1:19 and 2:43 for me--both on honest courses. But I was always way better at longer distances.
1:19 and 2:43 for me--both on honest courses. But I was always way better at longer distances.
I agree with another poster that said 2:50 is a better performance than 1:19 (despite what performance calculators say).
It's much harder to prepare for a marathon and to execute a good one on the day. A lot more can go wrong, and you have the added variables of nutrition and the distance likely being further than what you've actually run in training.
Add to that, you can run a lot more half marathons, which gives you more opportunities to get it right.
1:18:35 and 2:41:59 for me in both distances, both were this year. The marathon was two months later, so maybe the difference is just from gained fitness from that point.
firstlast wrote:
I ran 1:20 and 2:59 in the half / full last year.
The half was on 45-50 mpw and the full on 60 mpw (couldn't run anymore than that). Hit the wall in the last 5k and should have gone 2:57.
Should 2:50 be the goal if I can do 1:19?
2:50 is definitely the right goal. I always used the old “double your half +8-12 minutes” for marathon goal setting when I was in the 60 mpw range. I ran 1:19:31 and 2:48:12 off of similar mileage to what you are doing.
If you have the time and can bump the mileage considerably, then double your half plus 4-6 minutes is certainly possible. My PRs of 1:10:47 and 2:25:17 were set off of ~100-115 mpw.
They are about equivalent. Maybe 2:50 is a touch better. At that level, it depends on how well-trained and well-suited one is for endurance vs. speed. For myself personally, I usually think I should be able to double the distance if I slow down by 15ish seconds a mile, so 15 x 26.2 = 6:33. 1:19 + 6:33 = 1:25:33 x 2 = 2:51:06. If you are better the longer the race gets, maybe you run 2:45. If you are slower the longer it gets, maybe 2:55.
Current PRs in those distances are 1:17 and 2:44.