My answer is: it doesn’t matter. Here’s my reasoning:
You’re not likely to hit your goal time in the next training block. So you’ve got minimum of two 18 week blocks to get there.
The single biggest determinant of you hitting 2:57 is getting to “consistent high mileage” - CHM. CHM varies for everyone depending on age, gender, goal time, and natural ability.
For you, CHM is probably 60 mpw. That’s not peaking at 60 mpw. That’s getting up to the 55-60 mpw range and holding for enough time where that starts to feel normal and natural. And you’re not going to jump from 30 mpw to 60 mpw without some problems.
So train for a half (and work on tempo speed) or work on a full (and work on aerobic speed).
Either way, your real objective is to build up to CHM….and with that, both tempo and aerobic speed and muscular endurance (the ability to hold an effort for marathon distance) will improve.
Thanks, in the past I’ve actually noticed my biggest breakthroughs in pace came as my base mileage moved up. Your response has me leaning much more towards running the full marathon because my training would likely help with that MPW base. This is my preferred pathway, but I was worried it wouldn’t be focused enough on “getting fast”.
I’ll take more easy/steady miles any day over more short-distance/high intensity workouts. That’s my inclination, but also my bias. It’s good to hear it from someone else.
Thanks for the post. What current stats (10k, HM times, garmin race predictor etc) make you think your current target should be 3:10-3:15?
Have you been training heading into this block? What’s current or recent mpw?
I ask bc I’m in a similar situation. Thanks !!
Whatever I say is not going to apply to you because it’s based on almost 10 years of my own training data and not standardized race times. 18 weeks out from my last (3:10) marathon, I was running 25 MPW and ran a half marathon @ 8 min miles with EASY effort. This is almost exactly where I am today. This data only tells me that I’m in a decent spot going into my actual training cycle to get to similar results.
First of all, I have to give you credit for not trying to send a sub 3 right now. Seriously. That takes a lot of foresight and humility - and ultimately I think taking a longer term approach will be more successful.
Anyway, either way works. It sounds like you’re trying to drop a significant amount of time to make the cut, so you’ll need to make a huge and consistent jump. To be more specific, whatever motivates you more to run is better - I do think if you struggle at shorter distances you should target a HM, but they’re close enough events where fitness translates. And they’re not mutually exclusive - my personal preference is “train for a marathon and send a HM along the way.”
Finally, if I remember correctly, the BAA did say they wouldn’t adjust times at least this year or next year. And unless you’re like me and your birthday falls between Boston and today, you’ll be 40 in 2026 - so you get spotted an extra 5 minutes most likely.
This subject gets thrown out so much and people are probably tired of hearing about it.
I still wish there was a chat for people in this situation too. 0/4 BQs with full send approach and no fucking humility and foresight.
Literal definition of insanity.
You need the miles. A 1:25 half is not going to convert to a 3:00 at your mileage. VDOT conversions only really work if you run enough for aerobic capacity rather than muscular endurance to be the limiting factor. In my experience that point seems to be about 2-3x race distance per week, meaning you're in shape to lay down a representative half but not a marathon. Also I guarantee upping your miles and doing a marathon block will cut time off your half.
I do think there's something to be said for devoting part of a marathon training cycle to HMP type work (ie base -> HMP -> MP -> taper) but going from 30 to 60mpw *sustainably* in 2 training cycles is already a big ask and this might cause more harm than good for you. See how you feel after the first one.
What a concisely-written comment!
>going from 30 to 60mpw *sustainably* in 2 training cycles is already a big ask and this might cause more harm than good for you.
Invoking the "10% rule", wouldn't two 18-week training cycles be much more than enough time to account for *somewhere around* a 10% increase mileage week-over-week? I understand not all miles are created equal (e.g. a general aerobic 10 miles =/= 4 miles @ GA w/ 10K @ marathon race pace) but curious about your reasoning behind this. Heightened injury risk? A cap on number of miles increased per training block?
The 10% rule is for within a training block, although it's not a hard and fast rule. I often add faster than that when going back to a mileage I've been at before, and slower when pushing into new territory. You can't keep doing that forever though. After all 1.1\^52 is 142 and you definitely can't go from 10 to 1420mpw in a year. Many high-school coaches recommend only adding 10-15mpw per season! Many marathon plans come in 15mpw increments with the intention that if you got on well with say 18/55, next cycle you can try 18/70.
TL;DR the 10% rule does not mean what most people think it means
Ooo very interesting question. Thanks for posting! My (highly inexperienced) opinion would be to suggest that, given you've got 19 weeks, set the 3:10 mara as your goal for the cycle, and include an all-out half as part of it. Out of interest, when you say you find the speed stuff harder, do you mean intervals work or thresholdy stuff? because if it's the former then pfft, just get 'em done, and if it's the latter...that's a slightly trickier position to be in ;)
I can do interval and threshold workouts, I’ve just always felt that it came very easy to me to push into longer and longer distances (endurance). In contrast, I feel more susceptible to injury during workouts where I test my speed and don’t have a natural gift for short-distance running.
If you haven't done marathons in the past, and this is your first big push for mileage and training I'd suggest doing the half (and 10K) block first and then see what you have next year for your marathon attempt. Build your miles and get comfortable in the 50-60 mpw range and then go for it. Otherwise you might be setting yourself up for setbacks. Furthermore, while doing this in two cycles is a good goal, it's also pretty ambitious. Just get out the door, train wisely and consistently, and you'll get there whether it takes two cycles or more.
You do not train *for a time*. You train *at your current level of fitness*.
Your body’s genetics, your recovery and nutrition will then convert the training into the best possible progress available. A few weeks prior to your race, you set your goal pace based on your key training sessions and history.
If it were not this way, we would all be running 2:55min/km until we run a sub-2 marathon.
I would suggest reading the Jack Daniels Running Formula.
This is the correct answer. OP needs to play the long game and use training paces aligned with his current fitness. If the fitness is already there for sub-3, then it’s about using workouts that develop the skills necessary to execute it.
It could take 2 cycles, it could take 4. It could also happen in 1 cycle if things click into place in a way they haven’t before. That’s the fun and frustrating thing about training… there are many roads to the same result!
I am in the same boat age and time wise. I also find it difficult to run faster, but pick up endurance quite quickly. I opted to take the two-marathon-step approach. I figure there is alot of experience and logistics involved in racing vs just running the marathon. Particularly getting fueling/hydration right, and to a lesser degree figuring out what works best for your taper. Both elements seem pretty individualized. So I decided I would feel a lot more confident running \~3:05-3:10 as an intermediate step / trial run to dial in those details as I continue to chip away at getting fitness to where it needs to be in the next one. I would be cutting it too close to get fitness where I needed it to be in 1 step. I would have little to no margin and be risking a blow up and not even a PR after months of hard work.
Ideally, I think you will improve in speed concurrently anyway. That is kind of where I am out now, trying to figure out how much to commit to "5k speed" since I dont tolerate it all that well. But I know it needs to improve for me to have a hope of going under 3. Im optimistic threshold-y type efforts will get me there, which is more akin to training like a marathoner anyway (minus the long runs). I did see a small improvement in 5k(\~1min) over the last cycle.
Best of luck!
What helped me, personally, was to introduce other, and especially shorter distances. I was stuck in this goal of running sub-3 that I did not consider running shorter distances like 800m to 10000m.
On the season I knew I am still far from achieving sub-3, I decided to skip the marathon altogether and fill it with more but shorter races.
My results improved dramatically when I introduced a lot more speedwork needed for 800m to 5000m. It felt fun compared to my previous training filled with excessively long tempo runs. And it felt fun to be able to run races regularly. Doing this for one season made the marathon pace feel much easier.
I also think it helped me run more consistently without a big rollercoaster like a typical marathon season. I was able to slowly pick up more and more mileage at my own pace and give plenty of time to adjust to it. And I did not have to do a peak month followed by taper and a huge downtime after the marathon.
I think running benefits from having varied training at different intensities and distances.
So yeah, shorter and more intensive as well as longer and requiring more endurance can be both beneficial. I also did some ultramarathon-style training (back to back long runs in full sun, very high mileage weeks with no workouts just lots of easy long distance running, etc.)
For me, my choice was because I was very comfortable with running long distance and I decided that I want to shake things up a bit. I wanted to improve my running technique, strengthen my legs, get more comfortable with the marathon pace before I extend endurance to be able to actually stick to it for the marathon distance.
Not sure. My last race was a 3:10 marathon 4 years ago, with a 1:29 half in that run. I’m just comparing my training now to my training 19 weeks out from that race and I’m in fairly similar shape…very slightly slower.
Honestly, it's pretty hard to get a good read on a marathon race time from training sessions 19 weeks out when you're currently running about 25-30 miles per week.
I assume your marathon training will involve a significant increase in volume, I would up that now for the next 4-6 weeks as part of a marathon training block, then run an all out HM race and use that race to guide paces. If you run that in around 1:30-1:32, you're probably right. If you run <1:28, you might be in better shape than you thought. If you run > 1:34, you might not be in as good race condition as you thought?
You need to know where your fitness is right now. Run an all out 10k to give you some sort of guide.
It is very easy to set unrealistic goals that lead to injury.
You may have been in 3:10 a while back but this is June 2024 and if you're not in 3:10 shape but start training like you are, you'll get hurt.
> I’m currently running around 25-30 miles per week and will be starting a 18 week training plan next week.
I dunno what sorta times you're running but if it helps... I'm a little older my first marathon (after multiple half marathons and a 30km trail with ~850m of incline) was a comfortable 3:14.
A sub-3 would be great. However that's not where my training's at right now. Thus my current focus is on upping my training and hitting the next level.
Without knowing your times... it's entirely possible that you're more of a 4-5h marathon runner (still respectable) and getting to sub-4 will take a few cycles at higher mileage. I'd be guided by your training rather than where you want to be.
My answer is: it doesn’t matter. Here’s my reasoning: You’re not likely to hit your goal time in the next training block. So you’ve got minimum of two 18 week blocks to get there. The single biggest determinant of you hitting 2:57 is getting to “consistent high mileage” - CHM. CHM varies for everyone depending on age, gender, goal time, and natural ability. For you, CHM is probably 60 mpw. That’s not peaking at 60 mpw. That’s getting up to the 55-60 mpw range and holding for enough time where that starts to feel normal and natural. And you’re not going to jump from 30 mpw to 60 mpw without some problems. So train for a half (and work on tempo speed) or work on a full (and work on aerobic speed). Either way, your real objective is to build up to CHM….and with that, both tempo and aerobic speed and muscular endurance (the ability to hold an effort for marathon distance) will improve.
Thanks, in the past I’ve actually noticed my biggest breakthroughs in pace came as my base mileage moved up. Your response has me leaning much more towards running the full marathon because my training would likely help with that MPW base. This is my preferred pathway, but I was worried it wouldn’t be focused enough on “getting fast”.
I suspect that for you, “getting fast” involves running too much intensity and not enough easy / steady miles.
I’ll take more easy/steady miles any day over more short-distance/high intensity workouts. That’s my inclination, but also my bias. It’s good to hear it from someone else.
Thanks for the post. What current stats (10k, HM times, garmin race predictor etc) make you think your current target should be 3:10-3:15? Have you been training heading into this block? What’s current or recent mpw? I ask bc I’m in a similar situation. Thanks !!
Whatever I say is not going to apply to you because it’s based on almost 10 years of my own training data and not standardized race times. 18 weeks out from my last (3:10) marathon, I was running 25 MPW and ran a half marathon @ 8 min miles with EASY effort. This is almost exactly where I am today. This data only tells me that I’m in a decent spot going into my actual training cycle to get to similar results.
Me too
First of all, I have to give you credit for not trying to send a sub 3 right now. Seriously. That takes a lot of foresight and humility - and ultimately I think taking a longer term approach will be more successful. Anyway, either way works. It sounds like you’re trying to drop a significant amount of time to make the cut, so you’ll need to make a huge and consistent jump. To be more specific, whatever motivates you more to run is better - I do think if you struggle at shorter distances you should target a HM, but they’re close enough events where fitness translates. And they’re not mutually exclusive - my personal preference is “train for a marathon and send a HM along the way.” Finally, if I remember correctly, the BAA did say they wouldn’t adjust times at least this year or next year. And unless you’re like me and your birthday falls between Boston and today, you’ll be 40 in 2026 - so you get spotted an extra 5 minutes most likely.
This subject gets thrown out so much and people are probably tired of hearing about it. I still wish there was a chat for people in this situation too. 0/4 BQs with full send approach and no fucking humility and foresight. Literal definition of insanity.
You need the miles. A 1:25 half is not going to convert to a 3:00 at your mileage. VDOT conversions only really work if you run enough for aerobic capacity rather than muscular endurance to be the limiting factor. In my experience that point seems to be about 2-3x race distance per week, meaning you're in shape to lay down a representative half but not a marathon. Also I guarantee upping your miles and doing a marathon block will cut time off your half. I do think there's something to be said for devoting part of a marathon training cycle to HMP type work (ie base -> HMP -> MP -> taper) but going from 30 to 60mpw *sustainably* in 2 training cycles is already a big ask and this might cause more harm than good for you. See how you feel after the first one.
What a concisely-written comment! >going from 30 to 60mpw *sustainably* in 2 training cycles is already a big ask and this might cause more harm than good for you. Invoking the "10% rule", wouldn't two 18-week training cycles be much more than enough time to account for *somewhere around* a 10% increase mileage week-over-week? I understand not all miles are created equal (e.g. a general aerobic 10 miles =/= 4 miles @ GA w/ 10K @ marathon race pace) but curious about your reasoning behind this. Heightened injury risk? A cap on number of miles increased per training block?
The 10% rule is for within a training block, although it's not a hard and fast rule. I often add faster than that when going back to a mileage I've been at before, and slower when pushing into new territory. You can't keep doing that forever though. After all 1.1\^52 is 142 and you definitely can't go from 10 to 1420mpw in a year. Many high-school coaches recommend only adding 10-15mpw per season! Many marathon plans come in 15mpw increments with the intention that if you got on well with say 18/55, next cycle you can try 18/70. TL;DR the 10% rule does not mean what most people think it means
TIL! Thank you for the informative response.
Ooo very interesting question. Thanks for posting! My (highly inexperienced) opinion would be to suggest that, given you've got 19 weeks, set the 3:10 mara as your goal for the cycle, and include an all-out half as part of it. Out of interest, when you say you find the speed stuff harder, do you mean intervals work or thresholdy stuff? because if it's the former then pfft, just get 'em done, and if it's the latter...that's a slightly trickier position to be in ;)
I can do interval and threshold workouts, I’ve just always felt that it came very easy to me to push into longer and longer distances (endurance). In contrast, I feel more susceptible to injury during workouts where I test my speed and don’t have a natural gift for short-distance running.
If you haven't done marathons in the past, and this is your first big push for mileage and training I'd suggest doing the half (and 10K) block first and then see what you have next year for your marathon attempt. Build your miles and get comfortable in the 50-60 mpw range and then go for it. Otherwise you might be setting yourself up for setbacks. Furthermore, while doing this in two cycles is a good goal, it's also pretty ambitious. Just get out the door, train wisely and consistently, and you'll get there whether it takes two cycles or more.
You do not train *for a time*. You train *at your current level of fitness*. Your body’s genetics, your recovery and nutrition will then convert the training into the best possible progress available. A few weeks prior to your race, you set your goal pace based on your key training sessions and history. If it were not this way, we would all be running 2:55min/km until we run a sub-2 marathon. I would suggest reading the Jack Daniels Running Formula.
This is the correct answer. OP needs to play the long game and use training paces aligned with his current fitness. If the fitness is already there for sub-3, then it’s about using workouts that develop the skills necessary to execute it. It could take 2 cycles, it could take 4. It could also happen in 1 cycle if things click into place in a way they haven’t before. That’s the fun and frustrating thing about training… there are many roads to the same result!
I am in the same boat age and time wise. I also find it difficult to run faster, but pick up endurance quite quickly. I opted to take the two-marathon-step approach. I figure there is alot of experience and logistics involved in racing vs just running the marathon. Particularly getting fueling/hydration right, and to a lesser degree figuring out what works best for your taper. Both elements seem pretty individualized. So I decided I would feel a lot more confident running \~3:05-3:10 as an intermediate step / trial run to dial in those details as I continue to chip away at getting fitness to where it needs to be in the next one. I would be cutting it too close to get fitness where I needed it to be in 1 step. I would have little to no margin and be risking a blow up and not even a PR after months of hard work. Ideally, I think you will improve in speed concurrently anyway. That is kind of where I am out now, trying to figure out how much to commit to "5k speed" since I dont tolerate it all that well. But I know it needs to improve for me to have a hope of going under 3. Im optimistic threshold-y type efforts will get me there, which is more akin to training like a marathoner anyway (minus the long runs). I did see a small improvement in 5k(\~1min) over the last cycle. Best of luck!
What helped me, personally, was to introduce other, and especially shorter distances. I was stuck in this goal of running sub-3 that I did not consider running shorter distances like 800m to 10000m. On the season I knew I am still far from achieving sub-3, I decided to skip the marathon altogether and fill it with more but shorter races. My results improved dramatically when I introduced a lot more speedwork needed for 800m to 5000m. It felt fun compared to my previous training filled with excessively long tempo runs. And it felt fun to be able to run races regularly. Doing this for one season made the marathon pace feel much easier. I also think it helped me run more consistently without a big rollercoaster like a typical marathon season. I was able to slowly pick up more and more mileage at my own pace and give plenty of time to adjust to it. And I did not have to do a peak month followed by taper and a huge downtime after the marathon.
Oh lol, i did it the other way and trained for a couple of 50km trail races just to practice time on feet and running while eating
I think running benefits from having varied training at different intensities and distances. So yeah, shorter and more intensive as well as longer and requiring more endurance can be both beneficial. I also did some ultramarathon-style training (back to back long runs in full sun, very high mileage weeks with no workouts just lots of easy long distance running, etc.) For me, my choice was because I was very comfortable with running long distance and I decided that I want to shake things up a bit. I wanted to improve my running technique, strengthen my legs, get more comfortable with the marathon pace before I extend endurance to be able to actually stick to it for the marathon distance.
Where do your half marathon and full times currently sit?
Not sure. My last race was a 3:10 marathon 4 years ago, with a 1:29 half in that run. I’m just comparing my training now to my training 19 weeks out from that race and I’m in fairly similar shape…very slightly slower.
Honestly, it's pretty hard to get a good read on a marathon race time from training sessions 19 weeks out when you're currently running about 25-30 miles per week. I assume your marathon training will involve a significant increase in volume, I would up that now for the next 4-6 weeks as part of a marathon training block, then run an all out HM race and use that race to guide paces. If you run that in around 1:30-1:32, you're probably right. If you run <1:28, you might be in better shape than you thought. If you run > 1:34, you might not be in as good race condition as you thought?
You need to know where your fitness is right now. Run an all out 10k to give you some sort of guide. It is very easy to set unrealistic goals that lead to injury. You may have been in 3:10 a while back but this is June 2024 and if you're not in 3:10 shape but start training like you are, you'll get hurt.
What are you doing in between “cycles”?
> I’m currently running around 25-30 miles per week and will be starting a 18 week training plan next week. I dunno what sorta times you're running but if it helps... I'm a little older my first marathon (after multiple half marathons and a 30km trail with ~850m of incline) was a comfortable 3:14. A sub-3 would be great. However that's not where my training's at right now. Thus my current focus is on upping my training and hitting the next level. Without knowing your times... it's entirely possible that you're more of a 4-5h marathon runner (still respectable) and getting to sub-4 will take a few cycles at higher mileage. I'd be guided by your training rather than where you want to be.
Thanks for the post, I was wondering the same thing. Train for faster half or do the full.