Last year I ran a 18.56 5k, 39.01 10k and a 1.27 HM. I keyed that info into McMillan Running and it suggested that my marathon pace should be 7.02. I did 2 marathons last year - Milton Keynes (in May) and Chester (in October). In both of them I only managed a 3.15 and struggled a lot from about mile 18. I had put in the training and averaged about 60 miles a week. In relation to Milton Keynes I did about 7 runs of 20 miles plus at about 7.35 min mile pace but when I came to the marathon I could only manage an average pace of 7.29. It was only slightly better for Chester where the average pace was 7.26.
For some reason my times at smaller distances isn't translating into a good marathon time and I was wondering whether it was because I was running my long runs too fast hence the reason for the initial post.
I'm going to try really hard to slow down my long runs (even though I don't feel that I'm running as efficiently and with good form) and see what happens.
I have read many times that long runs should be run at a much slower pace but as I've always found it awkward to run at that pace I haven't and run quicker. That may explain why I haven't run as well in the marathon as my other times would suggest.
My marathon pace is 7 minute miles and I'm about to start a training program which requires me to run my long runs/medium long runs at a pace which is 10% to 20 % slower and my aerobic runs at a pace which is 15% to 25% slower. This equates to about 8 minutes 25 seconds (20% slower) and about 8 minutes 45 (25%).
I really struggle to run slower than 8 minute miles and find that my running is uncomfortable when I run at this speed. I find I can run long runs of about 22 miles quite comfortably at 7.30 minute mile pace but I know my marathon pace is about 7 minute miles.
Should I be trying a lot harder to run at the 8 minute 25/45 pace on the basis that is what is best for long/medium long runs?
Is there any reason why I should be ignoring what most programs say and running at a harder intensity i.e. 7.30 ish pace on the basis that is what I'm comfortable with.
Whilst I hear what you say I would like to do each one individually though your suggestion that I take breaks is a good one.
I'm doing it partly as an experiment. I'm 47 and want to run a sub3 marathon. I ran 3.15 last year and was hoping to take that to about 3.08 or less this year but my training has been scuppered by an injury. When I'm fully over that I intend to start the 1 mile training and I'm looking forward to concentrating on the faster stuff (Apart from marathons I've been running a number of ultras). Hopefully by getting my 'cruising' speed down through the months of 1m, 5k, 10k etc training I can then build up my endurance again and knock out a really good marathon time.
Thanks again, and enjoyed reading your blog particularly about your great 5k times!
I want to increase my speed and thought I would try training for 8 weeks for 1m then 8 weeks for 5k then 8 weeks for 10k and finally 8 weeks for a half marathon. I would then start 18 weeks for marathon training. Each block of 8 weeks would be specific to the distance. Not only would I find this really enjoyable but I'm hoping that by doing it this way my speed will greatly improve.
Has anyone tried this before and if so what was the outcome?
Also can anyone think of any reason why I should do it any differently, for example, only devote 6 weeks to the mile and perhaps more weeks for one of the others or whether it would be better to spend say 10 weeks on each and so on.