Herding_Cats
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 4,971
I am right there with you on that mile 11 feeling. 

I am right there with you on that mile 11 feeling.![]()
Congrats!
I don't have any advice but this really made me giggle. I've definitely been there before. Now is the time to figure out a way to fuel and pace yourself that works for you and you don't experience this during your race. Best of luck!Mile 16: 15:27 (Just drag me the last 2 miles, please)
Mile 17: 15:37 (Really, I will hang onto the back of a bike and it can drag me)
I don't have any advice but this really made me giggle. I've definitely been there before. Now is the time to figure out a way to fuel and pace yourself that works for you and you don't experience this during your race. Best of luck!
I’ll be interested to see what you think of the clifblocks. I thought I had sand/dirt on my face in a run leading up to my full; nope, it was salt from my dried sweat.so I’m trying to figure out the salt thing too.
Based on your HM PR of 2:32, I calculate a continuous LR pace of 13:12 min/mile and run/walk pace of 14:07 min/mile using 90/30 intervals at 13:12 pace/18:00 pace.
Question for the group: when I mentioned that the Galloway plan goes up to a 26 mile run before race day, the women I run with were really surprised. I know that most plans go to 20 max - what's the thought process behind the 26 pre-race for Galloway? I figured it was to help with the mind over matter thing - you've done it once, you can do it again. I was planning on capping at 23 because I want to hit 26 for the first time in a race, but I'm curious about Galloway's method. They were also surprised that the fallback weeks went all the way down to 6 or 7. What are the pros/cons for dropping this far back and what do other plans usually do for fallback weeks?
So the two are interconnected. With the high-highs of the Galloway plan come the low-lows to induce sufficient recovery. He also tends to have more weeks between LRs. A more traditional training plan will follow a high-mod-high-mod LR pattern on a weekly basis towards the end of training. Whereas, Galloway follows a higher-low-low-higher-low-low. Again, this is because his plan is focusing on completing the race distance and getting you there healthy (his data suggests the combination of run/walk + 3 week LR rotation + long LRs can accomplish this), instead of being well trained and in a good place fitness wise. He's focused on completion, and other plans are focused on max fitness. You're also correct that it is a psychological benefit to go to 26 miles in training rather than a physiological benefit. You've done it before and you can do it again.
It's important to remember as well that Galloway's LR pace is traditionally much much slower than other training plan's LR pace. So he's mitigating some risk in his really high mileage training runs by keeping the pace extra slow comparatively. So this is where you personally may run into an issue using Galloway's plan as a continuous runner. As he is assuming you're 1) doing run/walk and 2) doing it at a pace that's 50-60 sec/mile slower than if you were a continuous runner. So by using continuous pacing on a Galloway plan, and using the traditional continuous runner LR pace, then you're making it harder than he intended. That's why you'll see other training plans do less on the long runs because there is some inherent risk in going that far in training at that relative fitness pace. Instead, you'd want to train like an ultra runner in that your long run pace is much slower than a marathon runner's LR pace.
As for 20 miles in other traditional plans, my digging into the topic several years ago appears to show that the value was 1) based on a round number (as humans like round numbers to focus on, so we like 20 better than 19, regardless of the physiological differences ((even further sidebar, who does it bother when a training run ends at 16.99 miles or 17.37 miles, the same people who like 20 instead of 19)) and 2) when most of these training plans were developed (or the philosophies around them that still resonate today) was in the 70s/80s when runners were much quicker as an average than they are today. So a 20 mile run for a 2:45 hr marathoner takes a lot less time to complete than a 20 mile run for a 5:00 hr marathoner. That's why some of the more recent training plans (and philosophies) in the last decade to two decades have been focused on the idea of combining duration with relative current fitness pacing (now better known as training load). The idea that a 2.5 hr training run at 70% effort is an equivalent workout for a 2:45 hr marathoner and a 5 hr marathoner despite one possibly doing 23 miles and the other doing 13 miles during that time span. That's where training plans like Hansons and Daniels come in. The idea of doing less on the long runs and doing more mid-week in order to maximize running fitness rather than training to complete.