Whistle Blower wrote:
No.
There's no predictor for the struggle of miles 23-26.
No struggle if you paced properly
Difference of bonking at 20 miles and not bonking is 8 seconds per mile. Getting to 23 is only 3 or 4 seconds.
The hard part is figuring out your correct pace.
This would be a good predictor if you maintain a continuous run. 3 up, 3 x 3 mile with 1 mile jog, 3 down. 17 total.
Two sub-37:30 10K races three to five weeks before a Marathon is a good predictor of sub-3 Marathon.
A link to the past wrote:
This would be a good predictor if you maintain a continuous run. 3 up, 3 x 3 mile with 1 mile jog, 3 down. 17 total.
It would not.
I'll refer to this thread, which is pretty much the only "can I run sub-3?" thread in Letsrun history where the guy actually told us how the race went and did actually go sub-3...He details his workouts and the kind of shape he was in...
To answer the OP's question, the workout neither indicates sub-3 ability nor confirms that sub-3 is beyond you. I'm assuming that your LT pace is faster (perhaps significantly faster) than 6:40 pace, for 2 reasons. First, 3x5k at LT is an utterly brutal workout. Second, most marathoners in your range have a pretty wide gulf between LT and marathon pace.
In fact, most runners, even pros, have more success by focusing on getting their marathon pace tucked up tight underneath the LT, rather than trying to raise LT. This is actually another place where I disagree with Daniels and his emphasis on LT paced running. In fact, too much LT running in the specific phase can increase the rate at which a runner burns carbs, which isn't ideal in the marathon. Though, for what it's worth, I also think that Canova, Magness, and others make a bit too much of the idea that marathoners have to be superb fat-burning machines. Everything I've read indicates that the carb-sparing effect of marathon specific training isn't dramatic, and it's just not that hard to take carbs on the run if you practice it.
If you're a long ways out from your marathon, then consider working in a 4x5k and a 5x5k. I've had some success substituting really long interval workouts (with short, steady running between intervals) for my MP long runs. I typically do it when weather conditions aren't cooperating. If I have a long MP run on the schedule, but it's 85 and humid, then by swapping in long intervals I can actually accumulate the same volume at MP, while using the short breaks to shed some of the heat that would otherwise build up to unsustainable levels.
And to the poster that said he doesn't understand long intervals for the marathon: There's very little difference between a sustained long run at MP and a broken one. The fatigue from MP is largely mechanical. It's not about accumulating metabolic waste products that progressively slow you down, as it is in faster intervals. So as long as you get the volume in, it doesn't matter all that much how you break it down.
I'm 48 and 3 weeks before Boston I ran 10x800 ("Yasso 800s") at an average of 2:50 with a 200m slow jog rest. I think the Yasso rule then would suggest a 2:50 marathon. About 6-weeks prior I ran 2x5K with 400m rest at 19:22 and 19:10 (and I raced a 5K around that time in 17:38 on heavy unrested legs). Finally, I had run a half-marathon in high 1:19's about 4 months before Boston. If you double your half time and add 10 min (another rule of thumb) that also brings me to about 2:50. So, based on this, the guys I run with thought I had a good chance of breaking 2:50 (I hadn't run a marathon in 12 years, so I had no recent marathon experience to use as a predictor). Anyhow, it didn't happen, I didn't exactly fall apart, but legs were really heavy by mile 22, and I sort of bonked and finished in low 2:56s.
So, if you are in your 40's: Maybe take your average time from a 10x800 workout and add about 5 min. Or double your half-time and add 15 min.
A guy in his 50s in our running club takes his Yasso 800 average from 4 weeks prior to a marathon and adds 8 minutes. For him - that is like a perfect predictor.
Sub3Pro wrote:
I would argue that LT pace for an experienced 2:55 to 3 flat marathoner is no slower than 6:10-6:20 minute pace. If someone is attempting to break 3 on their first marathon, I'd be skeptical of anyone who hasn't recently broken 60 for 10 miles or 1:20 for the HM.
Put scientifically, Lactate Threshold or Lactate Inflection Point is "the exercise intensity at which the blood concentration of lactate and/or lactic acid begins to exponentially increase"
In practical terms, LT pace is generally defined as the pace a runner can sustain evenly for one hour.
...your 'average" 4 hr marathoner spends almost 3 hours slogging away AFTER they exhaust their carbs . For this reason, "hobby joggers" typically run marathons multiple minutes a mile slower than their already pedestrian HM pace.
I agree on your first argument. I´ve had the lactate pro and learned my LT quite accurately and my HR at LT. I was in the 6:10-6:15 LT pace range when I ran 3:00,20. Ran a 1:17 progressive HM (last half almost like racing) in training 2 months away from the race. I got a flu though 3 weeks out of the race and was cramping the last 15k because of too little salt in my fuelling for the race. But a type like me who does better at shorter distances the LT/HM pace needs to be significantly better than for a marathoner who performs better at longer than shorter distances.
But according to Marius Bakken and my personal experience the LT is the pace that you can sustain up to 90-95mins if well trained. A hour race pace is at higher intensity than HM for most of us, and so are the lactate readings higher (than ~3-4mmol) for sure. Based on my feeling and HR I was well above the LT even at HM, when was in 1:15 shape.
So, the 4hour marathoners will not deplete glycogen at 1hour or 1,5hour mark, the 4hour marathon pace is close to aerobic threshold which can be kept up much, much longer than the LT pace.
I agree with Alan/Runningart2004, I would be more convinced if you can do 30k or 20mile at or close your goal pace compared to 3x5k tempos, I did 20miles quite easily @ 6:50 avg. pace few times before my almost sub 3hour marathon.
You should be able to run 6:40s for your easy runs.
Lots of good replies.
My first thought is anyone consistently running 70 miles per week should be able to break 3:00. Certainly so if the training is at all organized around basic principles. Great work putting in that time.
As for the workout, what are you aiming for with that?
3x5km could be a very nice longer tempo workout, although if you're talking about a 3:00-3:05 marathon then the 6:40 you're doing is slower than tempo pace for you. To improve LT you'd want to be doing a long tempo around your half marathon pace. 5:00 rest isn't necessary at LT; if you are needing that to hit the pace, by definition you're doing it too fast.
If this is supposed to be a marathon pace workout, run it at marathon pace: 6:5x for you, maybe progressing it a bit. And, as others have said, enter it with 10-20k of running in your legs to be somewhat race-specific.
As it is, it reads like an optimistic marathon-pace workout but is truly an easy tempo; if that makes sense.