Half vs anticipated marathon time

Hen263 wrote:

Jack Daniels calc shows my full marathon is 10-15 minutes slow compared to what is anticipated against my actual half time.

.

One more time, in English.

Ok in English: my half marathon time is 90 minutes. Inputting that figure into a running calculator it reflects a potential marathon time that is 10-15 faster than my actual.

I know during a marathon I don't split evenly, let alone negative split, but my drop off is significant which indicates I am not doing something right.

Is it not enough miles per week, etc?

You ran a marathon on 40 mpw and want to know why you didn't achieve an equivalent performance for a shorter distance?

40-45, with an odd 50+ week and a top run of 20 miles, so yeah.

I'm 52, only started running again a yr ago, figured 6x a week, 40-45-50 mpw would be good.

Clearly, this is incorrect.

60-70 mpw, is that the number?

It's not a guarantee, but 70 mpw is likely to prepare you much better for a marathonthan 40 mpw provided you can handle the extra mileage without getting injured

No - plenty of people that have full time jobs and other things going on in their life follow training plans that max out at 50 - 55 miles per week. If you're bonking at the end look at your nutrition during the race - how many carbs are you taking in and when, etc. Although I also think those calculators are a little optimistic when they only double your half time and add about 10 minutes as it seems like adding 15 - 20 is where most people end up.

Tom Tom wrote:

No - plenty of people that have full time jobs and other things going on in their life follow training plans that max out at 50 - 55 miles per week. If you're bonking at the end look at your nutrition during the race - how many carbs are you taking in and when, etc. Although I also think those calculators are a little optimistic when they only double your half time and add about 10 minutes as it seems like adding 15 - 20 is where most people end up.

Carbs? Are you serious? ... run more and you will reach Daniels' equivalent times.

If you just started running a year ago, that's a significant factor unto itself. How many marathons have you attempted so far?

Also at what point in the race did your mile times begin to slow? Did you go out too fast (a common mistake for first-timers)? Was the course hilly? Was weather a factor - warm, humid, windy? Did you skip hydration tables early on? There are a ton of variables that go into achieving an optimal marathon finish.

Thx for the responses. I've only done two full marathons, the second I am sort of throwing out due to it being Santa rosa where I ran 1/2 too much.

Weather has not been an issue for either, nor have I skipped hydration.

The first I just got complacent as I ran almost the entire second loop by myself and at Santa rosa I blew up at mile 22 and crawled home.

I am guessing I don't have enough cushion in my bq for this year so I am already planning on a spring run that puts me 5-10 minutes under the bq standard for my ag.

I am now semi retired, will be eating better, and sh be able to train better, but most programs don't seem to indicate 40-45-50 mpw is outrageously light, but I get the point and will bump up to 50-55 mpw for a 20 week program and hopefully I won't blow up again and can hit my second split reasonably, not 20-30 minutes slower than the first leg.

Sorry, 1/2 mile too much.

Tom Tom wrote:

No - plenty of people that have full time jobs and other things going on in their life follow training plans that max out at 50 - 55 miles per week. If you're bonking at the end look at your nutrition during the race - how many carbs are you taking in and when, etc. Although I also think those calculators are a little optimistic when they only double your half time and add about 10 minutes as it seems like adding 15 - 20 is where most people end up.

Carbs? WTF....

If a training plan maxes out at 50-55 miles per week then of course the equivalency calculators all be optimistic

I suspect a lot of this is individual variation--some people just carry whatever speed they have better over a longer distance. When I was in my early 30s I trained 70-90 mwp and my best half-marathon was 1:18:59, which was absolutely the best I could do for that distance. But three times I ran under 2:48 for the marathon on honest (not downhill) courses, including a PR of 2:42:50. For me, "double the half and add 10-15 minutes" was ridiculously pessimistic. BTW, I could never break 18 minutes for 5K. A world-class plodder.

Most new marathoners require at least 2 marathons under their belts before they begin to approach true 42km capability. You'll be fine. Best wishes as you go...

Yep - totally serious. First two marathons just took the water/ powerade and bonked. Talked to guy I knew from high school that ran sub 2:20 and he said he mixed in carbs in some of his bottles at the elite tables throughout the course and told me no matter how gross it sounds to get in carbs. Once I started taking a gu throughout the race I didn't bonk as much and improved my time (but never within 10 minutes of doubling my best half per the calculator) but still qualified for Boston. I've ran with different training groups and no one in them was running 70+ mpw - seems the key for training is pacing for the speed/hill, tempo and long runs and then getting in a few races (halfs/ 10ks.) .

Tom Tom wrote:

Yep - totally serious. First two marathons just took the water/ powerade and bonked. Talked to guy I knew from high school that ran sub 2:20 and he said he mixed in carbs in some of his bottles at the elite tables throughout the course and told me no matter how gross it sounds to get in carbs. Once I started taking a gu throughout the race I didn't bonk as much and improved my time (but never within 10 minutes of doubling my best half per the calculator) but still qualified for Boston. I've ran with different training groups and no one in them was running 70+ mpw - seems the key for training is pacing for the speed/hill, tempo and long runs and then getting in a few races (halfs/ 10ks.) .

sure sure. the proof is in the gu.

If you've only gotten back into running for a year and are running 40-50mpw, you probably still have room for improvement by spring. However, I think for most people looking at equivalency calculators, they're a little bit optimistic for people running 40-50mpw.

I think you can still reach your goals w/o running 70mpw, but you may not reach the Jack Daniels chart.

99% of people cannot run "equivalent" times at longer distances. It requires serious, long-term aerobic development. Lots of miles, over several years.

Hobby Troller wrote:

Tom Tom wrote:

No - plenty of people that have full time jobs and other things going on in their life follow training plans that max out at 50 - 55 miles per week. If you're bonking at the end look at your nutrition during the race - how many carbs are you taking in and when, etc. Although I also think those calculators are a little optimistic when they only double your half time and add about 10 minutes as it seems like adding 15 - 20 is where most people end up.

Carbs? WTF....

If a training plan maxes out at 50-55 miles per week then of course the equivalency calculators all be optimistic

Well in my case, my PR of 2:40 came off of 48-55 mpw. (my body just couldn't handle 65-70 anymore) I cut out useless workouts and got faster.

Used to be Rono wrote:

Well in my case, my PR of 2:40 came off of 48-55 mpw. (my body just couldn't handle 65-70 anymore) I cut out useless workouts and got faster.

How do your shorter distance PRs compare on the prediction calculators? Is your marathon PR weaker?

Just curious, as my best marathon is also 2:40, with similar weekly mileage. The calculators I have checked accurately predict my other PRs: 4:45 mile, 34:05 10K.

But 20 years later, training just 40 mpw, my marathon was relatively weak: 2:56, compared to 5:03 mile and 17:10 5K.