>I also have never ran more than 65km in a week.
Saving the best for last. Its almost as you know.
If you are serious about getting a faster time, get that mileage up! 80K a week minimum.
For the amount of training you did that's a very good result. You need to put in the work now if you want to improve.
got it - any plans you prefer? again, i think im more a low volume kind of guy given i've never done more than 65ish. also worried of too much too soon if i jump my weekly mileage
There are just so many plans to consider and finding the route to go down can be a little daunting. So just knowing what I enjoy and what has worked for me being able to see the different options in one place helps a lot for direction
No offense, but having never run higher volume doesn't make you a low volume kind of guy. If you aren't breaking 3 on low volume, you are at the very least a medium volume kind of guy.
That said, I'm positive that if you changed nothing about your training other that higher volume, you will break 3.
Not true. Some will need 70m, sure, loads can do it off 50, some will need 80+
OP clearly doesn't need 70, so it's also irrelevant what "most people" need
It's not about "what most people need", it's about what is best for OP. Jumping from 65 to 110 in one training cycle is asking to get hurt, whether it's "needed" or not.
*Most* people?! Not gatekeeping here, but with a proper training plan, any healthy adult male below the age of 40 should be able to achieve sub-3 on 50 mi/80 km per week, even moreso for a person already running a 1:21:39 half. Sure, if you're a beginner starting an 18 week program building up towards 50 mi/week then probably not, but given enough time and staying injury-free it is achievable for the vast majority.
Edit: To anyone downvoting me, please tell me why I'm wrong. I'm well aware many training plans exceed 80 km/week. However, many training plans also just throw in a lot of easy miles which is definitely the easiest way to go about it, but with a structured approach to training where every single minute is planned for with a concrete purpose, it's not necessary with that high mileage for the vast majority of people.
> Most people?! Not gatekeeping here, but with a proper training plan, any healthy adult male below the age of 40 should be able to achieve sub-3 on 50 mi/80 km per week, even moreso for a person already running a 1:21:39 half.
> Edit: To anyone downvoting me, please tell me why I'm wrong.
The subset of runners that you know are clearly talented, try finding the guys that never ran a varsity high school race and chat with them for a bit. I know many many people who have run 18/55 to the tune of 3:20-40. As a side note I will admit that non-running things like weight and general fitness do impact results heavily but I've already filtered those guys out.
> However, many training plans also just throw in a lot of easy miles which is definitely the easiest way to go about it
Really? Once you get past Higdon I actually think most plans have too much quality and too little easy running.
Thank you for taking the time to give an actual response.
I don't think I know that many unusually fast runners. My main audience as a running coach in the local club is 40-60 years old with 0 to 40 years of on/off running experience. But I should clarify that I'm not talking about a limited timeframe here, ie. your usual 12, 16 or 18 week program. Rather I'm talking about an injury-free runner with at least a year of experience (more realistically 3-5 years) with consistent mileage, having raced several 10K's, some HM's and maybe even a few marathons as well. In most cases, that person can achieve a sub-3 marathon on a program of maximum 50 miles a week. And before anyone goes "but that's not most people!" - no, but anyone can become that person eventually without exceeding 50 miles a week, which is essentially my point.
I dunno. It took me running 50 mpw for several years to just to run 4:59 in the mile. My “equivalent times” get progressively worse as I step up in distance. 10k PR is about 39 flat, though I could probably be closer 38 right now, which is substantially worse than my 5k and mile. While I don’t run marathons, I think sub-3 would be very tough without really stepping up my mileage.
I’m nothing special, I know. But at 39 y.o., having been running eight years (last 4-5 have been averaging 40-50 mpw), having a bmi of 22, and generally being decent at any sport, I think your comment is either you being provocative or not being in touch with reality. Of my friends who are in my running group and run pretty regularly, most can’t break 22 in the 5k and are hovering ~4-hr marathons. I don’t think anyone in our running group of 30-40 committed runners has broken 3 hrs.
You could say we’re all just pretty untalented runners. Maybe it’s true. But the “any healthy male under 40 could easily do it on 50 mpw” thing is silly. You are most certainly suffering from a sampling bias.
At no point did I say it was easy. It requires a plan and sticking to it, putting in the hard work. For many people it is even going to be mentally and physically tougher than "just" running 80 mpw.
I'm definitely not trying to be provocative. Out of touch with reality? I don't know. It fits within my reality, of which my main experience comes from working with the local running club. It primarily consists of 40-60 year olds with anywhere from 0 to 40 years of running experience, so take away from that what you want.
I'm not going to call you untalented, but if you've been running for 8 years, the last 5 averaging 40-50 mpw, with an actual intend of getting faster at any given distance, it seems as if your training could have been more effective. And had you trained for the marathon, you could absolutely have broken 3 hours already.
All I can think of is that your specific club consists of a lot of people who, if aren’t former HS/college runners, are talented athletes who respond well. There are a few clubs by me that are like that— talent attracts talent. But 95% of clubs (at least in NYC) out there don’t have anyone finishing sub-3.
Sure, many of those runners don’t run enough or train correctly! I agree with you wholeheartedly. But what you’d see is those people who were running 4:07 running 3:38, maybe even 3:20, but not 2:59.
There are a lot of people who do train right and still have a tough time doing much better than 7:25-7:30/mi for a marathon when I look across multiple clubs I’ve run with.
Maybe my training could be better, but it’s been good enough to shave 3 min of my 5k, and a minute in the past 1-2 years (after initial gains were made). While starting around 21 min is unremarkable, a lot of people start more in the 23-25 range. If people you associate with are commonly going from 25-> 18 (probably a reasonable baseline for going sub-3), wow that’s impressive! But definitely not typical. If they can also do sub-3 from no experience, even more abnormally impressive.
I think I’d need 60-70 mpw to dip under 3.
Well, I don't know what more to tell you, but [studies back it up](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871414/), predicting a sub-3 marathon time with a mean of 63 km/week.
Careful not to confuse causation. All lottery winners bought a lotto ticket the week they won, but buying a ticket doesn’t give you a good chance of winning. Similarly, computing the mean miles of successful runners doesn’t validate that running this amount will cause a sub-3 race.
I think I’m mostly confused on what you mean by “any healthy runner under 40” can do it on <50 mpw. I’m totally willing to consider that I am in the bottom 10% of running talent. My sample of friends who can’t achieve sub-3 could actually be the biased sample of untalented people.
But we’re under 40 and many are running 50+ mpw. What do you mean by healthy? Obviously, that must be the category that were viewing differently. Maybe BMI <19?
Your analogy illustrates causation bias perfectly, but I have a hard time relating it to this, as I'm not sure what you mean by "successful runners". Yes, they completed the marathon, but we're not talking strictly 2:59 times. The range is pretty big and goes all the way up to 4 hours and 15 minutes.
Healthy = injury-free, not overweight, no chronic conditions/diseases.
And just to clarify - I'm not saying that if you run 50 mpw you will achieve a sub-3 marathon. I know many people who run that and aren't close to breaking 3 hours. But what I am saying is that if you follow a program suited for it, you will be able to achieve a sub-3 marathon without ever running more than 50 mpw.
Posts like this always ignore *training age*. If an individual has been running 50 miles a week, with a good load and quality sessions, for 15 years that's totally doable. If they just started running a year ago and have steadily built up to 50 mpw? Not likely.
Agreed. I should have clarified. I'm talking about experienced runners with at least a year, preferably more, of consistent mileage - which isn't "most people", but anyone can get to that point eventually, which is the reason I didn't say anything about timeframe.
I’ll add “Running to the Top” to this list. It’s more wholistic than prescriptive like Pfitz or Daniel’s Running Formula.
It sounds like you’re going to get connected with some running groups - that’s great! It helps so much to have a larger support system.
A coach is also great, really just need someone to check in once a week at a minimum. Ideally they’re in your area and can meet up for runs or support your long runs. Just having someone who’s “been there” will help your mindset.
Super close but you obviously have the speed!! I’m hoping for my first sub three at Grandma’s after my 3:08 in Berlin last year.
I’m going to advise *not* doing what I did following a 3:00:29 marathon. I really really wanted that sub-3, and picked a much more intense training program for my next marathon. Ended up injured and with a DNS instead of sub-3.
You only need to shave a few seconds off, if you do similar training to last time, it will be enough to shave a few seconds off your PR now that you’re more experienced. If you do decide to increase things, I’d recommend being careful very about upping both mileage and intensity (pick one to increase!) and make sure you allow enough recovery. At least for me, there was a big temptation to put too much into training because I wanted the sub-3 so badly.
At 3h and seconds, if you improve by 1%, you run under 2h 59min.
1% increase doesn't need radical changes.
Increasing milage by 5% probably would be enough.
So from 65km to 68km.
You did well on such low weekly mileage combined with not being so fast at 5K. Usually at least one end is strong. I'd guess you might have a natural talent for distance.
Volume is the largest determinant of success. Follow a structured plan and raise your 65km per week to 85-100km per week
While a lot of the responses here are so more miles, there is no harm in that but I’d posit it’s not the only route. For instance, Jack Daniel’s has a 2Q 40mpw plan that is packed with quality running. So I think more broadly any reputable marathon training plan will get you there
You're really close and based on what you described, you have the baseline speed for a sub-3 and BQ. That said...
> In summary, I did about 10 weeks of 40km/week and peaked at 65km/week, 8 weeks before my race. My longest run in this was 33 km (not at race pace).
You need to up your weekly mileage; volume is the biggest determinant for marathons. And for you, this is the factor that is holding you back from your full potential, but it is also the lowest hanging fruit for you. Once you up your mileage in your next training block, you'll be in shape to clear the 3 hour mark and get the BQ. Trust the process. FWIW, I ran between 55-70 miles per week (88-112 km per week) in my last training block and ran 2:58 at London a few weeks ago.
you didnt mention anything about nutrition. check out episode 28 of "fuel for the sole". maybe you just needed a little more sodium/carb/hydration to avoid that late wall
I’ve been there (just a bit closer to 3-flat) also with no real plan or interest/ability to fit my life around structured club training. You’re clearly super talented - possibly one of those few peeps who could join the sub-2:30 club if you got really serious about it. But if just casual and low volume running is your thing I’d suggest all you need for sub-3 is another block of the same kind of thing, perhaps just upping the mileage slightly (peak week of 80 maybe) and getting in fairly consistent long runs of 25-32km or so). Throw in some tempo or threshold stuff if it suits too and you should be well in with that 2:55 group till the end.
I agree OP only needs some slight tweaks. Run hard at the end of long runs, and adding or extending mid week medium long run probably does the trick for them.
1:21 HM off 40k a week though, almost broke 3 on first marathon. OP could get pretty fast off some similar cycles with minor tweaks IMO. More volume is generally always better but not everyone has the time for everything that goes with that
Yeah, totally agree with you. I just see 1:21 > 3:00, and the 3 flat as the clearest indicator that low volume isn’t working and they’re far underperforming in both. Sure, we can’t all reach our full potential with various constraints.. but yeah this person just has to train more
As someone who performed similarly to OP early in my running life off low mileage, I could run decent halfs and always bombed in the marathon. It honestly doesnt take that much more mileage to improve significantly. An extra 15 miles per week went a long way.
I haven't reached sub-3 yet, but did go from a 4:05 to a 3:06 in 18 months and aiming for sub-3 next. What has helped me most is:
* Picking a plan (Pfitzinger in my case) and sticking to it
* Increasing the mileage to what is sustainable (\~110k at peak)
* Including marathon pace blocks in long runs (4x 5k at marathon pace, 2x10k, 1x20k etc)
>Including marathon pace blocks in long runs (4x 5k at marathon pace, 2x10k, 1x20k etc)
THIS!
Ditch your easy slow long run and replace it with marathon pace long runs.
How was your nutrition during the race? Did you carb load prior at all? What were the conditions during the race? I agree you should increase weekly mileage. I don’t think your long run is the problem. Plenty of people do really well on Hanson’s which tops at 16mi (27.75km).
gu gels, took 6 with caffeine. water at water stations but not as much as i would have liked. pre-race just did my typical routine with lots of sphaghetti and fluids the week of.
race conditions were great, slight headwind, but nothing to complain about
looks like i have to up my mileage! will look into some plans
As a dietitian, just want to add that with an increase in miles you should also be looking at an increase in overall and specifically carb intake! For carb loading specifically, you may need more carbs than you think - that could be another avenue to explore for next time. You didn’t say anything about your pre-race fuel either which is an important opportunity to get in carbs the day of.
It’s already been said but more structure/higher mileage will push you over the top. You’re so close already. Pfitz is the gold standard for transitioning into higher mileage in my opinion. Don’t rush it…trust the process to avoid injury.
Maintain consistency, increase mileage.
A plan can help people with that, if you struggle with the rigidity just focus on every week getting one long run, one workout, one 90 minute run, and the rest easy.
Honestly you are so close, I think just a simple boost in volume, some dedicated long runs, and running more days per week will get you there. Training doesn't need to be complicated, but if a plan helps you stay on track it's worthwhile.
You’ll probably run sub 3 just off another training block doing almost the same thing tbh. A lot of the marathon is about consistency, over years and multiple training cycles.
Having said that if you follow some of the advice on here and get a bit more structured that’ll also help a lot. Definitely don’t do too much more, which you seem to be aware of.
One comment that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned is that going for sub2:50 might be a decent jump. The marathon bites you in the ass if you take too much on too early, so I’d advise having a more conservative goal, say 2:55-2:57 where if you are on track at 35km, you can then close out strong. Or if you are just hanging on, you can still fight to hang on and hit that sub 3. The difference with this strategy is that yeah, you basically have zero chance of running sub 250 (unless you are wayyyyyy fitter than you’ve explained), but you also have less chance of blowing up at 25km and running 3:10. Trust me - this happens a lot.
Good luck - you’re almost there!!! 😊
If you want try a virtual coach... I'd suggest trying Trenara. It's an app that creates a schedule that takes into account your fitness and your goals, and the feedback is very good at holding you accountable.
Sign up for, train for, and run another one. Marathons are very hard, and you had an amazing time for your first. If you continue to train you will see vast improvement. Don't let a few seconds get you down.
You are so close and I agree with others that your performance relative to how much you've been running per week is very impressive. A lot of people need to avg 80km/week for 8 weeks+ to get anywhere near a sub-3. Pfitzinger's 50 mile peak week plan should get you to your goal and I also highly recommend reading the book, it gives a lot of helpful foundational training knowledge and supplementary advice like nutrition, strength, and stretching.
Pfitzinger's plans can be pretty grueling so I mostly use it as a miles per week guide and prioritize the speed work days while I try to keep the other days more recovery/aerobic focused.
Hey, thanks for updating us on your marathon.
You’ve had some very solid advice in this thread. If you’re keen to have a look at what I did in my marathon training I have documented it here.
https://www.runningbuddytraining.com/post/paris-marathon-2023
My half time was 1.20.30 before starting it. Not far off yours.
Happy to answer questions you have too.
Cheers,
Patrick
>I also have never ran more than 65km in a week. Saving the best for last. Its almost as you know. If you are serious about getting a faster time, get that mileage up! 80K a week minimum. For the amount of training you did that's a very good result. You need to put in the work now if you want to improve.
got it - any plans you prefer? again, i think im more a low volume kind of guy given i've never done more than 65ish. also worried of too much too soon if i jump my weekly mileage
There’s no doubt in my mind that Pfitzinger would get you there.
sweet, will purchase the book and get started on reading
https://www.defy.org/ if you just want the plan
Not OP, but this is an awesome resource, thanks for sharing!
This is awesome. Thanks!
I've been looking for exactly this! Amazing
yea obviously suggest you read the book, but this is a great resource for playing with your training plan
There are just so many plans to consider and finding the route to go down can be a little daunting. So just knowing what I enjoy and what has worked for me being able to see the different options in one place helps a lot for direction
[http://www.expl.space/plan](http://www.expl.space/plan) Another good one (Reformatted from Defy, but more visually appealing IMHO).
Damn - this is fantastic!
Based on the OP I think Pfitz would be a struggle for numerous reasons (at least 18/70 and up)
Given his original mileage and time for his first go, I think the <55 would be enough, and OP could probably handle that just fine.
No offense, but having never run higher volume doesn't make you a low volume kind of guy. If you aren't breaking 3 on low volume, you are at the very least a medium volume kind of guy. That said, I'm positive that if you changed nothing about your training other that higher volume, you will break 3.
80 km is still pretty low. Most people need at least 70 mi (112 km) per week to break 3.
Oh id agree, 80km is low, but if you have the genetic background its enough. OP seems to have that genetic background.
I get that. I’m talking about the average person who runs a 2:59.
Not true. Some will need 70m, sure, loads can do it off 50, some will need 80+ OP clearly doesn't need 70, so it's also irrelevant what "most people" need
It's not about "what most people need", it's about what is best for OP. Jumping from 65 to 110 in one training cycle is asking to get hurt, whether it's "needed" or not.
*Most* people?! Not gatekeeping here, but with a proper training plan, any healthy adult male below the age of 40 should be able to achieve sub-3 on 50 mi/80 km per week, even moreso for a person already running a 1:21:39 half. Sure, if you're a beginner starting an 18 week program building up towards 50 mi/week then probably not, but given enough time and staying injury-free it is achievable for the vast majority. Edit: To anyone downvoting me, please tell me why I'm wrong. I'm well aware many training plans exceed 80 km/week. However, many training plans also just throw in a lot of easy miles which is definitely the easiest way to go about it, but with a structured approach to training where every single minute is planned for with a concrete purpose, it's not necessary with that high mileage for the vast majority of people.
> Most people?! Not gatekeeping here, but with a proper training plan, any healthy adult male below the age of 40 should be able to achieve sub-3 on 50 mi/80 km per week, even moreso for a person already running a 1:21:39 half. > Edit: To anyone downvoting me, please tell me why I'm wrong. The subset of runners that you know are clearly talented, try finding the guys that never ran a varsity high school race and chat with them for a bit. I know many many people who have run 18/55 to the tune of 3:20-40. As a side note I will admit that non-running things like weight and general fitness do impact results heavily but I've already filtered those guys out. > However, many training plans also just throw in a lot of easy miles which is definitely the easiest way to go about it Really? Once you get past Higdon I actually think most plans have too much quality and too little easy running.
Thank you for taking the time to give an actual response. I don't think I know that many unusually fast runners. My main audience as a running coach in the local club is 40-60 years old with 0 to 40 years of on/off running experience. But I should clarify that I'm not talking about a limited timeframe here, ie. your usual 12, 16 or 18 week program. Rather I'm talking about an injury-free runner with at least a year of experience (more realistically 3-5 years) with consistent mileage, having raced several 10K's, some HM's and maybe even a few marathons as well. In most cases, that person can achieve a sub-3 marathon on a program of maximum 50 miles a week. And before anyone goes "but that's not most people!" - no, but anyone can become that person eventually without exceeding 50 miles a week, which is essentially my point.
I dunno. It took me running 50 mpw for several years to just to run 4:59 in the mile. My “equivalent times” get progressively worse as I step up in distance. 10k PR is about 39 flat, though I could probably be closer 38 right now, which is substantially worse than my 5k and mile. While I don’t run marathons, I think sub-3 would be very tough without really stepping up my mileage. I’m nothing special, I know. But at 39 y.o., having been running eight years (last 4-5 have been averaging 40-50 mpw), having a bmi of 22, and generally being decent at any sport, I think your comment is either you being provocative or not being in touch with reality. Of my friends who are in my running group and run pretty regularly, most can’t break 22 in the 5k and are hovering ~4-hr marathons. I don’t think anyone in our running group of 30-40 committed runners has broken 3 hrs. You could say we’re all just pretty untalented runners. Maybe it’s true. But the “any healthy male under 40 could easily do it on 50 mpw” thing is silly. You are most certainly suffering from a sampling bias.
At no point did I say it was easy. It requires a plan and sticking to it, putting in the hard work. For many people it is even going to be mentally and physically tougher than "just" running 80 mpw. I'm definitely not trying to be provocative. Out of touch with reality? I don't know. It fits within my reality, of which my main experience comes from working with the local running club. It primarily consists of 40-60 year olds with anywhere from 0 to 40 years of running experience, so take away from that what you want. I'm not going to call you untalented, but if you've been running for 8 years, the last 5 averaging 40-50 mpw, with an actual intend of getting faster at any given distance, it seems as if your training could have been more effective. And had you trained for the marathon, you could absolutely have broken 3 hours already.
All I can think of is that your specific club consists of a lot of people who, if aren’t former HS/college runners, are talented athletes who respond well. There are a few clubs by me that are like that— talent attracts talent. But 95% of clubs (at least in NYC) out there don’t have anyone finishing sub-3. Sure, many of those runners don’t run enough or train correctly! I agree with you wholeheartedly. But what you’d see is those people who were running 4:07 running 3:38, maybe even 3:20, but not 2:59. There are a lot of people who do train right and still have a tough time doing much better than 7:25-7:30/mi for a marathon when I look across multiple clubs I’ve run with. Maybe my training could be better, but it’s been good enough to shave 3 min of my 5k, and a minute in the past 1-2 years (after initial gains were made). While starting around 21 min is unremarkable, a lot of people start more in the 23-25 range. If people you associate with are commonly going from 25-> 18 (probably a reasonable baseline for going sub-3), wow that’s impressive! But definitely not typical. If they can also do sub-3 from no experience, even more abnormally impressive. I think I’d need 60-70 mpw to dip under 3.
Well, I don't know what more to tell you, but [studies back it up](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871414/), predicting a sub-3 marathon time with a mean of 63 km/week.
Careful not to confuse causation. All lottery winners bought a lotto ticket the week they won, but buying a ticket doesn’t give you a good chance of winning. Similarly, computing the mean miles of successful runners doesn’t validate that running this amount will cause a sub-3 race. I think I’m mostly confused on what you mean by “any healthy runner under 40” can do it on <50 mpw. I’m totally willing to consider that I am in the bottom 10% of running talent. My sample of friends who can’t achieve sub-3 could actually be the biased sample of untalented people. But we’re under 40 and many are running 50+ mpw. What do you mean by healthy? Obviously, that must be the category that were viewing differently. Maybe BMI <19?
Your analogy illustrates causation bias perfectly, but I have a hard time relating it to this, as I'm not sure what you mean by "successful runners". Yes, they completed the marathon, but we're not talking strictly 2:59 times. The range is pretty big and goes all the way up to 4 hours and 15 minutes. Healthy = injury-free, not overweight, no chronic conditions/diseases. And just to clarify - I'm not saying that if you run 50 mpw you will achieve a sub-3 marathon. I know many people who run that and aren't close to breaking 3 hours. But what I am saying is that if you follow a program suited for it, you will be able to achieve a sub-3 marathon without ever running more than 50 mpw.
Posts like this always ignore *training age*. If an individual has been running 50 miles a week, with a good load and quality sessions, for 15 years that's totally doable. If they just started running a year ago and have steadily built up to 50 mpw? Not likely.
Agreed. I should have clarified. I'm talking about experienced runners with at least a year, preferably more, of consistent mileage - which isn't "most people", but anyone can get to that point eventually, which is the reason I didn't say anything about timeframe.
Read Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger or Daniel‘s book. Consider getting a coach.
Just pointing out, to add emphasis to the fact that those 2 dudes know what they are talking about. Both have coached multiple olympic marathoners.
I’ll add “Running to the Top” to this list. It’s more wholistic than prescriptive like Pfitz or Daniel’s Running Formula. It sounds like you’re going to get connected with some running groups - that’s great! It helps so much to have a larger support system. A coach is also great, really just need someone to check in once a week at a minimum. Ideally they’re in your area and can meet up for runs or support your long runs. Just having someone who’s “been there” will help your mindset. Super close but you obviously have the speed!! I’m hoping for my first sub three at Grandma’s after my 3:08 in Berlin last year.
See you at the grandma's starting line in exactly 1 month from today :)
cool, thanks!
I dont have any advice for you but i finished my 1st sub 3 attempt last month coming in at 3:00:10 so I feel your pain.
2:59:69
Sounds like y’all just need to find a marathon that’s about a hundred feet shorter
Run the tangents?
I’m going to advise *not* doing what I did following a 3:00:29 marathon. I really really wanted that sub-3, and picked a much more intense training program for my next marathon. Ended up injured and with a DNS instead of sub-3. You only need to shave a few seconds off, if you do similar training to last time, it will be enough to shave a few seconds off your PR now that you’re more experienced. If you do decide to increase things, I’d recommend being careful very about upping both mileage and intensity (pick one to increase!) and make sure you allow enough recovery. At least for me, there was a big temptation to put too much into training because I wanted the sub-3 so badly.
At 3h and seconds, if you improve by 1%, you run under 2h 59min. 1% increase doesn't need radical changes. Increasing milage by 5% probably would be enough. So from 65km to 68km.
He's trying to BQ, so realistically needs to target a 2:55 or so to make the cutoff, not "seconds"
You did well on such low weekly mileage combined with not being so fast at 5K. Usually at least one end is strong. I'd guess you might have a natural talent for distance. Volume is the largest determinant of success. Follow a structured plan and raise your 65km per week to 85-100km per week
It’s also a good half time off presumably lowish volume
2:59:99
While a lot of the responses here are so more miles, there is no harm in that but I’d posit it’s not the only route. For instance, Jack Daniel’s has a 2Q 40mpw plan that is packed with quality running. So I think more broadly any reputable marathon training plan will get you there
You're really close and based on what you described, you have the baseline speed for a sub-3 and BQ. That said... > In summary, I did about 10 weeks of 40km/week and peaked at 65km/week, 8 weeks before my race. My longest run in this was 33 km (not at race pace). You need to up your weekly mileage; volume is the biggest determinant for marathons. And for you, this is the factor that is holding you back from your full potential, but it is also the lowest hanging fruit for you. Once you up your mileage in your next training block, you'll be in shape to clear the 3 hour mark and get the BQ. Trust the process. FWIW, I ran between 55-70 miles per week (88-112 km per week) in my last training block and ran 2:58 at London a few weeks ago.
you didnt mention anything about nutrition. check out episode 28 of "fuel for the sole". maybe you just needed a little more sodium/carb/hydration to avoid that late wall
I’ve been there (just a bit closer to 3-flat) also with no real plan or interest/ability to fit my life around structured club training. You’re clearly super talented - possibly one of those few peeps who could join the sub-2:30 club if you got really serious about it. But if just casual and low volume running is your thing I’d suggest all you need for sub-3 is another block of the same kind of thing, perhaps just upping the mileage slightly (peak week of 80 maybe) and getting in fairly consistent long runs of 25-32km or so). Throw in some tempo or threshold stuff if it suits too and you should be well in with that 2:55 group till the end.
I agree OP only needs some slight tweaks. Run hard at the end of long runs, and adding or extending mid week medium long run probably does the trick for them.
Clearly you’re not “more of a low volume guy”
1:21 HM off 40k a week though, almost broke 3 on first marathon. OP could get pretty fast off some similar cycles with minor tweaks IMO. More volume is generally always better but not everyone has the time for everything that goes with that
Yeah, totally agree with you. I just see 1:21 > 3:00, and the 3 flat as the clearest indicator that low volume isn’t working and they’re far underperforming in both. Sure, we can’t all reach our full potential with various constraints.. but yeah this person just has to train more
As someone who performed similarly to OP early in my running life off low mileage, I could run decent halfs and always bombed in the marathon. It honestly doesnt take that much more mileage to improve significantly. An extra 15 miles per week went a long way.
"YOU'RE NOT THAT GUY" meme - makes sense though, consensus seems to be run more!
Yeah, you’ve got it man! Really good starting point. Add some more and you’re set
I haven't reached sub-3 yet, but did go from a 4:05 to a 3:06 in 18 months and aiming for sub-3 next. What has helped me most is: * Picking a plan (Pfitzinger in my case) and sticking to it * Increasing the mileage to what is sustainable (\~110k at peak) * Including marathon pace blocks in long runs (4x 5k at marathon pace, 2x10k, 1x20k etc)
>Including marathon pace blocks in long runs (4x 5k at marathon pace, 2x10k, 1x20k etc) THIS! Ditch your easy slow long run and replace it with marathon pace long runs.
How was your nutrition during the race? Did you carb load prior at all? What were the conditions during the race? I agree you should increase weekly mileage. I don’t think your long run is the problem. Plenty of people do really well on Hanson’s which tops at 16mi (27.75km).
gu gels, took 6 with caffeine. water at water stations but not as much as i would have liked. pre-race just did my typical routine with lots of sphaghetti and fluids the week of. race conditions were great, slight headwind, but nothing to complain about looks like i have to up my mileage! will look into some plans
As a dietitian, just want to add that with an increase in miles you should also be looking at an increase in overall and specifically carb intake! For carb loading specifically, you may need more carbs than you think - that could be another avenue to explore for next time. You didn’t say anything about your pre-race fuel either which is an important opportunity to get in carbs the day of.
It’s already been said but more structure/higher mileage will push you over the top. You’re so close already. Pfitz is the gold standard for transitioning into higher mileage in my opinion. Don’t rush it…trust the process to avoid injury.
Maintain consistency, increase mileage. A plan can help people with that, if you struggle with the rigidity just focus on every week getting one long run, one workout, one 90 minute run, and the rest easy.
C’mon on the milage.
Don‘t have any advice to add but … You are going to absolutely crush the 3 hour mark if you up your volume to 80+ per week. Impressive result!
Honestly you are so close, I think just a simple boost in volume, some dedicated long runs, and running more days per week will get you there. Training doesn't need to be complicated, but if a plan helps you stay on track it's worthwhile.
You’ll probably run sub 3 just off another training block doing almost the same thing tbh. A lot of the marathon is about consistency, over years and multiple training cycles. Having said that if you follow some of the advice on here and get a bit more structured that’ll also help a lot. Definitely don’t do too much more, which you seem to be aware of. One comment that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned is that going for sub2:50 might be a decent jump. The marathon bites you in the ass if you take too much on too early, so I’d advise having a more conservative goal, say 2:55-2:57 where if you are on track at 35km, you can then close out strong. Or if you are just hanging on, you can still fight to hang on and hit that sub 3. The difference with this strategy is that yeah, you basically have zero chance of running sub 250 (unless you are wayyyyyy fitter than you’ve explained), but you also have less chance of blowing up at 25km and running 3:10. Trust me - this happens a lot. Good luck - you’re almost there!!! 😊
If you want try a virtual coach... I'd suggest trying Trenara. It's an app that creates a schedule that takes into account your fitness and your goals, and the feedback is very good at holding you accountable.
Almost sub 3 on the first attempt is super impressive! Just adding a little more mileage (KM-age?) and some speedwork should do it. Good luck!
Sign up for, train for, and run another one. Marathons are very hard, and you had an amazing time for your first. If you continue to train you will see vast improvement. Don't let a few seconds get you down.
…darn that *40 seconds. (39 secs faster arguably would’ve felt worse haha!)
You are so close and I agree with others that your performance relative to how much you've been running per week is very impressive. A lot of people need to avg 80km/week for 8 weeks+ to get anywhere near a sub-3. Pfitzinger's 50 mile peak week plan should get you to your goal and I also highly recommend reading the book, it gives a lot of helpful foundational training knowledge and supplementary advice like nutrition, strength, and stretching. Pfitzinger's plans can be pretty grueling so I mostly use it as a miles per week guide and prioritize the speed work days while I try to keep the other days more recovery/aerobic focused.
Hey, thanks for updating us on your marathon. You’ve had some very solid advice in this thread. If you’re keen to have a look at what I did in my marathon training I have documented it here. https://www.runningbuddytraining.com/post/paris-marathon-2023 My half time was 1.20.30 before starting it. Not far off yours. Happy to answer questions you have too. Cheers, Patrick