World Record Marathon Attempt

[GershonSurge]

I'll be 63 next week, and I decided to set a crazy goal for myself. Set the world marathon record for my age when I'm either 65 or 66. Some people say not to broadcast a goal. Others say it should be broadcast.

The current record is about 2:41:00.

My training program is simple. It's what I call the "Non-Destructive Adaptation Model." I'll run with a metronome starting at a slow stride rate and increase it by .06 a day. Each day, I'll increase the miles by about .01. I'm currently able to "jog" very slowly for an hour and fifty minutes and do it each day except for normal rest days. The way the numbers work out, I'll run for about the same time each day until the big date.

The basis of my training theory comes from the Maffetone Method. I keep the average heart rate for my runs between 180 minus my age to 10 beats below that. (110-117). This will force the rest of my cardiovascular system to develop as my pace and distance slowly improves.

I'm using the Surge coupled with a Nike App to track my training. I have day by day goals until the marathon.

I'll run the Denver Marathon since the air is thinner and easier to run through. I live at close to the same altitude.

[FitBeforeFifty]

I think it's great to have goals, even crazy ones but have you every run a Marathon ? 

Stride rate and speed are not correlated in world class runners. The stride rate is roughly the same independent of speed. The optimal stride rate is supposed to be around 180 (See: https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/articlePages/article/57)

I would start with progressive goals. Racing and jogging are not the same. To learn how to race and train for a race, you should start with training and running a 5k race, then 10k then 1/2 Marathon then a full Marathon.

Rather than coming up with a progressive increase in stride rate and distance, you'd be better off following a training plan put together by someone who understands progression and periodization. 

[shipo]

I'm about four years behind you (turned 59 last week), and am a fairly active racer with finishes in large distance events (say 2,000 runners and more) in the top 5% of the 50-59 year age group.  I also coach a number of elite level runners in various age groups and have a pretty fair handle on what it takes to run 26.2 miles at a 6:06 pace.

I told you the above to say this:

• I wish you luck and will be pulling for you.
• I don't want to rain on your parade (I think having goals and dreams are very important), but based upon the metrics you've given, I'm thinking it will be quite an achievement for you to run a 5K at a 6:06 pace, however, a full marathon at that pace at your target age will be a HUGE challenge even for someone with decades of running experience.

FWIW, I ran a 2:40 marathon once, that was back in 1979; I've also run a single mile at a 6:00 pace since I've been in my 50s.  The first was a challenge and required a pretty heavy training commitment over a two year period; the second was a one off (so far, I may well run the same race next year as a 60 year old) after a particularly high 2,500+ mileage year.  The sad truth is, a single six minute mile at our age is pretty darn hard to do, even with many thousands of training miles under our belts.  To underscore this point, my fastest 5K since I've been in my 50s was a 21:50 which works out to a 7:04 pace, and trust me, I was so gassed after that run there was no doubt reaching deeper into the tank to break the 7:00 threshold was something beyond my capability.

[GershonSurge]

Thanks for the support. I'll admit my goal may be impossible.

I did run the San Francisco Marathon in 1984. My time was 3:21:02. I had a slipped disk for years and didn't know it because MRI's had't been invented. This limited my training. My back is fine now and never gives me any trouble.

I'm committed to the training plan I have developed until it stops working. It should be low stress and injury free the whole way if it works the way I think it will. If not, then I'll have learned something that doesn't work, and that has value, too. 

For now, I won't post my current times as everyone would laugh at them. 🙂

[shipo]

No worries about posting times and having folks laugh at them.

I had to quit running back in 2003 due to a badly broken leg and a partially torn off foot; the surgeon who screwed and bolted me back together told me I'd walk with a limp for the rest of my life and I'd never run again.  By 2013 I was up to over 250 pounds (how much over I'll never know as I was too afraid to get on the scale) and I'm only 5' 8".  In mid May of that year I I ran/walked a 5K race with some of my coworkers in a little over 45 minutes; a year and ~1,700 miles later I ran that same race in 22:30 and four months (and an additional 1,000 miles of training) later I ran my first half marathon in 1:42.

What changed?  I figure out I could run, a whopping half mile at first, on dirt.  I found an old mid-nineteenth century railroad line which had been repurposed as a recreational trail and started ramping up my running.  I managed eight miles my first month, eighteen miles the second month, and over forty the third.

The above is to say, you can definitely get back a lot of what you once had, however, as you noted, a 2:40 marathon may well not be in the cards.

Keep us posted on your progress.

[GershonSurge]

---

shipo wrote: (n the Exercising safely in older age thread.

• As fitness increases, increase distance NOT speed (bones, joints and connective tissue develop at a slower pace than the muscular and circulatory systems) until many hundreds of miles have been run and the runner can run non-stop for roughly an hour.

---

Last fall, I read a couple books from the 1800's that described the physical processes that need to improve to run fast safely. There are thousands of them. As you say, the bones, joints and connective tissue are the slowest. It's easy for an impatient runner to develop an injury. 

I also read a couple books by Dr. Phil Maffetone about training at a heart rate approximately equal to 180 minus your age. The range is 107 to 117 for me. All my training will average close to this heart rate. 

I developed this training method last fall because I wanted to transition from walking to running after about 5,500 miles of walking in the previous two years. I got 30 days into it, and then got lazy for five months while writing a book for Amazon. 

[shipo]

I am very-VERY skeptical about ANY and ALL formulas relative to heart rates.  Depending upon what my workout for any given day is, I routinely train in the 140-165 heart rate range; and regardless of which formula one chooses to use, it doesn't apply to me and literally every runner I coach.  If I was to use 180-Age to determine my heart rate for training, it would come out to 121; a pulse rate I can sustain for an easy three to four hours (and even then, only because I finally get either bored or run out of gas).

When I coach, especially when I'm coaching beginning runners, I teach to completely ignore the heart rate and instead, pay attention to  breathing.  Once again, for beginning (or returning) runners, all training runs should be done slow enough to be able to maintain a conversation in short sentences.  If you cannot, you're going too fast.

[GershonSurge]

Shipo,

I agree with your skepticism. If I didn't know about the Maffetone method, I'd train quite differently. 

The Maffetone method attracts me because the emphasis is on burning mostly fat (about 70%) and less carbs (about 30%). This only happens at the lower heart rates. This allows for greater endurance. It also forces all the systems in the body to develop before getting to faster speeds. 

I don't adjust my pace if my heart rate goes a little high. Most runs, it gets back in the range by itself. If it stays high the whole run, I consider taking a rest day. 

Mostly, I'll use a metronome to follow the planned stride rate for the planned distance and see what happens. 

[shipo]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Shipo,

The Maffetone method attracts me because the emphasis is on burning mostly fat (about 70%) and less carbs (about 30%). This only happens at the lower heart rates. This allows for greater endurance. It also forces all the systems in the body to develop before getting to faster speeds. 

---

When I started coaching again a few years ago I looked into this whole "burns fat" thing at lower heart rates; I wasn't impressed with what I uncovered.

The things I have uncovered revolve around the building of one's mitochondria as a complementary vehicle for fueling muscles with fat in addition to glycogen supplies.  As I understand the process, mitochondria could care less about your heart rate; all one needs is at least two 90 minute runs per week to encourage growth, and to a certain degree, the more the better.

I guess there is a limited correlation to heart rate and mitochondria development in that many folks cannot run for the required 90 minutes unless they slow down into the so called "fat burning zone", but in my very unscientific studies (i.e. looking at those I coach) slowing down into the "zone" is really too slow.

[GershonSurge]

Shipo,

It's easy to overcomplicate the whole fat burning thing. In the "zone", we burn about 70% fat and 30% carbs. At a high heart rate, the ratio is reversed.

The average body can store about 3,800 calories of carbs, some of which needs to be retained to burn fats. This is just over what it takes an average person to run a marathon. If an endurance runner maintains a high heart rate, they will bonk sooner than one who maintains a lower heart rate. Therefore, according to Maffetone, a runner who trains themselves to run faster with a slower heart rate will have more endurance.

I'm thinking that if I start with a low stride rate and a medium distance, and increase both gradually, everything that needs to adjust will. It will take longer than other methods, but I think it's less prone to injuries.

[GershonSurge]

American Discovery Trail Marathon - perfect (for me)

Yesterday, I discovered the American Discovey Trail marathon, which is perfect for my purposes. It's in Colorado Springs, which is only about 40  miles away. I won't have to spend an expensive night in a motel or travel far. It's a flat out and back course on a bicycle trail. The back is on the opposite side of a river from the out. Usually, only about 350 people run, so I won't have to worry about huge crowds affecting my running plan. I like that it's on Labor Day as I'll have good training weather during the summer.

This race is also one of the marathons where you can qualify for Boston. For a 64 year old, the qualifying time is 3:55, which is a few seconds under a nine minute pace. This is exactly the pace my training plan predicts, so I think it's a realistic goal for me for 2017. 

[GershonSurge]

This is one of many charts I create to track my progress. I only track whole miles even though I'm running farther. Today, I went 6.75 miles. 

As my stride rate increases, my times get a little faster. Since stride length varies, each day will not be the fastest. I track the times for each mile. This gives many chances for motivating PR's. 

The first mile is usually the slowest because it's uphill. The rest vary depending on the route I take. (Sometimes, I zone out and make a wrong turn.) 

The route is partially on a bicycle trail, and the rest is on sidewalks around the local university. I don't have to deal with any traffic.

[GershonSurge]

It's time to reveal how slow I'm moving. I didn't at first as I didn't want to attract naysayers.

My training plan is based on increasing my output each day by such a small amount that it's non-destructive. Output is a combination of speed and distance. The body continuously adapts to the work demanded of it each day, or maybe over a period of a week or so. If I increase the work by a tiny amount each day, I shouldn't have any overuse injuries. There will be days off depending on life and how I feel on any given day.

I started this training plan on Nov 24, 2015 and continued for 30 days. I picked it up again during the last seven days. I started at pace that was almost a walk. The only difference was holding my arms up and a slight difference in the leg motion. I started with 6.1 miles and a stride rate of 127. I chose 6.1 miles as it was the distance I was walking each day based on the time I had available. Today, I got back to the speeds I had before the break.

The Maximum Daily Output Line (MDOL) is the combination of speed and distance I'm planning for each training day. Each day, the plan improves the pace by 0.998714. I chose this increment based on a goal I'd set at the time. The distance increases by approximate 1/100th of a mile or about 25 steps. The stride rate increases by .06 steps/minute. If I skip a day, I increase it to what it would have been if I hadn't skipped the day.

The MDOL adjusts itself based on the trailing seven day average pace. My goal for each day is the trailing seven day average pace.  I'll adjust the daily mileage if I need to.

The effects of microscopic daily improvements over time are breathtaking. I'm not saying it will work until the bottom right data point, but I won't deny the possibility until the system breaks down in practice.

The first green label with a pace of 8:58.3 is a planned marathon on Labor Day 2017. The second one with a pace of 6:08.3 is a planned marathon on Labor Day 2018.

My heart rate has gradually declined. During todays 6.76 mile "run" it was only 107. 

[shipo]

The single most glaring issue I see with your chart is a complete lack of a plateau effect (aka. diminishing returns) when it comes to pace.  As with weight loss, the closer you get to your goal, the harder it gets to make the next incremental improvement.

Looking at your projections, I would expect you can make huge gains in pace and distance between your current pace and say a 10:00 per mile pace; from there your pace increases to a 9:00 pace will most likely take a much less steep curve.  From 9:00 to 8:00 even longer, and beyond that, we're most likely talking years before you get down to a sustained 6:06 pace for 26.2 miles, if ever.

As an example, when I had just turned 56 I was able to sustain roughly 3 miles at a sub-10:00 pace, sixteen months and rougly 3,000 miles later I ran my first (and so far only) half-marathon at a 7:50 pace, since that time I've put in another 3,000 miles of training and am probably able to run about the same pace, certainly not much faster than say a 7:40.

Please understand, I'm not saying you won't make your goal, but to me at least, the plan you have in place seems highly unlikely to acheive your desired goal.

[GershonSurge]

Shipo,

Nice to hear from you. 

The daily improvement near the end is about one-third the improvement at the beginning. I too expect to beat the curve down to about 10 minutes. The curve will self-adjust to reflect this and create a more pronounced plateau at the end. It will also adjust my goal after each day of training. 

The other glaring concern is the daily mileage requirement. Based on past experience, I won't start having both feet leave the ground at once until about 8 minutes a mile. That's when the daily mileage will start to become a major factor. I'm hoping the solid base of training will pay off by then. The good news is the running time each day will only change by about 10 minutes during the whole training plan.

We agree that I'm unlikely to reach my goal. At this point, I'm ignoring that reality and focusing on the runs one day at a time. 

I appreciate your support.

[GershonSurge]

This is an expanded view of the chart I showed yesterday. The purple line is the mileage and time goal. The mileage increases by approximately 1/100th of a mile a day. In practice, it's a little more because I sometimes overshoot. The pace goal for each day is the average for the previous seven days. Beyond that, I multipy each successive day by .998714. There is nothing magical about this number. It was a guess to set a long term goal.

The self-adjusting feature is my answer to "my goal is impossible." It will direct me to whatever goal is possible.

The fluctuating line is my actual pace and distance. I had a five month break in training before the point labeled 108. The labels are my heart rate on each run. If my heart rate is 130 or above, I take a recovery day the next day. Otherwise, I take a day off depending on life, how I feel, and sometimes the weather.

I'm pleased with my low heart rate. @Shipo inspired me to burn 4,000 calories a day. I've been doing this by adding housework and yard work to my day. This helps me recover faster and eliminates those niggling little pains in various upper body muscles.

One reason I'm not worried about the current slow pace is I have a secondary goal of maximumizing my miles. That's because I'd like to take some long road walks/jogs in the neighborhood of 40 miles in two days.

According to the Aria, I've been losing weight while gaining lean muscle. Today, I hit 184 pounds. I'm 6'0". Officially, I'm not overweight, but my bulging stomach says otherwise. My short term goal is 165 pounds. Depending on how I look and feel then, I may go down to 155 pounds. 

[GershonSurge]

I had my best "run" today, so this post will be a little long (mostly images).

My stride rate was 129.40 for the whole run. The first three bars and the last three are the warm up and cool down walks, The stride rate felt slow to me. 

My heart rate was unusual. It was rock solid at 129 for the first four miles. Then it dropped suddenly into the zone. What makes this unusual is the heart rate dropped as I stated up the steepest part of the route.

I felt strong during the last 2.8 miles and had my fastest pace the last .8 miles. It's downhill, so that helped. 

I'm going backpacking the next two days. I think Sunday morning, I'll try a half-marathon. That may become a weekly habit -- weather permitting.

My pace is ahead of my original training plan. I should be able to maintain an 8:45 pace for the marathon on Labor Day 2017 and a 5:50 pace in 2018. Realistically, my pace will stop improving at some point. At that point, I'll start doing some one mile interval training.

[GershonSurge]

My son and I went backpacking Friday and Saturday. I decided not to do a half-marathon on Sunday as I was a bit tired. I also got to thinking it's not part of my training plan.

I'm ahead of where I was before I took a five month break. The good news is I don't have any minor pains that could turn into an injury. 

I started increasing my stride rate by .12 a day instead of .06. There is a half-marathon in my home town on Dec 3rd. If I get to a stride rate of 141 bpm, the plan says I'll be running a 12 minute mile. Based on previous races, that will be enough to win the 60-64 age group. This is only a few bpm above the original plan.

Here is a picture from a side hike we took while backpacking.

[garybartlett]

What are the details of the walking poles, Gershon?  I'm in the market for a pair of those as I transition from exercising with a walker to walking without wheeled support.  Are they specifically designed for mountain hiking or would they also serve for street/sidewalk use?

Cheers,

Gary

[GershonSurge]

---

@garybartlett wrote:

What are the details of the walking poles, Gershon?  I'm in the market for a pair of those as I transition from exercising with a walker to walking without wheeled support.  Are they specifically designed for mountain hiking or would they also serve for street/sidewalk use?

Cheers,

Gary

---

I mostly use them for balance when crossing streams or stepping over logs. I also use them for confidence to lean forward to get my center of gravity over my feet while walking down steep hills.

In my opinion, they would not be suitable for someone transitioning from a walker as they have sharp ends like ski poles. I think a pair of inexpensive canes might work better for supporting your weight if necessary. 

A physical therapist would be a better source of information. Or even search for it on YouTube or Google.