wait until you are 49 and try that 2:25. Enjoy your youth
I see this all the time on r/advancedrunning race reports, young studs running 2:19-2:30 and making it seem like a jog. "Oh, just go run more." Most of those kids are 18-33...
What are your PBs OP? Running doesn't have to be overly complicated. Decent mileage. 2-3 workouts/week. Good result.
I would say that you did a healthy amount of quality & got away with that because of your mileage. Seems like you responded well to that. It's not like you weren't working hard. You jammed in a lot of quality.
& to that point, don't demean other runners. 2:25 is a time that 99.9% of marathoners never run & is a time that most still wouldn't run, even with optimized training/years of high mileage. It's a time where talent enters into the equation. Some people could run 100-120mpw & not break 2:30. Everyone's different. Enjoy your result. Try to raise up others instead of framing it like this. If your 5k/10k & down indicates more potential at the marathon then what? Maybe more mileage could get you to an even better time. If you're interested in that then get to work instead of saying look at what I did & I didn't even try. You tried & you can run a lot faster.
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
So NERunner you think volume is the best way to improve in my case?
I am doing a 5/10k block first half of 2026 to get my PRs to match my marathon PR, then a Fall marathon block.
Not necessarily. If you've had injury problems in the past then there's an argument that this training works well for you. I could easily have someone running 100mpw going for the same or a slightly faster time doing less quality than you did. I just think 2:25 off of 70ish mpw (not 1:1 because you said you've done more in the past) leaves plenty of room for improvement. That improvement could come from the same structure. It could come by adding in more volume. I'm training for triathlon now & I had coaching in 23/24 from a top-end pro & I could say the training looked similar enough, in triathlon terms, to your run block. I was doing 12-15 hours/week, down from my 18-22+ norm, but the quality was through the roof -- hard stuff in almost every session. I'm back to self-coaching & am working through more of a hybrid approach. I find I do better off of higher volume. I'm keeping in workouts I like. The high intensity was wearing me down & I always felt cooked heading into races. Taper weeks were hard, always with shorter, but even higher, intensity. I was fit but didn't feel like I could put it together for races. I wouldn't consider myself talented. I had better results this past season, but, again, who knows maybe I'm still getting the benefits of all the quality I got in the prior 2 years. Maybe that's right for you.
Fwiw I think CIM is 100% legit. Honest front half. Runnable last 10k if you get there with legs. It's not the kind of course where you get 5-10min by showing up. Maybe 1-2min if it's a good weather day & you nail pacing/hydration. You seem to have something figured out. 2:25 is crazy fast compared to everything else. Bold to go after 2:30 & then negative split off of 1:14 to a half PB. Your 2:25 is worth 15-flat/31-flat to mid. Kind of wild to outperform at the marathon by 1+ min to your 5k. So I would say you have talent/can keep going in the sport. Just be smart with whatever you pick. If you want to add mileage think about reducing intensity. If health has been a problem think about cross training 1-2 times/week to add in an easy double. You don't just have to start running 120mpw, but if you can get to 100+ mpw healthy over the next few years I wouldn't limit yourself with what is possible. Why not chase down an OTQ. I like focusing on your speed now. Get even faster than 15/31 & you can continue knocking down your marathon PB.
& I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. Your result is super strong. I don't think the lesson/framing is for everyone on threads like this, & it sounds like that wasn't the intent anyways.
So NERunner you think volume is the best way to improve in my case?
I am doing a 5/10k block first half of 2026 to get my PRs to match my marathon PR, then a Fall marathon block.
Not necessarily. If you've had injury problems in the past then there's an argument that this training works well for you. I could easily have someone running 100mpw going for the same or a slightly faster time doing less quality than you did. I just think 2:25 off of 70ish mpw (not 1:1 because you said you've done more in the past) leaves plenty of room for improvement. That improvement could come from the same structure. It could come by adding in more volume. I'm training for triathlon now & I had coaching in 23/24 from a top-end pro & I could say the training looked similar enough, in triathlon terms, to your run block. I was doing 12-15 hours/week, down from my 18-22+ norm, but the quality was through the roof -- hard stuff in almost every session. I'm back to self-coaching & am working through more of a hybrid approach. I find I do better off of higher volume. I'm keeping in workouts I like. The high intensity was wearing me down & I always felt cooked heading into races. Taper weeks were hard, always with shorter, but even higher, intensity. I was fit but didn't feel like I could put it together for races. I wouldn't consider myself talented. I had better results this past season, but, again, who knows maybe I'm still getting the benefits of all the quality I got in the prior 2 years. Maybe that's right for you.
Fwiw I think CIM is 100% legit. Honest front half. Runnable last 10k if you get there with legs. It's not the kind of course where you get 5-10min by showing up. Maybe 1-2min if it's a good weather day & you nail pacing/hydration. You seem to have something figured out. 2:25 is crazy fast compared to everything else. Bold to go after 2:30 & then negative split off of 1:14 to a half PB. Your 2:25 is worth 15-flat/31-flat to mid. Kind of wild to outperform at the marathon by 1+ min to your 5k. So I would say you have talent/can keep going in the sport. Just be smart with whatever you pick. If you want to add mileage think about reducing intensity. If health has been a problem think about cross training 1-2 times/week to add in an easy double. You don't just have to start running 120mpw, but if you can get to 100+ mpw healthy over the next few years I wouldn't limit yourself with what is possible. Why not chase down an OTQ. I like focusing on your speed now. Get even faster than 15/31 & you can continue knocking down your marathon PB.
& I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. Your result is super strong. I don't think the lesson/framing is for everyone on threads like this, & it sounds like that wasn't the intent anyways.
Some people are just not born to handle high mileage. I have a friend who ran 38 mins 10k and 2:53 marathon at 50 off 35mpw with some stationary bike as cross-training. Easy run length was only about 30 mins. When he tried to bump it up to 45, swapping out the bike sessions, he got injured. However, intensity doesn't seem to bother him as much. I guess different strokes for different folks.
that said, I'm actually like you. Volume doesn't kill me, but intensity does. Stuff like vo2max sessions could easily wear me down but long tempos and plenty of easy runs are fine.
So NERunner you think volume is the best way to improve in my case?
I am doing a 5/10k block first half of 2026 to get my PRs to match my marathon PR, then a Fall marathon block.
Not necessarily. If you've had injury problems in the past then there's an argument that this training works well for you. I could easily have someone running 100mpw going for the same or a slightly faster time doing less quality than you did. I just think 2:25 off of 70ish mpw (not 1:1 because you said you've done more in the past) leaves plenty of room for improvement. That improvement could come from the same structure. It could come by adding in more volume. I'm training for triathlon now & I had coaching in 23/24 from a top-end pro & I could say the training looked similar enough, in triathlon terms, to your run block. I was doing 12-15 hours/week, down from my 18-22+ norm, but the quality was through the roof -- hard stuff in almost every session. I'm back to self-coaching & am working through more of a hybrid approach. I find I do better off of higher volume. I'm keeping in workouts I like. The high intensity was wearing me down & I always felt cooked heading into races. Taper weeks were hard, always with shorter, but even higher, intensity. I was fit but didn't feel like I could put it together for races. I wouldn't consider myself talented. I had better results this past season, but, again, who knows maybe I'm still getting the benefits of all the quality I got in the prior 2 years. Maybe that's right for you.
Fwiw I think CIM is 100% legit. Honest front half. Runnable last 10k if you get there with legs. It's not the kind of course where you get 5-10min by showing up. Maybe 1-2min if it's a good weather day & you nail pacing/hydration. You seem to have something figured out. 2:25 is crazy fast compared to everything else. Bold to go after 2:30 & then negative split off of 1:14 to a half PB. Your 2:25 is worth 15-flat/31-flat to mid. Kind of wild to outperform at the marathon by 1+ min to your 5k. So I would say you have talent/can keep going in the sport. Just be smart with whatever you pick. If you want to add mileage think about reducing intensity. If health has been a problem think about cross training 1-2 times/week to add in an easy double. You don't just have to start running 120mpw, but if you can get to 100+ mpw healthy over the next few years I wouldn't limit yourself with what is possible. Why not chase down an OTQ. I like focusing on your speed now. Get even faster than 15/31 & you can continue knocking down your marathon PB.
& I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. Your result is super strong. I don't think the lesson/framing is for everyone on threads like this, & it sounds like that wasn't the intent anyways.
Thanks for the feedback! You guessed correctly: I've had injury problems since I started running. Combo of being quite heavy when I first started and overtraining. Your personal story just goes to show that everyone has to experiment and find what works for them.
I agree about CIM being fair. Running has finally started 'clicking' for me. I think that being healthy and getting consistent training in is what lead to my breakthrough. Not American so OTQ is irrelevant but I'm definitely going to see how much I can progress over the next 5 years!
All good! I posted on letsrun...you mess with the bull you get the horns.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
What are your PBs OP? Running doesn't have to be overly complicated. Decent mileage. 2-3 workouts/week. Good result.
I would say that you did a healthy amount of quality & got away with that because of your mileage. Seems like you responded well to that. It's not like you weren't working hard. You jammed in a lot of quality.
& to that point, don't demean other runners. 2:25 is a time that 99.9% of marathoners never run & is a time that most still wouldn't run, even with optimized training/years of high mileage. It's a time where talent enters into the equation. Some people could run 100-120mpw & not break 2:30. Everyone's different. Enjoy your result. Try to raise up others instead of framing it like this. If your 5k/10k & down indicates more potential at the marathon then what? Maybe more mileage could get you to an even better time. If you're interested in that then get to work instead of saying look at what I did & I didn't even try. You tried & you can run a lot faster.
Sir you are being far too conciliatory and nice here. Remember this is Letsrun. You need to mix in some obligatory insults.
What are your PBs OP? Running doesn't have to be overly complicated. Decent mileage. 2-3 workouts/week. Good result.
I would say that you did a healthy amount of quality & got away with that because of your mileage. Seems like you responded well to that. It's not like you weren't working hard. You jammed in a lot of quality.
& to that point, don't demean other runners. 2:25 is a time that 99.9% of marathoners never run & is a time that most still wouldn't run, even with optimized training/years of high mileage. It's a time where talent enters into the equation. Some people could run 100-120mpw & not break 2:30. Everyone's different. Enjoy your result. Try to raise up others instead of framing it like this. If your 5k/10k & down indicates more potential at the marathon then what? Maybe more mileage could get you to an even better time. If you're interested in that then get to work instead of saying look at what I did & I didn't even try. You tried & you can run a lot faster.
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
I'm glad it was that simple for you, you clearly have a very high level of talent.
I couldn't have run sub-2:35 off that volume (I tried). From 32 10K/15:40 5k shape it took 2-3 years and 100-120 miles a week with as much quality as I could tolerate to be sub-2:25 capable.
What are your PBs OP? Running doesn't have to be overly complicated. Decent mileage. 2-3 workouts/week. Good result.
I would say that you did a healthy amount of quality & got away with that because of your mileage. Seems like you responded well to that. It's not like you weren't working hard. You jammed in a lot of quality.
& to that point, don't demean other runners. 2:25 is a time that 99.9% of marathoners never run & is a time that most still wouldn't run, even with optimized training/years of high mileage. It's a time where talent enters into the equation. Some people could run 100-120mpw & not break 2:30. Everyone's different. Enjoy your result. Try to raise up others instead of framing it like this. If your 5k/10k & down indicates more potential at the marathon then what? Maybe more mileage could get you to an even better time. If you're interested in that then get to work instead of saying look at what I did & I didn't even try. You tried & you can run a lot faster.
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
What are your PBs OP? Running doesn't have to be overly complicated. Decent mileage. 2-3 workouts/week. Good result.
I would say that you did a healthy amount of quality & got away with that because of your mileage. Seems like you responded well to that. It's not like you weren't working hard. You jammed in a lot of quality.
& to that point, don't demean other runners. 2:25 is a time that 99.9% of marathoners never run & is a time that most still wouldn't run, even with optimized training/years of high mileage. It's a time where talent enters into the equation. Some people could run 100-120mpw & not break 2:30. Everyone's different. Enjoy your result. Try to raise up others instead of framing it like this. If your 5k/10k & down indicates more potential at the marathon then what? Maybe more mileage could get you to an even better time. If you're interested in that then get to work instead of saying look at what I did & I didn't even try. You tried & you can run a lot faster.
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
You might be more a slow twitch type. I was way more fast twitch - I ran 15:22 5k and 32:22 10k and a 2:47:30 marathon (with near perfectly even splits).
I was happiest at 3000m and always felt I had to take the foot off the gas in the first half of the last mile of a 5k. I struggled with a half marathon, and only ran 74:xx,
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
You might be more a slow twitch type. I was way more fast twitch - I ran 15:22 5k and 32:22 10k and a 2:47:30 marathon (with near perfectly even splits).
I was happiest at 3000m and always felt I had to take the foot off the gas in the first half of the last mile of a 5k. I struggled with a half marathon, and only ran 74:xx,
Possible. I guess we'll see next year when I try to run a fast 5/10k. Who knows...I could plateau, not break 15 or 31 and just have an aerobic engine.
Last year: 5k 16:10 and 10k 33:30 This year: 73 min half and 2:25 marathon (74 first half and 71 second half)
I improved a lot this past year.
Not trying to demean at all. I think some nuance was lost with my attempt to be concise in my original post. I meant that 2:25 took a lot less than I thought it would. I also think that people expect fast times require ridiculously hard training. I have done more volume in the past and was running a lot worse than doing more 'moderate' training now. I also wanted to give an example of what a realistic training block looks like, since often times people just say 'run 100 mi per week'.
So I take all of your points/criticism...of course I tried very hard. The workouts/race were tough. I have also read a bunch of training logs on this website and wanted to contribute.
Short course.
Would be a bit of an issue if CIM, which hosted the US marathon champs this year, was short...
Yeah, but that depends on talent level. You clearly have a fair bit of talent. Maybe not as much as some, but alot more than most.
that is a nice schedule, overly complicated, but if you enjoy perturbations why not?
in my second year in track, i beat 220 to 225 marathoners in cross country, and though nothing of it, and the attitude was if you can't run 212 you are more an advanced hobby jogger. that is the perspective of youth and talent.
as you have issues, injury down the line you get more respect for those times.
that said, almost all "overnight" success is built on a foundation, in my case, as kids, we would play pond hockey and road hockey continuously for 6 hours, and could barely walk home, play soccer at noon, weekends, ride our bicycles for miles...
that lays the base.
anyway 225 is the combination of talent, work, a nice quality schedule, and not over doing it, found the sweet spot.
Fair enough. Would still say your moderate training has as much quality, if not more, as someone running 100+mpw. Your training allows for more quality because you're cutting out mileage. Also saying you've done more volume in the past works against the takeaway to some extent. Prior higher mileage had an impact on this result. Someone probably won't get as much out of their training if they're only doing low volume & have never had higher blocks or have never done a ton of cross training to supplement. Plus you still had 7 weeks @ 76mpw avg./90 peak. Kind of makes sense that a little less mileage, but still good mileage, a lot of quality, + staying healthy, got you to a good result.
Still wondering about the result tho. Downhill marathon? Something a little off with those PBs. 16:10/33:30/73 half look much more in line with 2:35-2:40.