running a marathon w/o long training runs.

google: "Kayoko Fukushi"

She did about the same time you are seeking from training no longer than 22km /14 mile runs.

The most important thing is to pace yourself properly. Run the first 3 miles at 6:30 pace. Work your way down to 6:20 pace the next 10 miles. This will get you to the half in about 1:23:30. Hold that pace until 20 miles and see how you feel. You should still feel pretty good and the last 10k should be your fastest. If it isn't, then you just weren't in good enough shape to run 2:45.

I've raced quite a few marathons with similar or less mileage than you and with long runs of 16 miles and still finished strong. I believe it is key without longer runs to have two or three weekly runs of 10 - 16 miles. You are fast and strong. Pace yourself and keep both your body and mind rested for the last eight miles.

you could always follow the Hanson's plan of doing a MP type of 10 mile run one day followed by a 16 mile the next...google for more info

thanks for the opionions and advice.

Checked out the hansons program and it seems very similar to what i've been doing lately. I don't make any plan or schedule for myself, just go by feel each day, but I do alot of runs of around an hour at about the pace im shooting for as my MP and i notice thats part of their plan.

As far as my speed workouts go, i dont do a whole lot but in the last month i've done 4x1mi twice and 6x800 3 times and i end up doing them around or below 5k pace... does something this low volume really help in marathon training?

I dont do a whole lot of long tempo efforts, but i often do progression runs or fast finish runs of 8 to 12 miles where i end up running the last few miles at about 1/2 marathon down to 10K pace... I do these out-and-back on a flat, paved bike trail that goes on for miles and miles, so i basically go out 5 miles or whatever and try to have a sizeable negative split after i turn around... do these seem like a good workout to keep doing?

Are you a slow twitch or a fast twitch guy? Comparing your 5k and 10mile/20k, I'm going to guess slow and that you can run 2:45 unless you go out faster than 2:45 pace or the course is hard. But if you aren't telling us about the 52 second quarter you ran in high school, things could look much worse...

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

I think overall mileage is more important than getting in the requisite "20 milers". A few years ago I ran a marathon off of about 80 mpw training with my longest run being 18 miles. I went into it thinking I had better just "jog" and enjoy it because I hadn't done any long runs. Well I started off that way and by 15 miles I was running under 6:00 pace and ended up running 2:40. I think you should be able to run 2:45 easily and possibly faster. Just do what the other poster said and start off conservatively and I think you may be surprised how good you feel later on. Good luck.

2:20 marathoner wrote:

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

I love it when people post a comment when it is obvious they didn't read the original post, at least not completely. The marathon is in a couple of weeks and he just decided to do it, so he didn't have the chance to run any long runs.

2:20 marathoner wrote:

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

As I am long past my sub 2:20 years, and I reflect back upon my training:

The addition emphasis on the long run, when I added marathon racing to my schedule, was the least effective, and likely most detrimental part of my training.

But it is one of the easiest ones to brag about. What sounds more impressive "I ran 140 mpw last week"," I just got back from a 22 miler" or "I ran a 8 miles at marathon pace"?

sub 2:20 marathoner wrote:

2:20 marathoner wrote:

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

As I am long past my sub 2:20 years, and I reflect back upon my training:

The addition emphasis on the long run, when I added marathon racing to my schedule, was the least effective, and likely most detrimental part of my training.

sub 2:20 marathoner wrote:

As I am long past my sub 2:20 years, and I reflect back upon my training:

The addition emphasis on the long run, when I added marathon racing to my schedule, was the least effective, and likely most detrimental part of my training.

Exactly. The problem is that nobody ever wants to take the appropriate recovery after those long runs. They either end up overtrained or injured. We all think if we can get out of bed the next morning, we are ready to hammer some more hard workouts. The long run can just do too much muscle damage for this to be possible.

Honestly I'd think your best plan of action is to sign up for the half and threat it as a marathon. If you feel great through the full 13 miles then a marathon might be up your alley.

Also another approach would be the try and hammer the half and see where you hit the wall and then prepare accordingly for the next marathon.

Please read wrote:

2:20 marathoner wrote:

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

I love it when people post a comment when it is obvious they didn't read the original post, at least not completely. The marathon is in a couple of weeks and he just decided to do it, so he didn't have the chance to run any long runs.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was wondering if he just didnt read my original post or was just being an ass.

I think your training is fine for a marathon. However, I think your goal pace is optimistic. For a first time marathoner with those PRs, I would aim for 2:52-2:55.

2:20 marathoner wrote:

why don't you grow a set of NUTS and do the long runs?

pussy.

As long as it will make little boys like you feel good about yourself, by all means, you should do those long runs.

I'm sooo impressed.

If these are recent PRs I think you should be able to go a bit faster. Just relax the first half and try not to go out to hard.

5k was from early june... 10 miler from last fall, 20k from late december. I did run a 1:18:30 half early this year, but that was a bad race for me. I wasnt running nearly as much mileage and was coming off some shin splint problems so i was only running about 45 mpw then. I went out toofast and the course was unexpectedly hilly... ran 5:45-5:50s for 10 miles then blew up and struggled the last 3 miles.But I honestly feel i am alot stronger now... just apprehsive about my ability to finish strong not having done any runs over 16 miles.Thanks for the opinions and advice. My plan is to run no faster than about 6:20-6:25 miles for the first 10k or so and see how i feel from there. If i end up running 2:55 oh well.

????????? wrote:

If these are recent PRs I think you should be able to go a bit faster. Just relax the first half and try not to go out to hard.

I've known plenty of runners who have run good marathons without long runs. Our club record back in the 80s was 2.31. The guy who ran that used to just run 10mls in about an hour each weekday. He'd race whatever on the weekends, sometimes both saturday and sunday. He didn't do long training runs but would race a few 1/2 mar. - 25k races during the year. He was running about the 32s for 10k at the time.

His brother ran several 2.32-2.36 races off the same sought of training. Later on the brother trained more seriously and ran 2.25.

Basically they were fit and tough and able to guts out the last few miles.