More miles at easy pace will get you what you want which is a solid aerobic foundation.

Given your 10K time, your HM pace with a solid aerobic foundation should be 10:07-10:12 and your marathon pace should be 10:25 to 10:30.

Of course, fixing your aerobic foundation will speed up your 10K so the other ones will get faster too.

Get your weekly easy and long run mileage above 50 miles per week consistently for about 6 months and you will be on the way towards the improvement you are seeking.

Agreeing with @scottb81 that more easy miles will help. What does your weekly mileage look like right now?

I've found that throwing in a longer midweek run and consciously working on mental fortitude has helped me a lot. Finding ways to keep me going and mantras to keep me moving has helped quite a bit. Plus distracting myself with podcasts helps too

To be honest, my stats are a lot like yours. My 10k PR is around 49 minutes (7:5-something pace), my 13.1 PR is around 1:53 (8:35 pace), but I'll probably end up between 9:30 and 9:45 for my marathon at the end of the month. So I'm also interested to read more advice from others.

But if she is getting bored and walking during races then I just don't know if more miles is going to motivate her not to be bored anymore.

Maybe your personality is more of a chill trail runner who should be doing ultras instead?

scottb81 wrote: »

If your aerobic condition is high then there is a linear relationship between race pace at various distances. Each doubling of the distance adds about 15 seconds per mile to the pace. So, someone with a 7:00/mi 5K pace should be able to race:
10K - 7:15/mi
HM - 7:30/mi
Mar - 7:45/mi

When one's race paces do not line up close to that then the problem is lack of aerobic base/capacity and the solution is more easy miles.

This assumes your long training is consistent with your short training, but yea. I am going to be testing this theory over the next couple of months as I just crushed a new 5k PR over the weekend and my coach is all ecstatic that he gets to rewrite my pace zones

I have to agree with treacton11 on this. If you are getting bored then perhaps you should stick to trails. Or find a really scenic road marathon and see if that helps. I know that I don't personally do well in flat city courses. I do much better with rolling hills and lots of scenery!

Colorado_Joni wrote: »

Hi all,

Admittedly, I find myself walking out of boredom a little bit during road marathons and long training runs on roads.

If road running is boring why do it?

Running a marathon can get boring. However, runnibg is the fastest way to the finish ;-).. How many marathons have you done? Things that helped me get my MP up: higher mileage, more long runs, more medium long runs with tempo & MP work

kristinegift wrote: »

Colorado_Joni wrote: »

kristinegift wrote: »

What does your weekly mileage look like right now?

Averaging about 40 mpw, with an easier week once every three or so weeks. I think a longer mid-week run is a great idea. This last training cycle, I was really never going more than 8 mi mid-week but picking up the slack with back-to-back weekend runs. I think I could definitely stand to add a few miles there. And thank goodness for podcasts - I never would've made it this far without them.

I think we're basically in the same boat. I do about 40 mpw, and my long runs will be 40-50% of my mileage, so they take far longer than my other runs. Between training cycles, I want to build up to 50-55 mpw, but have all my runs be more consistently longer at 8-12 miles, with a longer (15-16 miles) run on the weekend, and hopefully that will start to even things out a bit more with my pace for longer and shorter efforts.

Funny I just made that decision recently too. I'm just now getting the mileage back up after the marathon last month and I've done a 6 and two 8 mile runs this week. I'm going to make my normal run about 8 miles which seems to be a pretty nice distance that still feels casual.

As far as the OP's comment on boredom, that's up to the person doing the running. I try to mix things up or pick a route that has some variance. I've been doing this 1.1 mile loop which I like since it's a dirt path. It's in a park so there's always something going on there. Birds, squirrels, maintenance people doing random things, and other runners/walkers. After 4 miles on that I do an out and back in a different area of the park. I can't do 8 miles in a loop every day. That's boring.

Occasionally instead of doing the out and back I go out on some of the neighborhood streets. Bring your phone and stop and take pictures of the sunrise or other odd things you see. Just because you're doing miles and miles doesn't mean you have to be bored. That's why you're outside instead of on a treadmill.

scottb81 wrote: »

If your aerobic condition is high then there is a linear relationship between race pace at various distances. Each doubling of the distance adds about 15 seconds per mile to the pace. So, someone with a 7:00/mi 5K pace should be able to race:
10K - 7:15/mi
HM - 7:30/mi
Mar - 7:45/mi

When one's race paces do not line up close to that then the problem is lack of aerobic base/capacity and the solution is more easy miles.

This is interesting - I have always relied on McMillan to set my race paces, and those are more like 25-30 seconds apart for each doubling. Starting from my 8:00 5k pace, that would be the difference between an 8:30 pace HM (not even close!) and the 8:47 pace half I am a few seconds from reaching. I guess McMillan just supposes a more moderate level of aerobic fitness than a runner typically reaches with higher weekly mileage.

Joni:

My two cents worth. More miles help and getting up to 50 miles/week was doable for me. Building an aerobic base is useful and it showed up mostly as an improvement in speed the 5K and half-marathon times since those races are short enough to take advantage of the aerobic capacity. But like you, those times didn't necessarily translate into comparable marathon times. But to be honest, those marathon runs turned out to be relatively "easy" runs (in the amount of effort I expended). Yes, my time improved at the marathon distance, but not dramatically.

I haven't run any of those shorter races in the last 7-8 months to see how much my times have improved as I have been focusing more on completing and speeding up in marathons. I do have my track and measured course to compare any improvement. But I haven't taken any of my shorter distance speed gains out onto the race course recently. However, when I finally started adding some workouts for speed, in addition to or in place of one of the midweek runs, I saw some significant gains in times on the track and some known/measured distances equivalent to the 5K and 10K race distances.

Although my first marathon outings with some of the speed training under my belt weren't quite what I had hoped (yes, I was a little faster and had improved my time. I also gained valuable lessons in not second-guessing myself in terms of clothing choices to maintain optimum temperature or the importance of not going out too fast and then not picking up the pace too early at the end), they did produce results with a modicum of commitment to the speed training in addition to the volume of training. The speed training distance repeats trained me in what to expect at the end of the race when I was trying to push and maintain pace. And in a race where I had no real expectation of turning in a fast time (it was cold, very windy with a 25 mph headwind most of the last nine miles AND I had run a marathon the week before with sub-par results), I started out slowly (learned that lesson), had the right clothing combination, the right fueling combination, waited to turn up the pace at mile 23 and turned in my best time so far.

This has convinced me that if I am fully committed to both the volume of training miles and the speed training, I have a chance of some significant improvement in my time. I also learned the valuable lesson of letting the body rest and recover (which is the cycle I'm in now).

I also realize (now), that the long, slow running that I was doing has a price if not done correctly. I think it was here in an article that was linked to training paces that it suddenly dawned on me that running slower, to keep my heart rate down, didn't necessarily mean running with a slower turnover rate. My natural instinct to maintain a slower pace and slower heart rate was to slow the turnover rate (mine would drop into the 150-160 step/minute range). Could I run with a step count of 180/per minute (stride count of 90/minute) a still keep my heart rate down? I put a metronome program on my phone and set it to 180 beats/minute and after warming up with a slow jog, turned it on to see what might happen if I kept a shortened stride and landing on my foot the way I like to land when I'm running faster.

Imagine the surprise I found when that not only could I maintain the heart rate (and in some cases it was actually lower than my typical slow runs from just a week or two before), but I was significantly faster in my easy runs while keeping my heart rate down in my "zone 2" range. I was doing something close to 9:00/mile on the flats and slight uphills (faster on the downhills) while running for 45-55 minutes at 180 steps per minute. My Boston qualifier time is "only" 8:57/mile and I was running near that in my midweek easy runs using the "high" turnover rate.

The slower turnover rate that I had been running with was destroying form and efficiency. And I was working on that turnover rate over longer distances and the "easy run" when injury, due to all the races and the training to try to maintain some peak level, finally caught up with me. I also need more dedication to core strengthening and maintaining that and that will be included in my next training cycle. It helped early on and I let that slip as the miles increased.

There are lots of components to go together to go faster. Volume may get you part of the way there. But as a novice at this, I'm finding that how you build that volume may be equally as important.

glevinso wrote: »

I am curious how well the McMillan numbers actually play out as race predictors. I realize that the closer to your goal-distance you use as input the better it will be though. I have been working on my speed lately and just pulled off a 5k in 18:17 (5:54/mi), and McMillan now says I should be able to run a 2:58 marathon. Even if that is off by 10 minutes, that is good enough to BQ (3:10 is my BQ time). I would LOVE to be able to run a sub-3, but my real goal is to get to Boston at some point. Looks like I have the leg speed to do it, but running 6:47 pace for 26 miles doesn't sound like something I can do (which is the pace McMillan says I should be capable of).

The calculators assume adequate preparation for each distance. You may not be capable of hitting that time right now since it sounds like you have been targeting shorter races, but you would in theory be capable of that time with training targeted to a fast marathon.

FWIW, those calculators have been pretty spot on for me from 5k up to a 1/2 when I have trained for each.

I thought training for the race was a given. I was just wondering if it can be believed. In fact I am NOT training for shorter races right now. That 18:17 5k came in the middle of a build for a full Ironman. I certainly won't be running a <3hr marathon 7 weeks from now at that Ironman (something about 2.4mi in the water and 112 miles on the bike before trying to run a marathon is going to slow me down a bit).