Originally Posted by Shane Skowron
I wouldn't say he struggled. He finished in under 3 hours with not a lot of training. Most people who finish under 3 hours usually have several years of consistent and competitive running under their belts before they manage that feat. He didn't come close to winning, but the point here is that he already had a huge advantage over other people who have no background in running.
I've done a bunch of ultramarathons, never DNF'd. I've done a 100 miler while following a strict CFE protocol and a 100 miler on my own training program, and I did better in the latter. Basically my running training consists of a long very slow run at ultramarathon pace, 1 long interval session, 1 short interval session, and sprinting session. Sometimes only 2 or 3 sessions per week. I wish I could run more but I have other training priorities.
Point taken on Lance. Compared to other people he did incredibly well, compared to Lance Armstrong the champion who everyone is used to seeing win, I guess it looks less than impressive by comparison to all his Tour de France performances.
I've never run an ultramarathon let alone a marathon, so I have no basis for comparison, but for the 3 mile run in Marine Corps PFT, I did find that LSD improved my time more than CFE. Following CFE only, I ran a 22:33, and following a program by Hal Higdon, I ran an 18:53. Perhaps this is because I was not used to setting a pace, or maybe it's because I just needed the mental preparation of running longer distances than 400m at a time. In your experience running much longer distances, what do you think is the reason your personal training program worked better than CFE? I realize that individualizing a program is always going to be superior to a general program, but I was wondering if maybe you found that the longer sessions or pace setting sessions had sort of "grease the groove" effect on your performance.