Forums >Racing>2018 3:20 (and beyond)
Rovatti What differences did you notice in all those Nikes? My Pegasus 34s just showed up and I just found out the 35s are very different.
I've never worn Nikes (prior to this week), and so I can't comment on the Pegasus 34 vs 35 (but see Clever's response).
The Pegasus 35 are a nice shoe (pretty responsive, well-fitting) for uptempo training or longer races. Pegasus Turbo is a bit lighter and feels quicker during transition to toe off. - the midsole has 2 types of foam layered together.. it also has that pointy heels shape like the vaporfly. The epic react (which I got) is just a big slab of rubber with a knit upper... a bit cushier that the others (which my knees needed) - definitely a trainer, not a racer.
All the Nikes seemed well-designed and executed, but were surprisingly pricey. (I paid $160)
Did you all see this link (that Kram posted on the sub3)?
https://twitter.com/hornekerjustin/status/1055833018487717888
Cobra Commander Keen
So... I'm not Ilana, but my sense is that you and I are in similar shape, and I think that sub-3 is realistic for me. I do have a bit more experience at the distance than you do, though (I think). My question for you is: what did your training and HM times look like when you ran the 3:16 and 3:17?
So... I'm not Ilana, but my sense is that you and I are in similar shape, and I think that sub-3 is realistic for me. I do have a bit more experience at the distance than you do, though (I think).
My question for you is: what did your training and HM times look like when you ran the 3:16 and 3:17?
When I ran the 3:17 my HM time was 1:29:11 (hilly, great weather) and before the 3:19 (not 3:16) I ran 1:28:11 for the half (flat, good weather) and averaged ~54 mpw for both. No structured plan for either, just putting together easy runs with some tempo runs and intervals.
As for your experience at the marathon distance, I have no doubt that you're the winner there. That's probably one of the larger limiting factors for me.
SClever - Tough call, but I think I could get really close to 18:30 for 5k, and maybe near 1:25 for a half. I need to race more so I can get a better handle on these.
5k: 17:58 11/22 │ 10k: 37:55 9/21 │ HM: 1:23:22 4/22 │ M: 2:56:05 12/22
Upcoming Races:
OKC Memorial 5k - April 27
Bun Run 5k - May 4
Problem Child
sc I have the Flyease model so the "laces" are a zipper at the rear of the shoe. They were cheap, so am I, and I've never seen such a thing. Good to know the 35s are pretty similar. I read similar comments about the 33s.
ace good luck.
keen Seems like some slow down in your previous two marathons by 7+ minutes. Either you had a bad day (stomach, cramp, out of gas) or just weren't experienced enough to know how important pacing is, and how much the performance in the first half impacts the performance in the second half.
If you hit the same HM times you have on race day you're around a 3:03-4 which should get you IN to Bostohmygodialmostsaidit for 2020 if people aren't too fast and BQ-5 again. If the goal is a BQ my only suggestion is to focus on the second half of the race while hitting your goal for the first HM. I think you can do it (BQ) and the A goal should be the focus.
I'm actually going to run today. I need to keep on track for my 2,018 in 2018. I've been in such a slump I actually considered giving up on a BQ attempt in 2019...or permanently.
Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.
VDOT 53.37
5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22
pie man
My data points are 1:27 on a hilly half course, followed by 3:07 on a hilly marathon course. Weather was fine, a little warmer for the full, but overcast and even sprinkled a bit so I managed.
11:11 3,000 (recent)
Sorry for rude intervention, but I thought I would chime in after I noticed keen's data couple of weeks ago. Just my two cents (though I am pretty aware nobody needs those 2 cents but I will throw throw them in anyway as a luxury of being in a virtual space
If you don't care much about BQ in this race, I would go for sub 3 - would not hesitate a moment (though, hesitation is always present, obviously - you can't hesitate when you go for sub 3 But, in any case, your average weekly mileage for the cycle is awesome, your paces are sold, your HR is not low enough for the pace you were training at. I would go for it. The only negative point is the absence of good validation HM before the upcoming race, but, you have what you have. My data point was 1:28:35 HM last year and 2:59:42 marathon 3 weeks later. On considerably lower mileage than yours, with non-even training consisting mostly of slow running with highest mileage week of 73. Yes, I know I have a good endurance, but ran only around 1000 miles last year - non evenly monthly spaced. I also have another data point - before y first sub 3 in 2013 I had a great cycle, but I do not think it was as good as yours and you handled Daniels, right? I've never was able to handle Daniels - too tough - that's why I just run slow when training because it's easier.
So, I would be very cautious, but I would go for it, even pacing (you mentioned course it pretty flat - so, even pacing is possible). Do not go fast - first couple of miles 5-10 secs slower than 6:50 and after that try to keep 6:50 mpm for the rest of the race. Check your HR from the very start, see if it's at a lower MP range at the very first few miles - then all should be good. After mile 22-23 see if you still have a chance for sub 3 (you still need to be at 6:50 pace by then) and then forget about HR and give all your 100% of what you left. Good luck!
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
Mother of Cats
Do you think Kipchoge wouldn't have set the record in 2016 if there wasn’t an Olympics (or the next year if he didn’t do the silly sub2 extravaganza)? Mostly I wanted to comment because I admit I was a little swayed when you countered that the world record wasn’t run wearing the shoes. But that’s no longer the case on multiple accounts.
Do you think Kipchoge wouldn't have set the record in 2016 if there wasn’t an Olympics (or the next year if he didn’t do the silly sub2 extravaganza)?
Mostly I wanted to comment because I admit I was a little swayed when you countered that the world record wasn’t run wearing the shoes. But that’s no longer the case on multiple accounts.
I did a little quick research - I know the VF first came out in January 2016 ( we first saw it at the US Olympic trials). Based on the video I pulled up, it looks like Kipchoge wore it for London 2016. So...he's run 5 marathons in the VF 4%. And....he had a chance to set the WR in 2016 at London, which was good weather, but came up a few seconds short.
Next year, in 2017, he did Berlin as well as Breaking 2, so not like he didn't do a marathon in 2017 due to Breaking 2.
Also worth noting that this is a guy who ran 2:04 flat in Nike Streaks with the sockliner slipping out....
So no, I don't find the fact that two WRs have recently been set in the VF compelling evidence that the VF is vastly superior to all other shoes, given how many people are wearing the shoe, and how long it's been available. Sooner or later, WRs are going to be set, and if many of the world's top runners are wearing the VF, there's a solid chance the WR will be set in it.
If several runners had sneaked under the WR within the first few months of the VF being available, I'd find that much more compelling. But how many really really great runners have worn it in so many really really fast races, and we've just now had one person sneak under each of the former male world records for the half and full?
Also...the women's half-marathon world record was set in 2017, well after the VF came available. By...an Adidas athlete wearing the Adios..... And I don't think that proves that the Adios is a magic shoe.
I do think that whenever you see WRs set, it will be by an athlete wearing the VF, the Adios, or the Sub-2. Because all the athletes capable of sniffing the WR are sponsored by either Adidas or Nike.
Did you all see this link (that Kram posted on the sub3)? https://twitter.com/hornekerjustin/status/1055833018487717888
Interesting, though pretty much the same convo I've seen elsewhere
Again, I'm not arguing that the VF isn't a fantastic marathon shoe. I wouldn't race my marathons in it if I didn't think it was the best choice (though I'm leaning towards the Sub-2s as being the superior choice in wet conditions). But I do think the myth outstrips the reality. It's a very good shoe - one of several very good shoes that are available. It's not magic springs.
****
10 miles for me today. 4.5 very easy to the gym (9:40), upper body weights and core, and then another 3.5 very easy (8:33). Later did another 2 very easy (8:42). Staying with today's theme, I ran several different short runs because I was testing out some shoes that were fresh out of the box (I always like my first run to be short, in case the shoes have a manufacturing defect - I'd hate to go out for a 10 miler and have to bail). So....the first 2 runs were in a fresh pair of Adios 2s, the third in a fresh pair of VFs. The second run in the Adios was faster for the same effort than the VF, so that clearly tells us all we need to know.....
[the first run doesn't count, since that was in very dark conditions before the sun rose]
Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.
And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.
If you don't care much about BQ in this race, I would go for sub 3 - would not hesitate a moment (though, hesitation is always present, obviously - you can't hesitate when you go for sub 3
CK - I am confused - is your BQ 3:05 or 3:00? I thought you were under 35, and the standards changed for entry into 2020...?
Given that Nike seems to be only able to make 5 or 6 pairs a year, it’s taken this long for enough people to get ahold of them to break records (that’s a joke).
Berlin 2017 had suboptimal conditions apparently. I even read someone who joked he set the ‘rainy marathon world record.’
I happen to believe the New York Times was acting in good faith with their study. It’s not perfect, but there’s never going to be a perfect way to test it. wouldn’t it be in their interest if they caugh Nike exaggerating and it wasn’t helpful at all? It would have been a more sensational story, I think.
The studies plus a ton of unexpected outcomes in races by people wearing the shoes seems to me that they give somewhere around 1% advantage. Not a big deal for someone trying to BQ. Pretty serious stuff for the 2:04 and under folks.
He is in my age group qualifying for 2020 so the 3:05 standard is the BQ he needs.
Sooooooooooo....is wearing the VF and setting a PR the equivalent of CIM being the #2 (by the numbers) qualifier for the Monday Marathon? A lot of people run it just like a lot of people now have the VF/Adios/Sub-2 shoe but I’ve never worn either, and I didn’t BQ either time I ran CIM.
I'm 34 now but will age up for 2020, which puts my BQ time at 3:05.
Duke Of Bad Judgment
Isn't Nike more or less evil?
Clever: What is fake bicycling?
Fall has arrived here - it's gray, rainy, and suicidal most days now, with occasional blue sky to remind us how good we had it for months.
But to be safe and have no stress next September...
No telling what the cutoff will be or if it will be. I would not be surprised at anything 60 seconds or less for a cutoff though.
So next September if there is a BQ cutoff, we can add 4% shoes to the complaints along with downhill marathons and charity runners.
Maybe any shoe that costs more than $150 should be considered an unfair advantage.
If anyone ventures a prediction (unless it's a negative one, ) for the marathon on Saturday, I'll take it. I'll be brief with my training summary.
Last marathon in March:
- Ran 3:05x, moderately hilly course (1400' gain) with good weather. Negative split by about 2 minutes.
- 16 week avg was 41 MPW with last 8 week avg 50 MPW, had "extended" taper as I was cautious about hip injury. So these numbers do not include last 2 weeks, which was minimal running.
- One race in that cycle was HM at 1:25:16 in windy, flat conditions 2 months prior to marathon.
- LR peak was 22 with 7 at GMP or faster (avg 6:50). Total of 3 20+ milers.
Took one month off in April to recoup from injury. Ran 52 miles that month. May was 150 miles. Then from June on was back to "normal" of 180s - 200s MPM.
Current Cycle: Goal Race, Indy 26.2, flat course. Weather looks about perfect. Overnight low is 37, high on race day is 54.
- 16 week avg was 45 MPW, 8 week is 47 MPW with 2 down weeks for races
- 2 races, both HOT and hilly. All uphill HM in 1:28x, 15k in 1:00x.
- LR peak was 22 with last 7 at GMP or faster (avg 6:50). Five 20+ mile runs.
Obviously, I'm not a high mileage trainer, but stick to 2-3 quality sessions per week with rep work, hills, pickups, tempos, etc.
Hoping that cumulative training will pay off as this will be my 4th marathon in 20 months.
I feel good. Rested. Loose. Antsy. Excited.
Road Mile: 5:19 (2017), 5k: 17:09 (2021), 10k: 35:54 (2021), HM: 1:21:55 (2020), M: 2:53:18 (2021)