Sunday, June 14, 2009

Slacking in blogging, but not running

If you have perused this page in the bast, then I suppose it's been obvious. I've somehow drifted away from my past diligence of updating this running journal at least on a weekly basis. Perhaps it's because I've found new pressures placed on my time, and this blog was one of the weekly tasks that got pushed down the list.

Nevertheless, the good news is that I am running as strong as ever, which my runningahead log hopefully indicates. Reflecting on 2009 to this point, I am extremely pleased with my running. Right now, I am six weeks out from my third marathon of 2009, which I will run in San Francisco.

Lately, I've been running weekly mileage in the mid-50's consistently, with plenty of solid long runs, tempos and now interval training this past week. For this week, I finally got back into the 60's for the first time since the week of March 23rd.

From a scheduling standpoint, it's been tough to get the mileage back up to where I was in the winter heading into Austin. I've been doing long runs on Saturday with my running group, which then requires a rest day for me on Sundays. My personal schedule really would allow me to nail more mileage if I did long runs on Sundays and took Mondays off. The gang is running Saturdays for now, so I'll need to adjust.

My plan is to have a really strong three week training period - then begin a three week taper for San Fran. I'd like to have the upcoming three weeks range from 65-70 miles each. If I hit the tempos, a long pace run and a solid 22-miler, I'm confident that I will be in 2:59'ish shape again for San Fran. Then I can figure out how to go for a PR in Chicago in October.

I also want to concentrate on nutrition and stretching. I know, I've said it before. I really want to make some improvements here. My weight has been hovering over 170 lbs recently. I feel I can run faster if I can get it down to 165 lbs, so there's a goal.

For 2009, I figure if I can run four marathons, in four large cities (Austin, Boston, San Fran, Chicago), in four different parts of the country (Southwest, Northeast, West Coast and Midwest), with times of 3:02 or better for all four -- then that's a pretty damn good year.


Darrell said...

I can relate to the difficulting in keeping up with blogging. It is good to hear that the running is continuing strong. I dream of staying healthy enough to run four marathons in a 12 month period. Race well.

smitty said...

Have you checked the elevation chart for SF? The hills there are much harder than TX. You have to take into account the course you are running when setting goals. 2:59 shape on a flat course is not the same as 2:59 on a hilly one. Hill training may build strength but won't make a hilly course much faster to race.

franko said...

Check out and compare sf to Boston. Total elevation change is significantly higher. Then run two simulated 5k courses on real ground (not a moving belt) and compare say the hilliest 5k in waterfall glen against a relatively flat section. The time differential here should give you an idea of how much your pace can be affected per mile in a race. I would estimate at least 15 seconds per mile at marathon pace.

randomrunner said...

Sounds like the training is going great! I agree with the last poster, prepare yourself for brutal hills. Test your speed on equivalent courses not the treadmill. Rw suggests you have to add 20 sec/mile to compare treadmill to roads. SanFran is a 1795 ft climb as opposed to Boston 875 and total elevation change is 3589 compared to 2190. I've ran it and my time was over 7 minutes slower than my PR.