I ran a 2:48 and feel fine

You've been blessed with great genes. Appreciate it!

I do agree with others that true distance races are easier on the lungs, but harder on the legs.

I'm training for my first full and it's a totally different challenge than the 1500/1600/3200/5000.

The 10k and half are more similar.

The marathon is entirely different!

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

So the other weekend I ran my first marathon in 2:48. I realize you don't "race it" so I basically jogged. It felt like an easy run the whole time, like around a tempo pace. Didn't care about pace or place.

Also my legs were completely fine - I started running the next day (wanted to run later that day).

Am I a freak of nature? or did I sandbag too much?

What should I be able to run a 'ton in if I gave it my all then?

Btw I'm seriously not kidding. This did happen. Friends think I ran a great race I don't have the heat to tell them I gave it like 85%.

We're onto the second page and you haven't listed your PRs at other distances yet. Those would tell us a lot.

It's hard to say what kind of shape you're in without them. In a HM, the difference for me between feeling wonderful most of the way and 13.1 miles of suck is somewhere between 30 seconds a 5 minutes. In a marathon, it might be 7-10 minutes.

my 2c wrote:

We're onto the second page and you haven't listed your PRs at other distances yet. Those would tell us a lot.

It's hard to say what kind of shape you're in without them. In a HM, the difference for me between feeling wonderful most of the way and 13.1 miles of suck is somewhere between 30 seconds a 5 minutes. In a marathon, it might be 7-10 minutes.

I haven't done much hard racing in a while but when I run 5k segments in training I run low 17s and mid 35s. Half is around 1:19 officially but that was from a couple years ago. I'd expect to beat that now.

My Guess Based On Nothing wrote:

I'd say maybe you could run 2:35-2:40 if you tried again and maximized yourself that day with serious training for your buildup.

Unless I misread. the OP said he has been seriously training. He just set a very conservative goal. That's not a bad idea in a debut marathon. I agree he could run 2:35-2:40.

For example, I estimate I was in 2:38 shape when I ran my first Boston (ran 2:40 the previous autumn). I ran very easily, just enjoying the Boston atmosphere, finishing in 2:47. No fatigue afterwards. No lingering soreness. Exactly the same experience as the OP.

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

Training was fairly good at an average of 55mpw over 18 weeks with a peak of 70.

Yeah, that's also exactly my training before "jogging" Boston on 2:47 (see my previous post). You're in sub-2:40 shape. Make 2:35 your next goal.

wtf is wrong with me? said: I was hoping for an honest discussion.

you don't come here much, do you?

cheers.

What are your PRs? I would guess faster than a 2:48 & that you just wanted to get in a marathon & see how it felt? Go for something faster and report back. I could run a 2:48 pretty cozy but am redlining in the low-2:40s. There isn't much there in terms of minutes but just pushing a little more can make it a ton harder. And the second you cross the line in the marathon you can go from running 2:40-flat for 20 miles to more like a 2:45-2:50 finish time. The marathon is humbling, it might be good for you to experience that.

2:36

Rojo, did you find a reasonable downhill course yet? Sign this guy up for breaking 2!

Ran a 2:39 and paced 10x 400m repeats the next day for my XC team. It's called being fit and not tanking.

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

So the other weekend I ran my first marathon in 2:48. I realize you don't "race it" so I basically jogged. It felt like an easy run the whole time, like around a tempo pace. Didn't care about pace or place.

Also my legs were completely fine - I started running the next day (wanted to run later that day).

Am I a freak of nature? or did I sandbag too much?

What should I be able to run a 'ton in if I gave it my all then?

Btw I'm seriously not kidding. This did happen. Friends think I ran a great race I don't have the heat to tell them I gave it like 85%.

Allen1959 wrote:

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

Training was fairly good at an average of 55mpw over 18 weeks with a peak of 70.

Yeah, that's also exactly my training before "jogging" Boston on 2:47 (see my previous post). You're in sub-2:40 shape. Make 2:35 your next goal.

Can you recommend a plan? Or just keep free forming it?

I think you're like me. I got bored of 'resting' today and did 10 x 1min or so @ 3:23 - 3:05

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

Can you recommend a plan? Or just keep free forming it?

At the time, I was mostly doing long runs and progression runs of 10-15 miles. Very slow recovery runs. Liberal with days off. Occasionally some hill repeats, or track workouts before jumping into shorter races like an 8K or 10K. Pretty much winging it like you.

Since then, I've based a few cycles on Pfitzinger's plans. That's what I would suggest you look at.

BTW, I've always regretted jogging Boston that year. Perfect conditions, and I've never been in PR shape again. A shameful missed opportunity! I have to go to the "age graded" tables to PR now. "2:36 equivalent" a year or so ago, using a modified Pfitzinger schedule.

Well, a 70 year-old just ran 2:54, so yeah, you kinda suck.

https://blog.strava.com/gene-dykes-marathon-world-record-run-17459/

Your course description sounds like Toronto. The net downhill would have helped. By the pace of your last split, it looks like it was feeling hard by the end

I just ran 2:46 and also feel fine, so I have actually been wondering the same thing. I do not feel like I sandbagged the race at all but definitely never felt like I really pushed it and tried to stay within my comfort zone the whole race because I was pretty freaking terrified of blowing up late. Only started to feel some pain last 3/4 mile or so as I was finishing at 5:30 pace. Also my first marathon so I had no idea what to expect. Negative split the second half by over 1.5 minutes. Leaves me wondering what I could have done if I would have just gone for it. Think maybe 2:43 but no way I am in 2:39-2:41 shape at least on the course I ran. I have had races where I left it all out there and raced way above my pay grade (10 miler at 6:04 pace off of little training) and could barely walk for 3 weeks. Kind of what I was expecting after the marathon.

That being said I am glad to have a run smart than pushed it over the edge, although I think that is a big part of why we run is to find that edge. Look forward to getting out again and pushing it and being ok with a blow up.

70+ WR is 5 minutes slower. Congratulations.

Had a friend who ran a PR 800m within about 10 days of a marathon. I did one and took weeks to get over it - paced it well, only 30 seconds between first and second half; was fit; and the time, pretty much what I had targeted, was slow relative to my 5k/10k/10 mile.

I think, perhaps, primarily slower twitch runners get through with less damage, and I'm much more fast-twitch (probably best distance is 3000m).

wtf is wrong with me? wrote:

It was actually a bit boring because there were no people around - small enough race to place well with that time. I basically ran at least the last 12k alone and the route was poor - the city did not block the park path that it was on so I had to dodge cyclists dog walkers etc. I really lost interest.

I know this all sounds silly but it's true. And yes the course is accurate - I've seen the certification so I'm not worried there.

Training was fairly good at an average of 55mpw over 18 weeks with a peak of 70.

That's some pretty decent training - I ran a PB of 2:27 last year doing 50mpw, I know I would feel like I'd barely exerted myself if I ran 20 minutes slower :D