I am a beginner over 40 who picked up running this past year and did my first half marathon yesterday at 1 hour 48 min. I have never been a distant runner and had problem running even 2 miles 3 years ago. I want to run a convincing under 4 hour marathon by next November. I understand the key is to put in more miles per week (I am only at around 16 miles per week) -- but I am wary of injury. Is it easier on my joints if I run on a treadmill?
Here's a simple 4 hour training guide
You're off to a good start.
Your joints are not the same now as they were before you started running, and they won't be the same in a year. As you keep running and increasing the miles (and other forms of stress), your joints are gradually getting stronger - as long as you avoid injury. You can run more miles now than you could when you started not just because you have more endurance, but also because your bones and tendons and everything else is stronger. As long as you don't get too greedy and try to make too large of a jump at once, you can keep increasing mileage gradually and skip the treadmill.
Something else to think about, though, is if you really want to run a marathon in a year. There's something to be said for spending a little time working on shorter distances first, or getting fast at the 10K or HM before trying the marathon. You'll have to be the one to decide what your ultimate goal is, but you'll miss out on a lot of fun races from the mile on up if you immediately leap into marathons.
my 2c wrote:
You're off to a good start.
Your joints are not the same now as they were before you started running, and they won't be the same in a year. As you keep running and increasing the miles (and other forms of stress), your joints are gradually getting stronger - as long as you avoid injury. You can run more miles now than you could when you started not just because you have more endurance, but also because your bones and tendons and everything else is stronger. As long as you don't get too greedy and try to make too large of a jump at once, you can keep increasing mileage gradually and skip the treadmill.
Something else to think about, though, is if you really want to run a marathon in a year. There's something to be said for spending a little time working on shorter distances first, or getting fast at the 10K or HM before trying the marathon. You'll have to be the one to decide what your ultimate goal is, but you'll miss out on a lot of fun races from the mile on up if you immediately leap into marathons.
Agreed with the above comments.
It's not a bad idea to throw in an occasional run on the treadmill (varying the surfaces you run on is a good thing, imo). I'm sure there have been runners who have trained for marathons by doing all or nearly all of their mileage on treadmills. But it isn't necessary to prevent injuries. Just build mileage slowly so your body has a chance to adjust to the training stress before you add more.
Don't rush it. If you are running 1:48 off of the low mileage you should have no trouble breaking 4.
You did not mention if you do any type of workouts. I would stay away from anything too short and fast. That is usually what gets me injured but everyone is different.
I ran my first marathon at 55 yrs old after starting running about 2 yrs before that and having a base of about 40km/week before start of marathon training. Race day didn't go as planned but I did finish in about 4 min over 4 hrs. Trained better/harder/more consistently the following year and ran my 2nd marathon a year after my first and finished in 3:38:05. Hoping to cut an additional 5-10minutes off that time in 2019. If I can do this in my mid-late 50's with zero running background, iIt is very possible for you to run a good solid marathon at post 40 yrs old. Have a good solid running base, try to stay healthy and injury free, and run smart with a good hydration and fueling plan. You can do it best of luck.
Your 1:48 half is equivalent to a 3:56 full marathon for a runner with not a whole lot of training under their belt. You can definitely run faster if you take my advice.
1. More easy miles during the week at 9:45-10:00 pace.
2. Get comfortable running below your marathon pace for 10-15 miles, so for you, lots of miles at 8:55 pace.
3 Make sure you get two 22 mile runs in your training program....this is probably the most important thing you can do.
4. Run even splits for your marathon. Go out conservatively, and try to make your last mile the fastest one. 75% of marathon runners blow up during the race because they overestimate their fitness.
5. Take 3 to 5 energy gels during your race, also hit the water stations often.
Under 4 should be no problem. My story is similar to yours. I started running in late 2015 at age 41. I hadn't run since I got out of the military in 1998 . Prior to that I never ran in high school or on a team of any kind. My first race was also a half marathon and I ran a time very close to yours (1:50). I didn't have any structured training for that. I think I ran about 20 mpw with a long run of 10 miles. I got a little more serious about training and ran my first marathon in 2017 in 3:41. Last May I ran a 3:24. That one I followed a pretty structured program and peaked at 60 mpw. Up the mileage and start a structured marathon plan. Consider a local running coach or group if you need to learn how to do intervals and tempo runs. I had no idea what that stuff was.
Dr. James Tilman wrote:
Make sure you get two 22 mile runs in your training program....this is probably the most important thing you can do.
Let's think through the implications of this "advice."
This runner's easy pace based on VDOT (from the 1:48 half) should be around 9:30-10:00/mi.
A 22 miler would take them anywhere from 3.5 - 4 hours to finish. That is pointless and counterproductive.
A long run should be capped at 2-3 hours max, especially for a beginner.
salted jock wrote:
Dr. James Tilman wrote:
Make sure you get two 22 mile runs in your training program....this is probably the most important thing you can do.
Let's think through the implications of this "advice."
This runner's easy pace based on VDOT (from the 1:48 half) should be around 9:30-10:00/mi.
A 22 miler would take them anywhere from 3.5 - 4 hours to finish. That is pointless and counterproductive.
A long run should be capped at 2-3 hours max, especially for a beginner.
Total BS....and not counterproductive at all. It's not like this guy is a stranger to anything over a 13 mile run. Go for the 22, and be glad you did when you actually hit mile 22 and you've still got a lot of gas left.
Running hills on soft surfaces (grass or trail) are a great for injury prevention for mid pack runners. Runners who are doing a lot of miles at 9-10 min miles tend to miss out on developing strength in their glutes. This causes imbalances and weaknesses that lead to injuries. Some strength training in the gym will also help. Squats and lunges are a big help for older runners. No need to build giant legs. You just want to up your strength a bit and improve muscle activation.
Otherwise, soft surfaces are great. Slowly building mileage is important. But taking breaks and having easy weeks now and then is also important for 40+ runners, especially beginners.
Dr. James Tilman wrote:
salted jock wrote:
Let's think through the implications of this "advice."
This runner's easy pace based on VDOT (from the 1:48 half) should be around 9:30-10:00/mi.
A 22 miler would take them anywhere from 3.5 - 4 hours to finish. That is pointless and counterproductive.
A long run should be capped at 2-3 hours max, especially for a beginner.
Total BS....and not counterproductive at all. It's not like this guy is a stranger to anything over a 13 mile run. Go for the 22, and be glad you did when you actually hit mile 22 and you've still got a lot of gas left.
Both Daniels and the Hansons, to pick two examples, disagree. Daniels caps long runs at 2.5 hours. Per Luke Humphrey (Hansons), 2-3 hrs is the "optimal window" for a long run, after which muscle breakdown starts to occur.
It's a cost-benefit problem. Even if an inexperienced runner gets through a 4 hour slog without hurting themselves, their legs are going to be trashed for a week (or more). And for what?
Dr. James Tilman wrote:
salted jock wrote:
Let's think through the implications of this "advice."
This runner's easy pace based on VDOT (from the 1:48 half) should be around 9:30-10:00/mi.
A 22 miler would take them anywhere from 3.5 - 4 hours to finish. That is pointless and counterproductive.
A long run should be capped at 2-3 hours max, especially for a beginner.
Total BS....and not counterproductive at all. It's not like this guy is a stranger to anything over a 13 mile run. Go for the 22, and be glad you did when you actually hit mile 22 and you've still got a lot of gas left.
To attempt to guarantee a Marathon finish, if you're going to say 22mi. training run, why not a 27mi. training run? People have lives. Four hour Marathon should not be so complicated.
Get yourself down to a sub-45 10K on two different courses so you know you are a legit sub-45 10K person.
Do sub-45 10K on no more than 30mi. per week plus two workouts per week: 1) one long hill workout; 2) 5x1mi. at 10K pace on road with 60 seconds recovery.
Gradually add long run up to no more than 30K every other week. Other week, long run of 20K.
Race sub-4 Marathon.
No more complicated than above.
salted jock wrote:
Dr. James Tilman wrote:
Total BS....and not counterproductive at all. It's not like this guy is a stranger to anything over a 13 mile run. Go for the 22, and be glad you did when you actually hit mile 22 and you've still got a lot of gas left.
Both Daniels and the Hansons, to pick two examples, disagree. Daniels caps long runs at 2.5 hours.
Second edition of Daniel's has two 22 mile runs in it.
"22 mile run or 2.5 hour run, or whatever is shorter" is what it says.
Daniel'zd wrote:
Second edition of Daniel's has two 22 mile runs in it.
"22 mile run or 2.5 hour run, or whatever is shorter" is what it says.
It is very easy for Daniels to type nonsense like 22mi. training run for someone simply trying to break 4 hour Marathon. For a would be 4 hr. Marathoner, 22mi. at 10mn or 11mn per mile is well over a three hr. run. I know hobby runners will get mad: Daniels is wrong! There is no need for a casual runner to invest in that kind of training simply to break 4 hrs. for a Marathon.
This may be getting the thread sidetracked, but to clarify, Daniels does include 22 milers in the 2Q plan, but only for runners who are doing 86-100 mi per week. I think it's fair to say that what's appropriate marathon training for an 80-100 mi/wk runner is not the same as what's appropriate for a beginner. Daniels says elsewhere in the book (p. 51) that for slower runners, "2.5 hours is long enough, even if it gets a runner a total of only 15 miles."
If you look at the lower mileage versions of the 2Q plan, you'll see that the long runs get scaled down proportionally. By the time you are at 41-55 mpw, he starts prescribing long runs by time instead of distance (e.g., "Q1 = steady E run of 120-150 min"). Again, I assume because the risk-reward is not there.
I'm looking at the third edition of his book, for the record.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC