Projected first marathon time way off.

Very common. It is harder to be equivalently trained for the marathon for many people. And some people are more speed oriented than endurance oriented. What did you run the first half of the marathon in for your debut?

I think you ran more or less what I would have thought. The marathon is a long way. To get down to 2:40 I would imagaine you would need to run 73 or so and/or 16 min. 16:00 is kinda slow for 5k. 2:40 is a better time in my opinion. I ran 15:22 and would have been happy to have run 2:35

The prediction of 2:40 was pure horsesh*t. You're best half is 1:18. In theory, if you could double that, you'd run 2:36. And that's an even split. I'd a thunk it possible to run 2:50, but since it was your debut, the 2:54 seems about right. The projection tool is probably close in predicting your subsequent marathons, but the first one is so unpredictable.

The McMillan calculator predicts around 2:44. 2:54 for a first one is about right. Probably went out too fast.

Alan

Common? wrote:

I used some projection tools on the web (hill runner, running times ect.) to predict the time of my first marathon. My half marathon (1:18) and 5k (16:50) predicted a marathon of 2:40-2:43. I had a strong race, with good conditions, yet only got a 2:54. Is it common for a first marathon to be way over a predicted pace like mine, because of the new distance and whatnot, or did I screw something up?

Actually your 5km time is better than your HM time, which is a clear indicator that you lack endurance in comparison to your basic speed. With those two times I would not have predicted faster than 2:50. It may be that you are naturally not so endurance-inclined - it may also be that you need to do more long runs for your next marathon.

What many people do not take into consideration is the following when considering a marathon.

A) You can NOT double your 1/2 marathon time. Reason? Simple. The second half of the race is AFTER you have run 13.1 miles. You are more tired. You are somewhat worn. You more than likely went out too fast (common for first 3 or 4 times)

B) A marathon can vary from race to race and day to day. Some days are good. Some days are bad. Same goes for the course. Remember that some days out for your typical run - some days are easy/light footed, and some are not.

The marathon needs to be respected. Respect the race. The distance. And take what the race will give you for that day. Joan Benoit Samuelson said that many times. Who knows better than her?

I'm a bit slower than you at the shorter races, but ran 6 minutes faster in my first marathon. I think the biggest things to focus on are spending at least 6 months getting your mileage up (preferably >=100) and doing lots and lots of 20+ mile long runs, both slow and fast, with and without drinks/gels/etc.. You need to prepare both your body and mind to handle running for 2:40:00-2:50:00. You might also consider that fall marathons tend to be faster than spring marathons for whatever reason, so put in the training and give it a shot again in the fall.

I went out in 1:24 so back in 1:30. My training peaked at 70 a week with two 20 milers. I'll do more of a build up next time.

Not bad. Maybe the next time you shoot for 1:25/1:23 The thing about the marathon is that so many things have to go right, but so many things often go wrong. You really need everything to align perfectly for race day, and there is ample opportunity for them not to.

My first marathon was 2:44 with roughly the same PR's as yours. I had previously done a lot more mileage than you (1000 miles in 10 weeks the previous summer), but got injured and didn't do much running for the few months before the race. Don't ask me why I run so much with such mediocre talent. :) I felt better on race day than I thought I would, so I ran how I felt and tried not to get scared (I had heard the second half of the race starts at mile 20, but it didn't turn out to be a big deal).

I finally ran 2:53 in my fourth or fifth marathon, after notching 3:06, 3:11, DNF, and 3:00:45. I'd never broken 1:20. Ran consistent 17:30 / 36:00.

Remember: not all of us are equally talented at the longer distance, in purely physiological terms. The marathon may not be our strength. We may be more talented at 10K and below. There's no automatic translation into the longer distance, no matter how much training you do. So it always pays to be conservative in terms of projected pace the first couple of times. And there's a huge learning curve in the first couple of marathons.

Too many variables to conclude much. Some here would say you should be able to pull out a good marathon time without any twenty-plus mi training runs--but not me. I think the once weekly 18-22 mi run plus a few "practice":) marathons will bring your experience of the distance up to a more comfortable (:) again) zone--familiarity breeds improvement?

My shorter distance times were a tad slower than your before my first marathon. Ist time: 3:25. at age thirty-four. Had no intention of crashing and burning, just wanted to learn, very cautious. It took me five more marathons before I broke 3 hrs: 2:59.59 (still cautious.)

Well it took me to age forty-five to get a 2:47, but true-story, it was my most relaxed and comfortable run at that distance. at forty-six I got a 2:02 twenty-mile and 10 1/2 mi's in the hour run on a track.

Anyway, different folks different strokes, and I found at fifty that my one and only half-marathon time was not very indicative of my complete marathon times, at 1:22.

I disagree with people who are completely sold on the idea of starting slowly and picking it up (oversimplified) with the idea that you will always "pay the price" for starting too cautiously when you want a good time. Yesa, it's generall true, but not as much for everybody all the time, and it is worth having a shot at a bit harder first half IF you have done the training and have the experience and good fitness for racing. My twenty-mi PR split were 61/61 (course I had to bear down in order to maintain, if you know what I mean.

Cheers. You look as if you could hammer out at least a 2:40.

I think projecting marathon times based on shorter races is much less reliable than, say, projecting a 10k (or even HM) time based on 5k. As others have said, there are a lot of variables (fueling, ability to metabolize fats, how your legs respond to 26 miles in flats, etc.) at play in the marathon that just aren't there in shorter races.

This year I ran 58:40 for 10(Feb), 1:14 for 13.1 (March) and 2:40 for 26.2 (April). According to the internet converters, I 'should' have run 2:35 - 2:37 for the marathon, based on the HM time. And I was in better shape in April than in March, to boot. But I think that 2:40 was very, very close to my best possible effort on that day.

Meanwhile, two people I train with ran mid 1:15 at the same HM, and then 2:37 and 2:45 in April marathons. The difference between us all was probably mileage: 2:37 did a bunch of >100 mile weeks, I topped out at 93, and 2:45 was a bit lower. The calculators were only "right" about the 2:37. Point is, if HM is at the top of the range of distances that you've trained effectively for, the calculators are gonna be off (maybe way off) for the marathon, esp. if it's your first. The second is much easier, though! Tear it up!

The most common reason why people don't hit their marathon time equivalents is they are far better trained for the shorter races than they are for the marathon.

They train to race a 5k or 10k but they train to survive or finish a marathon.

Equivalency tables assumed you are equally prepared for both race distances but rarely are people as well prepared for a 26.2 mile race as they are for a 5k.

Most people simply don't/can't do the mileage necessary to be as well prepared.