|
| Very Basic "Marathon Potential" Question... (Read 1200 times) |
Invinoveritas |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 5:33 PM |
But First, a very small pat on the back 
I ran my first "official" marathon last week in 3:55. Very rewarding (if not record setting) experience.
Anyway, on to my question. In a perfect world (which we know doesn't exist, but will help answer my question) if I were able to run a 5:30 mile should I then (theoretically) be capable of running a 3:00:00 (or so) marathon? In other words, should endurance always come with proper training (assuming no injury or significant physiological defects)?
I ask because never during the marathon did I feel "winded" (ran the whole race breathing through my nose only) but my quads really started to feel it. By far it seemed that my leg fatigue was my limiting factor. Is this normally the case in a marathon?
Real quick, some training background.
About 6 months of "base" @ 30-35 mpw.
About 6 months of "specific" training with running 5-6 days per week.
* 1 "Tempo" run ~6 miles at slightly slower then 10K pace
* 1 "Med-Long" run ~1/2 that weeks long run
* 1 "Long" run ~13-22 miles (peak weeks: 18,19,20,22)
* 2-3 "Easy" runs ~5-6 miles
Peak week mileage: 50,50,50,52
And FYI, I haven't run a 5:30 mile in 15 years - just using that as an example. |
|
|
| view log Blaine Moore |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 6:11 PM |
| A 5:30 mile equates (with training) to a 3:05:45 marathon according to the McMillan Running Calculator. While not perfect, it has been pretty accurate for me. Whenever I put in my season best 5k, it comes pretty close to my season best marathon and vice versa. (Note that I check after the fact to see how close it is.) |
Run to Win
I just started using Twitter - anybody else on there? http://twitter.com/RunToWin
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 6:37 PM |
Congrats on your first marathon, from your post it sounds like you took the marathon seriously i.e. trained properly for it putting in the mileage, long runs and tempo runs and finished with a respectable time, especially for your first effort. All that being said there is no way to know for sure what your true potential is, especailly given a 1-mile race time. There are some calculators that can give you what the equivilalent performance is at various distances, the McMillan Calculator is my favorite:
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm
There is also a calculator tool on this site using a simple formula, which I think is a little to aggressive going from shorter distances to longer (it will give you a faster marathon time that you'll be able to run based on a shorter distance race) A better predictor for a marathon would be a longer race such as a 10-K, 10-Miler, or 1/2 marathon, the closer the distance of the race you are using as a predictor to the race you want to predict the better the prediction will be. In other words using a 1-Mile race to predict a 2-Mile race or a 5K is going to work better than using that 1-Mile to predict a marathon. On the flip side you marathon time would be a better predictor for a 1/2 marathon than it would be for a mile. Of course any predictor assumes you are properly trained for whatever distance you want the prediction to work for.
As for not feeling winded during the marathon that is a good thing. With the possible exception of the final sprint to the finish line you should not ever feel winded in a marathon. The leg fatigue you describe is quite common, you can reduce this some by running more miles in training, but even those elites who run 100+ miles a week will feel tired at the end of a race but may not necessarily feel winded.
Since you don't have a profile I'm going to make a few assumptions, correct me if I'm wrong. You are female, you ran track in high school and that was when you were able to run a 5:30 mile, you recently (about 1-2 years ago) started running again. If my assumptions are correct you are low-mid 30's and with consistent training (no long layoffs due to injury etc.) you will continue to improve for several more years and if your long-term goal is to break 3 hours I see no reason why you shouldn't go for it. |
PR's
1-Mile: 4:42 (1995)
5-K: 15:55 (1999)
10-K: 32:30 (2000)
15-K: 50:18 (2001)
1/2 Mar: 1:13:15 (2000)* 1st half of marathon listed below
Mar: 2:49 (2000) |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 7:44 PM |
Let me get this straight. You ran an entire marathon breathing only through your nose?
Was this intentional? |
| 32,000 Miles Later
|
|
|
|
posted: 1/29/2008 at 7:49 PM |
Congrats on your first marathon!
Your question kind of baffles me. You are trying to compare last weeks marathon time to a mile time that you ran 15 years ago to see if you maxed out your potential in the marathon???
I don't know of any calculators that factor in time away from running in their calculations. How about if you go to the track and run a mile now, or as soon as your legs recover from the marathon. Then you will have something that you can relate to your marathon that you just did.
I've run one marathon, and my legs got tired also. Go figure.
|
|
|
Invinoveritas |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:19 PM |
| Quote from Hannibal Granite on 1/29/2008 at 6:37 PM: Since you don't have a profile I'm going to make a few assumptions, correct me if I'm wrong. You are female, you ran track in high school and that was when you were able to run a 5:30 mile, you recently (about 1-2 years ago) started running again. If my assumptions are correct you are low-mid 30's and with consistent training (no long layoffs due to injury etc.) you will continue to improve for several more years and if your long-term goal is to break 3 hours I see no reason why you shouldn't go for it.
Besides the female part (  ) you are very close. I played football in HS which is when I ran the 5:30. My long term goal is to BQ.
Thanks for the very detailed reply. |
|
|
| view log Frustrating Project |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:20 PM |
I like your screen name, Invinoveritas.
In wine, truth...
I agree. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen |
|
|
Invinoveritas |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:20 PM |
| Quote from TanyaS on 1/29/2008 at 7:44 PM: Let me get this straight. You ran an entire marathon breathing only through your nose?
Was this intentional?
Intentional? Not sure what you mean. I wasn't breathing heavy enough (i.e. requiring enough oxygen) to want to breath through my mouth. I was just relaxed. I guess I can explain it like when you're sitting down watching TV, do you breath through your mouth? If not, why not? I'm guessing my answer is the same. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:21 PM |
Congrats on your first!
Two things:
First - take those running calculators with a massive grain of salt, especially if you're trying to use them to estimate long-distance potential from a short distance. There are some folks who can run a speedy mile and can't even finish a marathon; there are some folks who can run a decent marathon and are slow-pokes (relatively speaking) at shorter distances.
The calculators assume your fully trained for the target distance - that you have all the base training and endurance training to run a marathon. If you actually are in that kind of shape, the estimate might be useful. If you aren't, its completely meaningless. To use your example, I could run about a 5:30 mile in high school - but I couldn't possibly have finished even a half marathon.
If you really want to use McMillan, use a 10k time - or better yet, a half marathon time. And even then, if you aren't trained for the distance, the result may not mean much.
Second - I'm not sure you're supposed to feel "winded" in a marathon, depending on what "winded" means to you. I never feel in a marathon like I feel in a 5-k. But that doesn't mean I could actually run faster at that distance. The marathon is a different beast altogether.
What's with the nose breathing thing? Just curious. |
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
|
|
|
Invinoveritas |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:35 PM |
| Quote from slosh252 on 1/29/2008 at 7:49 PM: Congrats on your first marathon!
Your question kind of baffles me. You are trying to compare last weeks marathon time to a mile time that you ran 15 years ago to see if you maxed out your potential in the marathon???
I don't know of any calculators that factor in time away from running in their calculations. How about if you go to the track and run a mile now, or as soon as your legs recover from the marathon. Then you will have something that you can relate to your marathon that you just did.
I've run one marathon, and my legs got tired also. Go figure.
Your sarcasm also baffles me  . I probably just wasn't clear enough. Using 5:30 was nothing more then an example (the fact that I was once able to run 5:30 was nothing more then a coincidence). I was simply trying to determine whether or not endurance at the marathon distance could be obtained given one's current speed.
The marathon is (obviously) very new to me, so I'm curious about certain things (hence the appearance in Running 101 asking questions).
I know people's speed is always going to be limited (sooner or later) by genetics. My question was meant to determine whether a similar limitation exists for endurance.
For a very simplistic explanation, I just wanted to know if there were reasons that would cause a significant disconnect between shorter (mile, 5K) distances and the marathon (assuming proper training).
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 8:55 PM
modified: 1/29/2008 at 8:56 PM |
| Quote from Invinoveritas on 1/29/2008 at 8:35 PM: For a very simplistic explanation, I just wanted to know if there were reasons that would cause a significant disconnect between shorter (mile, 5K) distances and the marathon (assuming proper training).
Take a look at this document:
Hadd Training
If there is a serious disconnect, then it will be because you lack a significant aerobic base. One way to begin thinking about the issue is that there are plenty of folks out there (probably your old high school self was one) who can run a 5:30 mile, but who couldn't touch a 3:00 marathon with a 10 foot pole. On the other hand, there are probably very few 3:00 marathoners who can't run a 5:30 mile.
What does that mean? It means that you need a certain amount of basic speed to run a 3:00 marathon, and if you can't run 5:30 now for the mile, you might be well served working on that before you give the marathon a shot. But if you can run a 5:30 mile, that's no guarantee that you will be able to run 3 hours for the marathon. In order to translate that speed into speed-endurance, you'll need to develop a wicked aerobic base. |
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 9:01 PM |
| We're all an experiment of "1". When I think I'm trained very well for a marathon the week before that marathon I go out and run 1 mile as fast as I can as a test. I've found that whatever that mile time is I can add 1 minute to it and run the marathon at that pace. ie a 5:50 mile time for me means that I will attempt to do a ~6:50-paced marathon. Works more often than not. It's not as simple as that but .... I'm just sayin. You're mileage may vary and your 5:30 mile time in HS has no bearing on this discussion (unless you're still in HS). |
2008 Goals:
2000 miles for the year
100 mile week
Sub 3:10 marathon
Sub 19min 5K
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 9:01 PM |
Quote from Invinoveritas on 1/29/2008 at 8:19 PM:Besides the female part ( ) you are very close. I played football in HS which is when I ran the 5:30. My long term goal is to BQ. Thanks for the very detailed reply.
I guessed female b/c of the mile time, which would be very good for a HS girl running track, but well below average for a guy who is running track (at least one who is training for the mile). For a football player though a 5:30 seems pretty good. I think there were only 2-3 football guys who could go that fast for a mile when I was in college ( I don't know about HS) and they were the ones who also did track. |
PR's
1-Mile: 4:42 (1995)
5-K: 15:55 (1999)
10-K: 32:30 (2000)
15-K: 50:18 (2001)
1/2 Mar: 1:13:15 (2000)* 1st half of marathon listed below
Mar: 2:49 (2000) |
|
|
|
posted: 1/29/2008 at 9:06 PM |
Quote from Invinoveritas on 1/29/2008 at 8:35 PM:Your sarcasm also baffles me . I probably just wasn't clear enough. Using 5:30 was nothing more then an example (the fact that I was once able to run 5:30 was nothing more then a coincidence). I was simply trying to determine whether or not endurance at the marathon distance could be obtained given one's current speed. ).
Didn't mean to be sarcastic...or at least any more than normal. I guess I was just kinda confused on your question. Whatever type of parallel or comparison you are looking for, I am sure you can find it. (and I don't mean to be sarcastic). There is a ton of analysis and opinions out there correlating marathon perfomance to everything from your 5K time to your genetics or to whether you breath thru your mouth or your nose. It looks like you trained with an intelligent program for your first marathon. The only genetics that matters are your own and if you keep running, improve your training program and run more marathons your times will likely come down.
Again, another pat on the back for the first effort!
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/29/2008 at 9:09 PM |
What Jeff said. That's what I was trying to say.
|
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
