Disappointed at NYC Marathon--Should I go back-to-back?

I really can't argue with your logic, 325. I think OP means well and tries hard and I, like many others, have offered advice on structuring training. In his defense, he has some very impressive training runs. I can run under 3 but could never pull off a 22 mile training run like he did. Obviously he likely peaked too soon for NYC but with some adjustments like dialing back on the quality and learning how to peak properly for one race I think he'll get better.

3:25 wrote:

Who Dat? wrote:

I don't think he ever said he "is" a 250-255 marathoner, just that he "should be" one. Maybe or maybe not. I think he has sub-3 potential if he adjusts his training but obviously it's up to him to improve.

"as per what I have been able to accomplish in training" makes it sound to me like he thinks he's there today and he just keeps getting robbed on race day. He 'should be' a 2:50 marathoner based on what he has already done in training is false.

He has consistently spent the past 3 weeks dismissing training advice and suggestions. If he has truly embraced the fact that he's doing some things wrong, maybe some day he "can be" a 2:50 marathoner. But he "should be" what he is, and will continue to be a 3:0x runner until he realizes that.

3:25 wrote:

"as per what I have been able to accomplish in training" makes it sound to me like he thinks he's there today and he just keeps getting robbed on race day. He 'should be' a 2:50 marathoner based on what he has already done in training is false.

He has consistently spent the past 3 weeks dismissing training advice and suggestions. If he has truly embraced the fact that he's doing some things wrong, maybe some day he "can be" a 2:50 marathoner. But he "should be" what he is, and will continue to be a 3:0x runner until he realizes that.

And that's the trap that's so easy to fall in - one hits certain times in training, and decides based on those training runs that one's a "x:xx" runner. And then when one repeatedly fails to come close to that x:xx time, one blames the race result or bad luck, not the training. When it's the training that's to blame. And the runner is not actually an x:xx runner because of that faulty training.

Outside runner - if I could offer some more two cents I would not try a marathon in the spring with "unstructured" training. I think you need some more structured training that will layer quality appropriately and help you peak at the right time. If you just try to wing you'll likely fall into your habit of overtraining and peaking too soon.

As a guy who continues to check this thread in an effort to help OP and not to say mean things, I'm afraid I can no longer follow this thread.

Outsiderunner, the majority of people here genuinely want you to have success, be that a 2:49 or 2:59. You have been given advice, but have generally ignored it. You ran a second marathon, and although you may have felt good through halfway or beyond (as you would expect going out in 1:32), you ultimately did not prove your fitness or that you weren't overtraining. The fact is, somebody doing the training you did ought to be running low 2:50s in a marathon, and even if you had run 1:32/1:27 negative splits at this second race, I would still think you screwed up your training. I hope that running this second marathon doesn't cause you any injuries.

Good luck going forward. Please sort through the obvious trolls to see that most people want to help you. Your refusal to admit any error is causing more and more people here to turn against you. You've got nothing to prove but to yourself, so please do not rush back into training to prove your worth to internet trolls.

Thanks for wishing me well, reed. At no time have I ever claimed to be perfect or to have perfect training. I will alter my training, and it will be in accordance with some of the things mentioned here, and with what I "hear" from my body in the next two months, as I do some base work.

Since you mentioned my health, I note that my calves and hams are sore, but I do not notice anything amiss. I appreciate your regards with respect to my health.

The people who know me have done everything but turn against me. They know what running means to me and what it has done for me, and that is what matters most. As a friend pointed out to me this morning, I am still very "young" in the marathon process. To have gotten to where I am in the time span in which I have been running has been nothing short of a great blessing.

Happy running to you...

Let's take a look at your marathon race progression.

1st marathon-3:02

2nd marathon-3:04

3rd marathon-3:07

It is a great blessing to be where you are in your marathon progression…which seems to be in the wrong direction. That makes sense since you easily lose your sense of direction and get lost during marathon races.

Tell us what running means to you.

TrackBot! VDOT 18:57 5000m

VDOT for 18:57 5.0km: 53

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 03:01:35

Half marathon: 01:27:03

15K: 01:00:28

10K: 00:39:19

5K: 00:18:58

3Mi: 00:18:16

2Mi: 00:11:51

3200m: 00:11:46

3K: 00:10:58

1Mi: 00:05:32

1600m: 00:05:30

1500m: 00:05:08

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

That time was from Jan 3, 2015, so not exactly recent. I see he ran 19:12 for 5km on Aug 17, 2016.

TrackBot! VDOT 19:12 5000m

VDOT for 19:12 5.0km: 52.2

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 03:03:57

Half marathon: 01:28:13

15K: 01:01:16

10K: 00:39:51

5K: 00:19:13

3Mi: 00:18:31

2Mi: 00:12:00

3200m: 00:11:56

3K: 00:11:07

1Mi: 00:05:37

1600m: 00:05:35

1500m: 00:05:12

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Yep, looks about right.

My PR in the 5k is 18:40, run not long ago on July 4, 2016, and on a hilly course, too. The 19:12 was in terrible conditions, and during a 66-mile week of 100+ heat index running. There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

outsiderunner wrote:

There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

That was dumb.

yes_indeed wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

That was dumb.

Rather than call people names, I like to run. That is what this forum is supposed to be about, running.

outsiderunner wrote:

My PR in the 5k is 18:40, run not long ago on July 4, 2016, and on a hilly course, too. The 19:12 was in terrible conditions, and during a 66-mile week of 100+ heat index running. There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

You sure are an elite level excuse maker. I think you keep track of all those minor weather details and wind speeds not so you can learn from prior training or mistakes, but so you have all your excuses lined up. It's similar to the concept of asking for advice, getting advice, and ignoring the advice because you have "more guts and bigger balls" than all the people that answer your questions.

You're good for being young in your running career and a master's aged runner, but I still don't see proof that you "should be a 2:55 guy." (That proof of course being a 2:55 race performance.)

outsiderunner wrote:

My PR in the 5k is 18:40, run not long ago on July 4, 2016, and on a hilly course, too. The 19:12 was in terrible conditions, and during a 66-mile week of 100+ heat index running. There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

So you're saying that you 5k PR should be better? Where have I heard that before

outsiderunner wrote:

There was one run that week wherein I ran in a heat index of 121.

That was dumb.[/quote]

Rather than call people names, I like to run. That is what this forum is supposed to be about, running.[/quote]

I didn't say you were dumb, I said what you did was dumb. Smart people do dumb things all the time.

3:25 wrote:but I still don't see proof that you "should be a 2:55 guy." (That proof of course being a 2:55 race performance.)

bang on

somewhere in Daniels' book he alludes to this when establishing VDOT and training paces. Something along the lines of a "show me" run before bumping your VDOT/paces.