you could argue you had the training and the nutrition...you just paced poorly and went for glory! no shame in that i guess, but your body didnt want to know about it in the latter stages

"My weekly mileage averaged 35"

That's where it began to go wrong.

For 70.3... 35mpw is plenty IMO, but not if you're wasting your time with long runs over 12-14 miles. There's just no need. I only average barely 30mpw last year and ran descent considering I overbiked a bit. But I also fell short of my run goal time by 3 minutes.

I ramped up the mileage this year, over did it, and got injured. SO my N+1. 35mpw is fine if it gets you to the line healthy. 45mpw is bad it you get injured because you get greedy.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Waaay too many calories and not enough run mileage.

---

speedySTATES

This, the first mistake is pacing. If you are in say 3:45 shape and do the first 10km at 3:30 pace. The mileage and nutrition become largely irrelevant. Pacing to ability is the key. Although sounds like 1200 calories with some solid food in there (plus 800 for breakfast) thats a lot.

OP height and weight?

Maurice

5'8" 160

Too many? Are there two different schools of thought? I expend 800-900 callories an hour, but 400 calories an hour is all I can absorb. Don't I want to replace those calories? That is what I have come to understand as the required strategy.

But, I have been thinking that all those calories have been part of my problem. After a normal meal, I get "food coma" really bad. Is my body spending energy to digest food that I could be using to run?

What is a better nutrition strategy?

How much do you normally eat to run 20 miles? No way I could digest that much so fast.

A breakfast of 400-800 calories an hour out should be fine. When running, the body can't digest much, as blood flow doesn't go to the stomach. I'd probably take a gel every 45-60 min and that is it. You don't need to replace calories, especially in a marathon. Just supplement. Your body starts with 2000 calories of glycogen anyway, which should be good for around 20 miles completely empty.

---

speedySTATES

Yes, too many. You start with ~2000 calories stored internally.

I'm 56 years old and exactly the same ht and wt as you.... My last marathon in 2011.

Here is what I consumed during that race..from my blog."A mouthful of water at each aid station and five Gu packs(one every other mile from 13 - 23)

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

You are about the same as me although on race day I would be about 10 pounds lighter.

Everyone is different, but that seams like high calories with a fair amount of solid food which takes longer to digest. As others have said you need enough calories to finish the race with about 200-400 cal of "insurance"

For me this is:

Light breakfast at least 2 hours out:

Tims X large double double (thats a coffee)
Every thing bagel with butter.

2 hours before to race 150 cal of some sports drink plus a gel and a bit of water at minus 10 min.

So at race start I have about 450-500 calories, after that gel every 25 min starting at 10 min i.e.

10, 35, 60, 1:25, 1:50, 2:15 and 2:40.

The last one at 2:40 as it will take about 20 min for the calories to get in.

So about a 1000-1100 with mostly gel or liquid, I burn about 115 per mile and average would be about 90 cal carbs, maybe the race would cost me 2500 or so carbohydrate which is in before I start (2000 plus breakfast) 250 or so cal an hour is what I can handle at M pace. There is about 400-500 cal there for insurance and a bit of carbs you will use through nervous energy, warm up and non running requirements.

Just my plan but 2000 seams like a lot, especially the solid stuff late in the race.

The other issue is execution, a plan whether it is 35mpw or 135mpw, say it is 12 weeks of specific marathon prep will have about 3-6 days a week where you should be able to identify M pace, by race day this should be a very narrow window. Maybe 2-4 min depending on heat, cold, how you feel on the day etc. Going faster than this window will hurt performance.

The Training plan and mileage are important, but not as important as knowing exactly where you are at any one time within the build. Knowing where you are creates confidence in getting to where you want to be.

Maurice

If you really want to run a fast marathon, you need to be running at least 60 mpw, with almost no swim and bike. For a tri guy, you'd want to gradually increase your run mileage and gradually decrease the swim and bike mileage, until you can get to 60 mpw. In fact, if you could run 70 or 80 mpw, that would be even better as the mary really rewards great run conditioning. Obv you went out way too fast also but, if you had had a bigger base, you prob could've handled 8:00 from the start.

Oh well, we all live and learn:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Depends on your definition of 'fast', but that kind of mileage would wear a lot of people down more than it would build them up.

I think saying you must run xx miles/week to finish in y:yy just doesn't translate universally.

Yes, frequency is good. So is volume and consistency. But experience, knowing how hard you can push your body, and having a strong mind are all key elements to race-day execution.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

ericmulk,
that's a pretty big increase in mileage, and I see that yo're advising to do it over time but I'm of the same age as the op, and I can tell you, that sort of increase would probably just about break me into pieces, in all likelihood to never run again.
the OP stated that most of his aerobic long runs were at 8:45 pm which would have led a 3:50 marathon or thereabouts, a 8:30 pm would have got a 3:40 result approx, so it looks like the stretch at 8:00 pm led to a hole that he couldn't climb out of.
nutrition.... well, it seem like way too many calories, plan on only replacing the calories that you can digest, and let the bodies stores deal with the deficit

Well, obv we all have to listen to our bodies and maybe 60 or 70 mpw would be too much for many people, but you will never know unless you try:) I'm just saying that real runners run a sh#t load more than 35 mpw, even if they're just training for 5/10K races. Hell, I know a miler who runs 80 mpw in her base training, and she never races over 1 mile. If you want to run up to your potential, then run as much as your legs will handle. I've run 60 mpw along with 300 mpw on the bike and 35,000 yd/wk on the swim, so I feel fairly confident I could do 70, maybe 80 mpw if all I did was run. YRMV:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I TOTALLY second the above.

All due respect. Much of a well paced marathon is a fat burning race. That's why you would also need more miles per week. And, reduces the need for carbs.

Finishing is one thing. Attempting to do a near potential best is another - requires more miles. I'd say at least double what you put in. The question would be, is it worth it. That's up to you.

Endurance sports seems to always give us something to work for and learn from - you just got (or are getting) a PHD.

Enjoy the journey!

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

More miles/week and less calories. Got it. More miles may be doable only with time and patience, but it will be hard on these old legs. Nutrition? I fear I am on my own for a trial and error process to see what works. BUT....

I wonder if there is a different nutrition strategy for tri vs. a stand alone marathon (ie. stored carbs are used during the bike so one must replace them on the run). If there are any links to articles discussing the difference, I would love to learn.

"For 70.3... "

That's where it began to go wrong.

Yes there are 2 schools. Some thing you should eat 400-600, other say no way, 250-350.

You should need to replace more than 1/2 because at IM pace you'll get almost 50% of your calories from fat. What you don't can come out of that 2000 or so you have "banked".


Keep in mind, that a nutrition plan for a 9-11 hour IM may be different than a 11-13, and a 13+. The pacing also changes. A 4:30 IM bike can probably be done at a IF of 0.75 or slightly above as you approach 4 hours (pros). But a 5 or 6 hour effort will be lower. And again, you'll burn more fat. 1lb of fat is 3500 calories. So there's really no shortage of on-board fuel.

Also, I now believe a large portion of my GI issues in my last 70.3 was from swallowing air in the swim as well as while eating and drinking on the bike and not expelling it during the bike. I'm not going to focus of how I eat and drink to avoid swallowing air and also making sure I belch when needed.


FWIM... Personally I'm targeting closer to 300 calories per hour at this point. (5'11" 164lbs) I did a 4 hour ride yesterday at a IF of 0.72 and ate about 950 calories. I actually felt better than last 30 minutes than I felt from the 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hour mark and hit some of my highest power numbers the last 15 minutes coming back into town. Roughly I should have burnt around 4000 calories. So I replace 1/4 of that, used maybe 1000 from stored glycogen and the rest was most likely burning 12oz or so of fat. I'll probably add a couple gels that mix and use a higher concentration on the concentrated bottle I made. I'll test that in a 5 hour ride this Friday afternoon.

Will that work? We'll find out. But I've been bonked and I've had GI distress. I'd rather bonk as I know I can run faster, can get in a coke if needed (have to drop to a low zone 1 effort), than I can bent over in pain for severe gas and unable to consume anything, even struggle with water. Lesser of the 2 evils.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I hear ya. Nobody said it would be easy. We are the same age, (you better not pass me at my next tri!!!). been running since ~ '78. In the stone age (aka mid to late 20's) 10k 33:35, Mary 2:53. but not built for running (like to eat too much). Those multiple weeks of 65 - 100 miles do take a toll and that explains why I don't want to ever do a marathon again - maybe not even in an IM (though I'm considering it this year).

Bottom line, all those miles teach you to be fairly fast/efficient running on a blend of some carbs and fat. A tri is different because it's easy to feed on the bike and the run speed is slower. I think of nutrition of a stand alone marathon much like an Oly tri.

I think you will have to try and figure out what works best for you. It will be much less than it used to be - for you. My marathon PR was before gels or blocks were invented. I did have some gatoraide but I doubt much because it would slosh too much. If I had to do a stand alone marathon today - I'd consider a gel every 5ish miles after about mile eight. But, I could be way off the mark.

Keep in mind that running a good (for you) marathon is a bit of a mystery. In the day I could pop off a 10k within 30 seconds any time I wanted. Marathon times for me varied by over 15 minutes depending on variables I will never completely know or understand. For my PR I remember this: @ mile 20 I felt pretty darn good and held my pace, which seemed like I was accelerating; because so many people were hitting the wall and dying.

enjoy the journey

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

Keep in mind too a marathon is a 3 hour event done at a tempo pace. You can't take in as much nutrition at the higher intensity while running (think 70.3 run) and you only burn maybe 3500 calories anyway, so if you fat burn is 35%, and you store 2000 calories, if you get in maybe 400-500 calories, you would be fine. So maybe 20oz of sports drink and a maybe 2 gels and you'd be good... in theory.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

A marathon is done at Marathon Pace, tempo pace is significantly faster by definition (unless you run a marathon in an hour). But over a marathon I'm only eating at most 500 calories if I get all my gels down (which is tend not to do esp later in the race)

No doubt. I'll have 300-400 calories total in a 2:40-3:00 marathon.

Unless you have a serious running background, 35 miles per week training
is not going to end well on marathon race day. It is enough to get it done,
but you are just not going to race well.

You mentioned your weekly mileage averaged 35. For how long? 18 weeks, or 1-2 years? In other words, did you run 1750 miles in 2013?

The run mileage for the past year (or even better, 3-5 years) is a much better predictor of marathon time than the peak mileage within the last 18 weeks.