Predict my first marathon - following tune up races

2:57:14

Oregano Project wrote:

2:57:14

Bit slower than I was hoping to be honest... anyone else got anything to offer?

I know pfitz does say to take tune up race times with a pinch of salt, but I did feel 90% rested for the Half at least; so it's safe to say it's knocked my confidence a bit.

Did a 15 miler progression tonight, 7:17 average, finishing last 4 miles circa 6:55. Felt really solid, especially two days after a race.

2:52

I had 37:47 and 37:34 before a 2:54:48 marathon. Both races without taper and a long run the day after, so hard efforts but did not kill me. 5k pb was 18:00, hm pb 1:22:31. Training for the marathon similar.

Based on all of this I'd say 2:53 but only on a fast course, good weather and good day. 2:55/56 on an ok day.

I think im faster at every distance (i dont have a recent hm) have been doing about equal training following jack daniels 2q plan at 60mpw and im nervous about shooting for 6:35 pace

If i were you, id go out at 6:40 and try to negetive split. If 6:40 is too slow, youll negetive split. If its too fast, it wont be by much. If 6:29 is way too fast, bad bad things will happen

Thanks; I am wondering if 6:40 pace might be the way to go. Obviously I'm worried about selling myself short, but I certainly don't want to risk a major blow-up in my first marathon.

If I go out at 6:40 pace for the first half, how long should I wait to start pushing the pace (assuming I feel good in the second half)?

Everything I've read about the marathon makes it sound like it's always best to hold off from pushing until right at the end - but I'm not sure if most of that is written with the 4-5 hr crowd in mind? For a Half or a 10k, I would normally try and be as comfortable up to 2/3 of the distance, and then push on from there - is that advisable for the marathon, or would I be setting myself up for a fall?

The distance is going to be new territory for me, as I've not been beyond 22 miles previously; but the positive is that I found that 22 miler very easy. It was run as a progression, with an average page of 7:22, but the final 4 miles were all sub-7, with the 22nd mile being the fastest at 6:38. I'm not sure if this indicates anything, but it certainly felt good.

I don't think you need to worry about selling yourself short in the marathon. Go out in 1:27-1:28. If you can come back in 1:24-1:25 and get closer to the low-2:50s that would be a great day and have you hungry for your next one. If you go out just a little too hot in the marathon you risk a lot more time IMO.

Im doing my first one too, so i dont have much to offer other than a bump to your thread. My plan is to try to pick a sensible pace and then pick it up a few seconds starting at like 16.

I think we are right in the same boat. I did a 21 miler the other day and averaged 7:05 for the whole thing and miles 18 and 19 were at 6:40 and 6:20. Miles 20 and 21 felt tough but i felt like I could do more 6:30s if i had to. Like you, i dont want to sell myself short but i am terrified of having to walk it in

I ran a 1:16 half and 34:50 10k prior to running a 2:53 marathon, should have been around 2:45 but cramped badly at 20 miles.

All honesty, I would start off aiming for a 2:55 finish and negative split if feeling great at 20+ miles but be very careful as with your times, you'd need to be pretty experienced to go sub 2:50. It's possible but I don't like your margins.

Thanks for the replies; I think I will go out at 6:40 pace as suggested, and try and negative split.

From looking at the Daniels and MacMillan tables; it looks like they convert a 1:22 half to something like 2:51 or 2:52 respectively - seems quite an agressive conversion tbh, and faster than most here are suggesting.

Would anyone put any faith in these figures (especially considering im a first timer...); or are they over optamistic?

I'm pretty sold on targetting 2:55-2:53ish, but just curious why Daniels in particular converts so much more aggressively (my half PB converts to 2:46ish IIRC, which seems nuts!).

Heard people suggest 2x HM + 10 min before, which makes 2:54 about right, if basing it off my most recent half

How old are you and how long have you been running?

Newer and younger runners tend to be underdeveloped aerobically and their times will get slower as the distance increases. Their mile will score better than their 2 mile. Their 2 mile will be better than their 5k. 5k better than 10k. Etc. If you follow this trend, expect you marathon to be significantly slower than your half

Runners over 40 tend to have much less natural speed and therefore their times will match up much better. Same with people that have been doing higher milage for a long time

Jimmy21 wrote:

How old are you and how long have you been running?

Newer and younger runners tend to be underdeveloped aerobically and their times will get slower as the distance increases. Their mile will score better than their 2 mile. Their 2 mile will be better than their 5k. 5k better than 10k. Etc. If you follow this trend, expect you marathon to be significantly slower than your half

Runners over 40 tend to have much less natural speed and therefore their times will match up much better. Same with people that have been doing higher milage for a long time

I'm 31, male. Been running for about 4 and half years; started on a couch to 5k in April 2013, as I could hardly run a mile at that point. Did my first Half 4 years ago this month, and ran in 2:03. Kicked on from there quite a bit.

If I remember rightly from the Daniel's tables; I'm pretty sure my Half (1:19:45) is better than my 10k (36:25), which is in turn better than my 5k (17:58). I could be wrong though; don't have the book to hand.

In any case I've been getting the impression that I get better as the distance goes up.

Make me get fast wrote:

From looking at the Daniels and MacMillan tables; it looks like they convert a 1:22 half to something like 2:51 or 2:52 respectively - seems quite an agressive conversion ... I'm pretty sold on targetting 2:55-2:53ish, but just curious why Daniels in particular converts so much more aggressively

Jimmy's comment about age and overall aerobic development is a good point. Overall training mileage is a major factor, as well. Low-mileage runners will see a bigger drop-off.

Here are some stats from three of my marathons when I had similar fitness and training as you (long runs and races listed were during the 12-week training periods):

Age 23

12-week avg mileage: 45

Peak mileage: 68

Long runs: 18, 18, 18, 18, 22

Races: 5K - 16:47, 10K - 34:12, 20K - 1:13:50

Marathon: 2:47:34 6:23/mi)

Age 23

12-week avg mileage: 42

Peak mileage: 72

Long runs: 26, 18, 26, 18

Races: two marathons - 2:47:34, 2:45:57; 3 mi - 15:31

Marathon: 2:40:30 (6:07/mi)

Age 43

12-week avg mileage: 46

Peak mileage: 63

Long runs: 18, 18, 20, 20, 23, 21, 20, 18

Races: HM - 1:22:47, 5K - 17:32

Marathon: 2:56:03 (6:43/mi)

My age 43 stats are probably the closest to your current fitness, but your overall aerobic capacity I think is better, with your consistently greater weekly mileage. Your half marathon times certainly reflect that.

I agree that 6:40 pace seems reasonable.

Best wishes.

First marathon....running 4 yrs....31yr old...."calculators" say low/mid 2:50s.

I say go for 2:55. You'll run 2:52-3:05. I would say 50% chance you don't break 3:00. 40% chance 2:55-3:00. 10% chance you break 2:55.

I am probably wrong.

Alan

Make me get fast wrote:

Oregano Project wrote:

2:57:14

Bit slower than I was hoping to be honest... anyone else got anything to offer?

I'll give you 2:42:54 if that makes you feel better.

In terms of "when" to go if you feel like you're going too slow, others can share their experiences, but in my first marathon I was doing 7:00 pace and everything felt so easy that I was sure I was selling myself short. I kept the pace until about mile 16 when I got really bored with running so "slow" and took off, started running 6:30s. Around mile 22 the wheels fell off and I ended up running 8s and 9s to the end. I salvaged a 3:07 but I would have been considerably faster if I had waited until at least mile 20 or 21.

6:40 may seem slow at first but stay patient. Even if it feels slow at mile 18 don't fret wait until mile 22 to push the accelerator. First (all) marathons require your full attention between 22-26.

Good luck and I wish you the best.

When I ran 2:53:30 (6:36 pace, if I remember correctly), I was regularly running 36 low for 10K and sub-18 for 5K. Your HM time, if I'm not wrong, is better than your 10K/5K times--which is a good thing.

I think you're in the low 2:50s, not the high 2:50's, especially considering how many 20 milers you've done and how you feel doing them.

In your place, I would go out no faster than 6:35 pace, and maybe even a little slower than that. I'd get to 15 miles and then, if feeling good, SLOWLY pick it up. No fancy moves!

Thanks for all the replies; I would agree that I seem to be in low-2:50's shape; but those last few miles do make me nervous, as they are really unknown territory.

Just checked my training log, and I have one 18 miler where I averaged 6:41 pace for the whole thing. That was a tough workout as I ran the first 6 as a progression, and then the last 12 at goal pace (which was 6:29 at the time, since proven to be over-ambitious!); would have been much easier if it has been 6:41 even pace I imagine - so that gives me some added confidence.

There was a second 18 miler in there as well (8 miles progression + 10 miles goal pace), which averaged 6:46 pace.

21 mile progression (finishing comfortably sub-7 pace for 4-5 miles) averaged 7:25 per mile, and the 22 miler averaged 7:22 pace. I like these Pfitzinger long runs, where the pace is picked up to circa 10% slower than MP for the last few miles (although I end up going a bit beyond this)