I am not Marathon expert, but I believe in speed first for every event Marathon and shorter. Are there any sub-2:05 Marathoners who never broke or were not capable of breaking 14 minutes for 5K? I assume all sub-14 5K runners are or were capable of sub-56 400m. Steve Hoag told me 12 or 13 years ago he was a 55 second 440 yards man in his high school and college days. Too many on letsrun think it's impossible to run sub-30 200m and do well in events 10K or longer. For the record, I disagree with some in letsrun crowd far more than slightly.
It doesn't take that much speed to run a sub 3:30 marathon. The OP have enough speed judging from his 5k time.
ironside wrote:
I am not Marathon expert, but I believe in speed first for every event Marathon and shorter. Are there any sub-2:05 Marathoners who never broke or were not capable of breaking 14 minutes for 5K? I assume all sub-14 5K runners are or were capable of sub-56 400m. Steve Hoag told me 12 or 13 years ago he was a 55 second 440 yards man in his high school and college days. Too many on letsrun think it's impossible to run sub-30 200m and do well in events 10K or longer. For the record, I disagree with some in letsrun crowd far more than slightly.
Absolutely not; I have been taking gels every 45 minutes as indicated on the packaging.
No gastric issue but maybe I'm not taking enough.
How do I know the difference between that and lack of long runs?
Dude, you need to be taking gels like every half hour.
At least 200 kcals per hour. AT THE VERY LEAST.
I'm a 17:59 / 38:35 / 1:29 / 3:07 hobby jogger and even I know when running at race pace for 3 hours, you GOTTA be taking in something every 25-30 mins.
I take a gel every 25 mins and then another ~50 kcals of Gatorade or whatever sports drink they're giving out at the race.
I try to get 250 kcals per hour.
I'm 5'8" and 128 lbs, 41 years old.
Interesting. When I ran two marathons this is what I did but it might not be enough:
2019, 3:24:33 (1:40/1:43:xx). Gels at 7, 14 and 21. Was fading by 24 and legs buckling but I still ran a 50:xx 10k after a 2:33:xx 20-mile split.
2021, 3:20:01 (1:33/1:46:xx). Gels at 6, 11, 16 and 21. Went out too fast. I was dying even worse than in 2019 and a bit woozy by 24 but didn't stop. Slogged in with 9:xx miles the last 3 miles of the race.
I talked to a coach at MIT and she said I should not only pace myself more but take MORE gels.
So this year I'm hoping to take gels at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 23 (so I can avoid a bonk). 6 gels vs. 3 or 4. I'll take the gel they give met at 16 in reserve and store it if I need it but will have 6 on me at the start of the race.
I should point out that I don't say those things just to be a d---. I just want to highlight that a marathon is a big aerobic effort. I understand 50 MPW can be a lot, especially for a busy person, but I wouldn't expect most people doing 50 MPW to be a lock for running sub 3:30. The best way to guarantee going below 3:30 is to be more in the 70+ MPW range where the race distance becomes less absurd and your key workouts are no longer hugely intimidating chunks of your entire workload.
I get what you're saying but everyone is different. I ran a 3:20 even with crap pacing on 45-50 mpw, and a peak of 65 one week, a few weeks 60-62 (3-4)? and 3-4 20-22 milers. Some guys and gals run 3:10 or faster on 25-30 mpw, and sub-3 on 40-45 mpw!
Okay, I'll just disagree once more and then be quiet. This thread is a classical marathon training question -- is it better to improve quality of training for higher VO2 max and economy, or add more mileage and specifically depletion runs.
Of course, ideally, as is the case in so many arguments, the answer is both.
But I side with the more miles crowd. The marathon is a different animal. Sure, quality training is a short-cut that will help your 5k, 10k and half marathon. But at the slower half of the spectrum, people seeking to run under 3:30 like the OP, usually their marathon is worse than their 5 and 10k times would predict because they slow dramatically in the final miles. I know it's simplistic, but I say "run more."
That's all. Thanks for listening, and good luck
I used to side with the first argument but now tons of EZ mileage will allow beginners or low-talented runners like me to hit 50-60 on the low end w/o killing my body. Lopes trained that way (obviously at 120-130 mpw with some speedwork) and was able to be equals with his rival, Mamede, who was a track star that killed intervals.
Interesting, one of my long-term goals is to break 18 in the 5k (PR is 18:33). So in the next cycle I may step down and try to get fast at the 5k first and go from there.
I also barely broke 3:30 on 50-60 miles a week. So I ran more, a lot more. I got under 3:00 on about 100 a week and to 2:35 on 100-150. Didn't matter what other people were running. I needed to run that much. If that approach doesn't appeal to you I think you could try racing a lot, maybe every other week at any distance available.
+1 for racing more, all the faster people I stalk on Strava have this in common, they race quite a bit! They don't PR every time but there is something you get out of a race that training doesn't provide.
Also +1 for the getting the shorter stuff times down, no need to go past 60 a week either at this level, just race more and be consistent.
Old thread... but 50 miles every week is a lot... especially for 3:30. If it was me I would through mileage goals out of the window and focus on workouts plus a 3 hour long run each week. If that only takes you to 35 miles per week then so be it. Measure your progress with a 5K or 10K race.