It's ironic that many runners avoid shorter distances and seek refuge in the longer distances because they perceive they lack speed / "suck at 5ks" when infact their 5k times are far superior to their half marathon or marathon times. Far more distance runners [these days] suffer from lack of endurance than lack of speed.

 

Mine too and my last two marathons I think I averaged 80 mpw for my schedule. Admittedly, neither as it turned out were ideal preps [for different reasons] despite the volume.

It isn't until a runner gets up to the 60+ mpw level and does consistent speed work that they can really tell whether they are better suited for the marathon or the 5K. At the times when I've been at that level, AG ratings show my shorter distances clearly superior to my longer distances and there is a clear relationship between the race distance and AG rating with the AG rating decreasing as the race distance increases. Perhaps the best example of this is when I was 34 and training about 250 miles per month for almost 2 full years.

800m             - 76.4

mile                - 76.6

5K                   - 73.3

10K                 - 73.8

10M                 - 72.1

HM                   - 73.5

Marathon        - 70.7

The 10M race had a 3/4 mile long hill as well as some rolling hills that kept the time slow, otherwise note the drop from mile to 5K and a similar drop from HM to marathon. This is also an indication that the training for 5K through HM isn't all that different. The biggest changes in training are the jump from the mile on the track to 5K on the roads and from HM to marathon.

I've always used that 2x +10 rule, but +1 to Lurch.

Hmm. Difference between marathon time & 2xHM time (along with training mpw):

#1 = 14 min (20-30 mpw)

#2 = 30 (40-50)

#3 = 22 (50-60)

#4 = 20 (60-70)

I think this means I suck at marathons, but I did not need this analysis to determine that.

 

Hmm. Difference between marathon time & 2xHM time (along with training mpw):

#1 = 14 min (20-30 mpw)

#2 = 30 (40-50)

#3 = 22 (50-60)

#4 = 20 (60-70)

 

I think this means I suck at marathons, but I did not need this analysis to determine that.

I think it means you should go back to 20-30 mpw.

 

I think it means you should go back to 20-30 mpw.

Now that is a plan I can get behind. You ever think of taking up coaching?

That did strike me as pretty funny when I did the calculation, I had never looked at that before. It would be interesting to see how it's worked out for others. For no reason other than I like to look at numbers.

 

It would be interesting to see how it's worked out for others. For no reason other than I like to look at numbers.

Mileage in the 30's: 1:43 half 3:47 marathon.

Mileage in the 50's: 1:28 half 3:15 marathon.

 

That did strike me as pretty funny when I did the calculation, I had never looked at that before. It would be interesting to see how it's worked out for others. For no reason other than I like to look at numbers.

For my current times, it is HM x 2 + 13 minutes.  1:35 and 3:23, respectively.  I've done a good job of narrowing that gap.  It was +28 prior to my last marathon.

My 1st half marathon race was in 1991.

1991: 1:36:57 / 3:18:58 + 4:52 35.3 mpw

1993: 1:32:00 / 3:13:58 + 9:58 43.2 mpw

1994: 1:37:10 / 3:15:12 + 0:52 44.7 mpw

1995: 1:29:05 * / 3:12:23 + 14:13 44.9 mpw

2005: 1:54:30 / 3:30:00 - 19:00 56.8 mpw

2006: 1:38:26 / 3:30:21 + 11:08 45.7 mpw

2010: 1:37:47 / 3:29:16 + 13:26 80.0 mpw

* hot, hilly, humid 20k equivalent to a flat half.