How close can I get to three hours for a FM?

We will need your time for a 10k Marathon to give you an accurate prediction.

This is some solid training and progression. I think realistically you are in 3:02 to 3:04 shape. My advice would be to not change your training much at all. Keep doing the things that you have been doing. Don't get greedy. You're learning a lot and you are on a path to a massive PR. It is better to go in at 90 percent than to go in overcooked, and too much changing and adding of miles could totally overcook you. You don't have a big mileage base (given the summary of your training), so don't change it much right now.

In the race itself, I'd go out at 6:55 to 7:00 miles and hold. From there I would try to pick it up at 20 if possible.

After the race spend however many weeks you need recovering and recharging. Then slowly build up your average miles to 50 a week. Pick a late spring or early summer marathon (depending where you are in the world) and then get up to 70+ a week. Your sub-3 will be there, and then some.

Please disregard my handle, as I am not an expert. However, based on the information you provided, I think it's difficult to say whether or not a sub 3 is possible for you with the expected mileage. Definitely, if you bumped it up to the 50-60 mpw range, it would significantly improve your chances. Take it to 70 or 80, and your legs would sing for 26.2 miles!

The level of fitness required to jump from 3:18 to 3:00 is not linear, so forget about that 3:18 on 25 miles. It was just an easy paced training run. As you get closer and closer to your "true" potential, it will become exponentially more difficult to shave off minutes. Your shorter runs do not indicate that you have the potential to run a 2:40, so I'm guessing that a sub 3 is going to be a challenge. Those calculators assume that you are properly conditioned to run the marathon, and, by properly conditioned, that means some big mileage weeks for most people!

It sounds like you have some 20 milers planned in the upcoming weeks. My favorite test for marathon pace determination is to run a 20 miler, 10 miles at easy pace, and then 10 miles at goal marathon pace. For me, this should be done at the end of 50-60 mile week so that my legs are tired going into it. The average pace I end up at for those final 10 miles is very close to my marathon potential at that time.

Another good indicator might be an 18 miler with 13 miles at MP in the middle. I'm sure some other folks have some favorite workouts that they use (Yasso 800s or something?) if you don't like these.

In short, your shorter distance performances suggest that sub 3 is possible, but there is nothing yet in your repertoire that indicates you can carry the performances over 26.2. So, the answer to your question is that only YOU can answer your question. Try some of the above workouts during your training and see where you're at. If you're not pleased with the results, then it's likely that you will need to increase your mileage if you are serious about breaking 3.

Good luck!

Your fitness is pretty similar to mine - I was doing long tempos in hot weather (80 degrees) at 6:50/mile. I'm targeting 3:05 next week at NYCM; On easier course I would consider 3:00.

Your low mileage and lack of long run is going to be a limiting factor. I learned a lot doing a lot of 20 mile runs, a few 22 miles runs as well as a 17 mile run at goal marathon pace. I'd recommend doing similarly taxing runs to make sure you have the confidence for that last 10k, even if it's more psychological than physiological.

keepgoing wrote:

This is some solid training and progression. I think realistically you are in 3:02 to 3:04 shape.

In the race itself, I'd go out at 6:55 to 7:00 miles and hold. From there I would try to pick it up at 20 if possible.

This is perhaps the smartest, safest way for me to maximize my result, but I would not forgive myself if I held 6:55/mi for twenty and felt good enough to drop it to 6:40/mi, only to come up at 3:01, thinking "what if." I'd rather go out thinking a three is possible and blow up, knowing that I at least tried. Thanks for the taking the time to respond.

This is what I'm afraid of: a significant rise in the HM to FM ratio based on projected speed. Then again, everyone told me that a 2.1 ratio wasn't possible on less than 30 miles, yet I did it on 25.

I'm back and forth on this. Some days I think that the effort would shred me enough that I wouldn't fully recover for the FM. But then again, if I can't do what it takes in practice, neither can I in the race. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

burnout wrote:

Your fitness is pretty similar to mine - I was doing long tempos in hot weather (80 degrees) at 6:50/mile. I'm targeting 3:05 next week at NYCM; On easier course I would consider 3:00.

Your low mileage and lack of long run is going to be a limiting factor. I learned a lot doing a lot of 20 mile runs, a few 22 miles runs as well as a 17 mile run at goal marathon pace. I'd recommend doing similarly taxing runs to make sure you have the confidence for that last 10k, even if it's more psychological than physiological.

I would honestly say there is no way that I could hold 6:50/mi in 80F weather. If you could only manage a 3:00 on a good course, I much closer to a 3:05. Over this 18 week training cycle, I will have three thirteens (including HM), five fifteens (hills), a twenty (flat), and a twenty-one (hills). Do you feel this is a bit short? Good luck at NYC.

Your half was in conditions which weren't really that hard and you're an extremely low mileage runner. You're going to run 3:05 to 3:10 depending on course and conditions.

reality check man wrote:

Your half was in conditions which weren't really that hard and you're an extremely low mileage runner. You're going to run 3:05 to 3:10 depending on course and conditions.

Please continue.

Most OP threads longer than a paragraph are annoying and usually mean the person doing the posting has too much time to think about their wonderful life.

Just run. And don't take yourself too seriously.

MAGA

three hour attempt wrote:

reality check man wrote:

Your half was in conditions which weren't really that hard and you're an extremely low mileage runner. You're going to run 3:05 to 3:10 depending on course and conditions.

Please continue.

Plug your 1:28:50 into this, select tough conditions, plug in your 40 mpw max in, and you'll see that 3 hours is way overreaching for a marathon.

three hour attempt wrote:

Three months ago, I returned and slowly built back into my current training cycle, which is 36mpw x 18 weeks (peak of 48). I am 12 weeks in, 6 weeks to go to the FM.

Two weeks ago was my HM. I ran a 1:28:48 ... I feel like I might have had 1:26:00 on a good day.

Earlier this week, I did another (15km time trial) and held 6:38/mi (40F). If I used this a race effort, it would predict a 3:02 FM, but I don't feel like I gave it 100%, and sure didn't taper any ...

I'm feeling better than 50/50 about a 3:00FM in six weeks, assuming the weather cooperates. Possibly even 2:58-2:59. ...

I'm thinking about just going at 6:50/mi from the beginning, holding it as long as possible, stepping on the gas at mile 20 if there's anything left (or holding as close as possible if it's not there).

You may as well go for it. You'll see fitness gains over the next six weeks, especially with the inclusion of long runs. That should bring your sub-3 target within range if your other assumptions are correct.

My recent marathon history is very similar to yours. A year ago on 20 mpw I ran 3:25. During the first half of this year I increased my weekly mileage to 40-plus, with a few weeks over 50.

On that mileage, I ran a 1:28:41 half marathon (including 52-second potty break), and a 15km race at 6:26 per mile.

During the 16-week marathon training period, injuries limited my weekly mileage to an average of 38. The 15km race had predicted a possible 3:02 marathon on the calculators I checked. With the lost fitness since, I thought 3:05 would be a reasonable goal.

On race day I ran 7:05s for most of the race, but faded to 7:30s over the last 3 miles to finish at 3:07.

Surely you will be more race-ready than I. Good luck. And share some updates and the final result. It will be fascinating to follow.

reality check man wrote:

Plug your 1:28:50 into this, select tough conditions, plug in your 40 mpw max in, and you'll see that 3 hours is way overreaching for a marathon.

2016 HM 1:34:35 @ 25mpw (easy) = FM Projection 3:40:46

Actual FM Result = 3:18:45

Error Factor = 1.111

2017 HM 1:28:48 @ 35 mpw (tough) = FM Projection 3:18:21

2016 Error Factor = 1.111

Adjusted 2017 Projection = 2:58:32.

I was thinking 2:58-2:59. Great tool, once you account for the error. Otherwise, worthless.

Thanks. I'm definitely going to go for it. We're looking very similar headed into the race. I'm not sure about being more race ready as far as mpw go. Regarding your adjusted 1:28 HM, I would have predicted a 3:05 with perfect pacing, or a 3:06 with fade - not far from the 3:07. My adjusted 1:26 HM, like I said, maybe 3:01-3:02, but with the bump in mileage, I'm thinking 2:58-2:59. I don't see worse than 3:05 unless weather or injury comes into play. I'm just going to pace at 6:50/mi and go from there.

I didn't know we were referring to marathons as FMs now.

FM and a a diatribe post?

three hour attempt wrote:

Great tool, once you account for the error. Otherwise, worthless.

It seems to assign quite a bit of "weight" to the mpw input. For someone like you, with enough natural talent to get by on low mileage, it's overly pessimistic. For me, it was pretty accurate, predicting 3:10 - 3:12 (depending on how many weeks' mileage I included), when I actually ran 3:07 this year.

Trump2020OP-the real one wrote:

Most OP threads longer than a paragraph are annoying and usually mean the person doing the posting has too much time to think about their wonderful life.

Quote of the day.

three hour attempt wrote:

reality check man wrote:

Plug your 1:28:50 into this, select tough conditions, plug in your 40 mpw max in, and you'll see that 3 hours is way overreaching for a marathon.

2016 HM 1:34:35 @ 25mpw (easy) = FM Projection 3:40:46

Actual FM Result = 3:18:45

Error Factor = 1.111

2017 HM 1:28:48 @ 35 mpw (tough) = FM Projection 3:18:21

2016 Error Factor = 1.111

Adjusted 2017 Projection = 2:58:32.

I was thinking 2:58-2:59. Great tool, once you account for the error. Otherwise, worthless.

I think you should get more than one race/training block in before you know what the "error factor" is. Something tells me 538 used a much larger sampling than your one half marathon to marathon personal example.

Get back to us in 6 weeks either way. I'm very curious to see how things go for you.