Am I about to run a sub-3-hour marathon?

29-timer wrote:

so you're suggesting a 2:52 off 26 mpw is unlikely?

or a 2:57 off 27 mpw at age 47 is not to be expected either?

I don't know what "2:48, please" is suggesting, but I'd say yes to both!

I too noticed that my 5K is faster than my 15K, so I might expect a slowdown with distance.

But, what is the importance of mpw? Is it important mostly for aerobic fitness? If so, the other 9 hours of the week when I'm biking or swimming should make up for a lack of time running.

Is it important for leg strength? I know people aren't doing 70 mpw of hard running, so if I do 20-25 miles of quality running and then save my recovery workouts for the bike, shouldn't I be okay?

Or is it just important for toughening up my legs? If that's the case, I might be injured or need a long recovery afterward, but it probably wouldn't affect my time at this race. So, I'm having trouble understanding why people are so concerned with the low mileage.

Personally I'm not worried about miles per week. My real concern is that I did 20 miles only once. If I had time to put in another one, I wouldn't even be posing the question.

Time on your feet on a given surface makes a not insignificant contribution to conditioning your connective tissue (muscles, tendons, ligaments) to running on said surface.

Well that's true.

That may be too slow for you, I have run faster than that with 37/8 10k, 18:30 5k before.

You should be able to run 2:52 -2:55 unless your lack of mileage gets you then you should still be able to run 3flat.

Aerobic fitness developed over weeks, months and years of running...and yes sometimes slowly, developed cardio pulminar efficiency and it happens to be sport specific.

The best exercise for runners is running.

I'd add 10 min to those race predictors. I did a 1:29 half on 45 mpw and only managed a 3:21 marathon.

I'd concentrate on getting to Boston as a 1st step. You can then go for sub 3 at Boston.(Which will give you bragging rights twice!)

MRCT, I ran under 3:05 in my first marathon and I didn't run quite your volume in training or have your PRs. Presuming those PRs are fairly recent and you show up on race day rested and injury-free, you could sleepwalk a 3:10. On a warm day, you might even break a sweat on the way to that 1:35 first half. C'mon... in the spirit of the subject of this thread, aim higher.

2:60, I think you're right about aiming higher, I'm just a little gunshy because of my debacle in May at my first marathon attempt. I took too much gatorade and gu in the first part of the race and my stomach went to pieces. My PRs I listed were all this year, the Half less than a month ago. The 10k was in April on similiar training as I'm doing now. I'm going to do a marathon pace run this weekend at the end of a long run, and if 6:50 to 7:00 pace feels easy than I should definitely aim higher than 3:10. I ran 12 at 7:05 pace two weeks ago in the middle of the day in high humidity, and still had plenty of gas in the tank. Less than 24 hours later, I ran 21 again in humid conditions at sub 7:30 pace.

MRCT wrote:

I am also running a marathon in a few weeks. My goal is sub 3:10, second marathon (first one ended in a dnf due to stomach issues in mile 17), 41 year old male, prs of 35:59 in 10k, 17:15 in 5k, 1:22:55 Half, training volume has been consistently 45-55 for last 4 months, last 5 weeks 55-70, 3 long runs between 20-21, regular tempo runs with 7 miles at 6:15-6:20 pace getting very comfortable. My plan was to run the first half in 1:35 and if that feels easy, pick it up from there and try to finish under 3:05. Sound reasonable?

sounds like you're read and you have a conservative goal, but probably a smart plan for your 2nd try at the distance.

have you considered trying to run 7:00's for the first half? 7:15's should be very easy for you.

good luck!!

oops, should be "you're ready"

The race result: 3:05:16 with quite a positive split.

I did the first half in 1:30:41 feeling comfortable, but I didn't expect to be able to do a negative split to hit 3:00. I was right, because at mile 20 my right quad suddenly became very sore. In another couple miles my left quad died, and I hobbled through the last 10K doing 7:30 miles. First time my quads ever gave me trouble in a race, but I'm sure it was caused by lack of mileage.

So there it is--you can do a 3:05 on 20-25 mpw.

No, YOU can. Not me or most other people.

Wow this was great- A thread where the guy actually came back and reported his real race result.

Wonder if he is running Boston this year.

A good thread with lost of good advice for first time marathoners, I thought it was well worth kicking up.

Based on your times, you are ready to go sub-3. Take it from me; I'm 52, have run more than 50 marathons, with more than 30 of them sub-3. You are ready; go for it. Start out at 6:52 pace and stay there. You will get it!

kcb wrote:

Based on your times, you are ready to go sub-3. Take it from me; I'm 52, have run more than 50 marathons, with more than 30 of them sub-3. You are ready; go for it. Start out at 6:52 pace and stay there. You will get it!

Dumb and wrong -- that's a bad combination.

Read the post just above by dave- he didn't do it.

He came close though, and that proves the value of cross training- the guy was training 8-9 hours a week for triathlons- the 25 MPW came out of that. However, as everyone warned him here- he needed that 45-50 MPW to get the leg endurance specific to marathon RUNNING.

It does appear that the OP is running Boston. He mentioned he was running the Wineglass marathon so a simple check of the results on marathonguide.com using his time will give you his name and plugging it into the baa.org entrants search shows he is registered for Boston (bib 3696). There are no secrets on the internet...

OP good luck in Boston. It is a fun course to run.

People (and the OP) must understand that the marathon is a completely different animal. 5K time, yassos, and even longer race PRs don't always accurately predict marathon finish times. Even for using the the half marathon PR as an indicator, so much can happen running those extra 13.1 miles. You're working with a whole different energy system in the marathon--you don't have to worry about running out of glycogen in a 5K, and generally not in a half marathon, but in the marathon, much of the training that should be done (50-60+--I do about 80) teaches the body to spare glycogen and burn fat so you're less likely to hit that infamous bonk at mile 20.

I believe one of the greatest hallmarks to running a marathon time in line with shorter distance PRs is expereince running marathons, along with the training. For so many people, their first marathon time is not in line with their PRs for shorter distances, and that's alright, since with experience running marathons and training for them, one finds out how he/she personally responds to training/racing, and adjusts accordingly.

To the OP--please do yourself a huge favor and do not go out shooting for sub 3 right off the bat. I'd say 3:10 is likely, but start out conservatively. You can always pick it up if you're feeling good later, which is way better than being forced to slow down from going out too hard. You want your first marathon to be an enjoyable experience, rather than a horrendous one where you never want to do another one.

FYI--I have a 5K PR of 17:40, a dozen or so 5Ks in the low 18s or better, some 10Ks in the 37s, some 5-milers in the low 30s range, all of which indicate sub 3, but I managed 3:13 in my first marathon. It's one thing to be able to run fast for 5-10K, or even 10 miles, but to maintain a (relatively speaking) fast pace for 26.2 miles is a whole other story. I recently ran a 30:15 5-miler, which indicates anywhere from 2:49-2:58 depending on calculators, but 6:52/mi for a long way still is hard for me, so I'm thinking I'll try for 7:15/mi in my spring marathon, and keep working on lowering that long distance pace over time.