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).

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).

McMillan is pretty spot on when I put in my HM time and work down; it's almost 100% accurate to my mile time, 5k time, etc. But it says I should be able to do a 3:58 marathon, which would be great, but I know I can't get that kind of time yet. I usually add 20 mins to the McMillan time, mostly because I struggle mentally more than physically in the last half of a full. And running 40-42 mpw in my peak weeks probably isn't the best prep for the 26.2 distance anyhow (summer goals: bigger weekly mileage!).

Right - at the moment I am only running in the 40-ish mpw range because of the rest of the training. I wasn't thinking of building for a fall marathon this year but my mind may change later.

Mcmillan has been close for me. Right on pretty much for my first (3:33) and 3 min fast for the next two (3:09- got 3:12, 3:02- got 3:05) but both of those races has asterisks ...the 3:12 was insane hilly and the 3:05 was freezing head wind in Boston a few weeks back. So I feel they are very accurate if you put in equal training.

My McMillan times up to HM were pretty accurate 2 years ago predicting a 1:33 while I ran a 1:35. Unfortunately, for the marathon 8 months later it predicted a 3:15 and I was 17 min slower despite many months above 300 miles. My problem I think was that even though I had a lot of miles I was running mostly too hard and my legs had been feeling sluggish for months before the marathon. My lesson learned for this time around.