nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Sub 3 Support Thread

--amadeus--

Not sure if this is a viable thread or not....

There tends to be a lot of support for newbies and improver's (the two mentored DCM threads, the Tri Novice thread for example) but less of a community vibe as you move up the pace. I know a lot of us read each others logs but I'll read 10 for every one I comment in and I'm sure others are the same.

And I know that there are a few of us aiming at sub 3 this autumn. I'm taking a crack at it in Amsterdam, Village Runner and Peckham in Berlin, SunGod in Dublin. I'm sure SloggerJogger is going to take another pop at it as well having come so close. And of course we have a lot of runners who have already gone sub 3 (and faster). And the Sub 3 thread on RunnersWorld is very busy and popular.

So here we go - if it works it works, if it sinks it sinks!

And to start - I'm a little concerned about my weekly mileage. This week is pretty poor (I'll be lucky to get mid 30s) and I've been doing 40s for the last couple of weeks with the intention of doing 6 - 8 weeks of 50 - 60 mpw as teh basis of my attempt.

Do you think that's enough? What sort of mileage are you all doing and planning?

Find more posts tagged with

sub 3

Quick Links

Comments

kerrylad1

squinn2912 wrote: »

Sounds like a good plan

How's training going squinn and have you a marathon lined up?

squinn2912

kerrylad1 wrote: »

An auld lad who was 2:40ish in the 80,s gave me a bit of advise,after I blew up going for sub 3:15 a few years ago.Told him,I followed some plan of a book.Ditch the book he said.Stop doing all those,5K,10K repeats.Your training for a marathon.Do loads and loads of MP miles and long slow runs.Do 5K and 10K repeats,whenever you decide to do a 5K/10K race.Someone said a few posts back,they know someone,who does 20 with 16 at MP twice in the cycle.I do the same,and so far it has worked out.

Sounds like a good plan

kerrylad1

An auld lad who was 2:40ish in the 80,s gave me a bit of advise,after I blew up going for sub 3:15 a few years ago.Told him,I followed some plan of a book.Ditch the book he said.Stop doing all those,5K,10K repeats.Your training for a marathon.Do loads and loads of MP miles and long slow runs.Do 5K and 10K repeats,whenever you decide to do a 5K/10K race.Someone said a few posts back,they know someone,who does 20 with 16 at MP twice in the cycle.I do the same,and so far it has worked out.

overpronator

It should be pointed out that Hanons coaching services (Luke Humphrey) who contrived the 16m long run plan have a full bread and butter marathon plan with 20 mile long runs etc. Peaks at 80 odd MPW. Where P&D 55-70 is a sub 3 plan this one is a step up. 2 meaty midweek sessions and a long run often with MP sections for a 3 session week.

It should also go without saying that the Elite Hansons distance project of Brian Sell, Desi Davila, Bobby Curtis, Mike Morgan, Sage Canaday and all the myriad of others never followed the 16 mile approach either, I sometimes think that point is lost.

dublin runner

Safiri wrote: »

Yeah, that comparison is true. Magness definetely makes that hanson plan look minimal but the comparison isn't like for like in comparing a 100mile per week plan to a 60mpw plan. Hansons also have elite plans which would be a better comparison to Magness as he doesn't write plans for lower levels. The handon elite plans go up to 90-100mpw just like Magness plans, Brian Sell ran 160mpw under hansons and his plan would make Magness look like childsplay. Different levels and not like for like comparisons.

I agree with what you are saying in that aim high and you'll get better results but there has to be progression and wariness there too, how many people here could handle running 90-100 miles in a week right now? You have to look at ability level and current training volume, maybe down the road; many here would be prepared down the road but for many people aiming for sub-3; logging very high mileage isn't quite reachable right now and there has to be progression to it.

Yeah, fair point.

I have actually never completed the Magness schedule; peaking at 130mpw is beyond me.

Running is great in that, what you put in, you usually get back. Sure, we all have bad races and training runs but by and large, it's a very honest sport. I don't personally that plan discussed yields a high success rate, that is course of anecdotal point of view.

Sub 3 is a terrific target; tough but obtainable. Limiting oneself to a long run of 16 mile long run is not the prudent choice for example!

hot buttered scones

Enduro wrote:

The hope/plan should be steady even paced running at worst I would have thought. A competitive athlete would surely plan to have enough in the tank to negative split / race the finish.

I'd be hoping to start off within my capabilities and finish strong hopefully picking up pace, but definitely not wanting to slow down as the effort levels increase later in the race.
I have found the P+D type long run good for this i.e start off around MP+20% and pick up the pace gradually to finish off the last few miles at MP +10%. I suppose it gets you used to increased effort as the run goes on so that on race day it just comes naturally. The long MP runs were good too, but mostly as confidence builders I think - although you did notice it getting easier/faster training progressed. I'm probably responding to more than one post here though.
All that being said I've not run sub 3, or even attempted so maybe it'll be harder to do those type of sessions at that pace.

Enduro

OOnegative wrote: »

What is the consensus on MP miles in training? Is running MP miles at 6.50 leaving you to tight to the sub 3 line given many do fade in the 2nd half? Or is running MP miles in training at 6.40/45 a better option to get the body more use to the faster pace and hope for a less of a fade in the 2nd half after training at a faster level? Hope that makes sense.

Something here has been nagging at me. I

Hoping for "less of a fade" sounds like a terrible approach to my ears. It sounds like one step beyond "Fail to prepare : prepare to fail", more like "Prepare to fail : failure is inevitable".

The hope/plan should be steady even paced running at worst I would have thought. A competitive athlete would surely plan to have enough in the tank to negative split / race the finish.

Safiri

dublin runner wrote: »

In terms of marathon programmes Hanson would be on the minimal side, that's not a negative remark, just a comment - this is a sub 3 thread after all. When compared to Magness, for example, it is definitely on the minimal side.

I guess his approach is the complete antithesis of my style of training and running so I just wanted to counter the argument.

Can it work? Totally. Anecdotally does it work for the majority? No. That's just my opinion though, not fact. I guess we only ever really hear of the success stories in the main.

That's the great thing about running - many different ways to approach the one distance!

Yeah, that comparison is true. Magness definetely makes that hanson plan look minimal but the comparison isn't like for like in comparing a 100mile per week plan to a 60mpw plan. Hansons also have elite plans which would be a better comparison to Magness as he doesn't write plans for lower levels. The handon elite plans go up to 90-100mpw just like Magness plans, Brian Sell ran 160mpw under hansons and his plan would make Magness look like childsplay. Different levels and not like for like comparisons.

I agree with what you are saying in that aim high and you'll get better results but there has to be progression and wariness there too, how many people here could handle running 90-100 miles in a week right now? You have to look at ability level and current training volume, maybe down the road; many here would be prepared down the road but for many people aiming for sub-3; logging very high mileage isn't quite reachable right now and there has to be progression to it.

dublin runner

In terms of marathon programmes Hanson would be on the minimal side, that's not a negative remark, just a comment - this is a sub 3 thread after all. When compared to Magness, for example, it is definitely on the minimal side.

I guess his approach is the complete antithesis of my style of training and running so I just wanted to counter the argument.

Can it work? Totally. Anecdotally does it work for the majority? No. That's just my opinion though, not fact. I guess we only ever really hear of the success stories in the main.

That's the great thing about running - many different ways to approach the one distance!

Safiri

dublin runner wrote: »

I would argue that the plan works for the small minority. If you are you looking for a minimal effort plan, a plan for minimal gains, it may very well be the plan you for you. I see the Hanson plan as playing roulette with your marathon race day. It may work, it may not. It's a possible low perentage return from a high risk strategy policy.

Could it work for me? Very possibly. Then again I have developed a decent aerobic base from hundreds of real long runs and multiple marathons.

The long run is controversial alright but it is only one facet of the plan. Compared to P+D, it is a much more marathon specific plan. The hanson elite group train very similar to it and that coaching method has produced athletes like Brian Sell(2:10 marathon) and desi linden(2nd in Chicago and Boston). A lot of people argue that the marathon long run is overrated and that total mileage is a better prediction of marathon fitness than anything else. I'd don't know the answer to that and it's probably an over-simplistic view of the training to look just at the long run or the total weekly mileage but you can't argue with results and it seems to produce them. I'd imagine from what I've seen of the plan is that it's something that you'd want to be disciplined on compared to P+D as the it is much more specific and closer to redline but that's always going to be the case when moving on to a more specific plan.

I guess that's the beauty of training, there is many ways to skin a cat and the only way to find out is trial and error. It's the same with any plan you try for the first time, you have to try it first to see if it works.

rooneyjm

dublin runner wrote: »

I would argue that the plan works for the small minority. If you are you looking for a minimal effort plan, a plan for minimal gains, it may very well be the plan you for you. I see the Hanson plan as playing roulette with your marathon race day. It may work, it may not. It's a possible low perentage return from a high risk strategy policy.

Could it work for me? Very possibly. Then again I have developed a decent aerobic base from hundreds of real long runs and multiple marathons.

You can’t say running 6 days a week is minimal effort. I had my doubts about the plan towards the end when all around me were knocking out 20/22 milers. As they say “one swallow never made a summer” let’s see if I can do it for sub 3.

MrMacPhisto

I have used the Hanson plan, or slightly amended versions twice now. First time I trained for 2:55, achieved 2:52:xx. Second time, I trained for 2:48:xx and achieved 2:47:xx.

I think the plan best suits ppl that have completed a couple of marathons before and don't need the confidence of a couple of 32k/20mile runs.

I wouldn't call it a minimal effort plan. I needed the taper big time in comparison to when I have done P&D plans. It is a fairly fatiguing plan. There is a fair amount of MP miles, 8 weeks of speed work and 8 weeks of around HM pace tempo intervals. In my training, I did long runs of 27k, 29k, and 30k.

Of a sample of 3 ppl (me, Aero and Ricky), I think its pretty successful

I failed to go sub3 twice following P&D. However, there is no doubt that these prior training blocks gave me the base to achieve better things with the Hanson Plan.

dublin runner

I would argue that the plan works for the small minority. If you are you looking for a minimal effort plan, a plan for minimal gains, it may very well be the plan you for you. I see the Hanson plan as playing roulette with your marathon race day. It may work, it may not. It's a possible low perentage return from a high risk strategy policy.

Could it work for me? Very possibly. Then again I have developed a decent aerobic base from hundreds of real long runs and multiple marathons.

aero2k

Itziger wrote: »

That Hanson plan does sound interesting. Wasn't it Aero2 (or some such username) who did very well with it? I'm not sure it would suit me but I guess there's one obvious way to find that out.

OOnegative wrote: »

Yeah aero went sub 3 a few times using it as far as I can remember. Rotterdam being one attempt.

It all seems like a long time ago now though - I'm struggling to get past three miles, which is a bit different to trying to get below 3 hrs.

Yes, I did find the Hanson approach worked very well for me. I liked it because of the simplicity of the workouts, and the approach made sense given my aptitude - while I was always knackered at the end of a marathon, the real problem was not completing the distance, but completing it at the same pace that I started out at. From my mid 40's on I found that while high intensity workouts hurt more at the time, I recovered better from them than longer, gentler ones, so again that suited. Finally I liked the fact that the longest run was 1 hr 45 min, and I reckon I never went beyond 10 hrs per week including some core work. For anyone worried about the longest run being only 16 miles, remember you'll begin that on tired and tender legs, and on race day you'll be well rested.

and still ricky villa

I used Hanson's for Rotterdam last year and it worked well for the most part.
I was posting huge weeks (for me) of up to 100km
One thing I altered was the long run. With me it's a confidence thing and I can't believe I'll get through 26.2 miles if I haven't run at least 22 easy in training - but, as I say, that's just me. It might be that my first 5 or 6 marathons were run on Daniel's plans
I had a bit of time to play with so started the plan early which had me peaking the midweek MP runs at 16 miles.
And I was comfortable with that
A mixture of illness and heat put paid to my sub 3 effort but I still believe the 2:55 I had trained for was achievable if it hadn't been for bad luck that weekend

Itziger

That's one epic read. Still the only race report containing the word uxoriousness as well.
Thanks for posting.

Itziger

OOnegative wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8N2ILvWdxnodjI0eVd6UUV0Y0k/view?usp=sharing

aero’s Rotterdam 2015 marathon report from race reports thread.

Jaysus, you're on the ball.

OOnegative

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8N2ILvWdxnodjI0eVd6UUV0Y0k/view?usp=sharing

aero’s Rotterdam 2015 marathon report from race reports thread.

OOnegative

Itziger wrote: »

That Hanson plan does sound interesting. Wasn't it Aero2 (or some such username) who did very well with it? I'm not sure it would suit me but I guess there's one obvious way to find that out.

Yeah aero went sub 3 a few times using it as far as I can remember. Rotterdam being one attempt.

Itziger

That Hanson plan does sound interesting. Wasn't it Aero2 (or some such username) who did very well with it? I'm not sure it would suit me but I guess there's one obvious way to find that out.

RayCun

I always have a big difference between what I can do in training and what I can do in a race, more than most people I think. Not just marathon pace, but tempo pace too,.

rooneyjm

Hanson Method has MP miles every week working up to 10miles from 6. The plan worked v well for Dublin last yr and I hit my target 3.10. I think the idea is these are part of 90-100k weeks towards the end, so they get you ready for the final 10miles, not the first 10.

Max run as per plan was 27k. I felt strong in the second half and passed a lot of people. The boost I got in speed endurance seemed to last well after the marathon as I got a 2 min pb in Wexford half (1.27.40), yet I didn’t do any speed or tempo work between the two races.
I’ll be trying it again for a sub 3 attempt

overpronator

Itziger wrote: »

Jeez, what have I done?

All advice is welcomed!!

Itziger

Jeez, what have I done?

Itziger

RayCun wrote: »

If I thought I could hold the pace on a training run for 16 miles, I'd think it was too slow. I think the longest continuous marathon pace run I've ever done was 8 miles? And that was tough

(Did one of the P&D plans have a 10 or 12 mile MP run? And I did do 5,4,3,2,1 mp intervals)

Funny that isn't it. 8 miles seems really low to me. I'd be going in to the race quaking if I'd only managed that in training. Yet the cycles where I've managed the longest at MP (I think it was 14 miles on a couple of occasions) I didn't do well on the day. Last year, when I ran my p.b. I switched to interval MP stuff. I had done one 20k or almost 13 mile effort at MP and it was very tough. So, having read the theory of doing splits I tried 3x8k and 3x9k. The 3x9 I took rests in between and people said they didn't think it was a great workout. Went away again, looked at what KC and some others were doing and went back and did the 3x8k but with 800metres or was it 2 minutes? of Steady between. This also proved tough but when you add it all up and take into consideration that the pace is only dropping a little bit in the Steady sections you end up with 25.x kms at very close to MP. Am I making any sense? The other important workout I found was another KC inspired one. It consists of MP/HMP (or at least faster than MP stuff) and might go from say 1k@MP/600metres@HMP x 5 or 6 or 7. No rest in there by the way. As Krusty explained it once, the brain gets to think, Yes, the 'easy' MP section when you move from the sharper Half Marathon pace to the slower Marathon bits. Of course the man himself does the hard version and I always do an easier version. So if he does 800mts@MP/800mts@HMP I'd do something like I mention above. This is known as a cop out but I'm me and he's him.
What this is proving once again is that there's no one-size-fits-all. I do know one of Boards most impressive 'amateur' marathon runners does 1 or 2 16 miles at MP in training. The straight through version!

RayCun

If I thought I could hold the pace on a training run for 16 miles, I'd think it was too slow. I think the longest continuous marathon pace run I've ever done was 8 miles? And that was tough

(Did one of the P&D plans have a 10 or 12 mile MP run? And I did do 5,4,3,2,1 mp intervals)

ultrapercy

Its worth reminding yourself of the purpose of your training and the purpose of each type of run within your training. Marathon paced or any other paced miles are a misnomer. The body doesnt recognise minutes and seconds but responds to effort. What feels like marathon effort at the end of a tough high volume training week can be very different to what it will feel like well fueled and rested on race day. I wouldnt force the pace down just to tick a box rather try to judge your effort level. I often ask myself during a mp training run 'can I hold this pace for 16 miles?' If yhe answere is yes I hold that pace for the run if not I slow it down a little. I would be confident if holding a 16 mile mp run pace on race day for the full distance. Now this might not be true for everyone but everyone can judge ans set their own parameters.

noelearly

OOnegative wrote: »

What is the consensus on MP miles in training? Is running MP miles at 6.50 leaving you to tight to the sub 3 line given many do fade in the 2nd half? Or is running MP miles in training at 6.40/45 a better option to get the body more use to the faster pace and hope for a less of a fade in the 2nd half after training at a faster level? Hope that makes sense.

Personally speaking always found it hard to do MP runs especially those that called for 8/10 mile MP long runs finishes. In my last cycle for Berlin I remember doing one that called for 8. Just couldn't do it, found myself breaking it down in 3/3/2 blocks with a few mins rest in between. Had no problem doing it in a half in Clonmel a few weeks later. Don't get caught up on it if you can't do it or don't read into it too much if you can. A training buddy of mine always blew me out the water on training runs but blew up himself on the day. Go with feel and use a half Marathon or 10 miler as a better indicator, throw it into the McMillan predictor calculator and you will know where you stand.

snailsong

True, but most of us who are a few years at it have a fair idea of how our paces line up. I won't be attempting sub 3 until I run 1:25 or thereabouts for a half. It'd be nice to think I could take a short cut and start training as if I was in sub 3 shape, adjusting all my training paces accordingly. I know it won't work though.

Of course first I need to sort out my dodgy Achilles.

OOnegative

snailsong wrote: »

I think the first thing your friend needs to do is run a good half which would indicate he's ready for a sub 3 shot. As you allude yourself, training at an inappropriately high intensity will not be a benefit. I think the vdot tables are helpful here. Training according to a vdot that is not reflected in your race times doesn't mean you will naturally assume that higher ability, quite the opposite.

I think of the marathon as a deity...We do the work, make the sacrifices, place our humble offerings at her feet. Hopefully she will smile upon us and reward us with good times. However if we demand something to which we are not rightfully entitled.....Well, a great vengeance may be visited upon us.

Thanks for indulging me.

A good half time again may indicate sub 3 shape but as I have seen around here it doesn’t guarantee it. Few examples of lads around here running 1.21/1.22 halves and then struggling to break 3 hours for the marathon then on other hand there’s lads who run 1.27/1.28 halves and break 3 by few mins and more. Suppose it’s how each runner is wired, made for speed or speed endurance. And as you say the marathon can be a cruel mistress, you could have all the work for sub 3 in the bag but she fails to shine on you come race day.