2021 Sub 3:00 Marathon Thread (Read 453 times)

JMac11


RIP Milkman

    JT - I may be the fastest easy run guy on here, and I'm still doing most of my runs at MP+90 in nice weather. I found that when I did closer to DW/Cal's of MP+150, I felt like crap and I actually just kept getting slower. MP+90 seems to be my sweet spot. We always jabbed at slammin for his "dead zone" comment because he defined it a bit too liberally, but there certainly is a DZ: MP+60 or faster for easy runs if you are a sub 3 runner.

     

    Marby - I will start following your training more closely as I start my marathon block.

     

    DPS - I think your goals for the marathon are too conservative given your training. I know you're doing it intentionally, but sub 2:40 should be a breeze given your talent and training (assuming all goes well this summer/fall).

     

    DW - you guys have a lot of drama with your pedestrian crossings. That traffic circle one was hilarious. I'm sure some contractor got paid real nice for it.

    5K: 16:37 (11/20)  |  10K: 34:49 (10/19)  |  HM: 1:14:57 (5/22)  |  FM: 2:36:31 (12/19) 

     

     

      JT - I may be the fastest easy run guy on here, and I'm still doing most of my runs at MP+90 in nice weather. I found that when I did closer to DW/Cal's of MP+150, I felt like crap and I actually just kept getting slower. MP+90 seems to be my sweet spot. We always jabbed at slammin for his "dead zone" comment because he defined it a bit too liberally, but there certainly is a DZ: MP+60 or faster for easy runs if you are a sub 3 runner.

       

       

      JMac, just to clarify my "annoyance" stems from a group of relatively local runners, none of them on any of these forums. And I say annoyance mostly in jest. I just can't comprehend doing what they're doing (and they are all my age or older). But they are way inside MP + 60 for easy runs. One in particular runs easy runs at MP + 20-30 seconds!  Day after day. Just insane. I'd be destroyed after a week of that.

      2:52:16 (2018)

      OMR


        Was out of town over the weekend, so late to the weeklies posting party.  Good to see some race banter here, because...races.

         

        Dwave, you seem to be peaking nicely.
        JT, good to see that calf thing not impede your running.

        dps, oof, quite a week.

        Flavio, nice week and thanks for the conversions.

        jhudak, also a nice week, and that's a lot of swimming.

        calbears, yeah, those progression runs can wear on you...maybe reduce the amount of the progression part by half for a while to get used to them?  Just a thought.

         

        S:  Rest

        M:  10.1 @ 7:51 w/14 x 20sec fartlek

        T:  7.6 @ 7:56

        W:  9.4 @ 7:35 w/5 x 1K Cruise Intervals, 3 x 200m hard

        T:  5.4 @ 8:27

        F:  8.4 @ 7:48

        S:  12.9 @ 8:10

         

        Total:  53.8

        Andres1045


           

          JMac, just to clarify my "annoyance" stems from a group of relatively local runners, none of them on any of these forums. And I say annoyance mostly in jest. I just can't comprehend doing what they're doing (and they are all my age or older). But they are way inside MP + 60 for easy runs. One in particular runs easy runs at MP + 20-30 seconds!  Day after day. Just insane. I'd be destroyed after a week of that.

           

          I understand the annoyance part, and I do think in general most people run too fast on their daily runs. I often get the statement of "wow, I can't believe you run so many miles. I can't do that or I'd break down." My thought is generally that they run races slower than me, yet every one of their easy days is faster than me. Slow down, and you'll be fine. And I don't run as slow, comparatively, as others on here, nor do I run as many weekly miles.

           

          But ultimately, I've put this entirely in the "everyone is different" category. I think it's good to look at what others are doing. Try different things, especially when things don't seem to be working. And then see what works best for you. Exactly as what JMac did. But I totally disagree with any deadzone idea. It is so dependent on the runner, what stimulates them best, what their overall plan is and so forth. I agree with the idea that most people will do best staying at around a certain number of seconds above MP, but saying that everyone will or that you're doomed if you don't seems silly.

           

          To me the biggest outlier was Multi. He used to run big miles, everything was fast, and his workouts weren't anything crazy, compared to his paces. His fastest miles of the week might have been something like 15s faster than MP, and his easy days were usually within 30s. No way would that have worked for me, but it worked for him quite well. On the other end of the spectrum, you had Tom. He was so formulaic with all his paces, but especially his easy pace (I think he hit 7:43 for every single "easy" mile). And it never really seemed to work out for him. I always thought he should have played around a bit with his easy pace in particular.

           

          I've grown comfortable with what my easy pace is. Some people here may think it's too fast, but it works for me. It's a pace that I really don't have to think about. I don't need to look at my watch or what my HR is doing. Also, it's generally about the same pace regardless of what kind of shape I'm in. If I'm out of shape, it'll be a little slower, but not as big of a drop as you'd expect. The one thing that changes my paces dramatically is the weather. With heat and humidity, what feels easy naturally tends to be slower, often by quite a bit.

           

          Also, I think easy pace based on current MP can be quite deceptive. As bad of shape that I'm ever in, I think I can generally run a 5k around 6 flat pace (around 18:30). But when I'm not in shape, I'll struggle to run a 3:30 marathon (8 flat). In those times, my easy pace naturally seems to still be in the 8 to 8:15 range (or 2 to 2:15 slower than 5k, which seems fine to me). And then when I'm in my best shape (maybe 17:30 and sub 3), it might be 7:45 to 8 for my easy pace (assuming good weather). That's still in that 2 to 2:15 slower than 5k range. Again, seems okay to me.

          Upcoming races: Boston

          dpschumacher


          5 months til Masters

            MARK- I will likely be adjusting my time faster. I have a half this weekend (and will hit 97+ miles as well). I now have a coach who ramped up my workouts to my breaking point (which I am hitting as my Achilles has begun to flair up) that I haven't really done since college. With no real races last year, I trained hard but at 85-90% and tried to stay healthy. Also being so close to returning from the couch and 80 lbs heavier, I'm finally 2+ years back running and in shape relative to my younger self. As long as my Achilles hold up, I am thinking closer to 2:36-38.  But Achilles and lower back has stopped me running 4 times before, so after this week I'll take a down week.

             

             

            "DPS - I think your goals for the marathon are too conservative given your training. I know you're doing it intentionally, but sub 2:40 should be a breeze given your talent and training (assuming all goes well this summer/fall)."

            2023 Goals

            Marathon Sub 2:37 (CIM) 2:41:18

            10k Sub 35:00 (Victory 10k 34:19)

            5k Sub 16:00 (Hot Dash 5k in March (16:48), Brian Kraft in May (16:20), Twilight 5000 in July and August (16:20/16:25 Both heat index 102-103F)

            Sub 1:16 Half Marathon  City of Lakes Half Marathon 1:15:47)

            Sub 56:30 in 10 mile (Twin Cities 10 mile, Canceled due to weather, 56:35 as a workout)

             

            2024 Goals

            Sub 2:37 Marathon

            Sub 1:15 Half

            Sub 34 10k

            Sub 16 5k

             

             

            JMac11


            RIP Milkman

              Andres's point about easy pace not directly corresponding to current MP is spot on. I also find that as I get in shape, my easy pace doesn't increase as much as other paces do. However, I'm not sure if we're conflating the fact that while this happening, our legs also need more recovery between hard bouts. Put another way, I've found that as I enter my taper mode of marathoning, I have to work VERY hard not to be running sub MP+60 because my legs are so fresh, whereas right now (when I'm not in good shape) MP+90 is right even on low mileage / low workouts.

               

              I agree overall with the everyone is different mindset, but I can't see how the best approach to marathoning is running your easy runs at MP+30. How can you possibly get in good workouts if you're doing that? That's a great pace for base building when you're doing 95%+ easy miles. It doesn't make much sense in the middle of a training cycle.

              5K: 16:37 (11/20)  |  10K: 34:49 (10/19)  |  HM: 1:14:57 (5/22)  |  FM: 2:36:31 (12/19) 

               

               

              Andres1045


                 

                I agree overall with the everyone is different mindset, but I can't see how the best approach to marathoning is running your easy runs at MP+30. How can you possibly get in good workouts if you're doing that? That's a great pace for base building when you're doing 95%+ easy miles. It doesn't make much sense in the middle of a training cycle.

                Yup. I agree. It really doesn't seem like the best approach. But it worked for him, and I really don't think it's a case of "yeah, but if he just read JD he'd be XX% faster." To me, he was certainly the biggest outlier when it comes to running everything too fast and being fine. But his approach also didn't really involve "good" workouts. That's what I was getting at. His workouts seemed quite mild to me, but his overall weeks were monsters when you looked at the average paces and the miles. But it worked. I really don't know that he would have gotten much more out of a more conventional approach (which, if I'm not mistaken, he had tried many different approaches before he started running times in the mid 2:40's doing things his way).

                 

                The other outlier, for different reasons, was Patrick. He ran slow (in comparison) easy paces, but also didn't have good workouts, all things considered. I think his go to was to run around 100 miles per week. A weekly marathon (at the beginning of the cycle it would be around 3:05, then get down to 2:50 towards the end). And he'd run for an hour once a week on a treadmill, getting that run up to 10 miles. A lot of people said it was a stupid approach. But he had tried many different conventional plans and was stuck at around 2:50 to 3. So he wanted to give it a shot. This approach got him to sub 2:40 in his mid 40s. 

                 

                In general though, I totally agree with you that most of us will get better results sticking to more mainstream plans or more accepted prescriptions for paces. But I just really hate plugging in a race result in to a formula and saying completely avoid this pace. Or stick to this pace range exactly each week or you're doomed.

                Upcoming races: Boston

                JMac11


                RIP Milkman

                  The other outlier, for different reasons, was Patrick. He ran slow (in comparison) easy paces, but also didn't have good workouts, all things considered. I think his go to was to run around 100 miles per week. A weekly marathon (at the beginning of the cycle it would be around 3:05, then get down to 2:50 towards the end). And he'd run for an hour once a week on a treadmill, getting that run up to 10 miles. A lot of people said it was a stupid approach. But he had tried many different conventional plans and was stuck at around 2:50 to 3. So he wanted to give it a shot. This approach got him to sub 2:40 in his mid 40s. 

                   

                  In general though, I totally agree with you that most of us will get better results sticking to more mainstream plans or more accepted prescriptions for paces. But I just really hate plugging in a race result in to a formula and saying completely avoid this pace. Or stick to this pace range exactly each week or you're doomed.

                   

                  A few points on this:

                   

                  1) Are we sure Patrick didn't get to sub 2:40 just because he was running 100 MPW? Put another way, maybe it was that 70 MPW on a traditional plan didn't work for him not because it was a traditional plan, but rather because he really needed 100 MPW to run sub 2:40.

                  2) I'm not arguing that easy pace should be formulaic, e.g. everyone should run MP+90 or whatever for easy pace. But I certainly do think there is a range, and a pace to avoid. That range though is huge. It's probably from MP+60 to MP+180 for 2:30-3:00 marathoners. I cannot imagine there are people who are actually running their best possible times by running 75 MPW with easy runs at MP+30.

                  5K: 16:37 (11/20)  |  10K: 34:49 (10/19)  |  HM: 1:14:57 (5/22)  |  FM: 2:36:31 (12/19) 

                   

                   

                  CalBears


                    Great discussion that returns me back to good old days of RWOL Sad...

                     

                    But I will introduce a "totally new" concept you guys probably never heard about - running by effort. Every time I read about what easy, or hard, or threshold pace should be, I am kind of getting annoyed. After trying to follow different plans for years, I realized that sticking to some pace is a biggest mistake you could make. Why? Because one day I can easily run at 7:30 as an aerobic pace and another day 7:30 would feel like a marathon pace to me. I do not know why - some days runs are easier than other days. So - run by effort - that is a generic answer. I also don't usually look at my watch during runs - because I do not wanna change my perception of an effort - and looking at the watch changes it ("oh my god - I am so slow!!! What other runners will think about me? How my friends on Strava react on this slow pace - I better speed up Smile ).

                     

                    Yeah, multi was interesting - I was always teasing him on his strava titles like -"easy run" and the pace for that easy run was 7:05. And he was in his mid forties. But then we were discussing it and yes, his HR was matching with easy pace effort - so, somehow his pace range from fast to easy was within a minute or so. My range is within 3-3:30 minutes and it works for me - I just know that based on experience - I know bunch of runner of my age or younger who run their training runs a minute or two faster than I am and I beat them in HM or FM all the time by dozens of minutes - so, I am not worried about my training pace. But I still hate when people talking about specific paces for their daily runs.

                    paces PRs - 5K - 5:48  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

                    darkwave


                    Mother of Cats

                       

                       

                      But I will introduce a "totally new" concept you guys probably never heard about - running by effort.

                       

                      Err....that's what I do.  For my workouts on the roads, I usually see my splits for the first time when the run gets uploaded to Garmin/Strava.

                      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.

                      JMac11


                      RIP Milkman

                        Almost all of us run by effort on here. That isn't the issue. The problem is some people think MP+30 "feels" easy. And honestly - it does, when compared to other paces. I can guarantee you that most of these people running too fast say that it feels easy and that they are running by effort. I doubt a lot of them think MP+60 feels easy, but they better speed up to hit a prescribed pace.

                         

                        I actually do look at my watch during easy days, specifically that I am not going too fast, not too slow. Yesterday was a good example. I had 2 days off prior and felt like the run was easy, but all of a sudden I was running at MP+60 when almost all of my easy runs have been in the range of +75 to +105 lately. I probably could have just finished the run at that pace, but why run faster than I have to?

                         

                        I'd also have to disagree with lumping threshold pace in with easy in terms of effort. Or perhaps it needs to be more narrowly defined. Threshold is not going to be 5:45 one day for me and 6:00 another. If I'm running my threshold runs and it's at 6:00, I am just shutting the entire workout down because clearly I am run down and need an easy day. I wouldn't just keep it at 6:00 and say "well, this is my effort today."

                        5K: 16:37 (11/20)  |  10K: 34:49 (10/19)  |  HM: 1:14:57 (5/22)  |  FM: 2:36:31 (12/19) 

                         

                         

                        darkwave


                        Mother of Cats

                          Almost all of us run by effort on here. That isn't the issue. The problem is some people think MP+30 "feels" easy. And honestly - it does, when compared to other paces.

                           

                          I think a lot of people think that if they can talk, it's easy.  I can get a full sentence out at marathon effort.  And marathon effort ain't easy.

                           

                          There's also the points made by Hadd, and more recently by Nate Jenkins.  When running, we're always using both our anaerobic and aerobic systems - it's just that the proportion of the two changes depending on the pace/level of effort.   People who are very strong anaerobically will prefer to run a bit faster, so they can rely on that anaerobic system a bit more, and less on their aerobic system.  This is actually a good reason to those runners to try to get at least a bit of running at superslow pace in - to more fully develop that aerobic system.

                           

                          Anecdotally, I've noted a lot of overlap between a) people who like very uptempo "easy runs" and b) people who underperform at the marathon distance.  But I don't know which way the correlation goes.  Would they be better at the marathon if they slowed their easy runs? (Jenkins and Hadd say yes).  Or are their faster easy runs the best choice for them, and they just are not as suited for the marathon as for other distances?

                           

                           

                           

                          I'd also have to disagree with lumping threshold pace in with easy in terms of effort. Or perhaps it needs to be more narrowly defined. Threshold is not going to be 5:45 one day for me and 6:00 another. If I'm running my threshold runs and it's at 6:00, I am just shutting the entire workout down because clearly I am run down and need an easy day. I wouldn't just keep it at 6:00 and say "well, this is my effort today."

                           

                          For me, it is different.  Threshold and tempo for me are both very much by feel and not pace.  It's all about finding a fine red line of effort, approaching it from below (slower) and then sitting there right under it.  The actual pace will vary a lot, dependent on weather (is it warm, humid, windy) and route.

                          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.

                          CalBears


                             

                            I'd also have to disagree with lumping threshold pace in with easy in terms of effort. Or perhaps it needs to be more narrowly defined. Threshold is not going to be 5:45 one day for me and 6:00 another. If I'm running my threshold runs and it's at 6:00, I am just shutting the entire workout down because clearly I am run down and need an easy day. I wouldn't just keep it at 6:00 and say "well, this is my effort today."

                             

                            Wow... Absolutely, totally wrong. Just to see how wrong it is - let's imagine that I decided my threshold pace is 5:30, so? That means I will never do any threshold workouts, ever - because I will never run at 5:30 pace for more than maybe 800 meters. Your approach suggests that you know your threshold pace exactly, some kind of internal knowledge. And how do you know that? I have no clue. I know that pace based on my effort, my HR - and that threshold pace will vary from week to week - because I will probably feel different at some of the weeks. Otherwise I would be just a running robot who programmed to do some specific paces every workout. Effort counts, I believe - in a long term anyway...

                            paces PRs - 5K - 5:48  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile

                            darkwave


                            Mother of Cats

                               

                              Wow... Absolutely, totally wrong. 

                               

                              You don't mince words, do you  

                              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.

                              CalBears


                                 You don't mince words, do you  

                                 

                                Ok, let me correct myself - "absolutely, totally wrong, imho"... Is that better? 

                                paces PRs - 5K - 5:48  /  10K - 6:05  /  HM - 6:14  /  FM - 6:26 per mile