Possibility of going sub 2:50 in Chicago?

Training Advice/Discussion

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4

4 years ago 09/29/2021 4:44pm EDT

re: Ernest

Ernest wrote:
Chicago2021 wrote:
I ran sub 17 in a 5k right before I started this training block (back in May). I’m not sure what that converts to, but I think it might be slightly better than 2:50… but also maybe I’ve gotten slower since then idk. None of the longs I have done have felt like I was pushing too hard. I’m not trying to argue that I’m faster than sub-3. I was just curious, and I obviously completely respect your opinion and appreciate the advice! I do realize that an extra 4-5 miles could easily add 20+ seconds on to an average pace.
A 5K result is not ideal to establish or predict marathon fitness.
But sub-17 before a high mileage block is significant.
Long run strategy is curious, Six or so 20+mile marathon-pace runs were done. Most would log incrementally- longer runs, with only one or a few more than 20 miles - and not at MP. Are you coached or following plan?
Anyway, the 5K result combined with the long runs, does make <=2:50 seem less like misplaced optimism.
As others suggested, you could take 1:24-1:25 and plan for an even/negative split. This is not just about optimizing effort - mentally, it's a big boost to be picking off runners in the last few miles and this translates to real time gain - you dig more to reel in and gap others vs. running solo in the stretch.
Also, my subjective experience is women generally have comparatively worse speed and better speed endurance.
Many women I've known running under 2:50 would have a hard time running sub-17 - with the reverse is true for some men trained for long distance, making the prior sub-17 more significant.

Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism for someone running 100 miles a week with six 20+ long runs that weren’t all out but were still 6:30 pace? Damn. You must put in/expect ridiculous training. Should her longs have been actual marathons (because training runs are only “claims” to you) at sub 6 pace in order to run 2:49:59? I think it was an extremely realistic goal without the sub 17 5k.

4 years ago 09/29/2021 5:59pm EDT

re: washeduprunnerguy

washeduprunnerguy wrote:
Ernest wrote:
A 5K result is not ideal to establish or predict marathon fitness.
But sub-17 before a high mileage block is significant.
Long run strategy is curious, Six or so 20+mile marathon-pace runs were done. Most would log incrementally- longer runs, with only one or a few more than 20 miles - and not at MP. Are you coached or following plan?
Anyway, the 5K result combined with the long runs, does make <=2:50 seem less like misplaced optimism.
As others suggested, you could take 1:24-1:25 and plan for an even/negative split. This is not just about optimizing effort - mentally, it's a big boost to be picking off runners in the last few miles and this translates to real time gain - you dig more to reel in and gap others vs. running solo in the stretch.
Also, my subjective experience is women generally have comparatively worse speed and better speed endurance.
Many women I've known running under 2:50 would have a hard time running sub-17 - with the reverse is true for some men trained for long distance, making the prior sub-17 more significant.
Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism for someone running 100 miles a week with six 20+ long runs that weren’t all out but were still 6:30 pace? Damn. You must put in/expect ridiculous training. Should her longs have been actual marathons (because training runs are only “claims” to you) at sub 6 pace in order to run 2:49:59? I think it was an extremely realistic goal without the sub 17 5k.

"Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism..."

Never said sub-2:50 was misplaced optimism. Also did not sate sub-2:50 was inconsistent with workouts noted.

"You must put in/expect ridiculous training."

The opposite. What was stated was OP did more long runs and at faster paces than when I dropped to 2:50.

Also observed most would log a series of shorter long runs incrementally peaking to 20+ -- and not do six or more 20+ mile long runs. And that most would not approach MP for these long runs.

"Should her longs have been actual marathons..."

Hyperbole. See above. Does anyone suggest marathon races should serve as training runs? Or are required as fitness indicators?

Also noted...

* 2:50 represents a significant improvement over best marathon result, 3:27 (age graded this is a jump from about 64% to 79%. )

* to be reliable indicators, training runs should have reasonably certain times and distances, such as by being supported by an uninterrupted GPS track.

* races, particularly longer lead up races, are good indicators - but no consistent race results were provided (until now).

* it is risky to pace for sub-2:50 without solid indicators, hence an initial suggestion to conservatively split "1:28 or so".

* a buffer for negative splitting is always a good idea, but more so when fitness is less certain

* a 5K is not a good indicator of marathon fitness, but a sub-17 result supports a sub 2:50 when combined with training run details... also that a sub-17 5K time is faster than some women running under 2:50 are capable of.

* based on disclosure of 5k result, lowered suggested halfway split from "1:28 or so" to "1:24 - 1:25"

4 years ago 09/29/2021 8:09pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Chicago2021 wrote:
cyanide wrote:
Good luck. Can't gain much fitness now. But recovery is important.
I'm also running Chicago and coming into it overtrained (finished last week at 92 and started missing workout paces). After a few days of rest I'm starting to feel better- yesterday was 15 x 500" @ 90" pace/45" rest + 40min @ 6:27. None of that has anything to do with marathon pace as I'm targeting <2:35 however it is good to be feeling good again.
As other said get some super shoes. Bring some gels for nutrition (I'd maybe max out at 2 gels if it's your first time) can be hard on your stomach. I wouldn't experiment with too many runs now bc you shouldn't really be doing long runs leading up that would put you in the same state.
Get a massage or something. That may also help the body recover.
And good luck. Find a pace group to run with and stick with them. Let them break the wind (if any).
This is also really helpful and gives me hope that I’ll start feeling better after a few days rest, too. This is also another dumb question (I don’t know much about marathons obviously), but if I were taking gels, how often do people do that throughout the race? Thank you so much for the advice! Also, good luck in Chicago! Hope the runs continue to feel better until then!

NP,

I'd still aim to have 3 gels max. It can really mess with your gut, and even in training I've never really gotten more than 3 with maybe having one before starting. I'd go for the 40-45min approach but honestly go by feel. Definitely try to get your first one in by 8-10km and definitely try to get the second one in at 16-20, then see how it goes.

Maybe experiment with what goes down easy. Lotta gels are thick and viscous. Can be hard to eat.

4 years ago 09/29/2021 9:40pm EDT

re: washeduprunnerguy

washeduprunnerguy wrote:
Ernest wrote:
A 5K result is not ideal to establish or predict marathon fitness.
But sub-17 before a high mileage block is significant.
Long run strategy is curious, Six or so 20+mile marathon-pace runs were done. Most would log incrementally- longer runs, with only one or a few more than 20 miles - and not at MP. Are you coached or following plan?
Anyway, the 5K result combined with the long runs, does make <=2:50 seem less like misplaced optimism.
As others suggested, you could take 1:24-1:25 and plan for an even/negative split. This is not just about optimizing effort - mentally, it's a big boost to be picking off runners in the last few miles and this translates to real time gain - you dig more to reel in and gap others vs. running solo in the stretch.
Also, my subjective experience is women generally have comparatively worse speed and better speed endurance.
Many women I've known running under 2:50 would have a hard time running sub-17 - with the reverse is true for some men trained for long distance, making the prior sub-17 more significant.
Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism for someone running 100 miles a week with six 20+ long runs that weren’t all out but were still 6:30 pace? Damn. You must put in/expect ridiculous training. Should her longs have been actual marathons (because training runs are only “claims” to you) at sub 6 pace in order to run 2:49:59? I think it was an extremely realistic goal without the sub 17 5k.

OP, I'm with everyone else and think you should go for 1:25 in the first half and then see what you have left. This guy Ernest seems to think he's saving you from a tragic outcome, but you've put in some excellent work and deserve to be able to go for it. You'll probably regret it if you do 1:30 and then finish in 1:22. If you're being honest with yourself on all the details, I'm having trouble seeing how you won't either make it or get close to your 2:50 goal.

And definitely come back and update us either way!

4 years ago 09/30/2021 5:40am EDT

re: Chicago2021

As a 38-year old male back in 2006, I ran 2:52 at Chicago on a perfect day for running (I think it was something like in the mid-40s at the start). So first, if it's too warm on race day, you might have to adjust your expectations.

I'm writing because comparing your training to mine, I think you're definitely in ~2:50 shape. First, you're running more miles than I did. I did have one 100-mile week, but most weeks were in the 70-80 mile range leading up to the race (except for the 2-3 week taper). Also, most of my regular runs were run at 7 to 8-minute pace, compared to your 6:40-7:30, though I think our MP runs are pretty similar. I did 14-20 milers with progressively faster miles and averaging around 6:30-6:40 for the whole run. So it seems like our speed is perhaps pretty similar.

Obviously, it's not a sure thing. But if the weather's good and your legs are healthy and rested going into the race, I think you have a good chance to achieve your goal. Of course, pay attention to the pace so that you don't start too fast. I started conservatively for the first 2-3 miles and was able to negative split by almost 3 minutes.

Good luck and let us know what you end up running.

4 years ago 09/30/2021 7:10am EDT

re: Ernest

Ernest wrote:
washeduprunnerguy wrote:
Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism for someone running 100 miles a week with six 20+ long runs that weren’t all out but were still 6:30 pace? Damn. You must put in/expect ridiculous training. Should her longs have been actual marathons (because training runs are only “claims” to you) at sub 6 pace in order to run 2:49:59? I think it was an extremely realistic goal without the sub 17 5k.
"Sub 2:50 was misplaced optimism..."
Never said sub-2:50 was misplaced optimism. Also did not sate sub-2:50 was inconsistent with workouts noted.
"You must put in/expect ridiculous training."
The opposite. What was stated was OP did more long runs and at faster paces than when I dropped to 2:50.
Also observed most would log a series of shorter long runs incrementally peaking to 20+ -- and not do six or more 20+ mile long runs. And that most would not approach MP for these long runs.
"Should her longs have been actual marathons..."
Hyperbole. See above. Does anyone suggest marathon races should serve as training runs? Or are required as fitness indicators?
Also noted...
* 2:50 represents a significant improvement over best marathon result, 3:27 (age graded this is a jump from about 64% to 79%. )
* to be reliable indicators, training runs should have reasonably certain times and distances, such as by being supported by an uninterrupted GPS track.
* races, particularly longer lead up races, are good indicators - but no consistent race results were provided (until now).
* it is risky to pace for sub-2:50 without solid indicators, hence an initial suggestion to conservatively split "1:28 or so".
* a buffer for negative splitting is always a good idea, but more so when fitness is less certain
* a 5K is not a good indicator of marathon fitness, but a sub-17 result supports a sub 2:50 when combined with training run details... also that a sub-17 5K time is faster than some women running under 2:50 are capable of.
* based on disclosure of 5k result, lowered suggested halfway split from "1:28 or so" to "1:24 - 1:25"

Just sounded like you were intentionally trying to lower the OP’s confidence even though she clearly seems capable of running 2:50… not many people can comfortably do most of their training runs at marathon pace. Why would she aim to run slower than a regular run? I get annoyed on this site when others try to bring others down. Sub 3 would be easy for the OP.

4 years ago 09/30/2021 12:04pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Thank you to everyone who has responded and shared advice/opinions! I respect all of it so much and appreciate it more than you all know. Regardless of what people think I can run, it really means a lot that you all took the time to thoughtfully respond. I’ll make sure to update this thread after the race! Thanks again!

4 years ago 09/30/2021 3:46pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Chicago2021 wrote:
Female, will be 26 on race day
I haven’t run a marathon since I was 23, but my current pr is 3:27
I’ve been averaging 90-100 miles a week in singles for the last three months (6:40-7:30 pace)
I’ve done six 20+ mile longs runs in the last few months (all progressive and run between 6:30-640 for an average pace). My first mile is usually around 7:30, and I work down from there to 6:20-6:30ish pace for the last 10-15 or so and sometimes faster for the last few. My longest run was 22.5 last week (three weeks out from race day)
I have done a lot of steady state runs for my workouts (6:20) and strides, but I had to back off the pace a little for the last few weeks because of a calf problem
I was wondering if I have a chance of going sub 2:50 in Chicago?
Also, is it normal to feel worse towards the end of a training cycle for a marathon? I feel like I’m almost less fit now than I was when I started training for Chicago months ago. I used to run sub 7 pace easily on my regular run days, and I now need to run 7:20 pace to feel recovered. Any advice would be appreciated!

MY advice to you if you chose to take it: Since it seems like you generally ease into your runs, I would suggest doing the same for this marathon. Just see what happens.

You are running slower because you're probably just tired from the miles. It's okay and normal.

4 years ago 09/30/2021 4:20pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Chicago2021 wrote:
Thank you to everyone who has responded and shared advice/opinions! I respect all of it so much and appreciate it more than you all know. Regardless of what people think I can run, it really means a lot that you all took the time to thoughtfully respond. I’ll make sure to update this thread after the race! Thanks again!

It's great to see people with great advice and a POSITIVE attitude toward training. I'm pulling for you!

4 years ago 10/03/2021 9:19pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!

4 years ago 10/03/2021 10:39pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

Chicago2021 wrote:
Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!

Good for you! 2:39 is impressive, and you have to deal with clinicals? Reminds me of a nurse prac/doctor (?) who was doing a residency, and she ran a 2:42 for the Flying Pig a few years back.

4 years ago 10/03/2021 10:48pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

1:30 seems too conservative.

At least put yourself in it.

4 years ago 10/03/2021 10:53pm EDT

re: jecht

Chicago2021 wrote:
Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!

Jeez...impromptu 2:39, a week before you were planning (and fully tapered), crushing the goal by 11 minutes. That's freaking incredible.

4 years ago 10/03/2021 11:20pm EDT

re: spine dilemma

spine dilemma wrote:
Chicago2021 wrote:
Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!
Jeez...impromptu 2:39, a week before you were planning (and fully tapered), crushing the goal by 11 minutes. That's freaking incredible.

When I first saw the post I did think it was a troll for 20 seconds but subsequent posts made me believe it is real. And if she's smart enough to get into a medical career (nursing?) she seems smart enough to follow through with a race day plan, so it seems definitely legit.

4 years ago 10/04/2021 9:31am EDT

re: Chicago2021

Chicago2021 wrote:
Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!

What were your splits?

4 years ago 10/06/2021 10:34pm EDT

re: spatial glacier

spatial glacier wrote:
Chicago2021 wrote:
Just updating this thread. Ended up needing to drop out of Chicago because my clinical rotations got switched around but got in a marathon this weekend last minute and ran 2:39. Thanks again, everyone!
What were your splits?

Bump. Curious on this also, if the 2:39 is legit? If so, congrats - awesome race!

4 years ago 10/07/2021 12:31pm EDT

re: westie boy

I saw this article come across the feeds today, and something about it made me think of this thread.

pressherald.com: Race mistakes lead to Maine Marathon course record, three disqualifications.

https://www.pressherald.com/2021/10/06/race-mistakes-lead-to-maine-marathon-course-record-three-disqualifications/

Congrats on an excellent performance!

4 years ago 10/07/2021 2:14pm EDT

re: congrats

congrats wrote:
I saw this article come across the feeds today, and something about it made me think of this thread.
pressherald.com: Race mistakes lead to Maine Marathon course record, three disqualifications.
https://www.pressherald.com/2021/10/06/race-mistakes-lead-to-maine-marathon-course-record-three-disqualifications/
Congrats on an excellent performance!

That's awesome. Skip the BQ, go straight for the OTQ.

4 years ago 10/07/2021 2:24pm EDT

re: congrats

congrats wrote:
I saw this article come across the feeds today, and something about it made me think of this thread.
pressherald.com: Race mistakes lead to Maine Marathon course record, three disqualifications.
https://www.pressherald.com/2021/10/06/race-mistakes-lead-to-maine-marathon-course-record-three-disqualifications/
Congrats on an excellent performance!

Double congrats.

There aren't a ton of women running 2:39 marathons right now. It's a outstanding result - because it stands out.

OP states running 2:39 last weekend and taking medical training. Both are also true for Abby Hamilton, winner of the Maine Marathon.

But the articles say nothing about Hamilton jumping in as a last minute entry (would be 1-2 days ahead of the race if this were OP) - that would seem newsworthy.

The article does state this was Hamilton's "marathon debut". But OP notes having run a previous 3:27 marathon.

After being all over this thread, you'd think dropping a PR by 50 minutes and notching an OTQ would elicit more detail than a 2-line update.

4 years ago 10/07/2021 2:48pm EDT

re: Chicago2021

I’m sorry, but I don’t want to take credit for a young person’s marathon debut. Congrats to Abbie. That’s a great time for a debut marathon. My time ended up being disqualified almost immediately. It was completely my fault. I’m sorry that I haven’t posted. Just a lot of work for nothing. Probably would have been closer to 2:46-2:47, which I guess is still a ways away from the new OTQ times. Thanks again everyone. Sorry. Just a little bummed.

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Possibility of going sub 2:50 in Chicago?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Possibility of going sub 2:50 in Chicago?

Follow Ernest

Block Ernest

Follow jecht

Block jecht

Follow jecht

Block jecht

Follow jecht

Block jecht

Follow colder and wiser

Block colder and wiser

Follow Ernest

Block Ernest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.