Runner66, a 3:05 marathon is 7:03 pace which could be doable if the ankle holds up and you don't drop off a great deal after mile 20. Warm up by walking, start off slowish and talking to people as you get the first ten miles done. Don't get too optimistic until mile 20 and then maintain.

Before race day, walk that ankle to rehab it. Good luck.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

You are at ~ 3:20 finish time if your ankle holds up, and ~3:40 if it doesn't. As mentioned in your previous thread, you really should have at least 1 or more runs at a greater distance than 16 (in addition to the moderate distance run on another weekend day). Whole different animal once you get in the long distance efforts at a specific race pace.

You're strong right now because of your overall mileage and your previous experience, but you're still better off going conservative on your finish time.

Hope the race goes well and the ankle holds up. Good luck.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

If you Google "marathon pace calculator", you'll find several to choose from, each of which probably use a slightly different formula. For me personally, I found that the calculated marathon pace estimates were faster than what I was capable of doing. There could be any number of reasons for that, but in my case, it probably wasn't from a lack of long runs. My long runs were 16 (3), 18 (3), 20 (1) and 22 (2). I ran a fairly evenly paced marathon in October, was very happy with how I did, but it wasn't nearly as fast as the pace calculators would have had me pacing.

If plugging in your 5K pace gives you a HM pace that is faster than what you think you could do for a HM, then the same will probably be true for a marathon.

The race never really starts until mile 20. With your base of 50 miles you could do it. However, your bum ankle and the fact that you have never gone past 16 miles at one time is a concern. My money would be on a time closer to 3:20 - 3:25. I think training to the 20 mile treshold (at least) is critical when you are trying to hit a time like 3:05. Good luck though. Prove me wrong.

---

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com

Dude, you trained for 3:05, now go run 3:05. No excuses!

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

+1. Bad ankle, bad weather, waaah! HTFU and get it done!

At this point, don't over think it. The extra taper may work in your advantage. While science and training theory tells us x, people always end up proving it wrong as everyone is different. Go out with the goal of performing how you planned and trained for. Just keep in mind ou may or may not have to adjust pace based on your ankle and deal with it as it comes up on race day.

Be a racehorse. A racehorse never second guesses its training or fitness. It just goes out and runs the race like it trained to do.

---

"Just don’t abandon everything you’ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

Nothing about what your posted made me think you were in 3:05 shape either. If I were you, I'd more likely start on 315-3:20 pace for the first 10-13 miles and then crank it up in if you're in as good of shape as youre now saying.

Using the McMillan calculator: https://www.mcmillanrunning.com
If you enter in 10M in 1:10:00 (7:00 pace), it projects a marathon time of 3:16:30 (7:30 pace).
If you enter in 10M in 1:08:20 (6:50 pace), it projects a marathon time of 3:11:49 (7:19 pace).

Since your training has been a bit lacking in terms of long runs and you've been slightly injured, it's not unreasonable for other people to think that any marathon pace projections that are based on what you can do for 10 miles, may be optimistic. For me, the last 4-6 miles of my October marathon were when it really got tough. There was a world of difference between me doing a 22 mile training run at an 8:15 pace vs. running 26.2 miles at a 7:43 pace.

Best of luck in next week's race.

I agree that the marathon starts after mile 20. It is concerning that 16 is your long run. I would not expect 3 hour effort having not gone over 16.
But here's to proving us all wrong!

I'll add on to what a few others have said. I'd guess 3:15-3:20.

---

____________________________________________________

Dood; don't kid yourself; you aren't close to 3:05 ready and you have ankly issues...

Your last tempo was 10miles at 7:06?! I've done Hansons plan...tempo pace should be comfortable below your expected race pace...you didn't even run Race Pace...I'm not being critical I'm just suggesting you check your ego at the door and give yourself a realistic set of expectations.

My gut says 3:10. Everybody is different but that is my guess.

My n=1 follows: About a year and a half ago I had trained up for what I think was my 19th marathon (I'd have to go back and count to be sure) but my training sounded a bit like yours. I prob averaged 50 mpw but did more long runs and longer long runs than you have and I usually did a tempo run each week ranging from 6-10 miles at 6:35-6:55 pace (yes, even the ten miler). I was healthy on race day and all was good. I ran a 3:10. Five months prior I ran a 3:11 on very similar training. Several months before those 2 marathons I ran a 1:27 half on a rolling course and serious headwind for 50% of the race. Just sharing as a comparator for you. FWIW I was never near 18:00 5K. I ran a couple of low 19's during this same time period. I hope this info helps some.

I wish you great luck! Post back after the race and let us know how you came out.

i'm not kidding myself. ;)

if he trained for a 3:05, but has issues with ankle and couldn't train 100% like the hanson plan recommended, then i'd say a 3:15 is probable. isn't the hanson plan low on miles anyway?

Go for it! Chances are good you're going to get paid the same whether you run 3:05 or 3:45. If you shoot for your goal and miss, the worst thing that will happen is you'll have to walk the last few kilometers. If you can run an 18:00 5K, and you've been running 50 miles a week, you've got a decent shot at 3:05.

LOL..sorry DooD...I was referring to him...not you....I agree with the 3:15-3:20 crowd.

We all wish you luck. Know this!
Remember Lance's marathon debut? I think that he topped off at 16 miles for his long run. People were predicting (including STers) he would run 2:30 or faster. He ended up, if I recall right around 3 hours. Now here is a super athlete/international star and doping and he could barely run 3 hours.

And I believe he said that it was the hardest thing that he had ever done up to that point. Of course admitting he lied to his children and facing Oprah probably trumped the race later on.

I believe in the Hanson plan...but it doesn't give a lot of room for error....I think it is unnecessary heavy on speed over volume..but that is their approach which relies heavily on training with cumulative fatigue....generally I believe it is fundamentally sound...

re: my math; maybe my confusion; I thought tempo pace was 10-15sec. under race pace...

I'm happy to admit being wrong...you certainly sound like you have confidence in you preparation and that is 90% of the battle.

Good Luck!

No, I'm sure that the Hanson plan probably works great, for people who are well suited to it. They have had incredible success working with elite athletes. You may be successful, but you're not an elite athlete (neither am I). I think that the long runs that I did for my last marathon were far less important for any physical adaptations that they may have caused, than the mental benefit that I gained from them. I did several 3 hour training runs. It not only gave me confidence, but it gave me more data points to help judge what a reasonable target would be in my marathon.

I didn't feel the need to ask anyone for advice on my target pace leading up to my October marathon. Nobody knew my body and what training it had been through, better than me. That's where having done some 20-22 mile runs certainly helped me, and may have helped you. I looked back at some of your old postings. In response to this:
.
You wrote:
It sounds like the Hanson plan convinced you that you shouldn't need to run more than 16 miles at a time, but now you're not sure where you stand? But you're trying to convince everyone else that there's no reason to run more than 16 miles. I hope the Hanson plan works out for you.

as you stated, the whole logic of the Hansen plan is to do the shorter 16 mile long run on tired legs, Thursday is a pretty tough marathon pace run, Friday and Saturday are like 8 or 10 and then sunday is on fatigued legs. I like the logic of the plan and know a number of runners in that 3-ish hours pace who have had good success with it, especially older runner with a lot of miles on their bodies.

I think your training and 18 flat 5k point to good fitness and I doubt that running 3.15 would be any more satisfying for you right now that going out at 3.05 pace and walking off if you can't do it. At some point you get enough finishers medals, my vote, if I get one, is to roll the dice and run the race you trained for.

Not to be voice of dissent, but if you run 3:05 w/ a negative split on a long run of 16 miles you'll have made a mockery of every running coach/race predictor/training plan in existence.

Good luck.

that's the point, he is following a plan and it's one that has worked out well for people. The authors of the book make a good case for the idea of running more solid mileage over 6 days a week rather that doing a singe 3 hour run and being beat up for days. I know a bunch of people that have followed the plan closely and run low 3 hour races off mid 50 to mid 60 mile weeks

I love the debate around the Hanson plan; and I do believe it is physiologically sound....but to echo earlier post...I do not believe it is well suited to most runners. It is a tough plan to execute and I also believe it leaves many (most) unprepared psychologically for the last 6-10miles of the race...a very long time unless your running 6min. pace or better.

I'm a 2:38 Marathoner (admittedly in my 20's) which I achieved on typically mix of mileage and speed...and multiple long runs of 18-22 miles....I am now in my 50's and two years ago after running 3:25 on triathlon training...I wanted to take a real crack at 3:00hrs again with a run focused program....and I tried the Hanson program. First caveat is that I trained at the pace I was hoping for ...not the pace I was really ready for...and I ended up getting injured (Achilles)...not enough to stop my training...but enough to put a dent into my time goal....I completed the race but I didn't race it...I just ran it....

This intense focus on pace running and cumulative fatigue...I think is unsuited to many runners outside younger & elite type runners...unless taken up with caution...and as I said even then leaves more unexperienced runners unprepared for another 60-90 minutes trying to hold pace at the end of a marathon...

Just IMHO.

Now just go for it.

Long runs are obviously useful but I don't think they are absolutely necessary, especially for an experienced runner.
My n = 1, YMMV: last fall I ran two marathons. The training was basically 10-11 km commute run most days (so some 80-100 km per week). I did exactly one longer run, 26 km or 16 miles.
Times were 2:45 in a hilly marathon 2:45 and 2:41, which were pretty much in line with what I was expecting.

I wasn't familiar with the Hanson plan until now. I'm intrigued by it and may even get one of their books, but from what little I now know of it, I would agree with what you wrote. I'm 49, took up running not too long ago, and have only run three marathons so far. I think the long runs I did last year were invaluable to me from a psychologically standpoint. The Hanson method seems to be better suited to someone who has run more marathons than I have.

I'm sticking to something closer to this for now: Keflezighi likes his long runs long. “If you can get in several runs between 24 and 28 miles, with enough time for recovery, that’s going to make you strong as a nail,” he says. “Combine that with the tempos, the intervals, and you’re ready.”

Good Luck...I mean that seriously; you sound confident and ready...believe it and run it!

BTW are you running at Shamrock? I'll be down there running the half as a workout...hope the weather holds.

Cheers.

i'm in a similar boat, I ran 1.12 1/2m 25 years ago, now I struggle to not get hurt and break 1.33, with even more of a stepdown at the shorter races. I tried Hanson over the winter to train for a 30k in 2 weeks and have been very happy with my progress. I feel like I got a great base with a ton of running at tempo to marathon pace. In my youth I used to do 20 milers, but who knows if they were the secret, it's kind of a moving target. I feel better on my daily runs, it took a while.

For me, a slow but experienced runner who tends toward injury the Hanson plan was a good fit. I'm going to try the 1/2 marathon plan too, as 30k is more than plenty long for me at this point in my running life

The irony, of course, is that all of the elite marathon runners coached by the Hansons run 100-130 miles a week and do long runs of 20+ miles.

their argument is based on the time spent running, so the elites are maybe 2.15 for the 20 mi long runs, while a 3.15 kind of marathoner covers 16 in the same time more or less. The argument is to hit the energy system with pre-tired legs and then get up Monday and run 8 and go do 6x1 mile Tuesday before you rest. It has a certain logic to it, I was skeptical at first.

No, I understand the logic. I just thought it was funny that people keep saying that it's a good plan for elites when the elites don't really follow it in the same way as amateurs. For the Hanson elites, their plan really isn't very different from what other elite marathoners are doing. I just don't want people to get the idea that their elites are running 2:10 on 50 miles per week and a long run of 16 miles.

This talk of volume is interesting, but what happens when you add in volume from training for 2 other sports?

I've not run much more than 25km per week for at least 6 months, but today set a pb over 16 miles of 16 minutes finishing in 1:52, and had i not been an official pace maker could have taken another couple of minutes off that.

I have a marathon in 4 weeks time and I will add in two more 2 hr runs and based on todays VDOT score I reckon it's entirely possible to run c.3:08, i guess what i'm saying is that run volume is important if you are a runner, but that when you add in a wholistic tri programme I think you can cut out a lot of the volume of a classic marathon programme...

It's an experiment, and one that could go horribly wrong, but hopefully not!

I would look at the post's from "scott wrigley" "printer" and "rusty sprocket"

Stop asking questions on how you will do, we won't know until race day…but between now and then you might know a bit better than us. Go out and execute at 7:03-7:07 for the first 15 and see what happens.

Better to try and fail than to not try and fail. Of course much better to try and succeed ;-)

What is your weight and nutrition plan from breakfast to end of race?

Maurice

Personal opinion, I haven't run a marathon since 2007 and not really a decent one since 2006.

At 145 and a 3:07 and change I had a breakfast similar to yours but did gel at minus 15 minutes then at every 25 after so maybe closer to 800-900 cal planned for me at 145lbs. Plus water at every station (only…no gator aid) to help with uptake.

My PB that year at 5km was 19:07 so way less speed than you, also hours topped out at about 9 or 100km (60 miles) give or take, looks like you have the speed for sure, I think you need to ignore ST for the next few days/week or so….go with your gut ;-)

I really didn't want to run a marathon but my GF BQ'd ;-0

Have a great race….Just lay it out, you know that just pinning a number will give you 2-6 seconds per mile.

Cheers,
Maurice

We're the same size. My advice is not to over think it. Don't do anything new with your nutrition on race day. In fact, I don't do anything out of the ordinary on race day. I just have my same breakfast about 3 hours before the race and take one gel every 40 minutes on the course. The gel gives me all I need during the run. I don't take any Gatorade, but I do grab a cup of water at each aid station. Keep it simple.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

I am rooting for you. I am in week 12 of Hanson's plan aiming for a 3:10 run on 05/03.

I'd say trust your training! Maybe ignore their schedule for the last week and give your ankle some rest. Run a few 3-4 mile runs.

Go get it! Post the followup please - let's see whether the plan works for you.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Any words on how the OP fared during the marathon? I'm pretty curious about results from the low milage training/Hanson plan.

i am guessing he didnt post a 3:05 or we would have heard all about it

He posted another thread about the results: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#5480198

i did a fair bit of running in poor footing this winter and the impact was often over a minute per mile. I don't see how you could have run a 3.05 on snowy roads. This picture was my last marathon and my last attempt at 2.37, first weekend in MAY in Buffalo, deep slushy snow on the roads for the whole day. Traction was about zero, lumbered home in 2.45, I'm #787 at the bottom of the page with the horrible arm swing and clothes from the second hand bin, including mis matched garden gloves

i remember looking down at my shoe and the whole toe box was blood red by the 1/2, it was a long freaking day. All the good runners kept dropping out ahead of me so I finished 7th., this sunday's 30k will be my longest run since that day in 1989.

I credit the Hansen plan for getting me this far without injury. No matter how I run on sunday, this has been my longest continuous streak of injury free running over 50 mi a week in many years. Maybe the emphasis on tempo rather than faster pace running is part of it, I don't feel like it has really hit my speed much but I do feel better running at a faster pace

That sucks about the weather. I'm still running on ice up here in Fairbanks but it's starting to melt after being on the ground since September.