GavinNewsome wrote:
I skew towards longer stuff and when I first broke 3 hours I was a 1:26 pr.
When I set my lifetime best of 2:39 my half was 1:17:49.
How much training? miles per week?
GavinNewsome wrote:
I skew towards longer stuff and when I first broke 3 hours I was a 1:26 pr.
When I set my lifetime best of 2:39 my half was 1:17:49.
How much training? miles per week?
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
I ran my PR 304 by going by out in 125. I still think if I had gone out in 123 or so, I might have dipped under 3.
Huh?? You think if you had gone out even faster, you'd have finished even faster? Non-Sequitur
fullyi wrote:
Most people who run 1:25 typically are dropping 3:05-3:07 fulls
not necessarily. my best 1/2 was a 1:28 and i ran a 3:02 in bad conditions. i was a higher mileage runner. it makes up for lack of speed.
Not a marathon guy wrote:
I told myself i wouldn't attempt the marathon until i broke 1:25 in the half marathon first. Well I'm expecting to be in 1:20/1:22 shape this weekend in the half. After I hit my goal, do you think I'd be in pretty good shape to hit 2:59 in the marathon?
The conventional wisdom is that 1:25 is the minimum but I first broke 3 hours after a time trial of 1:29+. The posters above who emphasize the training rather than race times have it right, I think.
A well-rested, two hour run of right around 2 hours that felt comfortable, not at all like racing, was one workout that made me think that I was ready.
I've also done some of my last long runs as out and backs with the first half as 90 minutes steady but easy and the second half at threshold "effort."
Completing the second half 10-15% faster the first was also a good confidence builder.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that when 3 hours is presently at the limits of your ability, the course must be FLAT or nearly so and the weather must be COOL and COLD is even better.
Forgot to add that the two hour run was over a measured, mildly hilly course of 17 miles.
I don't disagree with you that most can't convert 1:25 into sub-three, but all I wanted raise is that some can. It's not safe but for some it's worth the risk of the blow up.
Just some real thoughts wrote:
1:25 roughly equates to sub-3 but it is by no means 'safe.' Now 1:20-22 on the other hand is quite a bit better and should be more than enough to go sub 3.
Truth. However, the marathon is a real wild card of a race and anything can happen. More than any other distance, weather plays a huge role. Pray for favorable weather.
Depends if you've done marathon training or not. Lots of 20+ milers, mid week long runs, consistent good mileage. If so, 1:20 should be safe. But when I ran 1:21, only ran 3:08 in the marathon.
kmaclam wrote:
Bring Back the 880 wrote:I ran my PR 304 by going by out in 125. I still think if I had gone out in 123 or so, I might have dipped under 3.
Huh?? You think if you had gone out even faster, you'd have finished even faster? Non-Sequitur
You don't know what a non sequitur is.
moanswers wrote:
fullyi wrote:Most people who run 1:25 typically are dropping 3:05-3:07 fulls
not necessarily. my best 1/2 was a 1:28 and i ran a 3:02 in bad conditions. i was a higher mileage runner. it makes up for lack of speed.
"Most."
I know Boston is sub 3:05. Is there some sub 3 club people are trying to join?
Just some real thoughts wrote:
1:25 roughly equates to sub-3 but it is by no means 'safe.' Now 1:20-22 on the other hand is quite a bit better and should be more than enough to go sub 3.
Agreed with this.
Sara Palin wrote:
I know Boston is sub 3:05. Is there some sub 3 club people are trying to join?
Yes. You are obviously not a member.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Depends if you've done marathon training or not. Lots of 20+ milers, mid week long runs, consistent good mileage. If so, 1:20 should be safe. But when I ran 1:21, only ran 3:08 in the marathon.
If you did lots of convention marathon training with a 1:21 half and only got 3:08, that's a massive failure. It means the conventional training doesn't work for you or you have nutrition problems.
Did you do fast finish long runs? The lots of 20+ milers advise is out of date IMO. I think the Hansen's are on to something. Overall mileage is more important IMO.
Nutrition is huge too. Try something like taking 6 GUs during the race.
giver of minus-one wrote:
Another giver of +1 wrote:Depends if you've done marathon training or not. Lots of 20+ milers, mid week long runs, consistent good mileage. If so, 1:20 should be safe. But when I ran 1:21, only ran 3:08 in the marathon.
If you did lots of convention marathon training with a 1:21 half and only got 3:08, that's a massive failure. It means the conventional training doesn't work for you or you have nutrition problems.
Did you do fast finish long runs? The lots of 20+ milers advise is out of date IMO. I think the Hansen's are on to something. Overall mileage is more important IMO.
Nutrition is huge too. Try something like taking 6 GUs during the race.
Or he had a lousy day. A bad day in the marathon is magnified many times more than in shorter races.
At 19 I ran two sub 1:20 Half Marathons but could not break 3 in my first Marathon. Collegiate 8k/10k training has quite a bit of overlap with the Half, but I was very unprepared at mile 20 of the Full. An older runner with more mileage should be better suited to translate a 1:22 into a Sub 3.
Best of luck
It's never safe until about 100 yards out. I found that 1:25 = 2:57, so you have a shot. Caveat: that 2:57 came at the end of a long string of sub3s, so it was not my first rodeo. Had run 1:23 before. Good luck!!
Real 4:05 wrote:
kmaclam wrote:Huh?? You think if you had gone out even faster, you'd have finished even faster? Non-Sequitur
You don't know what a non sequitur is.
Perhaps, but if true, you've been of no help at all! Do enlighten me. Or is the disconnect here that you don't think his claim is illogical? i.e. you agree that if he went out faster over the first 1/2 (by 2 minutes) that he would have run the 2nd 1/2 faster (also by 2 minutes)!? If that's not the quintessential non sequitur, ........
I use to always be able to run under 1:25 leading up to marathon. Best being 1:20 but most were 1:22 to 1:23. Only broke 3 one time.
Have a friend who I could usually beat in a half and he always broke 3 . Guessing 25 times.
kmaclam wrote:
Perhaps, but if true, you've been of no help at all! Do enlighten me. Or is the disconnect here that you don't think his claim is illogical? i.e. you agree that if he went out faster over the first 1/2 (by 2 minutes) that he would have run the 2nd 1/2 faster (also by 2 minutes)!? If that's not the quintessential non sequitur, ........
With a 125 opening half, I would need to run a 135 2nd half. A 137 2nd half would be easier.
I like the idea of running faster during the first half of the race because that half is always much easier and I figure I'll be running 8 minute miles at the end anyway (marathons are always hard for me the final few miles).
Better to make the 2nd half slower because it is when the he sun is higher, it is warmer, and your legs ar tired. Also, the 2nd had of the course was more difficult. I should have taken advantage of the nice flat first half more.
125 being a safe PR for a 3 guy is only possible if you really, really suck at the HM.