Change Boston Marathon goal marathon pace?

Well, Boston certainly isn't Chicago. With the downhill start at Boston, you probably want to go out around 2:45 pace regardless. I'd say try and hit the half around 1:22-1:23 and if you really are in as good a shape as you training suggests, you'll breeze through the hills in the second half and finish strong. If not, you'll have banked some time and can still hopefully hit your original goal.

I'm in a pretty similar range - 2:50/1:18 and old too. Although your workouts are way more intense than anything I've done, and your mileage is higher too. I'm shooting for sub-2:50, maybe in the 2:48-2:46 range. I've never run Boston but I figure I can go out at 2:46 pace on the downhills without doing too much damage and dial it back as needed. For me 2:45 would be a huge stretch, but your workouts suggest you could give it a go. Good luck.

I've run Boston 5 times, a tad slower than you 2:54/1:19. It's a fast course if you get a good weather day and you play the course right. The key, especially for your first time, is not to blow your wad on the first five miles. It is SOOOO easy to go out too fast and waste all your training in that first 5 miles. The crowd will have you pumped up, it really is a steep downhill in many places, and you're feeling good on fresh legs after a taper. Don't do it, don't go out too fast.

My advice would be to make sure the first five miles you're around 10 seconds slower per mile than your goal pace. Even if you're trying to run slower than pace, it's difficult. People will be running by you droves, and it will produce anxiety. I'm sure you're used to being out in front of most races you've run, so this will feel really odd. But remember everyone standing in the corral with you has a similar qualifying time. Most of them will go out way too fast, and you'll see many of them walking in the later miles. If you pace it right, you'll pass most of them back once the hills kick in at mile 16. Miles 6-15 are pretty flat, so if you did go conservative the first five, you can easily make it up before the hills.

Sounds like you have a legit shot at 2:45. You should definitely hit 2:50. Depends on how much of a risk you want to take. And I hate to tell you but many times weather dictates your pace at Boston. Three of the five years I've run it, it's been in the 65-70 degree range which for me is way to hot to PR after training through winter. One year it was pissing down rain, 40 degrees with a headwind. And one year it was sunny and 40-50, which is perfect. I'd argue it's more difficult to get a good weather day at Boston than to conquer the course. Assuming a good weather day, I agree with the previous post, try and hit 1:23 for the first half, and then see how you feel. You're going to slow a little bit on the hills, but if you make it to the top of Heartbreak Hill at mile 21 in good shape, the last 10K is fast.

You've been killing it in training. And that 22 miler at 6:16 pace is super solid.

Not a Boston vet, but from what I've heard from training partners, what everyone else in this thread says is spot on.

Maybe go out around 6:20-6:25ish for the first 5 to 8 miles, then squeeze it down the littlest bit after that.

But if it is hot and the wind is not in your favor, got out on track for 2:51-52 pace, then hope to get faster in the second half. You do seem to be fit enough for a legit PR at Boston. You also seem fit enough to really lower that PR if you can race smart and have good conditions.

Thanks.. I am going to get an even effort/conservative pace band to try to follow so I can go a little slower on the uphills and a little faster on the downhills. Chicago was pretty much flat except for “Mt Roosevelt” a small hill near the end so I didn’t need a pace band.

Thanks for your input! Good luck At Boston.. I hope you hit your goal time. I am trying out whether to follow a pace band (even effort, conservative start) or to follow my HR (maintain in150-160 range) and by feel (leg muscles and breathing) for at least the first 20.5 Miles until we finish Heartbreak Hill. Another strategy is to go for sub-2:45 but to back down if I am not feeling well..

Thanks for the sage advice. I have heard from all of my runner friends to not get pulled by the crowd and start too fast so I am going to follow my own pace strategy and run at a relatively easy pace. I totally agree weather is important. If there is bad weather I will need to make adjustments to my goal time.

Thanks for your support! Definitely planning a conservative start strategy to ease into an even effort, manageable pace for the first 20.5 miles. If the weather sucks I will probably drop to a 2:50 goal (or sub-2:55 if it is really bad conditions).

Call me ignorant but...you did your final long run of 22 miles at 6:16 avg?? You realize that’s a 2:44 marathon and change. Sounds like you could have just done the additional 4 miles and call it a huge PR! How were you feeling at the end? That seems really intense...like 2:35 shape or even better.

You trained real hard. Put in incredible miles and workouts. I wish you the very best, and as others have said don’t go out too hard but if you were to run at 2:45 pace for the first few miles I wouldn’t be surprised if you end up in low 2:40s!

Very best of luck to you sir.

You're training like a 2:35 marathoner. These aren't workouts necessary for 2:44.

The whole 22 miles at 6:16 pace? Wow. If that’s true you ought to be able to run and hold 5:45 pace after a taper. Sub 2:45 should be a breeze. Unless that 22 wasn’t a training run but in effect a race.

Whoanellie wrote:

good grief wrote:

You're training like a 2:35 marathoner. These aren't workouts necessary for 2:44.

The whole 22 miles at 6:16 pace? Wow. If that’s true you ought to be able to run and hold 5:45 pace after a taper. Sub 2:45 should be a breeze. Unless that 22 wasn’t a training run but in effect a race.

The first guy had it right. 2:35 sounds about reasonable. A hard 10-mile tempo on the track at 5:46 pace probably indicates that you could hold that pace for a half marathon on the roads. I think you're probably ready to run 6-flat pace or a little over. Since your goals are comparatively modest compared to your fitness, I'd go out in 1:19 and see where you are. That leaves you room to positive split (as most will) and still break 2:40, but you might also be ready to let loose and fly, which would be so much fun. There's nothing quite like negative splitting a marathon--you roll so many people up that you almost feel better with each passing mile.

5:45 pace is something else entirely (2:30 marathon pace). While it's doubtless true that some 2:30 marathoners never average faster than 6:16 pace for their best long run, that would be unusual, and it would be someone who doesn't make their long runs their toughest workouts. It certainly isn't an indicator workout. For a 2:30 marathoner, 6:16 pace doesn't feel difficult, even without a taper.

Well it all depends on how hard the OP ran that 22 miler. If, as I suspect, it was a race-type effort, he is in 2:46 shape according to the trusty Merv’s calculator.

If he ran it as a normal workout recommended by e.g. McMillan , then he would indeed be in low 2:30s shape. (M says LR pace for 2:35 is 6:18 - 7:25. )

I’m guessing the outcome is 2:49, factoring in the harder Boston course and the Chicago result.

Whoanellie wrote:

If he ran it as a normal workout recommended by e.g. McMillan , then he would indeed be in low 2:30s shape. (M says LR pace for 2:35 is 6:18 - 7:25. )

My point is that this is looking at it backwards. It's one thing to ask how fast a runner of a given level should do a workout. But you can't just take one coach's recommended long run pace (particularly a coach who is an outlier for recommending extremely an extremely easy long run pace) and extrapolate a marathon pace from it. Only certain types of workouts are valid as predictors. A long run at an easy-to-moderate pace isn't one of them. In any event, a runner who gives you the average pace of their long run down to the exact second and asks what it says about his marathon potential is obviously a runner who ran his long run very hard indeed.

You ignore my first sentence. I totally agree that you can’t take McMillan’s recommended pace and extrapolate from that. My point is that we don’t know how hard the OP ran. But we can set the outside parameters. If he ran race hard he is a 2:46 guy. If he ran easy he could be a 2:35 guy or better. Somewhere in between for a normal course, but for a Boston newbie I call 2:49. What’s your call?

I'm calling 2:43:37

Depends on how he chooses to start, because if he's too conservative, he just won't have enough road left to make up the time. Based on his workouts, supported by high mileage and decent long runs, he should have a low decay rate in his speed as he moves up in distance. I say 2:41 assuming average weather. I doubt there's a 2:49 marathoner in the country who could do the kind of training this guy has been doing.

If he ran race hard he is a 2:46 guy. If he ran easy he could be a 2:35 guy or better. Somewhere in between for a normal course, but for a Boston newbie I call 2:49. What’s your call?

My take is he didn't run it "easy", but he ran it during full mileage. OP is very fit. 2:49 would be a joke especially if the 5:45 was a true tempo and not raced. All runners have to be in agreement that a tempo shouldn't be race hard. You'd never tempo at HM pace for 10 miles. Too hard.

2:44?

Sorry, 2:41 more like it. OP ran three other times 20-22 at 6:30 pace, previous GMP, during training with no taper. That's hard. A 2:49 marathoner doesn't have to work so hard.