Skip navigation
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community

2261 Views 28 Replies Latest reply: May 21, 2006 10:05 PM by formationflier RSS 1 2 Previous Next
Tchuck Rookie 552 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

May 10, 2006 7:45 PM

1/2 MARATHON PREDICTION based on this long training run

Hey Folks,

Did my last long training run (11 miles) before my 1/2 marathon in 11 days. My goal is to run a 7:00 min. pace and finish under 1:32.00. Based on my training run below and associated HRs, do you think I can do it?

Weather today 66 degrees - race day should be in the 50s here in Green Bay, WI

My goal of below run was to do a 1 mile w/u, then 7 miles at 80% of my max HR (my max is 182) or 145-146 bpm and then on fatigued legs push the pace for 3 miles at marathon tempo pace or 85% of max or 155 bpm

avg. Pace avg. HR
Mile 1 8:36 125
2 7:37 142
3 7:40 145
4 7:39 146
5 7:46 146
6 7:44 147
7 7:53 147
8 7:54 147
9 7:28 153
10 7:27 156
11 7:40 157

Thoughts???

----



My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    If I believe my little heart rate pace chart which has worked for
    me and a few others with good aerobic conditioning, I'd say
    you're right around 1:30-1:31, and you can probably break 1:30
    if you put it all out there.

    ----



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

  • kudzurunner Rookie 525 posts since
    Dec 6, 2007

    I just broke 1:32 in my last half marathon of the fall season, in perfect conditions, so I'm intrigued by your question.  (I'd trust Jesse's predictions further than mine.)  My mileage was quite a bit more than yoursmore like 40-45, with a consistent 14-15 mile long run.<br /><br />HM pace is just below threshold, or right at it; for the last 3 miles you're probably just over it.  The question is, what % of max HR is your threshold, and therefore what % of max HR is your HM pace?  My max HR is 196; threshold was around 177 (90%).  Based on the effort of my fast finish long runs this spring, I'm sure that I was running 181 or so in the last three miles of my last half marathon.<br /><br />I'm not giving you an answer, am I?  Here's something that might help:  this spring, when I whipped myself in slightly better shape (judging from 5K/10K times) than I was when I ran 1:31:56 in December, I routinely averaged 7:52 pace for the "back" leg63 minutes or so--of a 15 miler, at an average HR of 174 (88-89%).  That includes a last three miles at 7:30 pace, at a HR noticeably above that average.

    7:52 pace! Not terribly fast, but working hard. Nowhere near my marathon pace, not to mention HM pace. Yet had I tapered, I have no doubt I could have run sub 1:32 again.

    All of which suggests that your HR experiment is telling you: yes, you can break 1:32. Since your mileage hasn't been high, you probably want to warm into it. I would not, myself, in your position, be hitting 7:00s right off the bat. I'd hit 7:10-7:15 for the first mile or two, at most, and make sure that I was, in fact, a nick below threshold. Because if you're above that early, you ARE in trouble and will not hit your goal.

    Race with care and I think you'll do it.

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    Here's the chart:
    (from FAQ #51)

    MAF 5K 5K HM marathon
    min/mile race pace time time time
    10:00 7:30 23:18 1:48 3:47
    9:00 7:00 21:45 1:41 3:32
    8:30 6:45 20:58 1:37 3:24
    8:00 6:30 20:12 1:33 3:17
    7:30 6:00 18:38 1:26 3:02
    7:00 5:30 17:05 1:19 2:47
    6:30 5:15 16:19 1:16 2:39
    6:00 5:00 15:32 1:12 2:31
    5:45 4:45 14:45 1:08 2:24
    5:30 4:30 13:59 1:05 2:16
    5:15 4:20 13:28 1:02 2:11
    5:00 4:15 13:12 1:01 2:09

    There are a number of assumptions and handwaving,
    because I haven't bothered interpolating, and hills
    and other factors cause variations, so don't expect it
    to be any better than a couple of minutes accurate
    (which can easily be the difference in pacing strategy
    variations anyway). The MAF number is basically
    aerobic threshold and based on your numbers and
    age, I assume around 7:40-7:45 for your pace at MAF,
    which will give roughly a 1:30. Now, of course, if
    you end up running long (which doesn't always mean
    the course is long - if it's wide, that can easily make
    a difference of a few 1/10s of a mile), then obviously,
    you'll lose a little there. Good luck.

    ----



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    I used to think going out slowly was the way to go because
    a couple of years ago, I paid the price several times for going
    out too fast. However, I believe the key is not necessarily to
    go out slow but rather not to get the heart rate up too high
    too soon. Of course, this only makes sense for us heart rate
    fanatics who like to wear the monitor in races. There's no doubt
    that negative splits is very pleasant and the nicest way to finish
    a race. However, I can't help but think that such a strong finish
    means that you weren't pushing enough at the start and some
    time was wasted. For me the case may be that I do almost
    everything based on my aerobic system and not everyone
    does long races that way, but I think slightly positive splits
    where I keep the heart rate from getting too high too early on
    may be the best way to go. Take a look at my splits and
    avg heart rate per split for my marathon a couple of weeks ago:

    6:41/154, 6:53/163, 6:55/164, 6:52/165, 6:59/167,
    6:54/167, 7:16/168, 7:03/168, 7:26/167, 7:08/167,
    7:07/167, 7:19/168, 7:10/168, 7:10/170, 7:16/169,
    7:17/171, 7:23/170, 7:25/173, 7:26/170, 7:30/173,
    7:25/175, 7:30/176, 7:23/176, 7:29/177, 7:51/178,
    8:06/180, 3:38(7:31/mile)/178 (if you're wondering
    how 3:38 for .2 miles could mean 7:31/mile, it's because
    I ran off course and ended up adding more than 1/4 mile
    extra).

    Had I started out the race slower (which I probably would
    have done if I weren't wearing the monitor), my heart rate would
    have been even lower and I'm sure I would have wasted
    some good time early on. One might have guessed that
    starting out on the fast side would have bonked me, but
    that wasn't the case. I just naturally slowed down as my
    heart rate drifted and as the temperature warmed up into
    the 60s. If I had started out doing 7:05-7:10, I'm quite
    certain my times at the end would not have been any
    better and I would have finished probably in 3:18-3:20
    rather than 3:12. Perhaps this is just an insignificant
    tidbit, but my experiences have been similar now on three
    marathons this year. By the way, my max HR is 210,
    my lactate threshold is around 177, and most of my
    training is done at around 139, with a few miles here and
    there in the 140s.

    ----



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

  • kudzurunner Rookie 525 posts since
    Dec 6, 2007

    I'll second you, Jesse.  Although pace and effort level are related, they're not identical, as your detailed chart makes clear.  I'll always finally trust effort level.  But effort level can be a challenging thing to read in a subtle way, if one hasn't practiced that.  I'm sure we've all had the experience of going out too fast in a HMmeaning, going out at too high an effort leveland suddenly realizing after a mile or two that we're slightly over threshold, and laboring.  I did that once and, determined to bring myself back into steady state, slowed from 7:10 to 7:30 pace for two miles until I was OK.  (I was trying to average 7:15s; a race-as-hard-workout, untapered.)

    But you're right: it's sometimes possible to go out faster than one assumed one should, and do so at a sustainable effort.

    Yet I can't help but ask, looking again at your charts, whether you didn't ultimately pay a price for going out so fast--even if your HR, early on, was low.  Didn't it catch up with you later?  Wasn't it ultimately reflected in your gradually slowing pace vis a vis gradually rising HR?  Perhaps a slightly slower first couple of miles would have paid off later on.

  • wndctyrnr Rookie 12 posts since
    Oct 8, 2003

    Hi,

    I am running a marathon in 2wks and just got a hm. Is there a site or book that you are using to find workouts that help predict your time?

    I'd be curious to see if I can do a workout to help see if I am ready to hit my time.


    Thanks!

  • tarpon Rookie 356 posts since
    Nov 29, 2007

    leitnerj wrote :
    "One might have guessed that
    starting out on the fast side would have bonked me, but
    that wasn't the case. I just naturally slowed down as my
    heart rate drifted and as the temperature warmed up into
    the 60s. If I had started out doing 7:05-7:10, I'm quite
    certain my times at the end would not have been any
    better and I would have finished probably in 3:18-3:20
    rather than 3:12."

    Each his own but I gotta respectively disagree;
    At Boston this year I went out at ~ 15-20 seconds/mile slower then my overall pace average for the first 4 miles (granted, it is downhill) then picked it up to 80-85% max HR (before then running at ~ 70-75% max HR). Finish was probably around 87-90% maxHR.

    I finished the last couple of miles at a sub-7:10 pace. Pretty steady the whole way (1:34:16 first half, 1:34:29 second half)

    By starting out far more conservative then you did, I averaged a 7:12 pace for the race and finished the race at sub-7:10 for last few miles. I also finished 4 min faster then you, not the 8 minutes behind you predicted.

    You went from a 6:40 pace first mile to 8 min pace last mile, thats IS bonking in my book. If you started slower your heart rate would not have been so high for the relative rate you were moving.


    Just food for thought. Congrats though on that 3:12, took me a lot of races just to crack the 3:10 mark.....

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by KudzuRunner:

    I'll second you, Jesse.  Although pace and effort level are related, they're not identical, as your detailed chart makes clear.  I'll always finally trust effort level.  But effort level can be a challenging thing to read in a subtle way, if one hasn't practiced that.  I'm sure we've all had the experience of going out too fast in a HMmeaning, going out at too high an effort leveland suddenly realizing after a mile or two that we're slightly over threshold, and laboring.  I did that once and, determined to bring myself back into steady state, slowed from 7:10 to 7:30 pace for two miles until I was OK.  (I was trying to average 7:15s; a race-as-hard-workout, untapered.)

    But you're right: it's sometimes possible to go out faster than one assumed one should, and do so at a sustainable effort.

    Yet I can't help but ask, looking again at your charts, whether you didn't ultimately pay a price for going out so fasteven if your HR, early on, was low.  Didn't it catch up with you later?  Wasn't it ultimately reflected in your gradually slowing pace vis a vis gradually rising HR?  Perhaps a slightly slower first couple of miles would have paid off later on.</b><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br /><br />It's all hindsight at this point, but I don't think I paid any price.<br />Heart rate is going to drift as it gets later, the temperature<br />rose from 45 to about 65 after a couple of hours, and certainly<br />there was some dehydration effect.  In the times when I've<br />paid the price for early indulgence, the price was large - absolute<br />crash and burn.  In this case, I had one mile creep over 8 when I<br />expected I was at about a 7:20/mile performance level.  I thought<br />I was barely in condition for just ekeing out the 3:15:59 I needed,<br />whereas I finished in 3:12:43, even with the going off course, which<br />was 7 minutes faster than my previous best from early March.   I<br />felt without a doubt that the time I banked in the first 7 miles made<br />things much easier for me later.  I'm also never one to push too<br />hard - I really like to save myself for the next day!  I've got an<br />Olympic tri coming up next weekend, a half ironman a couple<br />weeks later, grandma's marathon the next week, and the vermont<br />100 miler a month later, so I don't have time to recover from <br />beating myself into the ground.  As long as I find I'm not slowing<br />to a crawl at the end, I think I'll stick with this approach and see<br />how it goes.  Who knows, maybe if I had needed a 3:10 rather than<br />3:15 for Boston, I might have cranked it up later a bit more.  I never<br />came even close to max heart rate. <br /><br />--



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by webfoot:

    leitnerj wrote :
    "One might have guessed that
    starting out on the fast side would have bonked me, but
    that wasn't the case. I just naturally slowed down as my
    heart rate drifted and as the temperature warmed up into
    the 60s. If I had started out doing 7:05-7:10, I'm quite
    certain my times at the end would not have been any
    better and I would have finished probably in 3:18-3:20
    rather than 3:12."

    Each his own but I gotta respectively disagree;
    At Boston this year I went out at ~ 15-20 seconds/mile slower then my overall pace average for the first 4 miles (granted, it is downhill) then picked it up to 80-85% max HR (before then running at ~ 70-75% max HR). Finish was probably around 87-90% maxHR.

    I finished the last couple of miles at a sub-7:10 pace. Pretty steady the whole way (1:34:16 first half, 1:34:29 second half)

    By starting out far more conservative then you did, I averaged a 7:12 pace for the race and finished the race at sub-7:10 for last few miles. I also finished 4 min faster then you, not the 8 minutes behind you predicted.

    You went from a 6:40 pace first mile to 8 min pace last mile, thats IS bonking in my book. If you started slower your heart rate would not have been so high for the relative rate you were moving.


    Just food for thought. Congrats though on that 3:12, took me a lot of races just to crack the 3:10 mark.....


     



    Once again, it's all hindsight. You believe it's pace, I believe it's
    level of effort. Just to be clear, I ran the last mile of the race in
    about 7:30 and the one before I ran in around 8:20, which also had one of
    the tallest hills of the course. Also, since I run a lot of marathons
    (this was my 4th regular marathon of the year and I had also done
    a 50 miler 3 weeks before and a 50k 2 weeks before that), I always
    save something. At the time when most good runners push it out
    and reach inside, I ease up and let off. Then I resume normal
    training the next day. Once I hit 80% of max heart rate at mile 8,
    I started to ease off and fell into a nice groove. I went into the
    race with a 3:19 PR from 6 weeks earlier, thinking that I could
    sustain maybe a 7:20, but since my effort level (and HR) was
    low, I pushed a bit earlier. In this case, I was doing careful
    calculations for the last 8 miles or so of how hard I would have
    to push to stay under 3:16. No doubt, I'm a wuss in races,
    almost as much as I am in training (no speedwork, all
    lollygagging).

    Edited to add an important fact: I don't even pay attention
    to my pace until at least at mile 16 - I just watch my level
    of effort and heart rate. I just record the splits for later. I would
    have considered it silly to keep my heart rate in the low 150s-160s
    for a while (which is my range for a 50 mile race) just to keep my
    pace under control.
    ----



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

    [http://This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited May-12-2006).|http://This message has been edited by leitnerj (edited May-12-2006).]

  • aharmer Rookie 452 posts since
    May 25, 2005

    Jesse,

    Noticed you're running Grandma's soon, I'm from MN...too bad I'm not going to be there or I'd look you up. Good luck, it's a fun race if the weather cooperates.

    Tomorrow I'm having a VO2max test done, I'll send details on the results.

    adam

    ----



    My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

  • formationflier Rookie 974 posts since
    Oct 13, 2007

    quote:


    Originally posted by aharmer:

    Jesse,

    Noticed you're running Grandma's soon, I'm from MN...too bad I'm not going to be there or I'd look you up. Good luck, it's a fun race if the weather cooperates.

    Tomorrow I'm having a VO2max test done, I'll send details on the results.

    adam


     



    Ah, thanks. I'm looking forward to it. I'm still looking for an
    appropriate room! Make sure your tester gives
    you your RQ (or RER) values for your range of heart rates in your
    test. Hopefully you'll cover the full range (not sub-max) such that
    RQ goes over 1 and you actually go beyond your vo2max.


    ----



    MyRunningLog[/URL" target="_blank">


    MyStuff[/URL" target="_blank">


    Low Heart Rate Training FAQ[/URL" target="_blank">

  • aharmer Rookie 452 posts since
    May 25, 2005

    You could call the Earthwood Inn in Two Harbors, MN.  I got a last minute room there the last time I ran.  It's right at the starting line, you get your own bathroom until 10 minutes before the race.

    Unfortunately it's also a dump.  If you're looking to have a nice weekend with good accomodations you should skip it.

1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...