What did it take for YOU to break 2:30 marathon?

Humblebraggers wrote:

Your first statement is only true on a technicality, because the "majority" of folks running sub 2:30 includes 2:1x's and 2:0x's. Well done.

A reasonable person would assume that the OP is curious mostly about 2:20-high runners.

2:29, in my observation, has been mid-15's -- and that also jives with Daniels VDOT, which calculates a 15:38 equivalency. Nitpick that if you want, and congrats on your 5k PR.

Your standard 2:28-2:29 marathoner will have run faster than 15:15. It's not a technicality. I stand by that statement, mainly because most of the folks who achieve that time were college runners who raced 5k on the track. I bet most of them actually ran closer to 15-flat. (Also, I find the Daniels charts to be pretty optimistic when it comes to translating 5k to marathon, at least for most runners.)

There is a thread here somewhere that details most posters' 5k PRs; most of them are pretty fast. But you've also got to remember that a PR represents the peak of a lifetime of running.

You say congrats on my 5k PR, but I didn't say what mine was. I am not the guy who wrote that 15:15 was slow. If you check his style, you'll see that he is a hasty writer. If he had my writing style, what he would have said is something like:

My 5k PR is relatively slow for running sub 2:30. It was 15:15. That's why it took me lots of 100 mile weeks.

First of all, a 15:15 5k guy considering himself "slow" isn't about him being a jerk. It's really all about perspective and point of reference. For a 15:15 guy, it's pretty likely that the majority of the people that he races against are actually faster than he is, especially if he's in college. He's fast enough to race at a reasonably high level, but he's probably used to getting his ass handed to him pretty regularly. At least that was my experience when I was a 15:0x guy in college. I guess I was "fast" in comparison to the average American runner, but I was a pretty mediocre college runner. I got my doors blown off all the time and basically considered myself to be "slow" because of this. No matter how fast you run, you're always looking up the chain at the people faster than you, not the other direction at the people who are slower. Just how it is. I don't think the guy was trying to be a d-bag.

With that said, for me to run a sub-2:30 (which I did in my first marathon), I had to put in a lot of lifetime miles and do some "big" workouts in my buildup. I ran my first marathon at age 28, after running for about 15 years. I was averaging probably 90-100 mpw, with a peak around 105. I was alternating my long runs between easy 20-24 milers and cutdown or split long runs (20-22 miles with last 10-12 at marathon pace). I also would do things like 10 miles easy and then 8 x 1 mile or 5 mi, 4 mi, 3 mi, 2 mi, 1 mi. The majority of my speedwork days totaled over 20 miles because I would usually do 10 miles easy before starting the faster stuff. And then I would sprinkle in a little bit of VO2 stuff just to feel fast. Oh, and I got a favorable weather day in my first one. That helps a lot.

also, my collegiate PR's were 14:47 for 5k and 30:33 for a track 10k, I did eventually run 30:26 for a road 10k in the Fall of 1993. I wasn't terribly fast, but always thought I had enough ability to run under 2:30. There were several marathons in which I was on pace for around 2:25, but these were prior to the Gel days, about all we had was water and gatorade to drink at marathons.

agree on the favorable weather comment, The US championship race in Charlotte in January 1995 was run in perfect marathon conditions

[quote]deleuze wrote:

Your standard 2:28-2:29 marathoner will have run faster than 15:15. It's not a technicality. I stand by that statement, mainly because most of the folks who achieve that time were college runners who raced 5k on the track. /quote]

Fair enough, I'll concede that. I was thinking more along the lines of a runner in his 30s with insufficient 5k speed in the low 16's and marathon time in the mid 2:30s, trying to train to a 2:29. That's closer to my world.

You're describing a runner with sufficient speed (likely when younger) now training for longer distances, which is certainly the experience of many of the other posters.

As suggested, more info from the OP is needed for more useful advice.

For what it's worth, a running calculator said that 15:35 was an equally talented runner to someone who runs a 2:30 marathon. Meaning, according to this calculator, that a guy who's best race is a 5k probably has to be below than 15:35 to run a 2:30 marathon, and a guy who has a marathon as his best race can be a touch above 15:35.

But I see what you're saying--most runners come from 5k/10k and then race the marathon, so you'd expect guys doing that to be faster at their 5k compared to their marathon for a good bit.

I'm coming into marathons 'backwards.' I've done a lot of super long, super slow stuff, so it's hard to figure out training.

I've had a long non-running related injury/surgery/recovery and just started running Jan 1st. Already into the high 70s for mpw, but it's slow. Apparently having 30+ 200-240 mile weeks makes one durable.

I have news for everyone.

15:15 is SLOW. I don't care how you look at it, what crazy tables you use to break it down, "but it extrapolates out to blah blah blah". The guy who said he was slow is right, and I don't think he was trying to get any kind of reaction from anybody by saying it. To break 2:30 being that slow is very impressive.

I would argue 15:00 is the threshold between slow/not slow. Btw, these stupid pace calculators are such BS, drives me nuts. People who are obsessed with pace will never understand how to RACE.

Thank you.

To the OP's question... Thanks for asking!

I was running college cross country (poorly) with about 40 miles a week in the fall of 1978. During the two week Christmas break I ran 10 miles a day at about 6:10 pace and a 20 miler (same sort of pace) on Sunday. Probably missed 1-2 days both weeks with sore feet (training in Nike Elites... pre-minimalist!) and other distractions. Back to school for a week, then ran the marathon in 2:29.54.

In subsequent years I trained much harder (not to say smarter) and eventually lowered my PR to 2:25.50. This year, 33 years after that first sub 2:30, I ran 2:48 flat which converts to a new PR if you use an age-grading table, which you know I do :-) I train a lot smarter now.

My training suggestions for a marathon are...

Do as many miles a week as you can fit in, at as slow as you need to survive them uninjured. Build miles up for months (as many months as you have), then start speedwork in the last four months.

Speedwork... Every three to four days (depending on how recoveries go), do one of the following: repeat miles at your current 5km race pace (3-12, building up the number as the race date approaches)with a 200 recovery; tempo run at marathon pace (6-18 miles, building up as race day approaches); and a long run at easy pace (building up to 30 miles and doing at least two at 30.)

For paces to use, I find the McMillan tables to be pretty danged accurate for me. A 5km race will give you a good place to start.

Taper for three full weeks, doing the same quality and type training, but cutting the quantities by 1/3 the first week, two thirds the second and 3/4 the last.

That should get you pretty close to your best possible. There are always little things that might nip off a few seconds, but this is a solid regimine that won't take all your time and require a lot of thought. As Nike says, "Just Do It."

That's amazing that you're so fast after 40 years of running

I had to look them up, but my PRs were 15:37, 31:52 - both on the track. (The 15:37 was en route to a 33:11 10, so, make of that what you will. I didn't run many 5ks.). Probably my best performance was a 1:09 half. My marathon PR is 2:27. If a guy with a 15:30 5k PR trains properly, he can break 2:30. And, by properly, I don't mean 70 miles/wk either. To run a marathon up to your potential requires a hell of a lot of work. If someone has broken 15 for 5 in college, and it wasn't run as a lark while normally he runs 1:47 for 800, then he ought to be thinking about an OTQ someday. Really.

mrb wrote:

a 15:15 5k guy considering himself "slow" isn't about him being a jerk. It's really all about perspective and point of reference. For a 15:15 guy, it's pretty likely that the majority of the people that he races against are actually faster than he is, especially if he's in college. He's fast enough to race at a reasonably high level, but he's probably used to getting his ass handed to him pretty regularly.

No matter how fast you run, you're always looking up the chain at the people faster than you, not the other direction at the people who are slower. Just how it is. I don't think the guy was trying to be a d-bag.

That's a fair point, and I probably shouldn't have called the guy names. I just get awfully tired of posters on here either claiming how slow they are when they're fast enough to run D1, or how untalented they are because they "only" ran 14:30 in college.

On a similar note, why is it that we have threads all the time where people claim things like "any healthy male can be trained to run 16:00 for 5k?" Do pro hockey players think any Joe off the street could score on an NHL goalie if they just practiced for a while? Running is a hard sport. If you're good at it, have a little pride, and don't claim anyone can do what you had to work hard to do.

OH.. and HRM? If that stands for heart rate monitor, then good for you. I relied on one to help me train properly. It helped tremendously (although this was 20 years ago)

Link wrote:

I had to look them up, but my PRs were 15:37, 31:52 - both on the track. (The 15:37 was en route to a 33:11 10, so, make of that what you will. I didn't run many 5ks.). Probably my best performance was a 1:09 half. My marathon PR is 2:27. If a guy with a 15:30 5k PR trains properly, he can break 2:30. And, by properly, I don't mean 70 miles/wk either. To run a marathon up to your potential requires a hell of a lot of work. If someone has broken 15 for 5 in college, and it wasn't run as a lark while normally he runs 1:47 for 800, then he ought to be thinking about an OTQ someday. Really.

Link, I have seen a lot of your posts, and I think they are great for a certain type of runner. I agree that some percentage of runners who run 15 flat in college can go on to a marathon OTQ, but the VAST majority of them will not. It's not because of a lack of will or training, but simply because their body does not respond the same way yours did to training. Slow twitch guys always look around at people who can run a decent 5k or 800m and say, man if I had that speed I would have run 2:15... well, if you had that speed chances are better that your best distance wouldn't have been the marathon.

I do agree that if a guy runs 15:30, he's got a good shot at running under 2:30. However, a lot has to go right in terms of training, weather, and just having a good day for that person to run under 2:30. For a typical hobbyjogger runner balancing a job and family, their 5k PR is going to outstrip their marathon PR simply because of the opportunity factor. If you screw up a 5k, you can run another the next week. The marathon, not so much.

Some inconclusive anecdote: I train right now with a group of runners who hover around 2:30 (some faster, some slower). I know one guy who ran 2:28 off of a 15:50 5k. He had no collegiate running experience and never really spent time trying to run a fast 5k. He is the exception. Everyone else that I run with who has broken 2:30 has run faster than 15 minutes for 5k. And there are a few guys who have run faster than 15 minutes who never put it together to run sub 2:30. Is this something strange about the group of folks I run with? Because these experiences show me that your chances of breaking 2:30 without running under 15:30 are low. Link, you yourself were likely in 15:15 shape, if you split 15:37 en route to 31:57...

In my case, I am one who has not broken 2:30 (yet!). I ran 2:38 off of an average of 50-60mpw. Inspired actually by posts from Link and also guys like HRE (not the guy who started this thread), I spent the next 4 years grinding at high mileage (for me) at 70-110mpw, doing marathon specific training, racing fall and spring and only managed 2:35--on a faster course. My 5k PR is low 15s.

I admit that I was obviously not doing things well and should have seen more improvement, but I think that I was not letting my body recover enough, chasing miles instead of doing what works for me. That is a talent, you know, being able to absorb high volumes of training. Some have it, others less so. Perhaps if I were in my mid 20s instead of 30s the outcome would have been different?

I am in my mid 30s and have not given up on the dream, but I HAVE changed my training approach. I am running fewer miles, trying to get back to that low 15 5k. Then, move from there back up to the marathon. Running lots of slow miles and tempos did not get me there.

Maybe I didn't run enough? Sure didn't FEEL that way.

Awesome.

Since it seems that durability is a better asset than my speed, I think I'll need to train at very high mileages to hit my potential. Right now I'm training to train.

I'd like to hit a 2:30 at a late fall or early winter 2013 marathon, but if it takes 3 years instead of 2 that's fine. If I train optimally and bottom out at 2:40 that's fine. I don't really have a hard goal. I just need to exercise for 2-3 hours a day to enjoy life.

Background isn't super relevant. Used to do other sports that required a lot of running, but never running for competition. Had to have reconstructive surgery that turned into a fiasco and I was confined to bed for all but an hour or two per day for around 6 months. That's fixed to the point where it shouldn't matter for running.

Coming off from an injury that bad is really, really shitty.

and the HRM in my name stands for hmmm? Like a person wondering.

I did just start training with a heart rate monitor though.

And I don't think 70's is high. I think any AVERAGE (not peaks) over 110-120 is high.

Count me in that group that doesn't think you need to run low 15's before running under 2:30. But really, it all depends on the person. I have two examples on complete opposite ends of the spectrum for you.

Guy #1: sub-15 guy, sub-4 (1500) guy, and has only managed a 2:53 marathon in 3 attempts

Guy #2: hasn't broken 16 in the 5k, but has run 2:29 in the marathon

To answer the OP in one word: consistency.

Consistency is what got me under 2:30. I don't just mean months, but years, of consistent high mileage. I've done two years of 4,000+ miles, and currently working on year #3. I also run the vast majority of my mileage slower than 7:30/mile pace in order to stay (relatively) injury free. Durability is a better asset than speed for the marathon (IMO).

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Durability is a huge factor. I will say, though, that I became a heck of a lot healthier when I slowed down my easy mileage, even though I was running a lot more. Of course, even I developed long -term sorts of problems that hobbled me - sciatica mostly. And I ran the 15:37 in a different race from my 10000 PR. I somehow wheedled my way into a race with some sub 28:00 guys. The next slowest runner in the field ran 31:00 that race (I ran 33:11). I hit the halfway mark seconds before the whole field lapped me. It was a disaster. :)

I don't know about your training group. They may be a more representative sample than the guys I used to run with. I knew plenty of guys who were 15+ 5k and sub -2:30 marathoner. Admittedly, though, I was the slowest of the bunch at 5, but not the marathon. It was a different era, too. I think I ran one 5k on the roads per year. So, maybe if I had focused more on it, I could have broken 15. On the other hand, I don't know anyone - still- who ran as slowly as I but trained as much as I. Maybe for good reason.... Perhaps it's my own little rationalization, but I like to think I got everything out of myself I could.

Training is still more art than science. If you enjoy running less but faster then stick with that. You'll be more diligent probably and less conflicted about how you spend your time - believe me, I have teenagers now, and a demanding job; I ran faster at the age of 12 than I could right now. When I was training my hardest, I had a couple of part time jobs, a gf and a fish. The gf left me and the fish died, I think of neglect.

Anyway, good luck delueze! I don't think that your thirties is too late to run a marathon PR. At all.

About 18 weeks of 80-100 miles per week following Daniels Elite plan from his book, Daniels Running Formula... Eat healthy, run twice a day, workouts/long run twice a week and getting body fat down to around 6%.

I ran my first marathon in 2:56 off of 60 miles/week.... 10 months later I ran 2:29 in my second marathon after doing what I mentioned above... I don't know if it matters, but I'm 20 years old.

Thanks, Link! It could simply be a matter of temperament. Maybe I needed to slow down even more... At any rate, I am running well this season, and certainly when I return to the marathon I will be running a lot of miles, but probably in a more focused way than I did before--and paying more attention to recovery than I did before.

Training is certainly an art, not a science, but that's partly what makes it fun. I appreciate everyone who shares their experiences here. I sorta got caught up in that 15 minute 5k debate without really wanting to go there.

I guess the older I get the more I believe that the secret is knowing and reading yourself, doing what it takes for you to get there psychologically, physiologically.