Is Marathon Pace actually useful in training?

I cannot believe there was anything close to an argument around whether 20 at MP is appropriate. Even 16 at MP is incredibly hard. Most runners will do just fine with running a half marathon at their MP 3-5 weeks before their race to prove they can do it.

The only people who could possibly run MP for 20 miles are those just looking to finish a marathon, where their easy run pace and MP are nearly identical.

Easy Peasy wrote:

I cannot believe there was anything close to an argument around whether 20 at MP is appropriate. Even 16 at MP is incredibly hard. Most runners will do just fine with running a half marathon at their MP 3-5 weeks before their race to prove they can do it.

The only people who could possibly run MP for 20 miles are those just looking to finish a marathon, where their easy run pace and MP are nearly identical.

Not true.My MP is around 7mm(slow I know) and my 3asy runs are around 8:15mm and I did a 20@MP 2 weeks ago,aiming for London in 3 weeks time.

Birkoboy wrote:

Easy Peasy wrote:

I cannot believe there was anything close to an argument around whether 20 at MP is appropriate. Even 16 at MP is incredibly hard. Most runners will do just fine with running a half marathon at their MP 3-5 weeks before their race to prove they can do it.

The only people who could possibly run MP for 20 miles are those just looking to finish a marathon, where their easy run pace and MP are nearly identical.

Not true.My MP is around 7mm(slow I know) and my 3asy runs are around 8:15mm and I did a 20@MP 2 weeks ago,aiming for London in 3 weeks time.

Maybe (s)he should've said "The only people who should possibly run MP for 20 miles are those just looking to finish a marathon, where their easy run pace and MP are nearly identical."

I think either that run was too hard for you or your goal MP is too slow. When I'm at full fitness I'd really struggle to run a HM at MP outside of race conditions.

My previous marathon training blocks (marathon every 6 months) I have run hardly anything at all at MP (2.54-2.43-2.34-2.31) as I always found it really really tough in training.

This block I've done quite a lot of it (including miles close, as within 10 seconds) shooting for 2.28/2.29. If I manage it I'll think it works but if I don't PB maybe I'll agree it doesn't make much difference! I'm hoping its psychological as well as phycological!

I'm training for my first marathon in October and am running all my LSR runs at MP because i have no idea what i can actually sustain for that distance. Two weeks ago I ran 20 at MP and this weekend am planning 22 at MP then tapering.

I just want to feel comfortable (ish) at that pace and know what it feels like for my first time out.

Peak week will only be 48 miles so hobby jogger territory but to my mind, for your first where you just want to get round in a reasonable time (for me thats 3:50) without ending up a total mess at the end its practical.

I think we should talk about roughly the 2 hour race pace and not MP pace. 1 hour race pace is then approx the threshold pace and 2 hour race pace is a step down. For marathoners, MP pace is a specific pace for their racing and should be their own MP pace and not 2h race pace. The difference is important to not confuse things.

2h race pace is as someone says one cornerstone in Jakob's training, being approx the first session in the double session days. Canova displays (apart from specific MP training) that 2h race pace running can be great support for faster work. 2h race pace is approx at the upper limit before lactate is being elevated above resting levels and often called the ventilatory threshold. I do not know of good science support that this is important, but at least one can do a lot of quite fast running with lower recovery need ( I am not talking about a 20mile MP-paced long run, that is an MP specific workout)

Doing longer runs at this pace is taxing, I have tried and it may not give the overall best benefits in terms of aerobic conditioning since the time is limited compared to easy runs. It must fit to the overall training philosophy.

I have done some changes and do a lot more 2h race pace workouts as intervals, in combo with harder workouts that then can be faster than threshold. I remember that for fast twitch typed runners, doing no faster than 2h race pace workouts in combo with fast work or VO2 max work might work well for them since they rest the fast twitch at the slower 2h race pace and train then well at the fast workouts (they seem to not cope that well with threshold paces as slow twitchers does)

I think 2h race pace overall is an important aerobic support for faster work and especially if you do 10k or longer races. I do think the tempo pace really should stay more at this pace than faster at least.

I like running what I consider marathon pace effort on hot, humid summer days. Sometimes I don't feel like doing a threshold run, so I just tell myself I going to run marathon pace for a few miles. I usually feel great afterwards. Maybe it's not a true representation of marathon pace and it's just a trick I play on myself, but it works for me.

I have a very hard time believing there isn't a physiological benefit of this compared to an easy run.

@Jon Arne Glomsrud I like this, I've never thought of a 2 hour pace before. I've got a half marathon 2 weeks before a marathon and wanted to run quicker then MP (but slower then HM) I'm going to try at 2 hour pace (roughly 21 mile pace).

Another pace/training tool to add to artillery!

Easy Peasy wrote:

I cannot believe there was anything close to an argument around whether 20 at MP is appropriate. Even 16 at MP is incredibly hard. Most runners will do just fine with running a half marathon at their MP 3-5 weeks before their race to prove they can do it.

The only people who could possibly run MP for 20 miles are those just looking to finish a marathon, where their easy run pace and MP are nearly identical.

Utter nonsense. If 20 at MP is impossible, than 26.2 at MP is even more impossible. I have done many 20-milers at MP, and I run 2:2X. These kinds of workouts are a Canova staple, for what it's worth. I've also done 16 miles alternating HMP and slower than MP, where the average comes out to MP. That's a pretty tough one.

It's one thing to say, "I don't subscribe to the notion that competitive marathoners should be doing 20 miles at MP." That's a perfectly defensible position. In fact, as I noted earlier, I no longer do 20 at MP (now I do 10 at MP + 10-15 seconds, followed by 10 at MP, or else I do 18 at MP), and I think it's a workout that's a little much for most people. But to say that such a workout is absurd and that you can't believe there's a debate just shows ignorance of relatively common training methodology.

The main reason that these workouts are "too hard" is that the overwhelming majority of amateur marathoners are seriously undertrained. Very, very few people ever run marathons that are "equivalent" to their track PRs. It takes not just 100-130 miles/week, but it takes enough consistent training over the course of years that 100-130 does not feel like high mileage. It has to feel normal. An earlier poster said something about the 14 easy/6 HMP workout, saying that he'd already be struggling after 14 easy. That's the problem. If you're doing enough volume to reach your potential in the marathon, 14 miles easy might be your first of two runs on one of your easy days. Alan gets this.

OozmaKappa wrote:

As you mention, the mental aspect is important. You have to get to know that pace well enough to be able to hit it like a metronome without thinking. So you should incorporate it into your training.

I think there is such a thing as getting good at running a particular pace. That is, with enough practice running at a certain pace you optimize your running economy at that pace.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

LOL.. 20 miles at MP , there's no wonder most people underperform massively on race day.

This is a good point, and it's why we need to be careful throwing around MP as though it's automatically equivalent to a particular subjective intensity. I agree that MP is not a useful training pace for races other than the marathon unless your MP is at the aerobic threshold/VT1/LT1. At that pace, average blood lactate levels are around 2 mmol (obviously there's tremendous individual variation in lactate curves), which is basically just starting to embarrass the aerobic system. It's the lower end of the broad threshold zone, and I think there's a strong theoretical case to be made that it's actually a better training pace than LT2 or 1-hour race pace, mostly because you can accumulate a lot more volume at that pace with less wear and tear. Though, clearly we need more research in this area.

And I don't mean to denigrate traditional lactate threshold (AnT/VT2/LT2) training. It's just that I think the physiological basis for such training is overstated. I suspect that the main value in such training, especially for high school and college athletes, is that it teaches pain tolerance without the reprieve of rest intervals and that it's not that much slower than XC race pace, so it's somewhat specific.

Ultra Bear wrote:

My previous marathon training blocks (marathon every 6 months) I have run hardly anything at all at MP (2.54-2.43-2.34-2.31) as I always found it really really tough in training.

This block I've done quite a lot of it (including miles close, as within 10 seconds) shooting for 2.28/2.29. If I manage it I'll think it works but if I don't PB maybe I'll agree it doesn't make much difference! I'm hoping its psychological as well as phycological!

How did your training look like for previous marathons?

I'm not as fast as you but I never ran MP pace in training.

Exactly!!!

My longest solo w/o at HM pace used to be 3x3mi at pace w/3 min rest.

If you can run 6.5 mi at your “HM” after running 12-14 mi ez this means your HM pace should be much faster.

Ronnie Pudding wrote:

LOL.. 20 miles at MP , there's no wonder most people underperform massively on race day.

I doubt that dude runs faster than 2:20 or even 2:30, that's why he can do 20miles at MP in training.

@MP is useless - Lots of easy miles really with a couple of 10k or half in build up so just believed I could do my target pace based on those. 60mpw took me to 2.54, 80pw took me 2.34, 100mpw took me to 2.34 and then 100mpw (but at this point its not new to me) took me to 2.31.

Now its same mileage but with more intensity. Pretty boring stuff tbh. I'm just a run commuter who realised he was ok at marathons. ( I realise on this forum they aren't brilliant times but to a 34 yo who took up running seriously 3 years ago I'm proud).

@800 dude - I'm doing a half 2 weeks out from a marathon whats the quickest you would go (home town race want to do well). If MP is 5.41 and HMP 5.22 what's the fastest based on your hard training run methodology I could go?

ATEA4RE wrote:

MP is useless wrote:

Benji Durden never ran MP in training.

You're telling sub 3/4 hours marathoners to run MP because of what?

Any science or evidence that MP runs are more beneficial than any other types?

No.

For the vast majority of runners MP pace is something that you want to avoid.

Plus how do you know what MP pace you train for?

MP is basically "subthreshold" or "high-aerobic steady" or whatever else you want to call it. A reasonably hard effort for 1 hour to 1.5 hours.

So would 1 hour of subthreshold be more beneficial than 1 hour of easy (within a longer effort)? Are you really asking that? Lydiard used this pace in his plans extensively...nearly every elite seems to use it now.

Lydiard never used ANY pace in his plans extensively.

grumpy_old_man wrote:

I'm training for my first marathon in October and am running all my LSR runs at MP because i have no idea what i can actually sustain for that distance. Two weeks ago I ran 20 at MP and this weekend am planning 22 at MP then tapering.

I just want to feel comfortable (ish) at that pace and know what it feels like for my first time out.

Peak week will only be 48 miles so hobby jogger territory but to my mind, for your first where you just want to get round in a reasonable time (for me thats 3:50) without ending up a total mess at the end its practical.

Nothing hobby joggery about running 48 miles a week even for a marathon that's plenty for most people, what is hobby joggery is how you run those miles, doing 20 of those miles, then 22 at goal MP is almost running your marathon every 2 weeks, that sounds way too hard to me and doesn't seem like ideal training. You could likely take 45mins of your goal time just by training a little smarter, less is more kinda thing.

I get the impression a lot of people run their long runs, or large portions of it, at MP not for any training benefit but from some fear they won't be able to run their goal time without it.

pkl wrote:

Marathon pace is only marathon pace on fresh legs, carb loaded, racing shoes, a flat road, with frequent hydration and refueling.

Marathon pace is almost threshold pace for experienced runners.

Physiologically, if you try to run marathon pace on tired legs, on dirt trails, on training shoes, or at anything but perfect conditions, you are probably pushing too hard and going into a half marathon or threshold effort.

I agree most aerobic adaptations can be obtained from low aerobic paces, at mitocondrial and enzymatic level. But marathon pace implies different demands from breathing muscles, forces a different stride and higher cadence, and stresses the anaerobic and lacting buffering system much more than just aerobic running.

Bolded as this is also a valid point, i.e. what exactly is someone's MP anyway? For a 5K, what say your 5K pace is that's more easy to establish - i.e. run a few 5Ks. For a marathon that's more tricky to do for obvious reasons. Training at whatever you think is GMP is really just a crapshot guess and really only useful to practice the pace, which is great but I wouldn't spend too much time on it. Better imo to train easier, faster, then run a HM a few weeks out and use that to get a goal pace. Run the marathon and adjust for the next one.