Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free. But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient. Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead. Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

First marathon sub-3:30

3 watchers
Mar 2024
8:20am, 7 Mar 2024
2 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Crissman
Hi! I loved your updated marathon time calculator. I ran my first marathon on Feb. 25 and constantly referred to the standards from that post. Despite spending about half as much time running as the post predicts, my time was closer to the traditional Riegel's Formula exponent of 1.06 than your proposed 1.15.

I wrote up my training and race here: unaging.com

(Spoiler: it's all about the gels.)
Mar 2024
11:50am, 7 Mar 2024
2,537 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SailorSteve
Welcome to Fetch Crissman
Interesting stuff. Imagine what you could do with some decent mileage?!😜
Mar 2024
8:23pm, 7 Mar 2024
1,906 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Mark J
That's an interesting read Crissman. Just looking through the FIRST approach, too. I keep hearing that as you get older you should run less, to gain more. At 56, soon to be 57, I wonder if i should actually start taking this advise. More research required on my part. Thanks for the post.

I'd like to share this in the sub 3:30 thread, if that's OK with you?
Mar 2024
8:35pm, 7 Mar 2024
191 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Charlesvdw
The FIRST approach feature 3 runs per week, none of which is easy.
It has a bad balance hard/easy. That's why the real FIRST approach features 3 cross training activities which make for easy training (swimming, biking).
Only taking the 3 runs per week is a shortcut not optimal for aerobic development.
Mar 2024
12:13am, 8 Mar 2024
3 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Crissman
SailorSteve I know, right? While I felt I had great results for the time spent, I could have run more. If I were to do it again, I might try pushing more volume.

Mark J 🇳🇿 Please do share in the sub 3:30 thread. Thanks!

I'm 53, so I'm interested in what you find out about running volume and gains over 50.

Charlesvdw You're correct that FIRST is designed to allow for cross-training. I did strength training once a week but nothing else. I'd say the FIRST runs are optimal but perhaps not maximal, like SailorSteve said. I saw a study showing frequent marathoners can improve VO2max by 25% during training, which is double what I achieved.

Got something to say?

To join the discussion, sign in or join us.

About This Thread

Maintained by Crissman
Hi! I loved your updated marathon time calculator. I ran my first marathon on Feb. 25 and constantly referred to the standards from that post. Despite spending about half as much time running as the post predicts, my time was closer to the traditional Riegel's Formula exponent of 1.06 than your proposed 1.15.

I wrote up my training and race here: unaging.com

(Spoiler: it's all about the gels.)
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • goals
  • marathon
  • sub

Report This Content

You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.



Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.










Back To Top

Tag A User

To tag a user, start typing their name here:
X

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more! Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Get Started
Click here to join 114,291 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here