Need Help dissecting marathon failure

Can't do triathlons, can't do marathons...we might as well shoot you.

Though you ran more miles than you have in the past, your volume is still far too low to run 2:45ish. You have a faster 10k PR than me by one minute, and a faster 1/2 by 20 seconds, but I ran 2:44 in Boston. 80-95 mpw.

The lack of volume reasoning doesn't really explain why you ran much faster a few years ago in Boston because you were running less mileage then. Maybe just a training cycle that didn't go too well, like Hall's before Beijing? Your workouts all seem fine to me.

Did you take gu's or any nutrition during the race? Did you make sure you were really relaxing during the race? I find that I have to constantly think about how easy it is to make sure I don't blow it too early. It is gonna hurt in the last 3 miles, but if it has been easy up to 20 and manageable up to 23 then you hold on with significant willpower. I agree about the mileage. Up the mileage, lose some weight (no matter what you weigh now) and you will destroy your PR.

Nutrition was good, not a bonk. 4 gels, some gatorade, I was not even really that hungry after the race.

The pace should have felt easy, I was running 45 seconds per mile slower than HM pace but it never felt easy during the race.

I cannot lose any weight. I am 6'2" and was about 157 lbs on race day. I look like a f'in skeleton.

"I did 9 runs between 15 and 18.5 miles. All easy mileage was about 7:25 - 7:45 pace (HR about 142 - 144)."

Ever heard of Joe Henderson?

http://joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/

Ever heard of Weldon Johnson?

http://www.letsrun.com/WhatsLetsRun.html

Ever heard of John Kellogg?

http://www.letsrun.com/jkspeaks4.php

A 3:12 marathon is 7:19 per mile pace and you're talking of easy mileage at 7:25 pace. That ain't easy and you've shown it in your race performance. Even your 2:58 PR is a 6:47 race pace and 38 seconds slower than that is not an easy training pace.

There are Kenyan men racing sub 5:00 min. per mile pace in marathons and their easy pace is 7:00+.

If you slow down and actually put in more time in your training you will become the marathoner you think you should be. Don't rush your workouts and save your racing for race day. You were tired and cooked before you lined up in Hopkington.

If you slow your long runs down you can be doing 80,90 & 100mpw.

Your taper seems a bit sharp. Without the real volume of true marathon training (80+ mpw), you may not have responded well to such a large decrease in your training volume.

This person is 100% spot on. I don't believe you mentioned your max HR, but your easy/recovery days should preferably be ``70% max HR. You'll feel way more rested for hard days and races (esp. important or the marathon), and you'll easily be able to tolerate more mileage (which you definitely need.... need more "vines", ~capillaries, around the "trees", ~muscles).

Also, get your ferritin tested (see doctor)-- you want it to be %%50. If it isn't, get on the liquid iron and OJ (1-2 tsp/day).

I don't know why it changed the symbol, but that should read "less than" 70% max HR and "greater than" 50 for your ferritin.

I have no answer beyond you had a bad day, exacerbated by the IT issue. I disagree with some of the foregoing insofar as your training was comparable to mine before NY 2006, your "easy" pace was slower, and your race results were faster. I have no idea about my HR. I had 3 20-milers and my highest mileage was 64. I did weekly sessions of Daniels's tempos or repeats or (rarely) intervals. I ran four legs of Reach-the-Beach 6 weeks before. In the race, I went out very relaxed (and too fast) in just under 1:20, and had a tough final 6 miles. I got a 2:48.

But you may be the type who needs to slow down his long runs, so that might be worth a try. It may be that you have problems recovering from the kind of paces you're doing.

I agree that more miles would be better, and I will try to do more next time.

7:25 was the "fastest" I was doing for my easy runs, typically I was closer to 7:40. My 5 mile time equates to about a 16:10 5K (about 5:12 per mile). Are you saying my easy running should be more than 2:30 per mile slower (slower than 7:42) than 5K pace?

From looking at McMillan and based on my performances up to half marathon, if anything I was concerned I was running too slow for most of my running.

My PR I don't think is a good indicator of my fitness level as I have pointed out I ran a 2:59 off a 1:23 split (13 minute positive split, not smart running). If I was not such a bonehead in that race and went out in about 1:26 I have a hard time seeing how I could not have run at least a 2:54.

You have done great training for the half marathon. And this is reflected in your hm pr and also your 5 mi pr. However, you need to run more miles to run the equivalent marathon times. You don't need to change much. But if you are running 60-70 miles in a week with a 20 miler, that means you are averaging around 7-8 miles per day the other 6 days. That isn't enough. Bump your mileage to the 80s by averaging closer to 10 miles per day on those other days and keep your long run around 20. And I think your longest run can be 22. If you make these little adjustments you will reach your goal.

It's your IT band. Even when it isn't really hurting you, if it's tight, it's slowing you down. You need to focus on taking care of that. It seemed to be typical rough day at Boston for many people. Take and a look and see how many people dropped 10+ minutes in the second half. Try going somewhere besides Boston for a PR. I also feel that I need to be able to run 20-22 at or very near my goal pace in training if I expect to run that pace during the race.

triyoda wrote:

All easy mileage was about 7:25 - 7:45 pace (HR about 142 - 144).

MP was HR of 158 - 162, which disappointingly only got me to around 6:30 per mile pace for the MP workouts (they were on rolling to hilly routes with wind). The last MP workout felt kind of labored, but I was getting ready to taper so I did not feel alarmed.

When I did tempo (172 HR)I think the pace was between 5:45 and 6:00. The only time I really measured distance was a 6 x 1 mile tempo (w/ 60 sec rest), and I hit times in this range.

Again, what is your max HR? Just judging by (your MP HR and tempo HR) it looks like your easy day HR of 142-144 is wayyyy too high to be recovering. This is a red flag. Disregard pace-- you want your HR to be less 70% of max to recover and develop better aerobically.

I assume it is around 200, but since I am really a 10K and up guy I never do much near max heart rate. For what its worth I would hold around 172 - 175 HR for a HM and I will turn 34 next month. I think I am in the range of about 70% for the easy runs, as I agree with your philosophy of around 70% for easy running.

I think it is weird that you ran a 34:04 10k in 34:02. Not sure how that happens. Also, you claim that in your PR race you were at 1:24:58 at the half and also the same this time around. You said you felt a PR was "possible"?

Do you always fade 9 minutes in the second half of marathons? Not trying to be a dick, but it is really surprising that you would go out at 1:24:58 (2:49:56 pace) and think, "Maybe I can run 2:57-58 today?" Unless you felt like you were going to DNF you should have been able to finish with a 1:30 and had a new PR.

We are talking about Boston in both examples, so I know that the second half can (should?) be slower. But when you think that MAYBE you can slow by 9:00 over 13 miles to hit a PR (that is 40 secs/mile over just the last 13) ... that is too drastic a fade. This would be acceptable for a 4:00 marathoner, but not at your level.

As far as why you failed: You cracked. You ran 1:25/1:47 ... that is about 8:10 a mile for the whole second half, but I am sure the collapse was not evenly spread over the whole second half.

Like others have said, you need to run more miles. You did 70 mpw some weeks which is good, but 40 a week is barely training (whether it is for a 10k, half or marathon doesn't matter).

Some really talented people can run marathons off of 40-50 a week, they may not run fast but they can run say 10-20 minutes off their top potential (they ought to be able to that is :30 a mile SLOWER). Most people don't have enough muscular endurance to go beyond 10-15 miles at MP if they are rarely running 10 miles at a time.

Take the advice that was given: Run a long run of at least 15 most weeks, ramp up to 20 for several times before your marathon, make your "everyday" runs 10 miles most of the time.

Something like this:

M: 5 easy (recover from long run) or swim/bike

T: 10 miles HARD or 6 x 1M, or 3 x 2M

W: 10 mi easy or swim/bike

Th:12 miles at MP

F: 10 mi easy or rest for race

S: 5 mi HARD or training race of 5mi-25km ... try for only :10-:15 slower than your PR pace per mile

Su: 15 mi long run (about :30 slower than goal marathon -- sounds like 6:30 pace is close to goal - 2:50 - so 7:00 pace should be OK, assuming that you really are capable of that). This would be 1:45 in the early going (five weeks?) and then increase this to 2:00 (17 mi) and then to 2:15 or so for the last 4 weeks before the taper -- if you are running 70+ during these weeks. If you aren't it will be too much.

This would make 40-45 in a week with only 4 days of running and ~70-75 with seven runs.

And this f***er doesn't knowing plumbing either. What a douche.

triyoda wrote:

I assume it is around 200, but since I am really a 10K and up guy I never do much near max heart rate. For what its worth I would hold around 172 - 175 HR for a HM and I will turn 34 next month. I think I am in the range of about 70% for the easy runs, as I agree with your philosophy of around 70% for easy running.

You need to figure out your real max HR. Just based on what you gave for your HM HR (which should equate to 90-92% max HR), your max HR is ~190. If well trained aerobically (which you are not), your marathon HR would be 161-171 (85-90% max HR). So your easy days need to be at a HR of LESS THAN 133 (you are running them at 75+% right now.... that is NOT recovering).

I re-read it and to be fair, you did 9 weeks at 60 or above so you were doing more volume than I realized ... but I do think what I said still is true. If you can run 50-70 like you did, you just need to run 70 consistently and get in that 1:45 run at 7:00 pace consistently.

If that 26:57/34:02 is repeatable you have plenty of aerobic power to run the marathon faster, you just have to get the endurance. Those times are equivalent to a 2:40.

What is the best way to test max HR? If my max is 200 (I am willing to test it to figure out), how is 142 HR 75%+, it is is 71%, which seems close enough.