your 84 and can still walk 68 miles in 24hrs, you'll do fine in several missions |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Petersen
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2008, 08:03:30 pm » |
|
How many ultra runners have you met? And how many of them are in poor health? Most of the time, ultra = trail. I would argue that standard marathon training is way harder on your body compared to ultra training, due to the extra pounding and much faster pace.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Allen
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2008, 08:36:03 pm » |
|
I agree you have more trail work and less road, so less over-use injuries. More sprained ankles, I bet. Plus, I hear the competitive ones have long weekend workouts- 30+ mile runs on Saturday and Sunday! Lots of time!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Superfly
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2008, 09:07:14 pm » |
|
For love or Money.
I think a good question here is how many of us run for $$$. I personally have never entered a race to try to win money. I enter and want to win and if there is money then it's a bonus. But running a race for pure financial reasons is kind of breaking a code of ethics in my book. The money driven glory has become a cancer to most other sports. Running is one of the few that (doesn't pay much) but have a following of participants who really love what they do regardless of what they might win or put in the wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Allen
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2008, 07:03:54 am » |
|
Well said, Clyde.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sasha Pachev
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2008, 02:13:36 pm » |
|
Clyde - that all sounds nice, but how are you going to support a family and reach your potential in running? Not that I could right now with running alone. If I did not know how to program and be well enough established in my field to be able to make a living working part-time, right now with the meager prize purses running would have had to be a hobby. There would be no Fast Running Blog, and I would be running about a 2:35-2:37 in TOU on a good day, maybe low 2:30 in St. George. The fact that I am able to have this site, and run the way I do is a miracle, it is completely against the odds. Which is nice, but my point is that it should not be. More people run in the US than play football, but very few can run professionally compared to football. That is not right. That is not healthy in a lot of aspects. It is a reflection of our skewed values.
I choose to protest against it and this is how. I run as if I had to make a living with it. When I am in a race, I forget that I have other income. I do not consider my running income vacation money. I use it to pay the bills and to pay off my mortgage. I do not want an age division award, and I do not want a finisher medal. If I lost I lost, I do not need a trophy to remind me that I was not good enough for the cash today. I do not see my running as a hobby even though with all my best money management it is not even close to being called a significant source of income. I do not exactly know how much difference this approach is going to make, but deep down I feel it is the right thing to do. This is my way of saying: Look - I am a legitimate athlete, I am not a weekend jogger. Our sport is as legitimate as football and baseball, and we deserve respect. I think if everybody around us saw it this way, things would change. Not just that more than a handful in the nation would be able to run professionally, but more kids having better role models would stay out of trouble, more adults would set higher goals for themselves, and many other good things would happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Petersen
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2008, 02:27:09 pm » |
|
That brings to mind the question: why should football and basketball players get paid for that matter? Winning an event (whatever the sport) brings no legitimate value to society. In my opinion, no athlete should be paid anything. Instead, pour our money into teachers, firemen, and cartographers. Athletic development doesn't really matter, especially compared to these other vocations.
None of us "deserve" anything for our running. It's not a right to get paid.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
