I calculated that if I run the marathon at the speed of my two last 5.6 mile runs, I will do it in just under 4 hours. What this means to me is that my goal is not terribly impossible, although, obviously, much more work is needed.
Actually not a bad thought, 4 hours may be possible at that pace. But until you start doing the longer runs you'll never know how your endurance, even at slower paces, will hold up. It's a far different matter when you get out there into miles 17, 18, 19... you get the idea.
Out of curiousity I ran today's run through a PF calculator. The actual time was 54:45 for 6.1 miles (or 9:00 for 6 miles), it calculated a 2:03 half and a 4:20 full marathon.
With this calculator, to get under a 4:00 marathon you need to have about a 8:15 pace over 6 miles. That gives you a 1:53 half and a 0:50 10k
Meaningless, in so far as whether or not you could really achieve any of those times vs. distances. You might as well take up SCUBA diving and depend solely on your dive calculator to get you home safe.
Surf <could Galloway have been on to something?>
"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QDJbd.130342$He1.76932@attbi_s01...
Quoted message said:
Out of curiousity I ran today's run through a PF calculator. The actual time was 54:45 for 6.1 miles (or 9:00 for 6 miles), it calculated a 2:03 half and a 4:20 full marathon.
With this calculator, to get under a 4:00 marathon you need to have about a 8:15 pace over 6 miles. That gives you a 1:53 half and a 0:50 10k
Out of curiousity I ran today's run through a PF calculator. The actual time was 54:45 for 6.1 miles (or 9:00 for 6 miles), it calculated a 2:03 half and a 4:20 full marathon.
With this calculator, to get under a 4:00 marathon you need to have about a 8:15 pace over 6 miles. That gives you a 1:53 half and a 0:50 10k
Plus the endurance, of course.
If you're planning to just break some arbitrary time limit somewhere in the middle of your capabilities then using training as an estimate is fine. If you're going to race it to your ability, it would be better to use a 10k *race* time, or as Donovan is going to use for his marathon pace estimate, a HM. I'm going to use a 10 mile race to estimate my marathon pace. I used a LT workout to determine my 10 mile pace. For the marathon there are many more intangibles, and it can be seen from the top marathoners that when you're trying to run at your limit, the odds are that something will go wrong. Paula Radcliffe is just one of many examples.
I've never denied that my pace at distance is currently well below what the models predict because I'm still extremely light on distances over 10 miles.
My point to Ig was just that there's more than just stringing together four 6 miles runs to get a marathon at the same pace.
Surf McBrowse said:
Meaningless, in so far as whether or not you could really achieve any of those times vs. distances. You might as well take up SCUBA diving and depend solely on your dive calculator to get you home safe.
Surf <could Galloway have been on to something?>
"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:QDJbd.130342$He1.76932@attbi_s01...
Out of curiousity I ran today's run through a PF calculator. The actual time was 54:45 for 6.1 miles (or 9:00 for 6 miles), it calculated a 2:03 half and a 4:20 full marathon.
If you're going to race it to your ability, it would be better to use a 10k *race* time, or as Donovan is going to use for his marathon pace estimate, a HM.
My only other race was the Bolder Boulder in May. That was a hard-run 67 minutes, my tempo run yesterday was 55 minutes. At the end of speedwork two months ago we had what amounted to a 5k race and my time was something like 28:40.
The Bolder Boulder numbers are obviously meaningless now, and even the 5k numbers are worthless since I covered twice the distance with less effort yesterday.
To be honest I don't even know what my race pace is anymore. I've either been training for or recovering from my marathon for months. I was shocked by my time yesterday... and I doubt I'm fully recovered from my race. But it would be absurd to predict a sub-4:00 marathon just yet....
My point to Ig was just that there's more than just stringing together four 6 miles runs to get a marathon at the same pace.
Ah well then we're agreed, sort of. The thing with Iggy is you have to be very very very very very clear when pointing out any shortcomings in his plan for jogging a sub four hour marathon. Otherwise anything you suggest will be consumed as Absolute 100 proof.
