Sub 2h:50m..?

According to Hansons....

17.30 ---> 36:21 ---> 2:50:31

According to Daniels....

17.30 ---> 2.46.24 and

36.37 ---> 2.49.16

So in theory you should be good to run sub 2.50.

But what was your peak weekly mileage? How many 20+ mile long runs? Have you fully recovered from London?

Also, Edinburgh is, I think, point to point net downhill so that might help. But on the other hand, going towards summer, it could be warmer than you have trained in.

I have run 2:47 and 2:48 as a M40 runner. My 5k times were about the same and 10k times were closer to 36 even. I would guess that shooting for sub 2:50 is certainly within your ability given that you are already very close.

There isn't anything that different about a 2:47 marathon and a 2:50 marathon. 2:50 is not a big barrier for masters runners. If your training is good and you pace well, sub 2:50 will feel a lot like 2:51. It may even feel better. My 2:47 and 2:48 marathons were my strongest in terms of pushing through the wall. Legs moved well the last 6 mi even though breathing was like the last mile of a 5k.

Its hard to say without knowing your weekly mileage, but your race times make me think 2:50 is reasonable if you have nice weather. Good luck!

I'm not a real high miler..my average is around 45-50 miles however, I do cycle to and from work most days (11 miles each way) so this adds some extra aerobic training. In terms of long run volume, I've done 8 long runs over 17 miles with 5 of those being 19-23 miles.

When you did London in 2:51, how did you feel?

If you could have gone faster, then 2:50 should be ok, if you did everything right then it will be a push.

The issue at London was the pacing...I was a little snarled up in the early miles and this made it hard going trying to get back on track.

As long as you legs aren't too beat up you'll get your sub 2:50 at Edinburgh (unless we get unlucky and this heat keeps getting worse).

Go smash it Richard ;)

I think you can, depending on the long runs you've done.

You seem to be the resistant type of guy as your 5k and 10k is not that strong but you still managed to finish a 2h51 marathon.

for a comparison, I was a 16:52 5k runner and a 35:30 10k runner but finished badly in New York (2h54 after a 1h23 half) in 2011.

on sunday I will be running another marathon. I am hoping to run anything around ~2h40 ~2h45. PR's of 15:58 and 33:45, but my mileage is not so high (about 55-60/week) so I am not sure after 20 miles.

good luck. Start at the same pace you've finished in London and keep at it, I believe you might be able to run progressively and finish a 2h48-2h49.

6 weeks is not a long recovery time, especially for a master.

I would err on the conservative side and not go out at goal pace. Only when you get a feel for how rested you are will you find out if it will be your day or not and can push it.

My understanding is that Edinburgh is a fast course, faster than London. Did you run that 5k before or after London. If before, then I join the chorus of voices wondering whether 6 weeks is enough to recover. If after, then, I'd say you're probably recovered. Either way, if you put in the same kind of effort as you did at London, you'll likely break 2:50. That said, your marathon is probably better than your 10k and, about the same as your 5k. You must have decent endurance. Such people are usually able to recover quickly. I say go for it. Just click off 4min km until you can't anymore.

Ran both the 5k and 10k's post London. The 10k was a hilly route so, if it were a flat course I think I'd have been around 20s faster and, the 5k was flat however I wasn't being pushed by anyone or chasing anyone down so it wasn't a flat out effort.