Half marathon as predictor of marathon time

snailsong

Itziger wrote: »

As you'll have seen and heard, it's not as simple as 1.23=2.59. I've stated already that I know 1.25 lads who have sub 3. In fact one fella who used to post here still has a 1.25 - he doesn't target many Half marathons or train specifically for 'em - and his marathon time is now 2.53.5x.

BUT, that is not the norm.

Yes, I have read the thread and as you rightly say, I have seen and heard.
My post was in response to the suggestion that I would need 1:23, despite having run 3:04 off a 1:27. I extrapolated from this that 1:25:20 would suffice in my case. Not unreasonable I think.

Itziger

snailsong wrote: »

Itziger wrote: »

As you'll have seen and heard, it's not as simple as 1.23=2.59. I've stated already that I know 1.25 lads who have sub 3. In fact one fella who used to post here still has a 1.25 - he doesn't target many Half marathons or train specifically for 'em - and his marathon time is now 2.53.5x.

BUT, that is not the norm.

Yes, I have read the thread and as you rightly say, I have seen and heard.
My post was in response to the suggestion that I would need 1:23, despite having run 3:04 off a 1:27. I extrapolated from this that 1:25:20 would suffice in my case. Not unreasonable I think.

No , not unreasonable given the 1.27 as you say. I was just a bit wary in the sub 3 thread when someone said Healy's. 1.26.xx was 'spot on'.

snailsong

I'd agree that 1:26 is not exactly spot on.
Fwiw, Macmillan gives 1:25:30 as the 3 hour equivalent. Macmillan overestimated most people's marathon time, for me it's always been fairly accurate.

sideswipe

Interesting but not sure what exactly it means for me!

HM 91
Mara 188
Hm x 2= 182
188-182=6
6/91
6.59%

TFBubendorfer

sideswipe wrote: »

Interesting but not sure what exactly it means for me!

HM 91
Mara 188
Hm x 2= 182
188-182=6
6/91
6.59%

It means you ran a bloody good marathon! (or a weak HM )

Abhainn

From Oct 2009

Abhainn wrote: »

RF Interesting stuff

Abhainn

HM = 78; Mar = 2.47
HM x 2 = 2.36
Mar - (HM x 2) = 11
11/78 = 14%

Great to reminisce
A couple of comparisons marathon pour moi
My best HM is 75:55 (Dublin 14). Reckon at best I was 74:45 shape in 2012 if I ran a flat marathon


2012 (M40)
Half: 76:31 (Kinvara, hilly enough was hoping for low 75)
Full: 2:36:21 (London, warm but I was in good nick 70.0k)
HM x 2 = 2:33:02
Mar - (HM x 2) = 3:19
3:19/76:31 = 4.3%

2014 (M42)
Half: 76:10 (Kinvara, conditions good, aiming for high 75)
Full: 2:37:50 (London, conditions good, 73.5k)
HM x 2 = 2:32:20
Mar - (HM x 2) = 5:30
5:30/76:10 = 7.2%

2015 (M43)
Half: 77:56 (Kinvara, conditions windy & humid, aiming for sub 76)
Full: 2:36:56 (London, conditions ideal, 73.5kg)
HM x 2 = 2:35:52
Mar - (HM x 2) = 1:04
1:04/77:56 = 1.4%

Ok 2015 comparison is a bit unfair but sometimes it is wise to dismiss disappointing race times and instead take confidence in training completed.

Itziger

Some impressive %s there Abhainn.

sideswipe

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It means you ran a bloody good marathon! (or a weak HM )

It's the later........ hope to improve it in Charleville Sunday week!!

robinph

HM = 79
Mara = 169
HMx2 = 158
Mara - (HMx2) = 11
11/79 = 14%

I think that means I need to knuckle down for the marathon then. Not unexpected really, but it's a long way and you apparently have to train for them?!?

ger664

Half was trained specifically for, followed by 18 week marathon block

HM=96
Mara=198
HMx2 = 192
Mara - (HMx2) = 6
6/96 = 6.25%

average_runner

snailsong wrote: »

So you're saying that in order to improve my marathon by 4 minutes I need to improve my half by 4 minutes?

Its down to each individual. But from what I have seen, the people that hit 123 usually get the sub 3 but the 125 seems to struggle more to get the sub 3.

It's not a exact science. Some people are better over the marathon distance than they are over the half. You will know yourself with how your training is going.

Also depends on the course for the half and the full.

Swashbuckler

average_runner wrote: »

Its down to each individual. But from what I have seen, the people that hit 123 usually get the sub 3 but the 125 seems to struggle more to get the sub 3.

It's not a exact science. Some people are better over the marathon distance than they are over the half. You will know yourself with how your training is going.

Also depends on the course for the half and the full.

How likely is it for a 123 runner to get sub 3 off a first marathon? Does it take a few marathon cycles before becoming efficient at the longer distance (generally speaking)

opus

Didn't read all the thread but here are my numbers for what they're worth:

HM = 84.5
Mara = 173.75
HMx2 = 169
Mara - (HMx2) = 4.75
4.75/84.5 = 5.6%

What should I be taking away (if anything) from this?

RayCun

Swashbuckler wrote: »

How likely is it for a 123 runner to get sub 3 off a first marathon? Does it take a few marathon cycles before becoming efficient at the longer distance (generally speaking)

Most of the people in this thread have been running their half marathons off marathon training, so a 1:23 runner should be well capable of under 3.

If you were trained for the half but not the marathon - lower mileage, long runs maxing out at 15 miles - or you were a 15 minute 5k runner who was hanging on for the last few miles of the half :pac:, that would be a different matter.

Itziger

Swashbuckler wrote: »

How likely is it for a 123 runner to get sub 3 off a first marathon? Does it take a few marathon cycles before becoming efficient at the longer distance (generally speaking)

'Buckler, once again it seems to depend so much on the individual or at the most on the 'type' of runner you are.

I'm a terrible slow learner or adapter. It seems to take me a couple of years to hit my targets. So, when I had a 1.22.30 (iirc) I went for sub 3 and made a dog's dinner of it. Limped home in 3.13 or so in Frankfurt. The year after I did 3.05, .04, .03. Then I had some illness/injury and finally got to 2.59 earlier this year.

Something similar for sub 3.10. Took me 2 or 3 years to get that as well!!

Not everyone is as slow a learner as that but there definitely does seem to be a bit of a 'got it at the first attempt Vs Izigerites' thing going on. I'm not too worried though as it means I'm still chipping away at some pb's after 10 years!! You just have to learn patience if you're like me.

Itziger

opus wrote: »

Didn't read all the thread but here are my numbers for what they're worth:

HM = 84.5
Mara = 173.75
HMx2 = 169
Mara - (HMx2) = 4.75
4.75/84.5 = 5.6%

What should I be taking away (if anything) from this?

You're a slow bugger!!

Swashbuckler

RayCun wrote: »

Most of the people in this thread have been running their half marathons off marathon training, so a 1:23 runner should be well capable of under 3.

If you were trained for the half but not the marathon - lower mileage, long runs maxing out at 15 miles - or you were a 15 minute 5k runner who was hanging on for the last few miles of the half :pac:, that would be a different matter.

Good point. Coming from my own biased viewpoint I hadn't considered the obvious that all the HM times quoted by guys on here were probably coming off multiple marathons.

There's a lot of learning in this running business

opus

Itziger wrote: »

You're a slow bugger!!

Well all of it was from following a Comrades training plan so that would make sense I guess.

I'm even slower now

gucci

HM = 90.5
Mara = 184
HMx2 = 181
Mara - (HMx2) = 3
3/90.5=3.3%

Once again showing that I need to take the time and actually run a proper HM....its been about 3 or 4 years since I done one at more than a comfortable pace.

Swashbuckler

Itziger wrote: »

Not everyone is as slow a learner as that but there definitely does seem to be a bit of a 'got it at the first attempt Vs Izigerites' thing going on. I'm not too worried though as it means I'm still chipping away at some pb's after 10 years!! You just have to learn patience if you're like me.

That's definitely something running has thought me. Started off pretty impatient but the beauty of running is it can give you a good kick in the arse and you soon cop on.

Better to be a slow learner than an impatient, injured runner I guess.

snailsong

Pauline Curley won the recent Tullamore half in 1:23:01. The following day she won the Longford marathon in 3:00:16.
There ya go...:D

adrian522

snailsong wrote: »

Pauline Curley won the recent Tullamore half in 1:23:01. The following day she won the Longford marathon in 3:00:16.
There ya go...:D

So recovery should be something like 1 hour for every mile raced?

snailsong

adrian522 wrote: »

So recovery should be something like 1 hour for every mile raced?

Non standard tapering.

Van.Bosch

Jaysus as expected my Marathon times are atrocious - can anyone better this?

44%!!

Half - 1:43
Marathon - 4:09

rooneyjm

HM = 1.29 (2015)
Mara = 3.23 (2015)
HMx2 = 179
Mara - (HMx2) = 24
24/89*100= 27%

Don't reckon I'll improve my HM by much although got a 5k pb at grant Thornton during the week, 18.51 from 19.26 (2016). Hope to improve the marathon time, following the Hanson Method.

ger664

rooneyjm wrote: »

HM = 1.29 (2015)
Mara = 3.23 (2015)
HMx2 = 179
Mara - (HMx2) = 24
24/89*100= 27%

Don't reckon I'll improve my HM by much although got a 5k pb at grant Thornton during the week, 18.51 from 19.26 (2016). Hope to improve the marathon time, following the Hanson Method.

I dont think the Hanson method has enough mileage in it to align your Marathon time up with you shorter distances.

rooneyjm

ger664 wrote: »

I dont think the Hanson method has enough mileage in it to align your Marathon time up with you shorter distances.

Probably not, they were never very aligned anyway. You hit 100k 3 times during the 18 weeks. The long runs are only 16 miles but you do 8 the day before. I've done more consistent miles this time around so it'll be interesting to see if I can maintain my goal pace, 7.15per mile

aero2k

ger664 wrote: »

I dont think the Hanson method has enough mileage in it to align your Marathon time up with you shorter distances.

I beg to differ, though I may be an outlier. I used Hanson for two marathon cycles in 2015 and improved my PBs at 10k, 10 mile and half as well as the marathon. The most dramatic improvement was 5 1/2 min for the marathon.

My average mileage was about 55mpw, with a peak of about 70.

ger664

aero2k wrote: »

I beg to differ, though I may be an outlier. I used Hanson for two marathon cycles in 2015 and improved my PBs at 10k, 10 mile and half as well as the marathon. The most dramatic improvement was 5 1/2 min for the marathon.

My average mileage was about 55mpw, with a peak of about 70.

I agree Hanson has it place mainly in runners who are at max aerobic and large mileage running plans are no longer of any benefit to them.

Someone who has a difference between their Half and Full Time as the poster in question still has work to do on their aerobic capacity, which I don't think Hanson method is the best way to address as its long runs are shorter and more focused.

rooneyjm

ger664 wrote: »

I agree Hanson has it place mainly in runners who are at max aerobic and large mileage running plans are no longer of any benefit to them.

Someone who has a difference between their Half and Full Time as the poster in question still has work to do on their aerobic capacity, which I don't think Hanson method is the best way to address as its long runs are shorter and more focused.

There is a fair amount of easy running in Hanson. Only 5k(4.8 to be exact) per week is "speed" for weeks 2 to 10. Thursday is tempo (MP) run, 6miles week 2 up to 10 miles week 15,16,17. Rest is all easy running. I'd be hopeful of a pb based on pure volume, we'll see.