The answer to your question is 'probably'.That isnt to say that it is impossible in the timescale you mention but 1:30, or 6:53/mile for 13.1 miles, is a level of performance that takes a lengthy period of conditioning.
But there are often questions like this which beg the recipricol question of why is 1:30 important in your first HM? Are you only ever going to do one?
Like anything else, running a HM is a skill to be learnt and your very first attempt should be nothing more than a sighting shot to learn the ropes so to speak.
Get one under your belt and then you'll know what your starting point is to build future improvements on......
1:30;01 = disapointed, 1:29:59 = Happy.
brendan moloney wrote (see)
It's just a target I have set myself but to train so hard for so long and not hit that target would be tough. I've stopped smoking, eat completely differently and made a few other sacrifices for this so even though I will become good at this distance over a few years this time seems important to me. I will be doing a couple of 10 mile races before the half
So you think that stopping smoking, eating more healthily and whatever else you have changed will have been a waste of time if you run a half marathon in 1:35?If so, then you need a serious word with yourself!
I started running at the begining of this year and initially managed a 45min 10k. I've since been averaging 20-30mpw and recently managed a 1:35:50 HM and was pleased with that. It's not easy, but I've learnt from the process and so next target will be sub 1:35 and so on until the hallowed 1:30 is mine.
But, as Parkrunfan says my first HM was essentially a sighter. It's not just about fitness, there are all sorts of other factors that effect the outcome not least being realistic pacing and confidence in your ability. The 'This is hard work / I'm feeling good' dichotomy can change like the wind over 13 miles.
So get out running, enter a few shorter 5k/10k races, to and have a look at http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/calculator to see how you are progressing towards your goal.
As above I think the 1.30 is a possible but challenging target. Looking back in my training log - I started running in 2002, in July my first race was the Hungarton 7 (rolling 7 miler) which I did in 48.25, in Sept I did the Robin Hood half in 1.36, November Leicester Half in 1.30, December Keyworth Half in 1.28. Did a 37 minute 10k in the ame month. I was doing about 25 miles a week from the Summer up to about 30 a week after the Robin Hood.
But some people would go a lot faster and some maybe not quite so quick in a similar timescale - I was playing football on top so a match on Sunday and a training session midweek.
Hi Brendan, I'm pessimistic of you achieving this based on my own experience.
The McMillan pace calculator gives a prediction of 1:49 for the HM based on your 10k time. And this assumes you've put in the training to produce an equivalent performance over twice the distance.
When I first started running, my first 10k was 44mins. My first half-marathon was 1:38, which I was very happy with as it was sub-1:40 (my target for that race).
I have now broken 1:30 for the HM marathon on a couple of occassions, primarily due to marathon training. This includes running five to six times a week, and covering 30 to 50 miles per week. Based on your current level of running and fitness, this intensity of running would almost certainly cause you injury as you need to gradually build up the miles.
There are a few very naturally gifted people out there who can "cruise" through a half marathon. For the rest of us it requires hard training over a long period, as there's no shortcut to endurance. If you are willing to put in the miles, you could probably run sub 1:30 in a couple of years time. For May next year, I would use 1:49 as your target.
I think a mistake a lot of people make when asking (and perhaps answering) questions on this forum is assuming that your lifestyle and body type/weight is not a relevant factor. In my opinion this has much more to do with how well you perform, than any amount of miles per week.
Fucking hell. This IS the world's shittest web site.
I have typed about 500 words and tried breaking it up several times. Site just randomly posts about 100 words of whatever it feels like!!
Sorry if the above doesn't make sense. I've given up trying to expand upon it.
parkrunfan wrote (see)
.......................................... But there are often questions like this which beg the recipricol question of why is 1:30 important in your first HM? Are you only ever going to do one? Like anything else, running a HM is a skill to be learnt and your very first attempt should be nothing more than a sighting shot to learn the ropes so to speak. Get one under your belt and then you'll know what your starting point is to build future improvements on......
This is great advice. I've been wasting too much brainpower, deciding whether or not to risk going off too fast, in my first marathon, in the hope of getting sub 4.
I know I haven't really got enough miles in my legs... so I should go for 4:30 - which is probably realistic... but still not "in the bag".
Maybe Brendan would be best to find a half-marathon in February - and use that as a learning experience... Aim for 1-49 or 1-45. This might help in his quest for a fast HM next May.
*chuckling at OldDog* LOL!
Brendan - I agree with pretty much what everyone else has said. With your current mindset you'll stand a very good chance of overtraining and ending up out of the HM altogether due to injury.
Running isn't just about cardio fitness and muscular strength, all your joints and tendons have to strengthen up too. And unfortunately that doesn't happen as quickly as improvements in speed and strength. I was told by a wise old runner and coach that it can take a couple of years or regular running for your joints and tendons etc to 'catch up' with the rest of you. Meaning that you're really likely to pick up some nasty injuries in your first couple of years if you do overdo it.
Aim to train sensibly rather than train hard.
Without wanting to be ageist Young Pup seems to be able to handle the technology!
Brendan - I've just taken this journey but I wasn't a previous smoker - I was aiming for sub 1:35 but got a sub 1:30 (shocked myself on race day).
I trained for about 6 - 9 months haphazardly between 10 and 30 miles a week then got some help with training smarter on this website for last 14 weeks that has transformed me as a runner.
However as Some Old Dog has managed to say (just) it depends on things such as your base fitness, age, weight, etc - I had previously run a 1:36 5 years earlier so already had some level of speed in my legs although it was a distant memory!!
Good luck and have fun trying. Avoiding injury wil also be key as you are going to need to manage to ramp up mileage and speed to achieve 1:30 and doing both together (don't do both together!) is a recipe for injury!
Skinny Fetish Fan wrote (see)
Without wanting to be ageist Young Pup seems to be able to handle the technology! Brendan - I've just taken this journey but I wasn't a previous smoker - I was aiming for sub 1:35 but got a sub 1:30 (shocked myself on race day). I trained for about 6 - 9 months haphazardly between 10 and 30 miles a week then got some help with training smarter on this website for last 14 weeks that has transformed me as a runner. However as Some Old Dog has managed to say (just) it depends on things such as your base fitness, age, weight, etc - I had previously run a 1:36 5 years earlier so already had some level of speed in my legs although it was a distant memory!! Good luck and have fun trying. Avoiding injury wil also be key as you are going to need to manage to ramp up mileage and speed to achieve 1:30 and doing both together (don't do both together!) is a recipe for injury!
Well done Skinny, that's awesome!
Brendan - First, congratulations on giving up smoking. Re the running, start by aiming to maintain 8.15 miling for 13.1 miles, and to run 5km at 6.52 pace, and then go from there. It's a big drop from 8.15 to 6.52-3 miling. It is achievable in the long term but you need to take it in baby steps, for the sake of your motivation let alone your body. I have a PB of 18.39/40:00 5/10k, but SB of 20.33/42.30 and won a (albeit very hot) 10miler in 73 and I'm not at all confident at breaking 90 for the half next weekend even though I've been training specifically for a half since mid July. Realistially I'm expecting 92-93: I'll be over the moon if I get 90 with the way things have been going.
Just to muddy the waters - I did my first half marathon for 11 years in 2009 at Windsor and struggled in at 1hr48 something. I was 46 and, though I ran fairly regularly in my adult life, it was never focused or particularly intense - I mainly played football until my early 40s. Since then I've got my HM PB down to 1hr30:28 (on a flat one at Richmond). My 10k PB, from earlier this year, is a less good 42:01; for a parkrun 5k it is 19:44. None of these things correlate that closely. My 10k pb 'should' be better given my 5k and HM pbs, but it just isn't, and I do try hard on them. But parkrunfan is right - I've managed to get my HM time to a pretty respectable level for my age over a three-year period with lots of focused training (and a great many parkruns!). I don't think there's any secret to how to do it. I think it 'is' feasible for you to get round in 90 minutes with the right training by next May, but there's also no need to stress over it if it proves impossible - set a time and then you'll know what you've got to beat the next time you do it. I should add that my HM pb was set in my eighth HM in three years, so it takes a while and a few attempts... unless you're very good!
Agree with alot of points on here. I would say too much too soon to expect a sub 90 half on your first go. I used to smoke and did my first half about 1 & a half years after giving up in 1.54. It took me about 4 years of training to steadily improve and now I regularly run sub 90 minute Halves.
Good luck and don't give up hope.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |