Shoot for 2.49 and ignore recent race?

If you were a high mileage guy I'd say yes, ignore the recent half result. Even though a 1:22 half is good enough to run a 2:48 anyway, but providing the mileage is there.

The mileage you've run is not disastrous though. It's still possible to run sub 2:50 especially on a flat course with a downhill finish. Without the miles in the bank though a prediction is a crap shoot.

Thanks. I'm thinking go out around 6.30-635 pace to go through the half at about 1.25.30 - 1.26.00 and then try to settle into a sub 6.30 pace in the second half of the race where it's more downhill. If it's meant to happen then I'll be OK at that pace and be in with a fighting chance of clawing back the minute or so needed and if not hopefully the 1st half isn't too quick or suicidal that im completely shot and can't even hold onto for a sub 2.55.

How does that sound?

Have you run another marathon other than the one you paced? What were the circumstances going from 68 mpw to 20 mpw...back to back weeks or more random?

No this is my first serious marathon. The mileage jump is more random, I try to hit around 50 - sometimes I can get in a few more, sometimes life gets in the way but most weeks are around 50

Ave. Joe wrote:

Thanks. I'm thinking go out around 6.30-635 pace to go through the half at about 1.25.30 - 1.26.00 and then try to settle into a sub 6.30 pace in the second half of the race where it's more downhill. If it's meant to happen then I'll be OK at that pace and be in with a fighting chance of clawing back the minute or so needed and if not hopefully the 1st half isn't too quick or suicidal that im completely shot and can't even hold onto for a sub 2.55.

How does that sound?

Sounds like a perfect realistic strategy that leaves room for A and B goals! Good luck with it, happy racing.

Thanks! Nice to get a sensible opinion

2.49 would be a fantastic high jump.

But I thinking running 40-50 miles per week is a bit much for that goal.

I agree with the last poster, give yourself a chance at sub-2:50. This is four years ago but I had run 1:18 and then had a sub par 1:21 a month before a goal marathon. I am, however, a little bit of a higher mileage guy and was in a 90 mile week when I ran the 1:21. I ran 2:47 a month later, going out quicker than that half in 1:20:40. I feel like it could have been better (2:44-45 range) but I definitely went for it.

I see sub-2:50 for you. Pace it right and you should get there.

The relatively slow half marathon wouldn't deter me at all. Stuff happens in the middle of a training cycle, especially if you are training at a heavier volume and higher intensity than you might otherwise usually train.

In the lead up to my first marathon, I had a pretty miserable race about 2-3 weeks out, which would have indicated a much lower degree of fitness than my goal time. Sam thing for my second marathon. Both turned out to be just fine - the bad times were just a function of cumulative fatigue, being in the mental doldrums, etc.

I am not sure if the 2:49 was a realistic goal to start with, but if it was, don't let the slow half worry you too much.

Ave. Joe wrote:

No this is my first serious marathon. The mileage jump is more random, I try to hit around 50 - sometimes I can get in a few more, sometimes life gets in the way but most weeks are around 50

Yeah, it's hard to say for me, especially since you're a first timer. Aerobically it sounds like you have the capacity even on low mileage, but if your legs are shot from running 50mpw to have you fall 4 minutes off in a HM I don't know if you have the muscular endurance to take the pounding the whole way.

I like the suggestions to keep the range of pace open a little bit for a first timer. Leads to a lot more possible outcomes you're happy with.

If you've otherwise been in good shape go for it

If you had more high mileage weeks behind you, I'd say go for it, but for the marathon, the volume really matters a lot. I would try for low 2:50s if it were me. I ran under 2:50 numerous times without breaking 1:20 for the half in training, but my mileage was double yours. Meanwhile, my friend with similar mileage as yours could easily go under 1:20 for the half any time he wanted to, but when it came to the full, he sputtered out at 2:53.

Thanks guys, lots of helpful stuff.

General idea seems to be that sub 2.50 is a possibility should everything go well and that I should give myself at least a chance of that time whilst also being attentive and cautious to feeling on the day.

The key seems to be being able to pick a pace which gives me a chance if I'm feeling good but doesn't jeopardise the entire race if I'm not capable of maintaining it all the way through. If I tire and come in anywhere between 2.50-3.00 then at least I know I went for it and I'll be happy with the time. But really don't want to be hitting the wall and walking home. I don't think 6.30-6.35 pace (1.25-1.26) for the first half is going to jeopardise my race, but I will be attentive to how difficult it feels and may modifiy pace if it's becoming too much of a strain around 10-13 mile mark.

How's that sound?

Normally, I would be reticent to ever try to run a negative split, especially as a first time marathoner; but I think it is a smart move on your part given your low volume and the layout of the course.

Be forewarned, marathon pace should feel really easy through 13 on race day. Some combination of the taper, the field or runners around you and race day magic make running marathon pace feel much, much easier on race day than on your mp runs. So be REALLY attentive to your pace early on and err on the side of a few seconds slow rather than a few seconds fast, and don't decide to start cranking down the pace too early, as you will want to do since it "feels so easy!"

I have not been able to negative split any of my three marathons (bonked in one, cramped up in the other two), so my experience based on what has happened to me and what I have seen from others suggests that running sub 2:50 after going out in 1:26 will be a challenge, but I think it is a smart approach that gives you at least a chance of your high end time goal while not creating an overly high likelihood of blowing up and walking part of the race.

I agree, i wouldn't even consider it if it wasn't net downhill second half. Course is 50 or so metres more elevation loss than gain so overall its net downhill. Mile 20-21 is a v nice downhill section where there is a possibility of just letting the legs go and getting a 6 min mile.

I disagree that negative splitting is not an effective pacing strategy. All of my best marathons have been through a slight negative split.

The key is to find the correct target pace. That will come with experience and it took me three marathons until I was able to figure it out based on races during training and training paces, so perhaps you are almost there. :) I find this the hardest thing for marathon newbies to master.

In addition, having multiple training cycles under your belt will help you figure our your correct pacing and likely reduce your bonking/cramping issues.

As for the OP, only time will tell if going out 125/126 will work. The good thing is that succeed or fail, you'll gain some great insight on your training and how you body responds.

'As for the OP, only time will tell if going out 125/126 will work. The good thing is that succeed or fail, you'll gain some great insight on your training and how you body responds'

and gain some insight into what it feels like to bonk hard if it goes wrong!

But go for it!

It depends on the length and pace of your long runs. I've known a lot of people who had fast half marathon times blow up around 30K in their first full. That's why the saying "the marathon starts at mile 20" rings so true. Maybe the marathon experts can give a good long run predictor besides a 26.2 time trial or 5 x 18 for a low mileage guy.

Ave. Joe wrote:

No this is my first serious marathon

You're f**ked.

I predict you go out a little faster than planned, feel good for 15 miles and blow up in the last 6.