Can I run a 2:35 marathon?

^I wouldn't disagree with these comments about the workouts, and I should have qualified them a bit:

I got them from a 'Canova training' PDF that someone posted, that compiled/digests posts he's made. These are supposed to be BIG workouts with several recovery days before and after, only do one ~2 weeks... and they likely come from an elite schedule he posted.The tempo extension series came from Nate jenkins' blog.

I generally convert workouts like the 'Canova' ones to an approximate time/effort... So the workouts likely end up a bit easier.

Anyways, I just meant to say that coming off faster/shorter distances it can be hard to hone in on MP. It's very easy to run too fast in workouts. It's pretty amazing how easy/slow a correct MP feels if you're not used to it. My first marathon felt so easy and relaxed the first 15 miles, and I was running much faster than I ever expected...although by 18-20 miles it was quickly becoming another story. I had done a handful marathon workouts (eg 5x20 min @mp during a 22 mile run) but in hindsight, most of the work was too fast

Some more info:

For the last 5 or so weeks I've done at least a 1:45 long run (and many at 2 hours, 1 at 2:30) and 1 90 minute run per week.

Some sample workouts:

5 by mile w/ 60 seconds rest - 5:12 average

2 by 2 mile w/ 60 seconds rest - 5:20 average

10 mile tempos in 58 or so, and 5 mile tempos in 28.

Plenty of people chiming in that this should be a cakewalk. I'm going to disagree. This guy's performance profile suggests a strong tendency toward being better at the shorter stuff. The mile and 3k indicate ~ 2:25 ability. The 5k points toward 2:27-mid. The HM points toward 2:31-high.

So this guy is either more-FT, i.e. a natural MD runner, or undertrained aerobically. In any event, somebody with this profile cannot expect his HM time to translate directly to an "equivalent" marathon time.

I think this guy is probably capable of something closer to 2:37-38, assuming even pacing. If he sets out aiming for 2:35, he'll more likely run 2:40-45. I base this estimate on my own similar tendencies for being better at shorter distances. My two best HMs are 73:30-40, and my five best marathons are all 2:42-44. According to conventional wisdom I "should" be able to run about 2:36, but the damn calculators refused to run the actual races for me. :-)

$0.02 please

pablo wrote:

dotato wrote:

Take your 4x7000 workout. You want a 6mpm marathoner to run 4 times 4.4 miles at 6 minute pace with 3/4 mile recoveries at 6:06 pace? Maybe I'm doing the math wrong (not my strong suit) but, well, why?

If he's training for a 2:35 marathon (5:55 per mile), the paces for the 4x7k workout would be:

4 x 7k @ 5:59 per mile with 1k recoveries at 6:30 pace.

This would be quite an effort, the workout portion itself is nearly 20 miles. The warmup and cooldown would put you closer to 23-24 miles. Granted, this could be used as a long run, but I don't think I'd advocate something like this every week. Maybe like twice per cycle. Honing in on marathon pace is important, but not at the expense of recovery. If you don't have the total volume, these workouts won't mean very much.

I am a big advocate of doing some of my long runs pretty fast. However, I agree I would not make this too common of a use of my long runs. I certainly would have tried it at least once back if I had thought about it.

Also, the one place where I had an advantage on you is that I had a number of higher-mileage weeks (90s and 100s) that made the last 10k 'relatively easy' (i.e., I was always moving up and ran them quickly except one segment when I had to work out a cramp). However, you have a long period of 70+ and a decent 10-week average. If you do run into problems, try a few weeks with 90-100 in that 10-week window and do not get discouraged. Since you are a 'little thin' on mileage, make sure not too go out too fast, as you have the speed that could use up your reserves pretty fast. After doing a 5:25/mile half, 5:55 could feel too easy and you could burn out before the end if you do not take enough care.

Also, if you can up the speed a little bit in the future (better training base should allow that) and at the same time push those mileage figures to 6 months of 75+ and 10 weeks of 80-100, you could start to think about 2:30.

You have the same issue as Tadese, except for a longer time.

You have the potential to run 2:25 or faster.

But based on your current training, you're going to crash and burn.

To the OP, I don't think we're suggesting your workouts don't point to hitting 2:35. From my read the thread has shifted to two questions: 'how comfortable are you at prolonged MP', and 'what does your rest look like'? You could be a workout king, but if you're not tuned into MP and haven't done the endurance build to hold it, it doesn't matter how many mile repeats you do or if you mile PR is 4:20.

I've know a number of talented runners such as your self that can hit 15/32/70 (5k/10k/half) but struggle to get under 2:40. Generally speaking and early in my racing, I've found it begins to fall apart at 18 miles for aspiring marathoners.

That said, I think in your case the multiple weeks or 80+ and the leg speed of a 71 will get you to 2:35. I agree that negative splitting is wise, however, you may be too conservative with the 1:20 if you want to break 2:35. I've always felt it best to keep the pace fairly consistent. Dropping from 6:06 down to 5:43 doesn't appear like much in and of itself, but it is harder than it sounds. You're asking your body to go 15% faster with an exponential increase in fatigue and glycogen drain.

This is a great point. I can run 2:32-2:35 but I can not run a sub 16 min 5k to save my life. Again, I suspect if the OP remains cautious and controlled, they will be close. One almost wonders, in cases like these, with the background suggesting a 50/50 shot either way does the OP go for it, or as they wrote earlier, run conservative in the first half and push the second?I think a 1:18 first half (assuming the course is consistent first to second half) is a good strategy.

Pete wrote:

So this guy is either more-FT, i.e. a natural MD runner, or undertrained aerobically. In any event, somebody with this profile cannot expect his HM time to translate directly to an "equivalent" marathon time.

$0.02 please

You're definitely physically ready to run 2:35. I can't speak to your mental toughness, though, and between 18 and 26, much is about mental ability.

I would say try and run even... 1:17:30-1:18:00. Agree that 1:20 is too slow.

I ran 2:39 in much worse shape then you, and if anything, am more a mid-d guy then a distance guy. Only reason I gutted out the 2:39 (2:39:58, to be exact) is because I willed myself to i

The spring before my fall 2:39, I think I was in 2:35 shape, but got sick for a week 10 days before Boston (i.e. stopped throwing up 3 days before Boston). Leading up to that race, I was in the best shape of my life, and still only ran 1:14:55 (though it was a terrible race). I had similar mileage to you but a 4:00 slower 1/2 PR.

So, based on my own training, actual race performances, hypothetical race performances, and your training... seems to me that 2:35 is definitely, 100% doable.

Some more info - I ran 2:39:40 a few years ago on a hilly but not outrageous course.

dotato wrote:This is a great point. I can run 2:32-2:35 but I can not run a sub 16 min 5k to save my life.

I ran a 15:55 between the two 2:42s. This is an important difference between people who are better inclined toward either longer or shorter distances, either from natural tendencies or (lack of) aerobic training. I have a masters buddy who has gone 2:28 and could never beat me at 3k or 5k. This guy's PBs tell a clear story - he is much better at shorter distances, and is not a natural marathoner. He might be able to pop a decent one at some point, but to do so he will need a lot of mileage behind him, and he should be avoiding workouts at more than alittle bit faster than M pace. The 5 x mile and 2 x 2 mile stuff he's mentioned, which might be decent work for a natural marathoner, are not good for a runner like this. He needs to think about stuff like 4 x 5k, 2 x 10k, 20k continuous in and around M pace (~ 6 min pace).

$0.02 more please

I was a 2:34 runner in my prime. Never did any speedwork, never liked that sort of pain very much, so concentrated on pounding out the miles instead. Topped out at 105 but was mostly in the 80 mpw during peak preparation.

PRS were 1:14 58 for HM, 33:20 for 10K and 16;15 for 5K.

If you run the miles you'll get the time. You have the speed, you need the endurance.

Bump

You guys were right. That last 6 miles took forever. I'll try to better this 3:01 the next time.

any more splits?

halfway? 20 miles?

I call upon Letsrun wrote:

You guys were right. That last 6 miles took forever. I'll try to better this 3:01 the next time.

Ha! Impostor post!

I haven't run it yet.

OP, is your upcoming marathon the Cleveland Marathon May 20? we have very similar goals and similar profiles, it would be nice to have an ally in the <2:35:00 assault

rite aid wrote:

OP, is your upcoming marathon the Cleveland Marathon May 20? we have very similar goals and similar profiles, it would be nice to have an ally in the <2:35:00 assault

No, Providence marathon in RI.

ok yeah. i though 3:01 was off. although i was going to sympathize because i had a goal of 2:45 last week and ended up running 3:08 with cramps.

don't overhydrate! i have finally learned my lesson on that. no need to have people on the course with big water bottles like i have done. cups will work fine

I can't add much, but can say from personal experience, pablo know of which he writes.