From 3:01 to 2:50 in six months, possible?

6 months? No problem. 6 months on 40-50mpw? I don't think it's possible. You have to drop your pace by 20 seconds per mile, which is an awful lot. I have never tried to run a marathon on such low mileage, but I have run 6 marathons below 2:50 at about the same age, and I had to peak at 80-100 mpw, with most of the cycle done at 60-70.

Thanks a lot been_there!

Anyone else?

If the general consensus is I need at least 60, then I have to try to re-arrange my schedules and see if I can manage that.

I went from 3:03 (debut) to 2:56 (marathon #2), so definitely. I trained 18 weeks for the first, just building mileage, one long run, and one mp, sometimes incorporated into the long run itself. Took a year off after that, then did a similar build for the second. If you don't take so much time off, you'll be fine (provided that everything goes well on race day, of course).

Consistency is key; you don't need 80+ miles/week. For the second marathon, I averaged ~44/week for the 17 weeks leading up to race week. Highest was 70. I did a modified Pfitzinger, so I had two longer runs, rather than one.

6_months_2_50 wrote:

Thanks a lot been_there!

Anyone else?

If the general consensus is I need at least 60, then I have to try to re-arrange my schedules and see if I can manage that.

Everyone is different. If you are well suited for the marathon and have talent, it may be possible for you to run 2:50 off low mileage. I am not that talented, so I have to run higher mileage to get there.

Regardless, i don't think it's worth running a marathon off 40 mpw. I'm not sure what you're proving at that point. You know you're running suboptimal mileage for the race distance, so you're going to perform well below your potential. If I only had time for 40 mpw, I'd focus on getting faster at shorter distances for a while.

If you are getting easily injured at 40-50 mpw, I think it'll be wiser to focus on shorter races for now and look at your long term running. I used to think like you as well and will always end up being injured for being too ambitious. I just kept thinking that I have a small window of opportunity to do well as im getting older. But in longer races, you can continue to improve for a long time before you're limited by old age.

So, since I was too ambitious, my running in the 20s became mostly cycling instead.

But if you want to achieve this marathon goal, go for it as its your life and you should do what you want.

Thank you all for the nice responses.

Now it is time to start training!

I came across this really nice page that compares the different marathon training plans, and for a sub 3:00, it recommends going with the FIRST training method (3 days of running: long run, tempo run, interval run.... and the rest cross training).

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/A_Comparison_of_Marathon_Training_Plans

One one hard, I think it will fit better with my schedule, because I still want to keep doing some cross training at the gym (maybe twice a week), yoga, and maybe swimming. But on the other hand, just three days of running seems to be too little (I mean, even if I assume I peak at 40 MPW, doing that in just three days, where the one run is interval and I expect to be less than 10K, seems to be difficult). On the other hand, Jack Daniel's seems more comprehensive but not as straightforward to follow.

What do you think?

i think a lot of it depends on how naturally/physically talented you are. You can get away with less mileage if you are more physically gifted. I am not that gifted and using myself as an example I needed to run in the 85-110 mph range for success. Nothing out of the ordinary, one long run (22m), one medium long run (15), one tempo run (8m), one day of repeat miles (5) or 1000's (6) and three easy days. Over a twelve year period I went from 2:56 to 2:23, just patience and hard work. Good luck to you.

If you add up all the time spent cross training in the FIRST plan, you'll find that it's still an enormous investment of time, so the "running 3 days a week saves me time" argument doesn't make much sense. You'd do a lot better if you spent that same amount of time running instead.

This is possible, but you really should know that you could run a marathon in 3:01 now, and then aim to run 2:50 in 6 months. Otherwise you may be overestimating your current marathon fitness.

You are wise to be concerned about injuries with high mileage running, but that will be the key to improving your marathon time more than the cross-training you have planned. You will need to find how much mileage you can do and how little cross-training you can do and stay injury free to train for the marathon.

Regarding running 3:01 right now, I am not really sure because I have not done that many long runs the past few months. But when it comes to intervals, I have improved quite a lot compared to my training for the 3:01 in 2012. Back then, my best intervals were 5*1Ks, at around 3:45 pace, but lately I had done 6*3:30-3:35 without any problem, and also have done lots of hill training (not hill repeats, but running on a very hilly 15K trails), and also played a bit with 400 and 800 repeats (400s 1:12 to 1:20 range, and 800s 2:40 to 2:50 range).

Actually I have a question about hill repeats versus hilly long/medium runs. As I mentioned above, I have a hilly 15K course very close to where I live and I can do that once or twice per week. Is it better to do that as a part of a long run (e.g. 25K long run, 5K flat, 15K hilly, 5K flat), or try to go fast and just do the 15K? Another alternative I am thinking of is to take it really slow on the flats and downhills and push as much as I could on the hills as some sort of hill repeats?

I am someone that went from 3:14 to 2:54 so it is possible. The 3:14 was about my 6th marathon so it wasn't like I was new to the distance or anything.

Like some others have said, not sure if possible on that little of mileage. That totally depends on you though I just know I could never do it. If you spend a lot of time doing other aerobic development; cycling, elliptical etc... you might just be able to. I would rather spend that time running but I don't have the injury issues that you mentioned.

Go for it.

What did you do in 2012 before you did your 3 months of 30-40 mpw?

List your mileage for the last 4 to 12 weeks.

If your "base" last time was better than now then being 40 instead of 37 is also going to be an issue. You can be in amazing "shape" but racing marathons is all about developing one ability at the expense of all others.

Tell us more about your 3:01, did you go out fast and die?

My guess is that you can do this but in trying that hard risk a 50% chance of getting injured. I think you would have more fun setting out to slowly but surely become a marathoner rather than work a crash course to run a time that you could crush in 3 years if you went at it in a slow and steady manner.

Ok, I will have a look at my training logs from 2012 (I hope I still have them!)

Feb 2012 (according to the log, I had only one run per week the whole February. Kinda strange, but it has been too long so I don't remember if I had some runs that I didn't log).

week 1: 20K in 1:40 (8 minute per mile pace)

week 2: just 5K (8:00 pace)

week 3: 15K (7:10 pace)

week 4: 26K (7:40 pace)

Total: 66Km (41 miles)

March

Week 1: 16.5 K (1 run of 10K, 1 run of 6.5K, both at 7:40 pace)

Week 2: 19K ( 1 run, 7:40 pace)

Week 3: 24K ( 2 runs of 12 K each 7:10 pace, two days apart)

Week 4: 42.3 K (3 runs, 13.5 at 7:00 pace, 12K at 7:30 pace, 16.8 at 8:00 pace)

Total: 101K (63 miles)

April

Week 1: 49.7K (3 runs, 15.5 at 7:28, 10.2 at 8:40, 24 at 7:40)

Week 2: 35.2K (2 runs, 1 tempo run of 8K at around 4:00 pace + warmup+cooldowns, another one of 23 K at around 8:00 pace)

Week 3: 64.9K (4 runs, 12K at 7:40, 6.9K at 7:20, 16.1 at 7:25, 30K at 7:28)

Week 4: 27.6K ( 2 runs, 12.1K at 7:40, 15.5 at 7:10)

Total: 177.4Km (111 miles)

May

week 1: 21.1K (half marathon race in 1:26:24, 6:35 pace)

Week 2: 49K (2 runs, 16K at 7:10, 33K at 7:10 pace)

Week 3: 33.2K (2 runs, 10 K at 6:43, 23.4K at 7:10 pace)

Week 4: 13.7 K (2 runs, 6K at 7:05 pace, intervals 4*1K (3:45 Kms) + warmup+cooldowns)

Total: 116.9Km (73 miles)

Race week: 58.6 K (3 runs, 6.5K at 7:10 pace, 5K at 4:05 + warmup+ cooldowns, marathon in 3:01:52)

So actually it seems my training was really bad and no structure at all except for the weekly long runs. And I thought I had done more intervals hmmmm, maybe some of the shorter runs were intervals and I didnt split the intervals and just took the total time including the warmup+cooldowns. The longest week was week 3 of April, with around 41 miles, and my longest run was 33K 3 weeks before the marathon. I clearly remember that day; it was very sunny and it felt really easy. I did 1K more (plan was 32), and was really tempted to make it 35 but then I thought that was not a good idea. Amazing how you can remember some runs in exact detail :-)

And my splits for the marathon were:

Distance time Splittime km/min km/h Position

5 km 0.21.15 21.14 04.14 14.13 749

10 km 0.42.13 20.58 04.11 14.31 547

15 km 1.02.59 20.46 04.09 14.44 498

20 km 1.24.02 21.02 04.12 14.25 498

Half 1.28.44 04.42 04.17 14.00 498

25 km 1.45.26 16.41 04.16 14.02 458

30 km 2.06.31 21.04 04.12 14.23 411

35 km 2.28.40 22.09 04.25 13.54 381

40 km 2.51.26 22.45 04.33 13.18 366

Finish 3.01.52 10.25 04.45 12.63 368

33-34K was hilly, and that was where I started dying...

OK, I have started my training. First month will be just building up the mileage, doing some hill training, strides, drills,etc....

Here is how last week went:

Week 1:

Monday: 3K @ 5 min/Km pace (was a bit sick), did 10 min of rowing plus the 3K

Tuesday: 7K (4K @5min/K, 2K @4min/K, 1K @5min/K), bikram yoga, 5 min abs

Wednesday: 10.75K @5min pace + 4 strides, 15 min plyo (box jumps, lunges, donkey kicks, clams, ...+ 1 hour bodyweight exericses (pullups, pushups, pistol squats, bodyweight squats, dips, etc...)

Thursday: 7.5K @5K and some hill sprints on the treadmill (15%, at 4:35 per km, 5*20-30sec, with 20 sec rest), 30 min abs, bikram yoga,

Friday: 10K @4:45/K, bodyweight (45 min)

Saturday: 15K @ 5min/K very hilly course

Sunday: bikram yoga

Summary: 53.25Kms, time spent running about 4 hours and 20 minutes, total time spent training around 11 hours and 30 minutes

you spent 11 hours training and only 4:20 on running, and your main sport is running? Or is it just because you are just starting up and want to reduce the others and progressively focus more and more on the running? If so, then I understand.

Otherwise, I think you have to look into your priorities again. You are already spending more time doing bikram yoga than running! I do bikram sometimes, and it actually takes roughly 3 hours in total for me (30 min to go to the studio, 30 min to return, 30 min to cool down, shower, etc...). If you do just two bikrams instead of 3, you could easily pack in additional 20-30Kms. With about 8 hours you will be able to run around 100k (assuming around 5 min pace). Then you still have 4 hours for cross training and related activities. Maybe running is your priority, maybe you like the other stuff more than the running and are just caught up with this "vision" of being a 2:50 marathoner?

Sorry if I am being harsh, but I just felt that you are a bit lost trying to do everything, and that will you a jack of all trades and a master of none!

I did 2:48 on 40-50mi/week at the age of 42. That was last year and stands as my PR. So, yes, you can go sub 2:50 on 40-50mi/wk. If you can do it in 6 months? Dunno. I was around 40-50mi/wk for the last 5-6 years or so. Went from 3:06 to 2:48 during this time on the same milage. You have to be really cut out for the marathon distance in order to achieve it in just 6 months. Aim for it and adjust to where you stand when race day comes. My guess is you get 2.54 give or take 30". Do it, then build for a later race.good luck!

You state some really good points, Thank you! I have to reflect on that! And you are right, I will put a bit more time to the running than the other activities in the coming months. But I doubt it if I will ever reach the 100 Km mark, maybe 80 is feasible for the peak weeks. We will see.But, apart from the ego thing of being proud to be a 2:50 runner, I was thinking of being a really fit athlete. I would rather be a 3:10 runner who is ripped, flexible, and healthy looking than a 2:30 noodle stick. (One thing I forgot to mention was that last year I was diagnosed with low testosterone, that is why I am trying to get into lifting/body weight exercises and not run too much, apart from my history of getting injured whenever I up the mileage).