Biggest discrepancy btwn half and full marathon PRs

Patti Catalano Dillon has 1:14:04 and a 2:27:52 as her PRs.

1:09

2:34

1:26 and 3:47

Also have run 1:27, 1:28, and 1:30 halves. Only other two marathon attempts I cut short at the mid point.

1:24 and 3:14.

In my marathon (my 2nd) I split 1:29/1:45. I ran with the 3:00 pace team, and I noticed several guys who were breathing much harder than I was in the early stages of the race who later went on to beat me as my leg muscles cramped. Aerobically I was fine but my glycogen stores emptied and my legs muscles cramped hardcore in the switchover to fat metabolism.

I really believe the marathon has a much different limiting factor than the half/10k. In the full, you must obviously be aerobically fit, but your glycogen storage capacity and fat metabolism are critical. The 10k/half are too short for that, and it's all about aerobic capacity.

I'm at 1:09 and 2:58. I never tried a marathon when I was in top shape.

mentioned often here onLetsrun wrote:

Patti Catalano Dillon has 1:14:04 and a 2:27:52 as her PRs.

Yeah, but her 20K PR is 1:08:36 from the hilly course in Wheeling WV, which is like 1:12ish for the HM.

2.28 ratio

I've done one of each.

Half: 1:26

Full: 4:38

Not joking. Bonked HARD in the marathon. Ended up walking 5 miles or so.

Half: 1:17

Full: 3:50

At the time of my first attempt on marathon, I had a PR 1:03:04 in the half. I was a high mileage guy, with decent speed and good PBs over 1500 - 10000m. I was 23 and thought that my future was in the marathon. I had "specialized" for 5 months to run a good debut (thinking quietly to pull a shocker and attract a better sponsorship contract).

Needless to say, I felt awful from 10k on and by 25k, I knew I was in trouble. By 30k (still on pace to run around 2:11) I was downing gels, Vitargo mix, whatever, but the crash was coming fast. The leaders were long gone (they pulled away at around 19km), and I was passed by ever so slightly more corpulent guys. Then elite gals, then the serious amateurs, then real amateurs. I had walked at least 5kms out of last 12. I had almost quit on 41km mark, when I was passed by a lady that looked like house mum, with huge ass and bad case of celluititis. I had finished in 2:59:59, saved only by a cramped shuffle in the last 500m.

I had run my next one 4 years later. With a PR in the hald 1 and half minutes better than 4 years ago, 2:14 wasn't what I had expected, but at least I hoped for the next improvement. It came, but only by 19s, and I ended with that as my lifetime PR, despite being labeled as "the next great" hope in my country. I honestly feel I have not figured out how to run a good marathon, despite having all the aces in my sleeve, good coaching a several good preparations leading up to marathon.

Very interesting post as I never had a problem to run (clearly) sub 2:20 but would be hard pressed to run low 1:03 (I'd say I am not a top athlete but a national class athlete with a little chance to make it to the Olympics in my country).

What do you think was your problem in the marathon?

I really encourage doubles but can very well imagine that many people that underperform in the marathon forget that almost dayly lonsigh runs are a very good strenght builder. I really don't see any reason for a marathoner in the last 8 weeks before the race to go shorter than 12 - 13 miles in the main session (except for recovery).

I think the best two ways are:

Run as fast as possible for 2 x 1 hour per day (say: 2 x 10 miles) while being able to maintain the quality of your workouts.

OR

Run more like 15+ miles singles on your "recovery days" at an easy-moderate effort. Double on workout days. You have to get used to depletion and the pounding on dayly basis.

That being said - if you did that, perhaps you are just a way bigger talent in the 5k - half marathon...

Pikachu

1:16 to 2:53

my 1/2 was run with primarily 8k xc training and starting 1/2 marathon specific work 5 weeks out, while my marathon (my 1st and only) was run with 5k-10k track training with very occasional 20 mile long runs with a 24 mile run thrown in 1 month before.

One-time halfer wrote:

1:09

2:34

That doesn't seem too bad. The half is clearly better, but 2:34 is still very solid. Probably only about 5-8 minutes off of where your marathon "should" be. One of the guys that I ran the first half of Chicago with was a 1:09 1/2er and I lost him around mile 15. His half time seemed legit as he did line up in the American Development Corral (which requires sub-1:11). It was his first marathon. I wound up with pretty ugly positive splits (1:18-1:21) and still left him in the dust so he is 1:09/>2:40.

Even more shocking was that I really had the physique of a marathoner (170cm, 51kgs) and was always good in hard paced efforts. For me it was always a problem of fueling, or rather managing the glycogen stores.

Maybe I did too many 10-12 miles runs for the main session and only two runs per week longer than 15 miles (the long run was usually 20miler, with 3-5 specific workouts in the range of 22 - 24 miles). I had run only once in my life longer than 26 miles in the training, and that was by mistake (I had misjudged the length of a run pre-mapped in the unfamiliar surrounding - by 15 miles).

However, I had seldom run slowlier than 4min/km, except when I clearly needed recovery. That might have been the biggest problem.

The mileage when training for longer races was always good - in the range of 110 -150 miles/week.

Sparty On wrote:

I am the other way:

1:28 Half

2:54 Full

If you ran 2:54, your half PR isn't 1:28. It's whatever your fastest 13.1 was during your full.

Mine are 1:37 and 3:59

Right now I think I'm probably in 1:30 and 3:20 shape.

1:40 and 3:59

About the same as yours, but I'm nowhere near as fit as you are now.