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