Goal of Sub 2:19 Marathon: Advice Appreciated

While this topic of running at goal pace is not directly related to the point of this thread, it is a topic that I feel pretty strongly about. I don't even the thought of training at a near term goal pace. I think your description of a 1:06 high half translating to 2:20 marathon fits the bill more for "current fitness" than "near term goal". As long as one can be very accurate and honest with current fitness, then I feel that's the way to go, but tons of high school and college runners have goals that are a little too ambitious (or way too ambitious) due to an overestimation of current fitness. I was 100% guilty of this throughout a lot of college which is likely why I feel so strongly about it.

When running interval workouts, I'd run them all at my goal paces. I'd be so focused on hitting a certain pace that I wouldn't care about what I wanted racing to feel like. It was like a double whammy when it came to racing. I'd probably be a little overtrained due to crushing too many workouts, and I'd overestimate my fitness going into a race based on those workouts. That'd cause me to go out too fast and I would fade badly in the second half of the race. That's why I try to remove anything with "goal race pace" attached to it in my training. Of course, I will have goal paces in workouts most of the time, but that workout pace will never be based off of a goal race.

It's a semantics argument perhaps, but I'd say the issue you describe with the marathon may be one of reasonable goal setting more than anything else. If you run 1:07 and move into the next training cycle shooting To run 2:15, the issue as I see it isn't that you're running at goal pace instead of current fitness pace, it's that the goal makes no sense. Again, by the time you're deep enough into a marathon cycle to be doing marathon pace work, goal pace and current pace should be the same thing if you've set a reasonable goal. Now you may not run your goal because the marathon is a fickle mistress and things happen, but if you are running marathon pace you are probably working 10-12 weeks of your race and if your goal is set in a reasonable way, there really isn't a difference.

I actually think we are all in agreement for the most part here, but I find it interesting to talk through.

Goal setting in the shorter distances is a totally different animal. When I was in 15:20 shape, I was sure I was in 15:00 shape if I could just get in the right race. When I was in 14:55 shape, I was sure I could run 14:40 in the right race. When I finally barely squeezed under 14:20, I knew I could have run 14:10 if I hadn't made a tactical mistake. I was always wrong, but the good news in those cases is that as someone whose coaches followed a Daniels approach, the difference of 2-3 seconds per thousand that the ill gotten overconfidence of youth provided really never took me out of vo2max range. Instead, the only thing I lost was locking in race pace. Imperfect, but not fatal to training.

Of course today, I am better able to assess my fitness and I stick with current pace, not goal pace - bob for myself and for those I coach. But whereas I used to be critical of coaches who prescribed goal pace, I have come to realize that they are still going to effectuate the desired adaptation for most of their athletes, so any harm done is really pretty minimal.

I just see it so close-minded to think that 3 or 4 magic paces are all that causes adaptation.

Would you rather paint a picture with colors on the left or the right?

http://complementarytraining.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Male-vs-Female-colors-random-20558616-500-526.jpg

The title of the thread is "Goal of sub 2:19 Marathon"...whether one wants to run 2:18:59 or 2:16 is a different story.

But if one states their goal is to just crack 2:19:00 (as mine is now of course), then you are looking at a "goal marathon pace of 5:17/mile or faster."

At Hansons everything was paced on goal marathon pace. When I ran 2:16:52 we were training for a 2:15. Workouts are geared right at 5:08 per mile ("goal race pace that I never ran") and then everything deviates from that "10 seconds a mile faster, 20 seconds a mile faster."

Now obviously people screw up their goals. A lot of people don't respect the distance and come in too cocky. I know all sorts of sub 14-min 5km guys and sub 29:00 10km guys that think they are going to run 2:14-2:15 on their debut and they run over 2:20. Some people (on the other hand) sell themselves too short.

I like to look at the science of training...the numbers (I'm a bit over analytical and obsessive on this actually....a lot of times to a fault). The fact of the matter is that if your Lactate Threshold pace isn't AT LEAST 12-15 sec/mile faster than your goal marathon pace you are probably doing to hit the wall really hard/cramp up with muscle failure.

So let's say for 60-min flat-out Ben can run 5:05/mile pace (about)...then realistically this that kind of "half marathon performance speed" we are looking at a 5:17-5:20/mile marathon pace in the very best case scenario. That is assuming that he trains very specifically, fuels right, paces it well and gets good weather conditions.

Now of course the goal is to improve as a runner and evolve over time so that threshold is closer to 5:00/mile pace and then he has more "wiggle room." A lot will depend on Running Economy right around marathon pace (but also within 10-15/sec per mile both slower and faster than MP). The houston half is probably the fastest 13.1 miles in the country and very ideal for PRs....conditions don't get much better than that. It is a good performance to base current potential off of right now though because the conditions were so good.

If someone jumps in CIM or Boston or Grandmas on a cool day with a tailwind then of course they can run faster than "what the calculators predict". I don't think Mike Wardian ever broke 1:06:00-1:05:40 for a half, but he ran 2:17 at Grandma's on one of those years. I think that may have been his only time under 2:20....but he did qualify for 3 Olympic Trials ( 2 when the standard was 2:22:00).

If you train very specifically and maximize your potential at the marathon (I never felt I did as my 1:04:32 half is a better performance than my 2:16:52), then this "conversion of paces" can be even better.

But there is some science behind the numbers. Goal Pace is always important (if you are training of a very specific time goal such as a sub 2:19:00 by a close margin). I'm not saying I get it right most of the time (I usually don't), but in my experience you need to "feel the threshold" but also hit specific velocity/pace sometimes. Whether you want to call that "Goal Pace" or not may be up to you mentally.

S. Canaday wrote:

The fact of the matter is that if your Lactate Threshold pace isn't AT LEAST 12-15 sec/mile faster than your goal marathon pace you are probably doing to hit the wall really hard/cramp up with muscle failure..

Interesting to see how many people come to the same place despite using supposedly different approaches. My Daniels style training approximates your Hansons training (at an obviously slower level) even though the paces may be described differently.

I'm still trying to figure out my marathon bane - calf cramping. My goal marathon pace is 5:40-5:42 based on recent 1:11 low half and 15:30-15:40 5k results, with a corresponding threshold pace in the low 5:20s. Yet in my last two marathons, I broke down with calf cramps late in the races despite three 13 milers at marathon pace and probably close 100 miles at threshold pace in the 12 week training cycle. I need to figure that out. It's frustrating as hell. I think it's chronic electrolyte depletion from training in warm Florida weather since I cramp all over my body (including chest, lats, arms) after runs.

Don't mean to hikack the thread, but since this is a common experience I was wondering if anyone has had any success in addressing this issue.

I think that was a good post, S.Canaday. :) To reach one`s best marathon there must be a very well mix of the right ingredients that matters for the result. With correct scientific and practically training a runner capable of 1.04.32 should be able to run 2 x 1.04.32 +5 min= 2.14.04 ,at least! A runner with 1.06 at the half should then be able to run 2.17. This is not times that must be done in very long term training , in my world of coaching it`s often done in just 2-3 months time. It`s a matter of putting in the individuals all energy into a system that only need to optimize the 3 most important factors for the result.

Maybe your calf cramping problems comes from lack of mineral salts or maybe something simple as using wrong shoes in the marathon race. The great Swedish marathoner Kjell-Erik Ståhl used to have problems with cramps in some of his first marathons and found out he needed to take salt tablets during the race to avoid cramp. If you could get rid of your cramping problems you should be able to run a marathon at around 2.27 if using the DANCAN-system, this out from your 15.30-15.40 5k and 1.11 half capacity.

I'm thinking it is minerals or other electrolytes. I don't think it's shoes - it happens in trainers during long runs as well as flats in marathons.

I woke up and weighed 145 this morning. Ate 2 bananas, drank a glass of water, drank a 1 pint water bottle, drank 1 liter of Pedialyte, had a granola bar and when I weighed myself when I got home after my 20 miler, I was down to 140 despite all of that consumption. I felt some twinges during the 20 miler which I finished just before my first post on cramping, and when driving home both calves and my left lay and pec locked up on me. Brutal.

>I do plan on incorporating lots of training at half marathon and marathon effort, but that will for sure be slower than the actual pace that I could run in those in almost all situations. For example, as Sage stated, with a half marathon PR relatively close to 60 minutes, that pace is very close to LT pace. In my case, that's around 5:06-5:07 per mile. The closest that I ever got to that in training for a LT workout was for 6x1600m with 1:00 rest in which I averaged 5:14, and it was on a track on a nice day. All my other LT workouts were around 5:20-5:30. So even though I do have a goal pace of 5:15-5:18 in the marathon, I'm never going to force myself to run at that pace, but rather at an effort that I think is appropriate for any given workout.

But you did 8x1k @ goal 5k pace before you raced your 5k and that turned out well. Of course, you could describe the 8x1k as a vo2 max workout which happens to coincide with 5k pace. But in the same way, MP is also a legitimate training pace.

You say marathon effort workouts, but which section of the race? The effort required to hold pace in the last 10k of a marathon is way different than the effort required to hold pace in the first 10k of a marathon.

I don't understand how you have a feel for what marathon pace effort is. Or why you're sure that only running slower than marathon pace (faster workouts aside) is optimal physiologically or mentally.

You shouldn't copy the fall marathon pace workouts of guys who just OTQ'd at CIM/Houston -- of course that's ridiculous. But you should have some goal workouts like them and plan out your training to build up to those goal workouts. Build a ladder to your goal workouts and then your goal workouts are the last rung of the ladder before you go race a 2:18.

You could train by feel up to this point because physiological improvements have been low-hanging fruit. It was as simple as doing some quality work without overtraining, filling with easy miles, taking care of your body and recovering, and then racing by feel and getting a PR. But running a marathon, specifically a 2:18 marathon, will be different. Unless you genetically have great potential and will physiologically improve so much over the next year or two that 2:18 becomes relatively easy, which is not something you should bet on, then the nature of the training you need to do will have to change.

With all due respect, this is wrong J.S. Your formula of 2×hm+5minutes might work very well for diesel engine 58-62 Half Marathon runner but not very good with slower athlete. As athlete gets faster, aerobic threshold shift closer to lactate threshold in pace and margins become finer. 1.11 athlete is not as developed or fast enogh for this formula to work and would be very rare for 1.11 athlete to run 2.26.

For goal pace discussion. It is important to consider if half marathon time was through specific half marathon training or marathon training as some athletes might decay in ability to clear lactate during specific marathon training(get slower at half marathon) compare to specific half marathon training and I no like to use to accurately predict goal pace in that situation.

Agreed. 2:28 highly to 2:29 is my most reasonable best likely outcome. I've run 2:30 high off prior 15:30/1:11 fitness, with calf cramping separating me from Deena Kastor at 21 miles, who went on to run 2:27 high, (setting a masters marathon record in the process) and a guy is beaten previously in the marathon, who ran 2:28 low.

That is not necessarily evidence that I could have run those times as I cramped for a reason, but if my cramping was from depletion and not fatigue, that seems like a good indicator of my top end potential based on the 15:30/1:11.

Well I certainly felt like maybe I had a 2:15:xx in the tank after that 1:04:32 half. But I only ran 2:16:52 as a lifetime PR. No excuses. Those conversions are fairly aggressive....many (in the US at least) 1:06 half marathoners will not touch a 2:17 marathon...they would be lucky to crack 2:20. You're right with the proper training focus though. Remember at the Olympic Trials we usually have more guys that have run sub 65:00 half marathons, but then less actual marks under 2:19:00 (and most of the guys under 2:19 have done both anyway!). It's like what Nate Jenkins said too....we should have more guys who can run 62-min in the half and faster run sub 2:10s though. That is reasonable with appropriate marathon specific training (aka "Canova style"). As for the "calculators" (aka Jack Daniels Run Smart online/book), we also have to remember the genetics component. Guys that run sub 14-min for 5km don't always also run sub 29:00 for 10km too even though the calculators say they should. They also don't go and all run sub 2:15 marathons either...many "fade" and run 2:20+. Why? Because maybe they aren't cut out for the marathon. Genetically they are better at the 5km/10km and those are their "main events". If you have running form that breaks down after 32km/20-miles you're not going to run your ideal marathon. Vo2max and LT aren't your limits in most cases. Your limits will come from skeletal muscular failure and/or a fueling/dehydration issue. At 5:15-5:00 mile pace maybe their Running Economy is crap. But they have a high Vo2max and velocity at 5km pace is enough to get that sub 14:00 5km. It's not enough for a 2:15 maybe though. It depends on the runner and their specific training. A baseline amount of speed is always important though...even in a long race like the marathon. But ultimately it comes down to Running Economy. Ben says he didn't do "any threshold work under 5:15 pace"....but he did repeat 1km's and 1200m workouts at well under sub 5-min mile pace. That also certainly works the threshold too (and boosts Running Economy at velocity at LT) even though he could label them as "Vo2max intervals"... Daniels style...you're clearing lactate and you're working on mechanics much faster than goal pace...positive adaptations and all part of a sound training mix.

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

I think that was a good post, S.Canaday. :) To reach one`s best marathon there must be a very well mix of the right ingredients that matters for the result. With correct scientific and practically training a runner capable of 1.04.32 should be able to run 2 x 1.04.32 +5 min= 2.14.04 ,at least! A runner with 1.06 at the half should then be able to run 2.17. This is not times that must be done in very long term training , in my world of coaching it`s often done in just 2-3 months time. It`s a matter of putting in the individuals all energy into a system that only need to optimize the 3 most important factors for the result.

No, I`m not wrong with that formula. The very first guy I coached , a Norwegian, I coached in only 2½ month to personal record from 1.14 down to 1.11 at half and 2.27.30 at the marathon ( marathon PR with 12½ min down from 2.40).

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

No, I`m not wrong with that formula. The very first guy I coached , a Norwegian, I coached in only 2½ month to personal record from 1.14 down to 1.11 at half and 2.27.30 at the marathon ( marathon PR with 12½ min down from 2.40).

But doing something once does not make it a rule. Even doing it a handful of times doesn't make it a rule.

Still, I am enjoying the direction this thread has taken. Lots to learn.

@Sage - Anyway you can make your training log on Strava public? I love getting a sense of your training and how you pieced things together, but it's a pain to cycle through workouts week by week and make sense of things that way.

Ben Barrows wrote:

Youngans These Days wrote:

The kid has a YouTube channel, then "someone" started a thread about his half-marathon time at Houston and now he started a thread on getting the OTQ. He markets himself well, I'll give him that!

Nice planning!

Believe me, I did not start that thread about Houston nor did I suggest anyone do that for me. Just trying to be as transparent as possible and learn and experience stuff in distance running.

I started that thread because I really like what Ben is doing with his videos and his training. I watch a lot of running videos on youtube and Ben's are the most informative and data driven I have found. Seeing everything he put into that block of training and how he actually bested his goal time is highly inspiring to someone who trains alone and works full time.

redux wrote:

Ben Barrows wrote:

Believe me, I did not start that thread about Houston nor did I suggest anyone do that for me. Just trying to be as transparent as possible and learn and experience stuff in distance running.

I started that thread because I really like what Ben is doing with his videos and his training. I watch a lot of running videos on youtube and Ben's are the most informative and data driven I have found. Seeing everything he put into that block of training and how he actually bested his goal time is highly inspiring to someone who trains alone and works full time.

Ben doesn't work

After I posted yesterday morning, we were hosting a rather large track meet, so there was lots of good discussion to read this morning after a long Saturday.

----------

@comeonnow - I totally agree, which is why I like to touch on a large spectrum of paces regardless of the distance of the race that I am training for. The amount of each pace just varies with the distance. My easy pace is a large range anywhere from 6:20-7:30, my moderate pace usually falls between 5:50-6:10, LT work has recently been about 5:15-5:30, 5k pace intervals around 4:44-4:48. mile pace intervals around 4:24, and some max speed hill sprints. I'd say that's a pretty large spectrum of paces, and the paces obviously adapt as I become more/less fit or as external factors increase perceived effort at a given pace. I never talked about there being so few magic paces, but I've just been talking about how I don't like to structure those paces around goal race times. There are obviously still more paces that I could train at (800m pace, 3k pace, 10k pace, etc.), but you can only do so much in a training cycle while still being focused on the goal race distance.

---------

@training by feel - That 8x1k workout was technically based on current 5k fitness, which as Smoove has been mentioning, as long as a goal time is accurate, current fitness and goal time should coincide once you actually get to a race. I've spent a fair amount of time as a 15 flat 5k runner, so I have a pretty good idea of what that fitness feels like for me. It makes sense to me because I felt like I was in 15 flat shape for that workout, ran the workout at current fitness, get in a few other sessions to be ready to race, and show up to race in slightly better condition than I was when I did the workout (14:56).

You are also absolutely correct by bringing up the issue of what part of the race am I referring to when I talk about effort. I had to think about that one for a bit and figure out how I decide that. First, I guess I just have to trust my instincts with what a marathon effort would feel like in future long run workouts. Even though I had never raced a half marathon before, I was still able to guess what half marathon effort would feel like and that seemed to work pretty well for me (although the gap from 10k to a half is obviously much smaller than the gap from the half to the marathon). I feel like the race effort that I am referring to is the effort that I want to be feeling for the majority of the race. My effort level didn't significantly change from the start until about the finish of mile 8 or so in the half marathon, and at that point, effort increased pretty dramatically, and that's where the race begins in my mind to be able to hold on to pace.

I guess I'll just have to figure out how long I want to maintain a relatively constant effort in the marathon. That might mean taking no major risks until mile 20 or so, just because everyone talks about that last 10k being the difference maker. So for example, if I'm planning on a pretty quick 20 miler or something similar in training, I might try to run it as if I were running the first 20 miles of a marathon. Obviously pace would be slower than what I'd actually be running for a marathon, because I'm looking to mimic the effort, not the pace, and I just can't replicate conditions of a marathon when I'm out training on my own to be able to easily hit an actual marathon pace for that much time. Other workouts could be a medium long run of 16 miles where I would go harder than that marathon effort as just described for a last portion of the run. This might help simulate the last part of a marathon a little bit, although that is much harder to predict what it'd feel like than practicing how I want to feel through 20 miles. Basically, I like to simulate things in training that would mimic the race while trying to stay away from a full race effort, because I like to save those for the race.

------------

@Sage - Thanks for your continued input on this thread. I feel like we have relatively similar physiology and obviously you've been at a fitness level for the marathon that I want to be eventually. I've said it somewhere on this board before, but I try to take most of the stuff I read on here with a grain of salt just due to the anonymity, but obviously we all know who you are and what you've done. Looking forward to seeing how you attack the training for your next marathon attempt.

------------

Whether I trust certain anonymous posters or not, there is still usually a common theme of answers (higher mileage and bigger long runs in the case of this thread). If anything, they all still help me think through things and gather my thoughts. I might be rambling quite a bit here, but it's always good for me to organize my thoughts by writing them down, so thanks for any interesting topics or questions that any of you have brought up.

Ben Barrows wrote:

I've said it somewhere on this board before, but I try to take most of the stuff I read on here with a grain of salt just due to the anonymity

Why you post for training advice on a 2:19 marathon here then?

I can see through your charade. Fishing for a contract on your profile rather than your ability.