Am I about to run a sub-3-hour marathon?

The consensus is about 9 to 1 to go for 3:10 not sub 3. I agree. I can give you data points:

1. I had similar times and training as you (more miles but slightly slower times) and went out in the first half in 1:29. I crashed, big time (worst ever) and ended up running close to 3:30. It was awful.

2. The next few years, I cranked up the miles to 50-70 per week and ran under 3, barely.

You obviously have the ability to run under 3, I just don't think you have the training. Hoping for a "good day" doesn't work with marathons. If you shoot for 3, I think you will end up run over 3:10.

29-timer wrote:

how does sub-6:50 pace feel?

how did you feel after the 20-miler?

i'd suggest that this week or early next week, you try some mid-length runs, 7-10 miles, at sub-6:50 pace and see how it feels. if it feels sustainable, then go for sub-3:00

FWIW, i've gone sub-3 six times on similar volume.

ignore the mileage snobs; your tri-training gives you the aerobic base/ability you need. you clearly have the speed. whether you've done enough to hold the pace for 26 is the question.

So does that mean you crashed and burned 23 times? 6 out of 29 is not too good of a record.

_dave_ wrote:

I haven't run an open half marathon in a long time (which is why I'm not sure of my pace), but this year I ran a 1:32 off the bike in a half ironman.

How do you know that half marathon was accurate in that tri? Triathlons are notorious for having short courses. You may have only run 12.5 miles.

Thanks for all the responses, except the one where I'm called a fool.

The race is the Wineglass marathon in NY state. It's a pretty fast course, and admittedly I would hope for a little boost from the course profile. I don't think I would even try a 3:00 on a course with many hills and things. I did this race in 2002 as my first marathon--I was going for 3:30 and got 3:13, and at the time my best 15K was 1:03:xx.

3:05 sounds like a reasonable compromise. I guess.

Don't guess. If you feel as if you want to go faster than what your goal pace should be, you\'ll almost certainly take it out too fast. A few seconds here and there adds up to a lot in a marathon.

On projections:

The 13.1 in a half IM is far easier than the second half of a marathon.

Yassos are optimistic when put into a light training cycle, used for a runner with a low base, or fudged with long recoveries, which should be no longer than the repeat up to a max of 3:00. Also, predict off of 10 not 8.

Disappear into the 3:10 pace group and run off the front of it if you feel good late. At a small marathon 3:05 will be no man\'s land.

_dave_ wrote:

3:05 sounds like a reasonable compromise. I guess.

Considering most responders suggested you not run faster than 3:10, that is an interesting compromise.

mileage snob wrote:

So does that mean you crashed and burned 23 times? 6 out of 29 is not too good of a record.

pretty stupid and baseless assumption on your part to assume i've tried for sub-3 in every marathon.

3:05 sounds like a reasonable compromise. I guess.

If you're not satisfied then go ahead and attempt your sub 3. People are merely giving their opinion which is that chances are you will fail. And when you fail then maybe you'll be humbled by the distance and realize that in order to reach your goals you need to prepare better, train harder, and train more appropriately.

Only you know what you are capable of doing in this marathon. Why are you so willing to change your goal based on the advice of others? Just the fact that you are asking the question makes me wonder why you are even wanting to try.

I too am trying to break 3 hours this fall, at Chicago. Many of the so-called "predictors" would not indicate I can do this, but after running over 20 marathons and knowing how my training has gone, I am not worried about my 5k PR, Yasso 800s or any of that other BS. Know yourself and your abilities as an athlete, get out there, and get the job done!

No, definitely not.

sub-3 hopeful girl wrote:

Only you know what you are capable of doing in this marathon. Why are you so willing to change your goal based on the advice of others? Just the fact that you are asking the question makes me wonder why you are even wanting to try.

I too am trying to break 3 hours this fall, at Chicago. Many of the so-called "predictors" would not indicate I can do this, but after running over 20 marathons and knowing how my training has gone, I am not worried about my 5k PR, Yasso 800s or any of that other BS. Know yourself and your abilities as an athlete, get out there, and get the job done!

Good points. For some of us, 5k training including 800's on the track have absolutely no predictive value and only increase the risk of injury during a long hard marathon training cycle.

Neither does the half marathon tell me much about my marathon fitness as I had never broken 1:29 in 4 halfs before I went sub three. Maybe a decent taper would have helped as all the halfs were about 4 to 6 weeks before a marathon.

Maybe the original poster is all slow twitch and will do just fine on his minimal endurance program. But, if he goes sub three this time around, he is probably capable of under 2:50 with the proper base, long and tempo runs.

The OPs 5K time is better than his 15K time, so probably not slow twitch. Plus it was mentioned that his/her 5K was done early in the year, which means that it would be faster by now, making the difference even greater. IMO, if 2 runners both run 38:45 for 10K, but one runner runs 19:00 for 5K, and the other runs 18:00 for 5K, the runner with the slower 5K is more likely to hit sub 3 marathon because there is less slowdown when the distance increases. The OP runs 20-25 mpw. That's not an endurance program. Even so, I agree that the OP shouldn't really care what we think. I'd like to see how it works out, either way.

2:48, please wrote:

Even so, I agree that the OP shouldn't really care what we think. I'd like to see how it works out, either way.

Umm...he asked what we think, I think.

Hahaha, good point. Ok, I don't think a sub 3 is going to happen. Not on 20-25 mpw anyway.

john bil wrote:

2:48, please wrote:

Even so, I agree that the OP shouldn't really care what we think. I'd like to see how it works out, either way.

Umm...he asked what we think, I think.

I would say go run 26, not 26.2, and if you can do it in 2:58 you have a good chance of breaking 3:00.

How does sub-6:50 pace feel?

He indicates that he was unable to maintain a 6:52 pace (1:30) in his last half. The 1:32 is closer to 7:01.

Excellent point about ST vs FT. I am an extreme ST runner and cannot run a 5k in 19 minutes, yet I can maintain 6:50 pace or slightly faster for a very long time. Only experience at different distances (and in some cases, years of trial and error) will tell you what you are capable of from one distance to the next.

mathhh wrote:

He indicates that he was unable to maintain a 6:52 pace (1:30) in his last half. The 1:32 is closer to 7:01.

Did you miss the part about it being at the end of a half-iron-man tri?

2:48, please wrote:

The OP runs 20-25 mpw. That's not an endurance program.

so you're suggesting a 2:52 off 26 mpw is unlikely?

or a 2:57 off 27 mpw at age 47 is not to be expected either?