So your goal was 4 hours and you spent the first half at 3:40 pace, ran very low mileage in training and wonder why you fell apart at the end?

Not nutrition.

You did 20 mile runs on a treadmill?

winner, winner.

Main reasons for your blowup:


1. I strongly suspect you didn't run enough volume in training. 39mpw PEAK probably means you averaged around 30 mpw, which, if you use an 'online prediction calculator' to extrapolate marathon time based upon 5k or other shorter races, pretty much guarantees you will blow up and come nowhere near that predicted marathon time. You typically have to peak at 55mpw or more to hit those calculator targets.

2. Went out too fast. If your target is 4hrs and that is REALISTIC, a 1:50 1st half split pretty much consigns you to a late game blowup.

3. You do need some road adaptation for best preparation. It's not that the TM is too soft per se, it's that your legs just won't be able to handle the added downhill pounding and incline variety on the race course outdoors.

Also, if you did all your miles at 0% incline, that is def easier than running flat on a road, and that limits your training and impact resistance.

There's nothing wrong with lots of TM training, but there are caveats, and its' best to do several long runs at minimum outdoors just so there are no surprises on race day with how your legs respond.

Thanks a bunch!! Just what I was expecting...

I followed a race provided plan, which was why the peak mileage was only 39...probably should have known.

My training was 8:00 pace, but I would walk every 20 minutes to take a gel and hydrate...averaged out to 8:20ish pace.

Severely underestimated the damage that my body would feel running outside....the 20-22 mile runs on treadmill were fairly easy compared to Saturday, and no soreness afterwards. Today, I can barely walk!

Thanks for all of the advice.

I just picked a 4 hour goal because I thought it was realistic.... I really felt that from my training pace 8-8:20ish that I could finish faster. I did anticipate slowing in the back half...but did not anticipate falling apart physically.

The long runs on the treadmill were not that bad...Have a flat screen in the garage and Netflix on the Chromecast!

I really feel it was the outside/pavement vs. treadmill only that killed me. The course was almost dead flat (Ormond Beach Florida, Tomoka Marathon). Beautiful race if anyone ever has the chance! Money well spent!

I actually suspect your outcome wouldn't have been a ton better had you run the exact same mileage in training outdoors. Maybe a little better, but not a ton better, although I'll bet you also would have more quickly reevaluated your race day goal after feeling the beatdown from a hilly outdoor 20 mile training run.

I actually run my TM workouts for distance at 3% incline to make it harder than outdoors, which has worked well for me. It increase the time on your feet for the long runs, and builds your leg muscular endurance. 0% is def too easy given the outdoor pounding and potential variations in elevation, and even if you run faster at 0% on the TM, you're not getting as much time on your feet so the volume is less as well.

The answer is right there. For a marathon to go well you need to: (1) set a realistic goal based on your training and (2) pace yourself appropriately. I do not know if four hours is a realistic goal; that depends on your ability and training. But I do know that going out almost a minute per mile ahead of your intended pace is a recipe for disaster. Next time run the first half in 2:00-2:03 and I bet you'll find the second half far more manageable.

Number one is just your first half pace, others have pointed that out. It is quite possible that if you went out in 2;00/;02 you would have broken 4 hours. At least it would have been a lot closer and maybe you shuffle in instead of walking.

The 2nd thing you mentioned is that it was a dead flat course. People mistakenly think this is the easiest, it is not. When you dont have any grades in a race you legs just pound the same exact same muscles over and over, and they get fatigued quicker. With a few hills or rollers you get to change your stride and mix it up, and recruit muscles that got left alone in a flat only race. Next time find one with rollers.

The mileage is fine, if your goal is only 4 hours that is plenty if done right. I think you now know that you should do your long run maybe on the road now too...

 Yes, agreed. Absolutely think that it was outdoors versus the treadmill. I ran five long runs of 20 to 22 miles on the treadmill at an 806 pace and had zero soreness afterwards. Also, I was able to run the whole time. The only thing that changed for me on race morning was the fact that it was outside. I just did not anticipate outdoor runs having that much more of a detrimental impact on the body than the treadmill runs. Lesson learned! Once again, grateful for all of the advice. You guys rock!

Personally I trained indoor for an April marathon and PR'd it 3:29. Having a good marathon can be done indoors or outdoors.

It all depends on your training and past fitness. Lots of other factors play into it aside from on or off treadmill. Treadmills can be some of the best targeted training, but can also derail training since it can be mundane and boring for the long work.

---

Ryan
http://www.SetThePaceTriathlon.com
http://www.TriathlonTrainingDaddy.com
I got plans - https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...dotcom#trainingplans

Lol

Everyone ‘it’s because you went out too hard and didn’t do enough miles’

OP ‘I think it’s because of the difference between training indoors and outdoors’

Everyone ‘no, it’s because you went out to hard and didn’t do enough miles’

OP ‘absolutely think it was because of indoors versus outdoors, you guys rock’

Palm face...

Am I the only one that thinks that is an insane amount of gel to be eating for four hours?

---

***

You did a lot wrong. Training, goal setting, pacing, the whole thing. But it’s your first marathon and it almost never happens that people nail their marathon on first crack.

I ran my first one just like you. Severely undertrained. It was a miracle I finished in 5:53.

Second one I trained better, I am running at mile 6, feeling good and ready to crush it, and I see a blind guy with a dog pass me. Then someone barefoot passes me. Then some crippled dude passes me with a guide. Then someone morbidly obese passed me and I knew I am fucked and I really need to reavulate my training. Finished that in 5:13

3rd one was 4:53. Then I took some time off to finish med school. When I got out I was the fat fuck. So I bought a treadmill, I just ran daily at 11:00 pace on it for 8 miles playing Madden. After 4 years of no running, my marathon time was 4:18 and on 8 daily miles of 5.3-5.7 mph. No speed work, tempos, long runs, etc.

Fast forward a couple years, and after a DNF at my first IM (IMWI), I was truly humbled. Started educating myself, continued to lose weight, read books, joined forums, listened to podcasts, and really learned what to do. My next marathon was my first marathon where I felt I dictated the course. I was in complete control. Pace, nutrition, everything. 3:43 on my 5th marathon, it finally clicked what marathon pace is supposed to be. Since then, I’ve done 3 IM’s lots of HIM’s, HM, 5/10k’s. Marathon time has come down to 3:27 and HM 1:32 and 3:00/1:30 are in clear view, although it’s been a few years since my last open marathon.

Marathon training and race, properly done is really tough on the body and I am enjoying tris. So I don’t know when my next marathon will be. But I love running and will be back at it again sporadically.

I am currently on the same journey with HIM/IM. Each race, I see improvements and one of them will click.

So don’t be discouraged. Pick up Advanced Marathong by Pfitzinger, or Hudson’s marathon book, or Jack Daniels and read them and keep at it. Make sure to take a few weeks off from this marathon to let your body and mind heal. Enjoy the journey and the process.

You didn't mention how you measured pace on your TM -- if you relied on the TM for this . . . . well, a lot of TM's are not very accurate. Even footpods can fail you on the TM. If you did 22 miles in training @ a 8:06 pace and it felt easy, maybe it wasn't really at an 8:06 pace -- you ran slower than that in your race and yet crashed and burned well before 22 miles.

I do about the same. A gel every 3 miles, which is a little more than 1 every 22-23 minutes.

How often did you run? I suspect you didn't run often enough. Run at least 6 days a week every week, and the volume will creep up more incrementally and when you hit peak mileage (which should be at least 10 miles more than what you did) it will not tax your body as much as doing a few small runs during the week and then loading up a 20 miler. The BarryP method can be used as the foundation to accomplish this.

My first full I did 100% of my training runs outdoors. I peaked at like 46 mpw so not too different from you. Goal time was also 4 hours and lead up races and training predicted that would be doable and 3:45 should be feasible. However, my coach advised me to run at 4 hour pace.

My raceday pacing was quite good, nutrition went well and yet at the end of the day my result was very similar to yours. I blew up at mile 22 and had to walk two miles trying not to make eye contact with the medical staff along the course fearing they would see how I looked and pull me off the course. I ended up finishing at 4:25. After the race, my coach confided that her first full went much the same.

My next full had a very similar lead up in volume and pace and I finished comfortably in 3:58 despite a hot day.

My one piece of unsolicited advice: your soreness will recover in the next week or so and by a week and a half to two weeks from now you will feel amazing. Don't fall for it! Your body will not be recovered at that point. My worst running injury to date (knock on wood) was going too hard two weeks after the first marathon when I felt amazing and just tweaked a muscle. Took the better part of 6 months to recover. The upside is I spent that 6 months learning to swim well enough to tri.

Did you take these regular ~1 minute walk/hydration/fuel breaks in the race?

This. Really for a first marathon I would toss the time goal and go out slower than what you think you can do, with a goal of negative splitting. If it works, you can pick up energy at the end from passing everyone who went out too fast. The last six miles are hard enough in your first marathon without running right on the edge.

Haha, yep

Lol... one guy says nutrition, another says enough miles per week, another says not enough, another says too many gels, another says just the right amount.... my point was only that everyone has a different opinion as to what went wrong.

My pace is set via Garmin 920 watch...it is consistent with my treadmill pace.

Mate you came asking for advice but don't seem to want to accept what every person has told you...

Post 1: To hard to early and low mileage
Post 3: To hard to early and low mileage
Post 4: To hard to early and low mileage
Post 6: To hard to early and low mileage
Post 7: To hard to early and low mileage

......

Except for the two people who said the mileage was fine... figured I would get several different opinions as to what went wrong... was looking for consensus.

I could have ran more... could have ran outside more..

Next time...

Gotcha, thanks for the help.

Definitely will grab those resources. Thanks for the insight and personal experience! Blessings

Really depends on his 5-10k speed and if the goal time was a stretch or not.
if he's a 25min 5ker than the training was too low, closer to a 20min 5k runner than it should be no problem on 40k per week.

I consistently run 21ish at the end of a sprint tri. My best stand alone is 19:20.

Nutrition every 20minutes.... one gel, water/Gatorade

As everyone else has said...

No outdoor running isn't that different, and it does NOT explain your meltdown.

Your description is pretty classic for someone who goes out too fast. Felt great until it didn't, then went to hell in the form of muscle fatigue and cramping.

As was noted above, your goal was 4 hours. That's 9:10 pace. Yet, you chose to run at 8:20 pace. You apparently knew that, but thought you could get away with it. Eg maybe you would slow down some in the second half, but not by enough to sacrifice your goal. You were given a lesson... Will you choose to learn it? You cant run fast enough in the first half to make up for walking in the second half. Slow down.

Second, Your training pace was uncalibrated. You had no idea how to translate your tm pace to real road pace. As was noted above tm can be notoriously inaccurate. Mine is a full min/mile slow at 8 min pace. So you really have no idea how fast you were running in training. Given that you did multiple "8:20" pace runs at 20-22 miles, yet failed at mile 15 in the race I'd guess your tm indicates faster than real pace.

However, even if that had been an accurate training pace, you still went out too fast. You'd never run 26.2 at 8:20 pace. So, you needed to slow down to allow for the final 10k. So, all the indications are that you went out too fast for your fitness, and it caught up with you at mile 15 in the form of muscle cramps.

1. Get a foot pod.
2. Run more outdoors, so you can calibrate between the tm and real pace.
3. Stick to your goal for the first half. If you feel great you can turn it up in the second half.
4. Run some shorter races leading up, so you can gage fitness and estimate a good race goal.

My first marathon I went 4:24 / splits were 1:40 2:44

Ouch.

Don’t worry about it. That happens to most people.

I thought I had a 3:30 in me. I might have. But went out too hard. You probably did too.

If you ran a 1:50 half stand alone I think most would agree you have a sub 4 in you. Even if you train exclusively on the treadmill. You will do it next time!

I went out intentionally slower during my first marathon to avoid this exact outcome. I crossed the finish line knowing I left a few minutes on the course, but I felt good and was ready to run another one.

I picked a marathon with pace groups and picked the group 10 minutes slower than I thought I could finish. This kept me in check for the first 8-10k.

Chalk it up to a learning experience and incorporate it into your training and race execution next time. You know what you did wrong and luckily, they are pretty easy mistakes to remedy.

I can tolerate a gel every 40, maybe every 35 minutes, in a full mary. More than that and after a few gut rot sets in in a big way...

Same for me. I start out with every 40 mins but do starnot decreasing it towards the end as I sense hunger coming on a bit sooner - 30/35 mins.

Averaging 30 miles per week and 42 peak is good as a triathlete. But as a runner, that’s the bare minimum.
Your 5k time is good. You just lack the running endurance.
Next time try to average 50-65 miles per week and keep your easy runs around 9:00 pace, and you’ll crush your marathon. If the first 10 miles of the marathon don’t feel too easy, you’ve gone too fast.

How is 40 miles/week "very low mileage" especially for a 4 hour marathon. Probably above average mileage for that level? I suppose it also depends on ability, age, weight, resilience etc My mate's son did sub 3 hours off similar mileage, but he's 21, lean and has a run background, albeit 5/10km.


And I don't think 1.50 is necessarily overcooking it if your goal is 4.00 hours. If you've done the training, you can go too fast and ease back the 2nd half without bonking too bad. Not sure about the 99% training on a treadmill though?

I'm a '4-hour man' and have always crossed half way around 1'49-1'54. In two of the nine, I managed to hold the pace and finished in 3'49/3'53. The others have been in the 4'00 to 4'35 range - some near misses and some tough 10km slogs at the end.

Aside from running outside more, if cracking 4 hours is your only goal, I'd say you're not far away.

(45 years/6'4/185lbs)

---

My race site: https://racesandplaces.wixsite.com/racesandplaces

So you're saying that, at a race distance where almost the entire running community universally agree that a negative split is the fastest way to run, aiming for a 20-minute positive split and running the first half 1:30 per mile faster* than the second isn't overcooking it?! I agree that you can run a marathon that way, but it's not going to be anywhere near your potential.

As for the OP, first and foremost I agree with everyone else that it sounds a lot like you overcooked the start. Comparing your overall training mileage to other people is a bit of a red-herring; some people will be able to run a 3-hour marathon off 40 mpw, others will struggle to hit 5 hours. What you need to look at is what you are capable of running that training mileage.

Secondly, are you using a calibrated footpod on your treadmill runs and are you running it at 0% incline? These two points are crucial IMO. If you're relying on the wrist-based accelerometer in your 920XT to give you pace then it's not going to be accurate. I know you probably won't believe this, but the fact that it correlates with your treadmill's pace is almost certainly down to blind-ass luck, not the accuracy and reliability of either unit, because they could both easily be 1:00+ min per mile off. Secondly, and in line with your perceptions, yes, running at 0% incline on a treadmill is significantly easier than running outdoors IMO. Ideally you really want to be doing at least some of your running outdoors as a sanity-check.

*8:23 for a 1:50 half vs 9:55 for a 2:10

Because he didn't average 40, he peaked at 39 which means his average was 30 or lower. I've run sub 3 off of 40, but that included around 8+h of cycling/swimming as well which gave me a good base.


To the OP, as most have said, indoor has absolutely nothing to do about it. Think about your mileage for a bit, you said you have done 20 and 22 mile long runs, that means for the rest of that week you ran at most 17 miles in 6 days, and your long run is most of your weeks mileage. This is def not the way to do it, long runs should be about 30% of weekly mileage. Try again and this time have at least 40mpw as a base, and peak around 55 and you should easily break 4.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

I don't think your gel consumption affected your race that much - you just went out too fast - but it seemed excessive to me for a race. But if that's what you trained with, it should not have been a limiting factor.

---

***

I have no experience on the marathon front as my first will be part of my first IM. But I do most training on the road and occasionally have to get runs in on a treadmill during the workday. There is no doubt that it's not the same. I always put the grade up slightly and just flat out ignore the pace. Does not transfer over in the least. HR is pretty off too since heat/wind/etc. are all pretty different at the gym (usually stuffy with no breeze). So on the treadmill, I go with RPE. Without outside runs I have no gauge for proper pacing. This isn't an outside training is better thing, just that its needed to calibrate your goals.

I think this is an important fact to look at.

Thanks everyone...

Absolutely agree that undoubtedly my pace measurement/perception from treadmill had to be slower than my race pace...meaning I went out harder than I was actually training at...otherwise shouldn’t have melted down like I did...

Really had no idea what mileage to shoot for at the peak, just used what the race provided:
http://www.tomokamarathon.com/...ainingPlan16Week.pdf

The insight you guys have offered is invaluable!!

Certainly learned my lesson and can’t wait for tri season to start so I can redeem myself!

Maybe next year for the marathon!

Tom, Monty and others are spot on - pacing in first half was too quick and came back to bite you in the second half. Easy mistake to make and one that I've made more than once. Very easy to get caught up in the moment (or if it's your first one) and push harder than normal and then have the race blow up on you down the stretch. It's always good to look back afterwards and make a mental list of what you could have done different/lessons learned to apply to the next one going forward.

---

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race." - Richard Butler

The marathon is just a 10k with the worlds longest warm up. The last 6 miles are where it counts and can make or break a race (obviously). If your longest runs were 20 and 22 miles, you should very easily be up over 50 and even 60 miles for those weeks. Running on a treadmill has nothing to do with it. Running the enough miles and correct pacing will give you success.

I'm in agreement with zed here based on my own experience in my first marathon. I was in pretty good sprint tri shape heading into the fall and I signed up for an April marathon. My half marathon PR at the time was around 1:42. My training consisted of some treadmill work as well as outdoors. I actually ran 16 miles on the TM before I discovered YakTrax. My peak MONTH was 120 miles which puts me well under 40 mpw. I think I only had two other months where I was over 100 miles. During the race I thought I could hang with the 3:40 pace group but at the 19 mile mark things started to fall apart. I didn't have to walk at all but my pace slowed down quite a bit. I ended up with a 3:47 finish time. I was 44 years old at the time. I still hit the pool and bike during marathon training which is why my run mileage wasn't all that high. Everyone's different so there's no one size fits all for a sucessful training plan.

Perhaps statistically a higher mpw yields better results for many people but I'm not convinced for all.

Then perhaps you should read this...

https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/...86/s13102-016-0052-y

Look at figure 1c in particular: avg weekly volume vs actual race velocity.

30 mpw = 9+
60 mpw = sub 8

If you wanna run 8 m/m you should probably be averaging 50 mpw or more.

The knee of the marathon curve occurs somewhere between 60 and 80mpw. Maybe that's a coincidence that it corresponds to a barryp style week of 7.5/15/22 (75mpw), but I doubt it.

Here is an example of what everyone is talking about. This was my first marathon ever this february. i was doing roughly 30-40mpw running (also swimming and biking on top of that). im 36, and have been running regularly for the past two years, ramping up to my first HM at 1:30.5 last october, followed by the full. my goal was sub 3:00 in the full. i obviously went out a little fast with the first half being 1:26... had to use the shitter at mile 15 which cost me a minute, and from there out out muscle fatigue was REAL... my quads hurt so bad by mile 22 i felt like i was walking (8-8:30 pace). I didnt do enough long runs leading up to it. didnt run enough, and went out to fast. like verbatim what everyone is saying :P i was using gu every 45 minutes, and drinking water alternating with gatorade at every station after the half.

i plan on trying again now that my legs are recovered... my wife wants to visit boston. lol

I understand being devastated and sorry it did not turn out like you planned, now you know what does not work. I hear everyone saying you went out to fast and not enough MPW, which I agree to a point, but your quads started locking up in the second half tells me you were cramping and thus the walking. Cut yourself some slack and rack it up to a learning session. Couple of things I would change to have a better outcome
1) Nutrition, I would not take any gels until nearly and hour to keep the tummy happy, plus you don't need anything until then, and make sure you take water with the gel every 20-30 minutes thereafter, you were smart to train with gels!
2) salt tabs, not sure what the gels had, but with the cramping you were done, you probably needed salt tabs
3) quads cramping might be more than salt tabs and if there was any downhill, and training on the TM, without significant downhill force to adapt to that, cramping would occur since you are overworking your quads and had no training for that. The first time I ran the Colorado Marathon and it had a lot of downhill, I ran it without training for downhills, I could feel it come from mile 10 on, and it became a walkfest. Train for the course!
4) long runs to get used to the pounding as others have said need to be outdoors, higher intensity shorter runs with incline like 2 to 3 percent as one noted are great.

---

"Don't mistake activity for achievement"
-John Wooden

Too low mileage is the biggest problem. I'm curious also what your runs looked like? Were they all at the 8mm or did you mix in some Tempo or speed work?

---

Instagram or twitter me softly @xatefrogg

My only issue with that study is that their self reported marathon times are significantly faster than the averages you’ll see at large open marathons (I.e. no entry time requirement). Such is the nature of these types of surveys, they attract more dedicated and/or experienced athletes. I don’t think that the effect of additional years of running or other genetic factors can be discounted.

That’s not to say there aren’t links between training volume/pace and race performance. But to turn it into a “you must run this much to get this result” type statement is a little reductionist in my view. Most studies only turn out r values below .75 when predicting race performance based on training volume.

no one asked, what was the course like ? TM running is OK for flat or uphill running, but does not simulate the effects of eccentric contractions running downhill. So your quads were not ready for the effects of running outside.

FWIW: the gels sounded fine to me

---

Brian
“Eat and Drink, spin the legs and you’re going to effin push (today).” A Howe

Tom,

Thanks for the link to the study. A very interesting read and a calculator that seems to correctly predict my last few marathons based upon training races in the months leading up to each marathon. I may use this to help inform my pace goals.

Thanks!

Michael

30-40 miles per week is great if you are running a marathon just to finish. If you are a first time marathoner, it sounds good to me. But a first-time marathoner should probably not be worrying too much about performance.

If you are running to achieve a performance goal, 30-40 miles a week does not even come close. That doesn't mean you won't make it. It just absolutely minimizes your chances.

I'll never understand how people think this is going to work. A person is barely running the race distance over the course of 7 full days thinks he's going to magically achieve it all on a single day at a faster goal pace. And then goes out even faster than that pace to boot.

I followed the McMillan running plan thats included in my strava premium. it had me doing a little of everything. typically a medium distance recovery run at slow pace early in the week. some type of interval or speed work in the middle of the week, and usually a long run on sundays.

The speed work varied by Yasso 800s, 1min on 1 min off, usually running at 5k pace which is high 17/low 18 for me.

i might also add ive never trained using heart rate. my garmin Wrist HR is very inaccurate and never gave results i could trust. just last week i got the chest strap so ill see if training in HR zones helps at all.

Good job following a plan. In my opinion the treadmill is perfectly fine. I do 75% of my runs on the TM at 0% incline and can do a 3hr marathon. My suggestion is to add more miles. Average 45-50 building up then get to 60 a few times. You may have to run twice a day to get there but I find it’s easier on the body to do a 6 mile then a 4 mile five days a week rather than four 10 milers and a 20 miler. Keep consistent and you’ll get better.

---

Instagram or twitter me softly @xatefrogg

Cramping when going out too fast on that level of mileage says pure muscle fatigue/undertrained for the distance, IMO. Don't beat yourself up, though! Learning experience and all - the marathon is something you just have no idea about until you actually have the first one under your belt. Base mileage is just as important as long runs for the marathon; it is a brutally unforgiving distance to race and having a couple of 20+ milers near the end won't make up for overall low mileage for the months and months leading up to the race.

I take gels far less frequently for a marathon (sensitive stomach, I do one per hour and generally carry four but cap out at three), but whatever works for you in training on the fueling front is fine for race day. I averaged about 55 mpw for my first race over about 20 weeks and was adequately prepared to finish but sick on race day, 67 mpw/75 peak for my second and felt super prepared to crush it (3:32 and change as a 30F). You can certainly get away with less mileage if you're also biking and swimming a lot, but below 40 would still make me a little concerned!

I'd be curious to hear about the weather for this full. Was it sunny? warm? If you're used to running indoors with a fan blowing, air conditioned comfort and no sun load, you're going to be cooking outside if it's sunny and over 60 degrees F.

The mileage, to me, doesn't seem that low--but the lack of training variability (ie, hill work) would seem like a red flag as well.

Running on a treadmill is boring, but it's not uncomfortable. Running a marathon properly most assuredly is.

The calculator is significantly more complicated than that. If you read the study.... It's one or two race results + training volume. The whole point was to improve marathon predictions vs shorter distances where existing calculators work pretty well. The big change incorporating average training volume into the model.

But that wasn't my point. The statement that I was responding to was that more training volume isn't the best thing for all runners. As if there is some magic runner who will have their best run on 30 mpw not 55 mpw---assuming the runner is capable of managing the volume.

The relationship between volume and ultimate race pace is entirely too strong WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL to make that statement. That is especially true in the 30-80 mpw range.

That's not the same thing as saying 55 mpw = 8 min/mile.

The relationship between volume and ultimate race pace is entirely too strong WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL to make that statement. That is especially true in the 30-80 mpw range. //

I agree totally with this, and it was my N=1 experience. If I had used these calculators to predict my marathon pace, well I would have gone over an hour slower. I ran pretty much the same mileage as the OP did for 9 weeks(faster pace than him of course and on the road) and was able to do 24 miles very hard, and 2 miles of limping in. But I think that is the sign of a pretty good marathon, sometimes you go for it and just miss, but the time is good regardless as long as you dont walk.


I trained all my miles at race pace(marathon), bust since I did so few, I recovered well from the runs. And dam if on race day I was not only able to run the pace I had been running, but a good bit faster.


The OP is a sub 20 5k runner, so no slouch. He should have been able to break 4 hours with the right pacing I believe, and a run outside here and there. But seems to me pacing was the real culprit here, even though he has yet to admit that..

Wow! Lots of questions...let me try to answer

The race was in Ormond Beach...dead flat except the last 3/4 mike over one bridge
Race start 50 degrees...high was 72 and gorgeous, no wind.
I trained in garage on treadmill in Florida...no fan. All of my sprint tris are here in central Florida in the Summer...
The reason for a gel every 20 minutes was every article says around 75 grams carbs per hour...is that wrong?? My stomach was fine. Figured because I am 185ish I would need it.

I never felt tired in the endurance part...actually felt great! It was the blown up legs around mile 15-18...
Absolutely agree that more mileage would have help circumvent some of the meltdown...

For reference: http://www.tomokamarathon.com/...ainingPlan16Week.pdf

This the plan with the mileage and different types of runs (tempo/recovery/race pace/ easy)

Hopefully I didn’t leave anything out. Thanks again! Amazing resource STF !!!!

The feelings you had are dead on for being undertrained on the run. It's frustrating - you have enough energy to run (or bike/swim), but your legs fail you completely and you're reduced to hobbling.

The prescription bar none is more overall weekly mileage. (Not just longer long runs, that actually is worse, as you'll increase injury risk.) That plan you have that peaks at 38mpw, looks like it averages around 33mpw (or less), which is a recipe for guaranteed underperformance at the marathon.

Triathletes have to learn to treat the marathon with respect. The impact loading of the long run at speed is different than even running a slower IM marathon relative to your ability. The marathon is ALL about leg endurance for most folks save the super speedy sub 2:45 guys, and you gotta put the run miles in - even bike training won't substitute properly (hence why so few pro triathletes run standalone marathons, but happily enter 13.1s)

Probably would have been OK had the race taken place indoors, on a treadmill!
But no, your training and the actual race were not in sync. And given that, you did as one would expect.
If you're going to stay indoors, raise the machine. Lightheir uses a 3% grade on the 'mill; I use 2%, as 3% changes my mechanics too much. But you get the idea.

Really, you just need to lay down more miles, more often. I'd work it outdoors now, especially that Spring is here. Get some hills in the mix.

If you have an out & back course, adjust your pace so you are doing negative splits (second half is quicker); that will force the pace issue. Or use a pace watch, and let it coach you.

Fuel & water: Use the same schedule on your longer training runs. Then the next time, cut it by a third. How does that compare? It's about what works for you, not us.

Don't be too hard on yourself. You ran 26.2 miles!! How much of your life were you convinced you could not do that?? Now, go do it again.

1.) Your legs blowing up is a symptom of going out too fast.
2.) Treadmill is a great running workout.
3.) You just need to keep in mind you aren't really as fast as the TM is telling you (at 0 incline)
4.) I find that 1% or 0.5% incline is closer to real pace.
5.) 72 degrees is gorgeous for a vacation, but not a marathon. That only brought on the blowup faster.
6.) More milage would toughen you up a bit -- especially if you aren't biking too.

Certainly think my body was not adapted to take the pounding as I wasn’t cardio gassed at all...
Higher volume of training would certainly have helped toughen things up..and probably running more outside on pavement.

It seems from everyone’s comments that the plan I followed was more of a “just finish” rather than a “run a PR finish”...although I did PR the half distance, previous best half was 1:57.

Looking it over in detail, I think it's more if a just barely finish plan. Very Minimal mileage, lots of off days...

Lots of ways to skin the cat, you've been given some books earlier to read. Also you can do a lot worse than the Barryp plan documented here:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=1612485

Small world. I lived in Ormond Beach for 14 years and my parents are still in the area. I ran the Tomoka half two years ago.

Here's a humble-brag story that illustrates how the heat factors into things. In 2016, that was my third or fourth half marathon--I finished with a then-PR of 1:39--which I was reasonably happy with, but didn't reflect my normal, faster paces during training over the previous winter here in Ohio. The Half was similar weather then as well--started out in the 50s, but when the sun came up, it became pretty sultry. The final stretch up and over the Granada bridge sucked.

I was running about 25 miles per week at the time. I ramped that up to about 30--with one 35 mile week when I had a 20 miler --and ran the Cleveland full marathon in May, 2016. Just about two months after the Tomoka, I finished with a 3:23. I was a 210lb 45 year old dude...so that made me pretty happy, as it beat my expectations.

So..yea, what was the difference? It was 32 degrees and raining/snowing. Pretty darn perfect for a marathon, if you ask me. No way in heck I could get even close to that if it was over 50 degrees.

Just one data point that illustrates that temperature matters. It's actually pretty fascinating, as your core temps go up, your body diverts blood flow to the surface to help cool it while you are sweating. That blood flow change means your legs aren't getting what they need. Boom, your legs feel like they're blowing up...but in reality, it's your whole body.

You may have gone out too fast while it was cooler and then your body had issues with the 20-degree temperature shift. I'd be willing to bet you never saw that much of a swing in your garage.

No obviously a negative split is faster, my point was, if you're fit, have done the training you can get away with (to an extent) of making a few pacing mistakes without the shit hitting the fan. Obviously if your target time is 4 hours and you run the first 21km in 1.30, then yeah you're going to struggle, but going 10 mins too quick in the first half, whilst not ideal, shouldn't be a disaster - if you're fit....

Gotcha. I misread that as averaging 40 miles.

Yeah. If you look at the actual plan he followed...

Avg was 30.3 mpw. Max was 39 mpw, min was 22 mpw. 6 of the 16 weeks we leas than the average of 30 mpw. Alternating 4 and 5 runs per week. A total of 3 weeks with more than one double digit length run. 7 total runs greater than 15 miles. Fully half of the volume was concentrated on the Sunday long run.

The long week structure was: 3 off 10 off 3 3 20

It's really just a long run with barely adequate maintenance runs during the week. So sure it has two 20 mile runs in the plan. Completing the plan should allow someone to finish. But, it pretty much guarantees a slog for that final 10 KM. And leaves very little fitness margin for pacing errors.

I think the majority of the problem here is that all of that TM time didn't give you a feel for your pace.

I ran exclusively on the treadmill for years, decades even. It was a quick and easy thing to do at home every other day.

When I started running outside, my pacing was a mess. I'd start out wayyy too fast and then hit a wall, and have to back it way down. Then repeat over and over. My speed graph looked like a sine wave.

It took me a while to learn to pace myself properly. After all, the TM had done that for me forever.

OP, I think this is your biggest hurdle. Go and run outside more. Learn to pace yourself. And you'll be fine.

I'm not sure if you are just new to running, or if you are trolling.
You said that you have a 5km PB of 19:20, but your half marathon PB was 1:57. How does that happen? Your 5km PB gives you a VDOT of 51.8 which is good for a 1:28:48 half or a 3:05 full.

Now I get that you massively undertrained to do a marathon, but a 4h marathon isn't really a good goal time for you!

Also regarding nutrition, in an IM marathon you might be pretty depleted going into the run, so you need to take lots of fuel on. In a open marathon you want to use your body glycogen as much as possible and top up a little throughout. 3 gels an hour is more than would be necessary, unless you burn fat very badly.

Doing all of your training on a treadmill if good if your marathon is on a treadmill, otherwise you're better off running outside when possible. Also if you train with walk breaks, you should race with walk breaks!

You got greedy.

Your eyes were bigger than your stomach.

Your ego was writing cheques your legs couldn't cash.


Pick one of the above

Not trolling.... only been in the endurance game a few years doing sprint tris and a few 5k races.
Because of that, don’t really know what VDOT means... but I have ran 2 half marathons, but a couple of years before the 19: 5k...and it was a depleted pukefest at the finish.

Main reason for 3 gels an hour was what I read...approximately 75gms carbs per hour...just didn’t want to blow up because of nutrition.

Training was all running and only walking for 30 seconds every 20 minutes to suck down a gel and some water.

And as I said, think I seriously underestimated how much more damaging to the body outside running was past the 2 hour mark.

Agreed on all fronts!!! Hindsight is 20/20!

But, I didn’t approach it arrogantly, but apparently ignorantly!

I don't believe running on a treadmill does a good job of simulating running outdoors. Think about it, when you run outdoors, you are moving your entire body mass forward, up the hills and down the hills. Your center of gravity is moving forward. Your legs are driving the while mass forward, pushing against the pavement. On a treadmill, your center of gravity is basically moving only up and down a small amount. Yes, you are working your legs by moving them back and forth, but you are not using them to propel your body (center of gravity) forward. Actually you are only moving them forward, the tread mill is dragging them back.

One winter I concentrated on doing a lot running indoors cause I was tired of the cold weather and had just gotten the treadmill (free) and wanted to use it. When I transitioned to the outdoor, holy cow. I was very disappointed. It took a while to get back up to speed.

I would use the treadmill only as a last resort. Yes, it's better than nothing.

Oh, and raising the incline....don't think you are running up hill. You are just using slightly different muscles and are just lifting your legs a bit higher so you don't trip.

Tell that to Lionel Sanders.


Also, that 'you're not climbing a hill' thing is wayyyy too old to be repeated. Just go set your TM on a 10% incline and report back that it's not working you any harder or doesn't feel like you're running up a hill.

You should read before saying patently false statements...

Metabolic cost:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8887211/

Biomechanics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18460996/

There are a lot of good workouts you can do on a treadmill, I wouldn't have a problem using it 90% of the time (I don't) but I would want to do some runs outdoors just to confirm I'm on target.

Amen to all this. People forget that a long race usually gets warmer as it goes on. I love cold races that stay cold.

Agree with this ^^^^

Trained for my first marathon (during which I hit my 5k PR of 19:50) and then Boston with the following weekly mileage -
Training Totals for 16 Weeks Leading up to Boston -

Week 1 - 1.5 miles
Week 2 - 16.38 miles
Week 3 - 17 miles
Week 4 - 20.77 miles

Week 5 - 22.59 miles
Week 6 - 24.43 miles
Week 7 - 26 miles
Week 8 - 16.87 miles

Week 9 - 27.72 miles
Week 10 - 21.25 miles
Week 11 - 43.71 miles
Week 12 - 36 miles

Week 13 - 43.25 miles
Week 14 - 35.25 miles
Week 15 - 21.16 miles + 4/12
Week 16 ... race

First marathon = 3:16:02
Second marathon (Boston) = 3:16:06

I really crapped it out but again agree with above... It is doable on lower mileage if you have the speed to begin with.

Good for you but you are def farrrrr the exception rather than the norm. Most marathoners run more than you and come nowhere near a 3:16, even if they can run a 5k faster than you. (I fall in that category).

It's def possible, but unlikely that someone else will be able to pull it off on that low a mileage unless their 19:50 5k was a real sandbag job, like out of shape or not at all near their real trained capability. That said, I'm sure the guys with 2:40 marathon talent can def do this, no problem, but they're less than top 1% of all runners. (I knew an ex-pro cyclist who ran 2:58s after doing similarly <25mpw training for 2 months prior to the race, then he'd be wrecked for a few months after the marathon.)

Sorry, could help but notice ALL the advice in your post. There's a maxim coaches use that goes like this: "Ask 100 coaches, get 200 different answers." It's even worse when you ask 100 amateurs who think they're coaches. My advice, get A (as in 1) coach who will train you dynamically (vs statically). Without proper data (which you haven't really provided here), no one is in a position to give you good advice. For example, no one has even asked for your detailed HR data. Did you suffer HR decoupling (likely - and why?) I saw someone say it wasn't nutrition but I sure as hell wouldn't run anyone on that nutrition plan.

Want to perform well and be injured less, get a coach. A good coach only costs a few hundred a month and you only need them for a few months. $ well spent.

My $.02. Good luck!

Scott

---

Scott Fricks, President
Virgin Islands Triathlon
USAT & FM Tri Level I, USAT Youth & Junior, ITU Level II Triathlon Coach
USAT Certified Race Director

Interesting marketing approach.

1. Come on ST and disparage advice offered by others.
2. Don't offer any advice of your own.
3. Recommend that they spend $1000 (several hundred $$ for several months) on a coach.

FOR A FRIGGIN MARATHON with a $100 entry free. Seriously?

The guy used the "free" program that came with the marathon. Does that sound like a guy whose looking to drop a grand on a coach?

Not marketing, not taking any new athletes (just an FYI). Just hate to see really bad advice given and there's just too much of it here. Rather than ask your mechanic about your kidney function just seems prudent to ask your doctor :). Will you pay more, of course but your kidneys won't need an oil change :)

---

Scott Fricks, President
Virgin Islands Triathlon
USAT & FM Tri Level I, USAT Youth & Junior, ITU Level II Triathlon Coach
USAT Certified Race Director

Seriously... I need to find a new job.. apparently I'm a poor chump.

And really, if you aren't looking to take down records, some reading (for running, I like Pfitzinger, Daniels, and Hudson's books) and plenty of honest assessment and reflection will allow you to structure your own plan and set realistic goals for years without dropping hundreds of dollars.

Full disclosure, I do have a coach, but it's almost more of a partnership at this point and it's a benefit of my running club so a fantastic deal and that's a situation I would always recommend if someone has access to a good club with reputable coaches. I love thinking about and structuring training, he's been coaching runners longer than I've been alive, so I get a good mix of knowing my boundaries and setting my own day to day routine, with some great suggestions that I would have overlooked on my own and an outside perspective to reel me in if I'm getting overzealous with races or workouts.

Fine. You're not taking any new athletes.

So, now its impossible for the average Joe to run a 4 hour Marry without the services of a $300 / month coach? Are you really comparing and endurance coach to a kidney surgeon?

You still have offered nothing of substance, except vague criticism of (some or all of---even that isn't clear) the advice offered by others who actually ARE trying to be helpful. If you've got something more useful to say, then why don't you do so? You haven't even been specific enough to give the OP an idea of WHERE to look, or what advice was more suspect/on-target. You have literally done NOTHING to be helpful if the OP is unable to spend the money you suggest.

In your mind, there's no room for something between NOTHING useful, and a $300/month dynamic coaching relationship?

No one expects you to give away your secrets for free on the internets. But they was I see it, so far your posts has been the opposite of helpful. They've only created MORE confusion---rather than give the OP any kind of idea about where to look, assuming that he is unable to afford a coach. Not everyone considers $1000-$1500 a modest sum of money.

ETA: I have no issue with paid coaches such as yourself remaining silent or choosing which threads they wish to offer a free nugget here or there, as it is their/your livelihood. Thus far, all have refrained from this thread. I just think, that if you're going to jump in and criticize EVERYONE who IS trying to help...then be, at least, somewhat helpful yourself.

Please un-wod your underwear for a second. You're missing my point entirely. I'm a high performance coach and even I don't have enough information to comment. I'm suggesting without a coach gathering more information, everyone else is just guessing just like I would be.

I have hundreds of case studies supporting inexpensive coaching. A recent example: A female colleague of mine recently coached a high-level chronically injured athlete and for 3 months at $225/m was able to take her to an uninjured marathon PR. She had been training and running marathons for 13 year, was stuck at her pace and chronically injured. She'll likely never be injured again because she stopped following all the crappy advice she was getting AND she'll never have to pay for coaching again.

My suggestion is that athletes interview coaches like they would any other professional and ask not necessarily for a training plan but an overall plan of action as well as what kind of timeframe they can expect to need the coach's services. Look at the ST coaches directory. I bet there are dozens that will do video analysis and dynamic coaching on TrainingPeaks for less than $200/m. A good 16 week plan can pay a lifetime of dividends.

So, in summary, I'm not qualified to comment based on what I see. Those who believe they are qualified are the kidney function mechanics.

EDITED: I could guess like everyone else but seriously, how would that help?

---

Scott Fricks, President
Virgin Islands Triathlon
USAT & FM Tri Level I, USAT Youth & Junior, ITU Level II Triathlon Coach
USAT Certified Race Director

I disagree that you NEED a coach to do well at marathons. It's honestly not that hard to figure it out, but it does take time. Hearing from the many experienced folks on the forums is suepr valuable for teaching you a lot about what can work and what probably isn't a good idea, even if it isn't totally specific to your situation right now. ALthough I'd argue that reading a good marathon book + forums is a lot better.


I will STRONGLY argue in the case of the OP here, that it's absolutely, 100% NOT complicated. In fact, the OPs situation pretty describes a picture-perfect, 100% expected late-game meltdown from a typical first-time ambitious marathoner who thinks their decent triathlon cardio will carry them to the finish, and learns the hard way that training on 31mpw avg as well as starting the first half faster than the target "A" race pace, will invariably lead to walking a lot of the last third of the race.

You don't need a coaching degree to figure that out, and you don't need to know about his HR uncoupling - dude was walking well before the end - it doesn't matter what his HR was doing, his legs just couldn't handle the 26.2 mile race distance at pace. It's a picture perfect rookie first marathon, down to the "T", no mystery whatsoever.

The solution is simple, and as prescribed by most of the posters above - build to more overall mileage per week on a gradual training plan ,and start slower to target a negative split (which will almost invariably never happen.) Any coach worth their salt would nail these two points as by farrrrr the most significant factors to improve a LOT.

The OP can start looking for pricey coaches once they've done the basics (he hasn't even read a 'real' marathon training book, clearly), has started to plateau at his physical performance, and start needing to pay close attention to the finer details of training to squeeze out that last 5%.

At this point though, it's all about FOREST, not trees.

Yes, this is pretty much the best summary of the entire issue. It's not rocket science and even non-coaches like the ST audience can nail this type of advice (the horror!) I agree with NUFCrichard who noted that he has a solid vdot of 52 at 5k and he has the capacity to go much faster with adequate training (volume and pacing) but did not nail it on race day at all.

I started running when I was 40 and have never been able to personally bring my mileage up enough to have close to equal vdots across the short and long distances. I'm a fast twitch guy and my mile/5K times were always better than my distance vdots. Daniel's says that with appropriate training, read-appropriate VOLUME, that you will get close to equal performance along a vdot effort. I didn't achieve equality at all- 5:23 mile time at age 47 with a full year of speedwork (vdot=55) and 3:16 marathon (vdot 49) at age 45 with only a few years of volume-40>70mpw. Still low, but I'm an old guy.

And we're not even talking about all the other things (besides pacing) that can cause a blow up on race day-nutrition/hydration/weather etc. You never get to decouple when you are bonked. Don't pay for a coach-learn for yourself. Read Daniel's book and get feedback from runners. You can learn a lot, as I did.

It also doesn't mean that I don't still remember those marathoners running past me at mile 22 of my first marathon at VCM as I was walking back towards town...Oh, yeah, I lived the OP's lesson as have many of us here in the back seat...

There is no doubt that raising the incline to 10% will give a tougher workout. It's tougher only because you have to lift your legs higher, not because your are moving your entire mass up an actual 10% incline. Go run an actual 10% incline on a road and see which workout is way tougher.

Don't get me wrong, a workout on the treadmill is better than nothing, but it's not 100% the same.

Nope, you're def wrong on this one. Running on 10% incline on a TM is every bit as hard as running it outside. Yes, I do it on a regular basis, so I know it physically to be true.

It's NOT just because you are doing higher knee raises on each stride on the incline.

In fact, your legs go trivially higher on a 10% grade than they do in real world - nowhere near enough to explain the monster effort you need to keep up the pace at 10% compared to the same pace at 0%.

Some physics guy can chime in here about 'frame of reference' to make the point with physics.

The day brings what it does.

I only started doing some serious running 10 years ago at age 50 when I became involved in tri... Up till then I was a 2-3 times a week jogger who wondered what it would be like to 'run' 5 miles! That seemed so far...

This is also my 1st ST post so be kind to me.

But I find it interesting the focus on weekly mileage by almost everyone here... I personally look at time as a better training method for my long distance events... If you can run a marathon in 3 hours, and I can run a marathon in 4 hours, we both complete the 26.2 miles, but I have an extra hour of beating on my legs! Just because you run 40/50/60 mpw it's insane to think I should keep up with your mileage. That's a tremendous amount of extra accumulated fatigue on my poor body!

Now what went wrong in your race? Here's my opinion without knowing you better... You're 45! haha... At 6' 185, that's a bmi of 25? I'm also 6' and have been 185.. I've also been 215... I now float between 170-175 off season and will get close to 165 for the main event...

You might be able to lose a few pounds.

You're 45... nuff said. Good news here is that this was only your 1st mary... You know what to expect next time and you will improve if you train properly for it...

Training on the treadmill is fine... Do set the incline up. I personally just go up .5 - 1%... The treadmill is great for speed work and hill simulation... Just boring as fuck on the long runs. (good for mental toughness though)

If you didn't get sick to the tummy, nutrition was probably ok. You had a plan with the gels, trained that way. All's good.

That pretty much boils it down to the training plan... A good plan will have a good mix of volume and intensity... If you trained at race pace for the majority of your runs, you pretty much set yourself up for the results you got... You say you got to 20 miles in your training. At race pace?.. In the race you got to mi 15(?) before the wheels started falling off. Yep. That's what you trained for.

Long runs should be slow... 1-2 mins slower then your race pace goal. (Zone 2) You're stressing the legs, not your cardio system... Your speed/tempo sessions should fast. (Zone 4-5)... You should avoid spending much time training at race pace. All that gets you is what you got. Don't fixate on weekly mileage... Focus on time... Let the youngsters put in them insane weeks...

It’s the same**. For homework you can explain why riding a bike on an inclined treadmill is also the same as riding the equivalent slope outside. If you get stuck there’s a long thread buried in the ST archives.

Edit: ** For a treadmill that maintains a constant speed while in use.