I run a 3:05 marathon, going for sub 3, and I run my easy runs at 8:10-8:30 (or currently doing my best to stay in that window!). Maybe you would feel good slowing down your easy runs a little and this would help you extend mileage.

beeblebrox82 wrote: »

Sorry, pencil-whipped it, definitely not doing long runs at 7:30. typically between 8:30 and 9:00. Still the math is good from the other end, a solid hour running after the 90 minute mark on a 17 miler for me.

I guess I'm just nervous, I have only been running a few years and I seem to have hit a mileage wall where I'm getting diminishing returns, and I'm trying to get over it.

2012: 249
2013: 612
2014: 1296
2015: 1600? That would be up another 20% and would be 160miles per month for the rest of the year, on average (I'm a bit behind, broke a toe at the end of last year, unrelated to running.)

I see where you keep talking about your long run, but I am not sure if I missed what you do for the rest of the week. I apologize if I missed it. The long run whether it is 13 miles or 17 or 20 miles is only one component of your over all training.

What other runs do you do? The long run should only be 25-33% of your over all weekly miles. Closer to 25% the better. So if you do a 17 mile long run, then your total weekly miles to support it should be between 51-68 miles.

That means the week you are doing a 17 miler, you should have already ran between 34-51 miles. I know most 18 week plans for beginners and intermediates don't have you doing this or have you doing it for too long. I hate those 18 week plans. They break so many rules of smart running.

It's an hour long! Can you just tell us how slow they do their long runs?

Actually, cross country and then track and field is pretty much how kids come up through the club system in the UK too. I'm not sure I'd be hugely keen on the shorter track stuff coming to running at my age, though this may just be because I don't want to be lapped by much faster-than-me teenagers in crop tops and hotpants.

Also, 8:54-9:30

litsy3 wrote: »

I agree with Carrie. It's hard to imagine that a healthy male in his thirties is already hitting diminishing returns from training with a 3:36 marathon. Run slower and run more miles!

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

@beeblebrox82 , I think you are over-thinking this. Slow down. Run more miles and the PRs will come. I ran a 3:10 for a PR a couple years back at age 45 running my long runs slower than 9:00 per mile. Most of my weekday runs were that pace or slower too.

CarsonRuns:

"If it takes you 3:30 to run 22 miles, you are running at a 9:33 pace. This runner is going to be more fit and will have a more successful marathon (assuming proper pacing, etc)."

That would mean for me, as a 50 year old, female runner, to run my first marathon at a Boston Qualifier time...

"If it takes you 3:30 to run 17 miles, you are running at a 13:08 pace. That person is going to have a hard time being prepared for a marathon."

I ran my first marathon last Sunday successfully in just over 5 hours. I did not have a hard time, albeit I ran at a much slower time than you suggest. I did not hit a wall or collapsed at the end of the race.

I did train about 50 miles per week pretty consistently with my longer runs being around 20 miles.

Just thought I mention this as there might be "older" runners here or others who run at slower times. I am not sure whether the speed necessarily says to much about whether one is ready or not for a full marathon. Training volume and mileage might be equally important?

Stef.

SKME2013 wrote: »

CarsonRuns:

"If it takes you 3:30 to run 22 miles, you are running at a 9:33 pace. This runner is going to be more fit and will have a more successful marathon (assuming proper pacing, etc)."

That would mean for me, as a 50 year old, female runner, to run my first marathon at a Boston Qualifier time...

"If it takes you 3:30 to run 17 miles, you are running at a 13:08 pace. That person is going to have a hard time being prepared for a marathon."

I ran my first marathon last Sunday successfully in just over 5 hours. I did not have a hard time, albeit I ran at a much slower time than you suggest. I did not hit a wall or collapsed at the end of the race.

I did train about 50 miles per week pretty consistently with my longer runs being around 20 miles.

Just thought I mention this as there might be "older" runners here or others who run at slower times. I am not sure whether the speed necessarily says to much about whether one is ready or not for a full marathon. Training volume and mileage might be equally important?

Stef.

At the risk of sounding elitist, our definitions of a "successful marathon" are probably different. You may define your experience as a success and that's great if that's what you set out to do. To me, a successful marathon is one that is run as fast as you can run it based on your current level of fitness. With your training, you probably could have run it faster, but you wouldn't have had the experience that you had. You might have collapsed at the end. You might have hit the wall. You might have had to endure excruciating pain.

This is independent of age. I'm 47. I could easily go out and cruise through a 4 hour marathon, but I'd much rather live on the razor's edge and try to beat my PR of 3:10. That's why I race. I concede that it's different for each runner, but I think this information is important for me to mention, if for nothing more than context of my comments.

CarsonRuns wrote: »

At the risk of sounding elitist, our definitions of a "successful marathon" are probably different. You may define your experience as a success and that's great if that's what you set out to do. To me, a successful marathon is one that is run as fast as you can run it based on your current level of fitness. With your training, you probably could have run it faster, but you wouldn't have had the experience that you had. You might have collapsed at the end. You might have hit the wall. You might have had to endure excruciating pain.

This is independent of age. I'm 47. I could easily go out and cruise through a 4 hour marathon, but I'd much rather live on the razor's edge and try to beat my PR of 3:10. That's why I race. I concede that it's different for each runner, but I think this information is important for me to mention, if for nothing more than context of my comments.

I wouldn't necessarily use the word "elitist." Rather, I would say your view lacks a certain perspective that comes with age. Although Stef is not much older than you are, I am considerably older than you are. The fact that my first race since 1986 was a marathon (at age 60) has a completely different context to it. Prior to that my longest race was 10K and that was in 1986. With fewer and fewer days left in your life, having passed your prime and perhaps having experienced one or more events that remind you of your mortality, the choice of margin to the "razor's edge" will probably get wider. You will probably not choose to be closer to hospitalization or death.

And so what constitutes a successful marathon is considerably different with age. That is not to say that any competitive tendencies tend to go away. I take a certain amount of pleasure in being able to place in the top 3 in my age group for some half marathon and shorter distances. Just as I take a certain amount of pleasure in completing a marathon and remaining feeling well after that completion and not becoming a piece of furniture for the next day or so. But as my marathoning neighbor (two doors down from me) has pointed, the capability of running at the sustainable speeds of your 30s and 40s begins to fade no matter how good your training. At your age, he ran marathons considerably faster than you do (2:41-2:43). His last marathon (just before his 60th birthday) was 3:32:56 and he could see the yearly gradual decline despite the training (he was 9th out of 143 in his age division). So, while he likes to go fast, the capacity and even the desire to continue the sort of wear and tear for the marathon distance has waned.

Racing, I an't compete with him. Out for a long run of 10-15 miles, no real problem.