Can I get 2:49:XX in the marathon?

I see I just committed a LRC faux pas by deeming that non-race 10 miler a "PR." Forgive me.

If I had to bet on your time, I'd probably go with 2:55. You note that it was "hard" to hit a total of 12 miles with rest at 2:50 pace on May 7th. Imagine doing that for more than twice as far without any rest between reps.

Your April 3rd is indeed a good run, but let me put it this way: I did 18 on a very flat route in Boston at 5:50 pace (2:32 high marathon pace) a month out from running Chicago in 2019 under quite a bit higher mileage than you're doing and I still $hit the bed at 2:35 pace and only ran 2:39 in Chicago. That was with much better long runs than yours too. Bottom line: 18 is very different from 26.2.

If I were you, I'd go out at 2:55 pace and try to speed up in the end rather than going for a 2:49 and blowing up.

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, 26.2 is a different animal and can humble you. The funny thing is 2:55 was probably going to be my goal but then I ran that 10 miler in December and got greedy after looking at the race conversion charts (which you have to take with a grain of salt.) I'll try to report back after this weekend's long run.

FWIW, I think that most younger people will have an easier time with speed than endurance and will have difficulty matching the conversion from something like 10 miles up to marathon. If you were doing 100 miles a week and tons of 22+ mile long runs, you'd probably be in pretty solid shape to convert up from your 10 mile abilities, but it takes a lot of work to fully build up the strength required to match what your 10 mile says you can do. The nice thing though is that if you keep at it, you've got room to keep chipping away.

Colling's too pessimistic. I'd say everything points to taking a shot at sub-2:50. The long MP tempos are solid, and 4x3mi has been a reliable predictor for me.

I think you are definitely in the ballpark. My main concern would be how much you are breaking down on the long efforts when you get up to @16-20 mi. If the effort from 16-20 is all aboard the pain train, then you may not have built up the endurance to get it done. But if your effort is hard, but under control, then you may be ready to take a crack at sub 2:50 if conditions are good. For some people it just takes a few years of running 20+ miler long runs to build up the endurance to get big PRs. Others can develop the endurance in a relatively short time. I was one of the former. I was running a lot of miles on long runs in the 6:20s with some faster guys, but it took me a 2:55, 2:53 and 2:50 before I finally dropped below 2:50.

Thanks for the replies. I'd say in the last year or two I've really turned the corner on my long runs. I was always able to run HMs pretty well but marathons never quite matched expectations because I don't think I had the running experience and enough miles on the legs. In the last year I've been consistently hitting the long runs and feeling really pretty good after and during them. Unless it's a monster workout, I'm not huffing and puffing in the end. There might be leg soreness but I'm able to run 8 the next day. I think it helps living in a hilly area (although I do seek out flat stuff when training for flat courses.) Just feel a lot stronger with the long stuff overall. The exception was that 20 miler with 4x3. I mostly felt pretty good except I did suffer in the last rep. To add a bit more context, it was one of the first warmer days here. Also, the float miles between the reps were at MP +25s, so relatively quick.

I’m not own to say here nor there. As an anecdote when I broke 2:50 (2:48: high), nothing in the training indicated I would break even 3. My long run was maybe 17 miles. No long tempo runs. Just some 5-10k tempo efforts. My volume was based on doing doubles. I was running maybe 10-12x a week. No speedwork that I can remember. Everything was basically slow with some progressives or a local 5k .

Reason being is I live in south Florida. I was training over summer and it’s just so hot. You feel like dying on every run. By mile 1, sweat is already dripping off your eye brows. It’s disgusting. So I would do doubles. Maybe 6-7 in the morning and 7-10 at night. Any longer than an hour in that heat just destroyed me for the rest of the day.

I had the speed anyway. I was just worried if I had the endurance. But sometimes things just click. I felt great and just kept moving. This might be you. Grandmas could be your day and you crush through. There’s no way I could do long runs at sub 7 pace in this heat, so you’re already ahead of me.

Ha--most of my long runs have been in pretty cool temps -- being from Florida, you might call them frigid :o) We just had our first 80+ humid day last weekend. That's probably nothing for you. Anyway, I feel for you--that heat must be brutal.

As others have said, I think you could end up in either position. 2:49 to 2:55 is all very reasonable. Especially when you factor in how you respond to the taper and any travel, and what race day conditions are like.

No matter what, you're set up for a big PR. So right now I'd lean towards going out at 6:35-40 and see how things go through the first 18 miles or so. Then bring it down as much as possible. Adjust that up or down a little bit when you see weather on race day and see how the body feels.

@rambling man, that's a very interesting anecdote. At that time of that marathon, what were your other PRs? Were they in line with that time? Or do you have much quicker 5/10k times?

Heat and especially humidity is huge and I had similar experiences here in Texas as a novice marathon runner. Running through last summer I was running much slower longer runs than the OP and I was targeting a 3:15 for my debut marathon based on the paces I thought I could sustain over 26 miles. However, when the weather cooled through October I realized very quickly I was far fitter than I thought and my first marathon in Nov I ended up running a 2:52. Trained further during winter and backed that up with a 2:48 in early March. Now it's getting hot and humid again and the paces I ran some of those long runs in Jan/Feb seem completely out of my reach again.

For the OP, I had similar runs at those paces in Jan/Feb. I targeted 2:50 for the March marathon and went through half at just under 1:25, luckily had good weather and a strong group to run with who lifted the pace from 20 miles and managed to hold onto them.

Just ran 2:51 myself and my progression was 2:57 --> 2:54 --> 2:51.

Your 18 @ 6'34 is something I could pull off in training, but that would take some serious recovery. The rest look like I would have no problem doing. When I knew I was really in shape, I was hitting sets of 800s & 1200s in the 5:40s during the week followed immediately by 2 - 3 miles @MP (which usually were in the low 6:20s). The weekend were hard long runs with 5 - 10 miles @ MP effort.

Everything looks in line for 2:50 -> 2:53.

You *might* be able to pull of 2:49:59 according to your Garmin...but with not running perfect tangents you'll probably be just over. If you go sub 2:53 I would call that a success.

Dude if you ran 18 @ 5:50 pace, either you “left your race in the workout” or you should have performed better on race day.

18@MP is an insane workout, I’ve done 16@ MP and then run FASTER than that for the full marathon 2x, granted both times I was running on tired legs.

I have a 2:49 PR but it took me a few tries to get there. I was in 1:19 shape for the half probably 4-5 times going into marathons but then I’d bonk in the last 10K and run 2:52-2:55 range. What finally made the difference was 5 solid long runs of 2:10-2:40 time on feet plus a fast course (CIM) with good weather. I did run a 1:59 30K about a month out as well.

Seems questionable given your mileage.

I would start with a 2-3 minutes to negative split to give yourself a chance.

I think you can get it. When I first dipped below 2:50 (2:48 on a pretty hilly course), 10 miler in one hour would be a race for me.. In fact I don't think I could pull it off by myself. My best long run at the time was 30k at 6:30 pace and I was also running similar mileage (50-60 mpw). I would say you're there.

I agree with everyone who says I got it. I also agree with everyone who says I don’t got it. :o)

On top of the fitness question, you have all the X factors like race day magic, weather, etc.

I’ll update after my 20 miler this weekend. I’ll be paying attention to whether it’s just hard or grueling. If the latter, then that might be a confidence shaker. (Although I did this same workout before sub 3. While I hit pace, I didn’t feel like I could’ve gone too much farther after the last mile. Still, come race day I was able to pull a sub 3, running a slight negative split.)

I think sub 2:50 might be a bit ambitious. I would bet on right around 2:52-2:53 but wouldn't be blown away with 2:49 on a perfect day.

op from phone allegory or metaphor? wrote:

I agree with everyone who says I got it. I also agree with everyone who says I don’t got it. :o)

On top of the fitness question, you have all the X factors like race day magic, weather, etc.

I’ll update after my 20 miler this weekend. I’ll be paying attention to whether it’s just hard or grueling. If the latter, then that might be a confidence shaker. (Although I did this same workout before sub 3. While I hit pace, I didn’t feel like I could’ve gone too much farther after the last mile. Still, come race day I was able to pull a sub 3, running a slight negative split.)

The 30k long run I mentioned was done in control, comfortably hard (also running up a big hill that was 2k long, 6-7% grade, but otherwise pretty flat) . If you can run around 6:35 at that effort honestly, I will say you're definitely there.