A guy I loosely know has run over 4500 miles at 6 minute pace in Next% shoes, guess what his marathon PR is.

highhoppingworm wrote:

People keep trying to make comparisons here and everyone is falling way short.

90 mpw @ sub-6 pace is a baffling, unprecedented pace for someone with a marathon PR in the mid-240s. Most people with that PR couldn’t run more than 35-40 miles in a single week at that pace I would guess.

As far as I can tell there really is no comparison to this individual.

OP said he'd also run 1:13 in the half, though. I think 90mpw @6:00-ish pace would be doable but very hard at that level.

But if you start training for a marathon and try to extend long runs without slowing down, you'll probably get overtrained (hence the underperformance?)

I don't agree that 90 miles at that pace is "doable" for someone with a 1:13 HM time. As someone aiming to run 1:12-1:14ish the idea of being able to pull off a week like that is so far outside the realm of possibility it is absurd. Running under 6 minutes for any sustained period is isolated to basically sub threshold runs of 8-10 miles. These efforts are hard and if a gun was held to my head I could maybe do it 3-4 times in a single week if the rest of the week was completely centered around recovery. So yes... 1:13 is superior to his marathon PR but still lightyears away from what I would expect someone to be able to sustain 90 miles at that pace for even a week (forget 52 of them).

... the old Hadd thread.

“Many of you will be able to give examples of guys (I know at least two) who can crank out 20 mile long runs at 6.00m/m and yet not finish a marathon at that pace. Why? Because, due to their precise fuel economy (or lack thereof) they cannot store enough CHO to get them through the final 6.2 miles. Their fuel economy, and therefore their LT, is too low.”

Cause?

“I expect to hear at least one (and maybe both) of two things from the athlete concerned:

1. Low mileage background in training

2. Whatever mileage being done is being run “too fast” (for performance level)”

Door number 2!

HHM, I agree it’s probably not doable for most 1:13 HMs who are training sensibly, but he’s clearly not. Sounds like if he knew how to train and race it would be faster. Also a good chance he’s more ST than you (most distance runners don’t jump 7ft :-P )

Guys, today he only ran 6:11 pace for his 12 miler. Do you think he saw this thread?

Op, would you please take a look at his elapsed time?

I know of a runner who runs high mileage at 7ish pace, but couldn’t break 3 hour for the marathon. They typically had longer elapsed time than moving time.

math wrong wrote:

Op, would you please take a look at his elapsed time?

I know of a runner who runs high mileage at 7ish pace, but couldn’t break 3 hour for the marathon. They typically had longer elapsed time than moving time.

Depending on the loop, he doesn't take any stops. He does run a couple of routes that have stoplights along the way that force him to stop for a minute here and there but his elapsed time for those runs are usually about 2 or 3 minutes longer tops.

Oh boy, I read this thread and thought I could never survive these types of runs.

I ran roughly two marathons per year from 2007-2011 all around 2:30 (2:35 slowest and 2:25 pr). I regularly did 60 minute tempo runs at sub 6:00 pace during my build ups . These were workouts though! Could I have done that two days in a row? Sure. Three or four or five or ten or twenty days in a row? No way. It's crazy to know the guy can run this fast every week all year and have a such a comparably slow marathon time.

Thank you OP for giving me something to think about during todays run.

Update: I have recently discovered that he stops during all of his runs. Sometimes he takes 40 minutes of stoppage so either he's taking some insane dumps or he's running long runs like intervals.

I would have guessed the miles are actually under 7minutes.

Rather than all those miles at 6minutes +/- a few seconds.

brnAct21_7 wrote:

I would have guessed the miles are actually under 7minutes.

Rather than all those miles at 6minutes +/- a few seconds.

I'm just glad it finally makes sense.

Hmmm. Don't know but he might be $7500 plus tax and shipping poorer.

Thinking about it, wouldn't have been massively different in some ways.

I was better as a shorter distance track runner - 800-5000m or 3000m s/c - and my half-marathon would only be about 5:45. Somewhat similar to our guy here.

I did do track sessions, obviously (generally three track sessions a week, or two and a race), but my regular steady runs, 5-7 miles and a 10 on Sundays would be 6:00 (I'm 65 now, still competing, and still don't do a lot slower than 8:00 per mile).

I only did two marathons. The fastest was 2:47.30 with only 30 sec. difference between first and second halves.

Could be that our subject might just turn out to be better at shorter distance if he gave it a try.

This sounds unbelievable. I've run 2:46 and might get a few hundred miles a year at/under 6:00 pace.

WinnytheBish wrote:

I'll give it a few hours then respond with the answer.

2:55, he trains too hard. More volume, less intensity and he would run 2:35.