PMP my run

[marathondan]

I was just looking at the Furman Institute first marathon training plan. (I'm training for my second, but I'm not aiming to do any better than the first.)

They advocate the long training run at a pace typically PMP (Planned Marathon Pace) + 30-45 sec/mile. So far this campaign, my long runs have been coming in about PMP +/-10 sec. But I'm only up to 9 miles.

But the more interesting thing is that they advise PMP should be 10K pace +45 sec. That sounds very fast to me. My 10K PB pace is 7:28, which means I should be aiming for 8:13 PMP, or a 3:35 finish! (Actual target: sub 4). Does this mean I'm not fulfilling my potential as a marathon runner? I can imagine that the answer is yes, as I'm only training 3 times a week.

How do other people's 10K and marathon paces compare? Are you fulfilling your potential? I'd be interested to compare.

[Sweder]

This is very interesting stuff MD. I've always wondered how times measure up over distances. I seem to have a woefully slow official half PB (1:45-ish) compared to my marathon PB (3:52) compared to others. This was highlighted again today when I got another teasing offer to enter this years' TOM. They're grading the starts by race PBs. According to their grading system sub 1:45 half starters will line up on the grid (for the 21.1 k race) in the same area as sub 4:15 marathoners (for the 56K race).

In summary:
10K time 45 mins = 4.5 mins/ k pace (7.2 min/ mile)
21.1k time 1:45 (105 minutes) = 4.98 mins/ k pace (7.97 m/m)
42.2k time 3:52 (222 minutes) = 5.25 mins/ k pace (8.4 m/m)

So . . . my 10k pace of just over 7 minute miling should translate into . . .

. . . oh God, my head's exploded! Hang on . . .

. . . about 8 minute miling, which would give me a marathon time of 3:29.6!

Face it Dan, we're a bunch of slackers!
Hmm . . . what does it say for half marathons?

Ok, it doesn't, but even at the PMP I should be 1:44. Ooh err . . .

[marathondan]

It seems the Furman figures aren't much different from the well-known predictor available on RW. You can use that to predict your HM time.

Of course, you should also take terrain and temperature into account. When was the last time you ran a flat HM in ideal conditions?

But yes, in the run-up to London 05, I recorded a 1:39 HM at Reading (a fast course) which apparently put me on course for a 3:26 marathon (reality: 25 minutes longer).

The first two caveats are particularly relevant:

"1. It assumes you've done appropriate training for the distance."

I'm certainly not doing full-on training. Maybe if I ran 5 times a week, plus 3 cross training sessions, I could achieve 3:30.

"2. It assumes you don't have a natural significant bias towards either speed or endurance. Some people, no matter how much training they do, will always over-achieve at one end of the scale."

Maybe, horror of horrors: you, Sweder, are a natural 10K runner and not a marathoner! (Somehow I think the anecdotal evidence against this trumps the formula.)

(Having said that, I have a slight edge on you over HM and 26.2, but you are over 90 sec ahead of me on 10K. Maybe it's true! Sweder's a 10K runner! Sweder's a 10K runner! Har de har!)

[Sweder]

I hate 10ks. Hate

We race so infrequently I suspect the old adage about 'lies, damned lies and statistics' has found yet more supporting evidence here. I recorded 1:39 for the Brighton half in 2007, witnessed by Moyleman. We ran through the start/ finish half an hour after the race started (we'd completed a six-mile warm-up) and didn't get an official chip time. So I know it's in there . . .

somewhere . . .

[El Gordo]

I seem to have a woefully slow official half PB (1:45-ish)

:o

Moving swiftly on, my 10K pace +45 seconds would give me a marathon time about 22 minutes faster than my PB.

I'm broadly following the Furman plan, though more in its structure than in its time stipulations. I have heard other people complaining about the pace of long runs on Furman.

When was your 10K time set Dan? Am just wondering if it's fair to base your current long run target times on a PB that might have been set when you were at your peak. Wouldn't it be fairer to run a 10K race now, or a tempo 10K in training, then base your long run guide time on that?

Can't remember what Furman has to say on this, but it does seem like a weakness with the system if they want you to base your current training runs on PBs that may have been set some time ago.

[running4rwanda]

I remember once seeing a 'predictor' which said that as you double your distance, add about 20-sec per mile to your pace. This almost ties in with your figure of PMP = 10k pace + 45 sec

The problem with predictors is that people are better suited to particular distances, or train specifically for a distance.

Looking at my PB's from years ago when I bothered with such things, my pace for my marathon was well over a minute/mile slower than my 10k pace. My 10-mile was about 15-sec slower than 10k pace, whereas my half pace was about 15-sec slower again, and my 5k PB was only about 5-sec/mile faster than my 10k pace.

I decided that I was best suited to 10k and 10-miles. 5k's were too fast for me, and half-marathons and especially marathons were too long, no matter how much mileage I put in

[Gideon]

I have found the same thing when I looked at the predictor. Apparently I should be getting 3.28 (which I am aiming for) rather than 3.58 (which I actually got last time).

My friend is trying the first marathon guide and I started when I heard it weas 3 runs a week, but it isn't really. If your cross-training 3 times a week that's still 6 sessions.

[El Gordo]

My friend is trying the first marathon guide and I started when I heard it weas 3 runs a week, but it isn't really. If your cross-training 3 times a week that's still 6 sessions.

Hi Gideon -- welcome to the forum.

Yes, you're right about Furman FIRST -- almost.

They make it clear from the outset that the plan is no easy option. The underlying principle is that most training schedules have rather meaningless filler runs that are not very useful, and that may just lead to overtraining and injury, or perhaps worse: utter boredom.

Their approach is to replace 2 or 3 of these runs with cross-training sessions that aid recovery, build additional strength and cardiovascular fitness, and keep the training interesting.

I'm using a hybrid of the plan, and am enjoying the variety.

[marathondan]

When was your 10K time set Dan? Am just wondering if it's fair to base your current long run target times on a PB that might have been set when you were at your peak. Wouldn't it be fairer to run a 10K race now, or a tempo 10K in training, then base your long run guide time on that?

I just checked - apparently it was in Sept 07 (not a period that I would consider my peak) and it was faster than I thought.

Personally, I'm not that interested in predictors*. I think once you've got a few races of varying distances under your belt then you can judge pretty well the way things are going. You just need to keep repeating the cycle of training and testing yourself. In my case, I know what I did last time, and I'm pretty much aiming to repeat that, by doing pretty much the same training.

Sweder, with a 1:39 HM in the bank I guess you're off the hook as a mincing middle-distancer . (I must confess, I like 10Ks. But then, I like tutus.)

Gideon -- how intensive a training program are you following? Which marathon are you training for?

[SIZE="1"]-----------------
*So why did I start a thread about them? Idiot![/SIZE]

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

Hello and welcome to Gideon...