transition from Ironman to Marathon due to injury

You are going to do a 140.6 triathlon with a bad knee? I don't get it.

Not going to happen. You've run one marathon, you are running your first Ironman with insufficient training on the bike, you don't run enough mileage, and you're injured. Good luck though.

middlemanagement wrote:

You are going to do a 140.6 triathlon with a bad knee? I don't get it.

Thanks for the concern. The injury was 5 weeks ago, and I have taken every precation to ensure that I can safely complete the distance. I have had an MRI, been thoroughly checked out, and am ready to go again.

If at any point during the event I begin to experience the "knee gremlins," I will catch the SAG wagon back to the party-line. I have consider this plan, evaluated the potential of re-injury, and I am comfortable with this risk/reward scenario.

For what its worth, my "complete the distance" goal is several hours longer than my race-pace goal. I plan to treat the event as a 17 hour social event and buffet. No going into the pain cave.

Those thing being said, I would love some feedback on my marathon goal.

Here you go. Should get you in the ballpark of what to expect. Convert your 5k to a 10k, then multiply by the factor in this article.

http://www.hillrunner.com/jim2/id64.html

By the way, nobody likes the results they get from these numbers, but it usually turns out to be correct. Those doing lower mileage (like you) that ignore the importance of mileage on the marathon usually bomb their marathon from overly-aggressive goals. The normal calculators assume you are "properly trained" for the marathon (i.e. 80+ mpw).

Good luck in your upcoming events.

who does this guy think he is?? coming to letsrun, registering a username (with a real email!!), and starting a thread about RUNNING?? the nerve...

if you only run 40 miles a week and do 20 mile long runs, you are averaging 3 miles/day for the other days. this might fly if you are doing a lot of swimming/biking and competing in an IM, but it's not really an ideal way to train for a plain marathon. you would be better off focusing less on the long run and more on total volume, i.e. doing the most volume possible (possible meaning you still feel nice in training) with minimal effort. Right now you are doing 40 mpw in a very difficult way.

not to be insuling or anything, but at your level you dont need to worry about event specificity. your huge improvements will for the most part come from better general fitness. the best way to achieve that is more miles, less effort. frank shorter once said something like he would never write a book on training because it would be a page long.

sorry, that was kind of off topic. if you ran 3:10 @ 180 lbs, 3:00 @ 158 should be quite doable.

First, most runners find that "calculator" to be highly inaccurate. Basing your marathon time off of a 5K or 10K is not too smart.

As to the OP's question... As noted by others, not a smart idea to do this 140.6 with a marathon 6 weeks later.

1) You're undertrained and healing from an injury.

2) You want to focus on the marathon and do this 140.6 for funzies? Focus on one.

3) You've never done a 140.6. Slow pace or not, you greatly underestimate your recovery. You'll likely just start recovering when you plan to start your 2 week marathon taper. Try to start building up your running mileage immediately after the 140.6 and you'll end up getting hurt...again.

You want to do both for fun? Do both for fun, but don't expect to do a 140.6 and then follow it up with a "solid" marathon six weeks later.

I appreciate the honest feedback. And, I just dont get it.

I see how its easy to say "not enough mialge." I am savvy to that. BUT!!! I am at virtually the same weekly milage I was when I hit a 3:10 in February, but I am running it at least 0:30 faster average on all my long runs on 14 hrs of training, no rest/taper. If there is any correlation to my earlier marathon, I should be able to lop time off the 3:10, not increase it.

I love the challenge, honestly. I wish I had a good goal to set so I could avoid going out too fast and blowing a BQ (185). I have 6 weeks after the ironman to improve. I'll report back with an epic disaster or a happy ending.

keep throwing rocks. the last caluclator said i'll do a 3:20.

M M M wrote:

sorry, that was kind of off topic. if you ran 3:10 @ 180 lbs, 3:00 @ 158 should be quite doable.

sorry. I'm new here. Is this what goes for sarcasm? Because that is exactly what I think is possible.

I would think that a 22 pound drop would bring a significant improvement in race results.

And I am all for the run volume. It just comes at a tremendous recovery cost in triathlon. Now that I will be able to run focus, I plan to safely (10-15%/wk?) increase my weekly average for 4 weeks and taper

Let's just stop the "taper" talk when you only run 33-40 miles per week. You are going to increase your mileage 10-15% because you are "all for the run volume." So now you will be up to a whopping 37-45 miles a week?

Yes the weight loss will improve your race performance, but your injury may detract, and your over-exuberance will most likely come back to haunt you at about mile 21. Again, good luck.

I agree wrote:

Let's just stop the "taper" talk when you only run 33-40 miles per week. You are going to increase your mileage 10-15% because you are "all for the run volume." So now you will be up to a whopping 37-45 miles a week?

Yes the weight loss will improve your race performance, but your injury may detract, and your over-exuberance will most likely come back to haunt you at about mile 21. Again, good luck.

So are you advocating training right up to the marathon with no taper?

Are you saying that a 10-15% increase in weekly run milage is inadequate? How much do you recommend I increase my run milage per week?

My injury is cycling specific. I believe that I am recovered, and I still have 8 weeks before the marathon.

Over-exuberance? Maybe. But I came here looking for a realistic goal to pace towards. Since I ran the 3:10, I've dropped 30# and 1:45 off my 5k and maintained roughly the same run volume. And I still have 8 weeks to left to improve. I was expecting to read a few 3:05s and a few "it'll hurts." I knew the volume was light, but it's like you guys just look at the volume and stop reading.

Famed running coach Jack Daniels said something to the effect of "you wanna be a better runner, you gotta run".

http://www.flotrack.org/speaker/38-Jack-Daniels/video/204255-3-Cross-Training-makes-you-better-Thirsty-Thursday

Strengthen your body so you can run more. You've come to a very distance running oriented site and essentially asked about cross training your way to a good marathon, so a lot of people won't have much of an answer for you.

Eight weeks is not enough time to get fit for a marathon, but if you want to give it a try, it has been done before. Sounds like you have a good base already. I would suggest a few 20-22+ mile long runs finishing at goal pace, a few 10-16 marathon pace runs. If you can run relaxed at goal pace for 16 durning training, you definitely have a good shot at it. You will definitely get a boost from the dropped weight, but to run faster, you probably need to focus more on the running element of your training.

I don't see why a sub 3 hour marathon isn't possible for you. The only drawback i can see is not giving it a whole marathon specific segment. Good luck though!

Don't do it wrote:

First, most runners find that "calculator" to be highly inaccurate. Basing your marathon time off of a 5K or 10K is not too smart.

Which "calculator" do most runners find highly incaccurate?

Borden wrote:

I appreciate the honest feedback. And, I just dont get it.

I see how its easy to say "not enough mialge." I am savvy to that. BUT!!! I am at virtually the same weekly milage I was when I hit a 3:10 in February, but I am running it at least 0:30 faster average on all my long runs on 14 hrs of training, no rest/taper. If there is any correlation to my earlier marathon, I should be able to lop time off the 3:10, not increase it.

I love the challenge, honestly. I wish I had a good goal to set so I could avoid going out too fast and blowing a BQ (185). I have 6 weeks after the ironman to improve. I'll report back with an epic disaster or a happy ending.

keep throwing rocks. the last caluclator said i'll do a 3:20.

Hey, Borden.

If you read the text for the link I provided, the mileage figures were based off running mileage for runners. So, obviously that's probably going to underestimate your situation with a lot of cross training fitness. I would think that is obvious.

If you already exceeded the performance it predicts, then GREAT. I would guess your triathlon training of 10-14 hours per week is probably the biggest explanation for that. My (limited) understanding is that bike fitness carries over to running much more than running fitness carries over to biking. So, that helps. How "much" does that help - who knows?! I have no idea how much your XX hours of weekly biking or swimming will translate to in terms of running fitness. Is 8 hours of biking/swimming equivalent to 2 hours running? 4? 5? No idea. I would guess a triathlon forum would probably have better guesses for you in that regard.

Also, if you were ironman training leading up to the 5k 18:31, then that time is also underestimated.

Obviously there are a lot of unique factors to your situation. I don't know how you're going to get a firm goal because there is a lot of uncertainly with: limited recent races, the ironman prior to the marathon, etc.

I missed in your original post that the 3:10 was at 22 lbs heavier on the same training. That is probably the biggest thing that indicates to me you could challenge 3 hours. I've seen a rule-of-thumb of 2 seconds per mile per pound, but I've personally seen closer to 1 second/mile/lb. Using the 1 second gets you 9:36 faster. Basically 3:00. If the 2 seconds is right, then more like 19 minute improvement (I wouldn't bank of that, though).

Your long runs are 30sec/mi faster than leading up to the 3:10 marathon? At the same heart rate/effort level? That's pretty close to the 1sec/lb/mile discussed above. That points to about 13 minutes faster over 26.2. Once again, right around 3:00.

Did you complete an ironman triathlon 6 weeks prior to your 3:10 marathon? I don't believe that is optimal marathon preparation, so that will likely hurt your marathon. How much? No idea.

In summary: You have a lot suggesting you could challenge 3 flat. Completing the ironman so close to it is probably not going to help you, and might hurt you. If I had to guess, I'd put you between 2:55-3:05. I don't see how that is going to help you though, since you could probably have come up with that on your own.

Best of luck to you in both events, and with putting your knee injury behind you. Please do come back and let us know how it went.

doses of reality wrote:

Don't do it wrote:

First, most runners find that "calculator" to be highly inaccurate. Basing your marathon time off of a 5K or 10K is not too smart.

Which "calculator" do most runners find highly incaccurate?

Dose - I think he meant the Jim2 calculator. There really isn't much validity to it and he is correct in that most find it to be really inaccurate - unless you bonk.

Borden - If you want to run a good marathon, don't do the tri. It sounds like you don't understand that it will keep you from increasing your running mileage because of the recovery needed. You may end up running faster than your 3:10, but it won't be the best you could have done.

Thanks for the link. I 've read Daniels Running Formula, great book. It really answered a lot of questions, and helped my indentify why/how my training plan was structured. That link seems to be a whole resource that I've yet to explore.

I hadn't thought about the crosstraining aspect. I thought of excluding the traithlon experience to get an honest assessment on just my running. I inculded it because 33mpw to a 180 doesnt seem likely.

I really like this idea of 10-16 MP runs. I incorporated that into my long runs for my 3:10 in Feb. I basically would warm-up for 3 miles, run 10 building to 15 at MP, and cool down the last few miles building to 22.

WU:3M-8:00

main set: 10 building to 15 at MP-6:50

CD: build to 22 at easy-8:00

Do you think this is a good strategy?

or

Should I alternate weeks with a 20 easy, 16 MP?

or

Should I have a mid-week 16MP run and a weekend 20 easy pace?

Keep in mind, I only have 4 weeks of honest training.

thanks for the information. I have full intentions of reporting back with good news.

This was a good post. Lots of meat here. Thanks.

I know exactly what I would get on a triathlon message board. Trusting that would get me a "on a perfect day it'll be close." Which I think is true.

I knew you guys would be able to evaluate my actual running and give me a goal, that's why I came here.

I appreciate you taking them time to read and evaluate my situation.

bag the tri wrote:

Borden - If you want to run a good marathon, don't do the tri. It sounds like you don't understand that it will keep you from increasing your running mileage because of the recovery needed. You may end up running faster than your 3:10, but it won't be the best you could have done.

This is probably the best advice I've got.

But, man it is so easy to type "just bag it."

I have 24 weeks of 10-16 hour/wk of training invested in this thing. I realize that doing the ironman will cost me 4 weeks of focused marathon training. I am loosing 3 to the taper and at least 1 to recovery.

Most ironman events sellout within a single day. If I skip it, it'll be next year. They make more marathon's every week.

Maybe I should ask how long before I can challange the 180 again if I miss?

Does doing a marathon add any real training benefit?

If you are like most 140.6 athletes.. you can just walk 80% of the marathon anyways (and proclaim you "ran it")

No basis for your injury implies a lack of true base work in my eyes. You are definitely healthier than you were at 3:10 - and I assume this is due to cycling fitness. It does not take a lot to improve fitness for a 180 lb 3:10 runner - you lost weight and thus, you are faster.

As others have mentioned, if you want to run marathons, run marathons. I have completed multiple IM events and am 100% certain that even at my volume (19-22 hours) I cannot even come close to touching the condition I am in running 80+ mpw only.

Good luck at IM FL.