Boston-bound 2018! (Harrisburg Marathon race report)

It was somewhat anti-climatic, on my slow walk back to the motel from the finish area of the Harrisburg Marathon two months ago, as I realized that I almost for certain will be running Boston 2018. That realization came not with a “wow!” but with a “meh!” Let me explain.

My qualifying for Boston for the first time last year, at the Pocono Marathon in May, had a Hollywood movie quality to it. That is, after some five years of trying and some 50 minutes faster, it came down to the last planned qualifying race (for Boston 2017) and the last mile for me to finally BQ--with not a fraction of a second to spare (3:55:00). But, as I’d previously written, in recent years, to actually get in to register for Boston has required a time that’s 2-3 minutes faster than one’s age group threshold time. Thus, my Pocono time put me in the group of about a thousand runners who qualified but did not gain entry.

Disappointed? Yes. But, absolutely exhilarated!

In contrast, my BQ at Harrisburg, the second time last year, was with a relatively slow time of 4:07:08. The injury-affected training cycle really showed, after ~Mile 21. Still, because this BQ is for Boston 2018 and I’ll be in a new age group, 4:07:08 is ~3 minutes faster than my new threshold time (4:10). So, I’ll all but certain gain entry—albeit with kind of a backdoor feel to it. But, I’ll take it!

In any case, I’ve two planned marathons in the first half of 2017, and my goal for those is 3:50 or 20 minutes faster than my new age group qualifying time. 20 minutes or faster is the first group to gain entry for 2018.

I want to be in that first group.

Similar to last year’s race, this year’s Harrisburg was run in near-perfect weather, with gorgeous scenery along the Susquehanna River. Here’s a scene of the Market St. Bridge, viewed from City Island, where the marathon began.

At the other end of the race, the finish line area had food and coffee provided by Panera Bread. Good stuff! Along the way, there were more than enough aid stations, many with gels and all with cheerful and helpful volunteers. A big thanks to all of them! A nice and warm, hooded sweatshirt came with the medal.

Unlike life in general, with running, you can't fake it. You can't con your way to a PR or a BQ (or to that house on Pennsylvania Ave). Based on my rate of recovery after that left heel injury, I thought I could run an average pace of ~9:20 (for a finish time of 4:04:30). I ended up running an average pace of ~9:26 (for a finish time of 4:07:08). The following pace chart shows my Harrisburg 2016 run, along with the previous three marathons, and their finish times. The 11- to 12-minute difference is the cost of that injury.

A race is mostly mental—assuming the pre-race physical part had gone well. The first seven of my 16 weeks of training before Harrisburg were injury affected, including about four weeks completely off the road and another three gingerly easing back into running. By then, there was not enough time to regain the lost speed. How long after “detraining” to regain speed depends on many factors, which apparently vary quite a bit with individuals.

There are two strategies in races with pacers: stay ahead of the pacer (but within earshot) and stay with the pacer. I usually try to stay ahead. That worked for Pocono 2014 but not for Pocono 2016. For Harrisburg this time, I was able to stay ahead of the 4:00 pacer for a while. But, eventually, I couldn’t keep up, at around Mile 19 and especially the last 10K.

A few miles into the race, I heard someone calling me; I turned and saw Pacer Dan, with whose 3:55 pace group I’d run in Harrisburg 2015. He didn’t pace this time; instead, he was running as a Wingman, “any individual (man or woman, fast or slow) who lends his/her heart and legs to empower an ASA [Athletes Serving Athletes] athlete to cross the finish line and at the same time raises awareness and funds for the organization.” The Wingman Program sounds very interesting and worthwhile.

So, I’m Boston-bound 2018. :) In preparing for that, I need to mindfully practice for the last 10K. I want to be fully ready for that last 10K on Beacon St.--and, for that finish on Boylston St.!

Running as metaphor for life (Baltimore Half Marathon race report)

I began writing this post a week before Election Day. I was so looking forward to the end of what had felt like an endless, nightmarish reality show. I wrote that I was thinking about this election cycle during the Baltimore Half Marathon three weeks earlier. I wrote that I was thinking about how running a race, especially the longer ones, is such an apt metaphor for life--the best aspects of life.

I had time to think about all this, because I was running at a pace that was more than three minutes per mile slower than my normal half marathon pace. I had more time to observe, in more detail, all aspects of the race. Aid stations with volunteers helping runners. Runners encouraging each other on and stopping to give a hand when someone falls down. Everyone, from the fastest to the slowest, following the same rules. Everyone starting from the same start line. How fast one gets to the finish line determined mostly by what one has put into pre-race training. Running a race can't be faked. If only life in general were more like a race.

Then came Tuesday, November 8th.

This is a running blog, of course, and I have only very rarely deviated from that topic. And, I do apologize for the current deviation!  But, this time, it just felt not quite right to write another race report, as if nothing had happened. I felt I had to at least acknowledge that, going forward, things are no longer the same, just as in Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. There are so many worrisome consequences from November 8th. But, most of all, I am worried for my children and their generation and all future generations. While other consequences--and, I am not at all minimizing their seriousness and immediacy--can probably, sooner or later, be reversed, the consequences of inaction or worse regarding climate change cannot. Physics goes on, regardless of one's politics. The consequences of physics affect everyone, regardless of one's politics. No wall will keep one insulated.

Life goes on, of course, even if changed. How one lives life goes on, even if changed. And, running goes on.

The Baltimore Half is part of the October Baltimore Running Festival that also includes a marathon and a 5K. Back in 2012, I ran the Baltimore Marathon part of this festival, with a rather slow time of 4:45. It was only my third marathon at the time. I have been wanting to re-run this marathon, ever since 2013 or so, when I really started to seriously train. But, schedule-wise, this marathon conflicted with the other fall marathons that I have been running the past few years in trying to BQ.

This year, my daughter and I decided to run the Baltimore Half together, in part because we could take advantage of the luxury of a place to stay the night before the race that was just minutes away from the start line. This was only her third half marathon, so I "paced" her. At a more than three minutes per mile slower pace, I was able to partake in many nice and fun aspects of the race that I normally would have just rushed by, such as high-fiving spectators and dancing to music along the way. :)

The Half Marathon and Marathon runners don't start together. The Half starts at around Mile 13 of the Full, at the northwest corner of Baltimore's Inner Harbor. For the next almost three miles (Miles 1-3 of the Half and Miles 14-16 of the Full), the two race courses are separate. They then merge just before Miles 3 and 16, respectively. The logistics of that merge needs good planning. When I ran the marathon in 2012, the merge occurred right at the corner of Eastern and Linwood Avenues (southeast corner of Patterson Park), with no transitional segment. Basically, the Half runners going east along Eastern Ave. and the Full runners going north along Linwood Ave. did a hard, 90-degree merge, resulting in some "traffic issues." I don't know what year the race organizers made the change, but, this year, there was a fairly long transitional segment, after the initial merge point, that was separated by a porous barrier. The latter allowed the two streams of runners to more gradually and smoothly merge. Kudos to the organizers!

The race course winds through many different parts of Baltimore, from the touristy Inner Harbor area to neighborhoods that tourists usually don't get to see. As I was running through the latter neighborhoods, I was thinking that it would be nice if some of the economic benefits from the city hosting the race could be shared with the various neighborhoods that the course winds through, perhaps in accordance with the percentage of the course that each neighborhood hosts (?). Beyond the more than $12 million that the Baltimore Running Festival has raised, since its beginning 16 years ago, the boost to the local economy over each Festival weekend from the many thousands of runners has also been significant.

My daughter and I had great fun running and finishing the Half together. The weather was near-perfect. Spectator support was nice and loud, along many stretches of the course. Some of that support came with snacks and beer! The volunteers staffing the official aid stations were superb, serving up water, Gatorade, and, at some of the stations, gels, bananas, and donuts (Munchkins). This was the first race I have run where the police was as enthusiastically cheering on the runners as were the spectators. Perhaps, it was an attempt to improve relationships with the public, post-Freddie Gray (?). Regardless, it was really nice to see that. One officer in particular was standing in the middle of the road, high-fiving runners to his left and right!

The last quarter mile was nicely located: Down S. Eutaw St., past the Oriole Park at Camden Yards, and to the finish line on Raven's Walk, just north of the Ravens Stadium. The finishers area was in the parking lots between the two stadiums. Food was typical and plentiful. And, beer! The organization of the finishers area was similar to that of the race in general--well done! My only suggestion for improvement is to move the finish line to inside of Camden Yards. That would be nice--though not likely. :)

The finisher's medal is quite unique, of a Maryland blue crab that opens to a scene of the Inner Harbor waterfront. The process to make the medal, with the pointy details, was quite elaborate, as

can be seen in this page from the race guide.

How has November 8th affected my running? Well, it has made me more energized--and, not just about running.

"You can only read them and weep."

That quote is from an article about the most recent world record set by Ed Whitlock at the Toronto Waterfront Marathon. The author was referring to Whitlock's 22 single-age records, for 5K, half marathon, and marathon. The first part of the quote is "If you are a 60- or 70- or 80-year-old runner, ..." I guess one could respond that way to Whitlock's new record--3:56:38 at age 85--and all his other records. They do seem almost superhuman.

Or, one can read about these records and think, hey, that means the potential is there! It is humanly possible to run a sub-4 at age 85, or a sub-3 at age 74! All those records of Whitlock can either be fascinating statistics but totally unrelated to "regular" runners, or powerful motivation pulling one forward to test what a human body--what a specific human body--can do. How far into one's life can the adaptation curve be kept above the aging curve?

In the article, there's a comparison of the marathon time/5K time ratio between Galen Rupp and Whitlock. For Rupp, his bronze finish time at the Rio Olympics of 2:10:05 and his best 2016 5K finish of 13:21 result in a ratio of 9.78. For Whitlock, the two finish times of 3:56:38 and 24:04 result in a ratio of 9.82. What this ratio indicates is how well one maintains pace as distance increases from 5K to marathon. So, despite the 55-year difference in age, Whitlock maintains pace nearly as well as does Rupp. Me? My best marathon time this year was 3:55:00 (BQ run at Pocono this past May) and best 5K was 24:53, for a ratio of 9.44. Now, I ran this 5K during the post-Pocono recovery period, so the time was relatively slow, resulting in the relatively low ratio. If I use my 5K PR of 22:54 (2013), then the ratio becomes 10.26. My current potential marathon time, based on one of those race time predictors, is about 13 minutes faster than my PR (BQ), or 3:42:00. The following chart shows my predicted vs. actual times for five distances, based on my half marathon PR time. The predicted times are quite close to actual times, for all distances except the marathon. I regard this 13-minute potential as realistically realizable. I just haven't quite figured out what adjustments I need to make, to close this gap between predicted and actual marathon times. Anyway, if I use the predicted time of 3:42:00 with the 5K time of 22:54, then the ratio becomes 9.83, comparable to those of Rupp and Whitlock.

The bottom line to all this? Age really is just a number!

Regaining lost fitness and planning for Harrisburg

In my post on recovering from that July heel injury, I'd noted that the lost fitness over the month-long layoff was slowly being regained. Here's an update and what it tells me on how to plan for the upcoming Harrisburg Marathon. The following pace chart is of the four post-recovery long runs (i.e., 11 miles or longer) so far and, for comparison, of the April 10th 19-mile run. The pace for the latter is at about my current BQ pace of 8:58.

Overall, I'm encouraged by the rate of increase in pace, reflecting a steady improvement in fitness over the four runs of increasing distance. The pace has improved (10:00, 9:53, 9:39, 9:32), even as the distance increased (12, 15, 17, 18 miles, respectively). I ran by effort, which I tried to keep the same from run to run. So, the pace became faster, not because I was pushing harder, but because I was regaining my fitness. The other factor was the walks I took for water and fuel (dates or gel). The distance of these walks decreased over the four runs, from 0.15-0.20 mile to 0.10 mile to, for the last two runs, 0.05-0.07 mile. These walks were taken at just before 5, 10, and 15 miles (except for September 25, which was just before Mile 14). For the April 10th run, water and dates were taken on the run at Miles 5 and 10.

The key to what I think has been, thus far, a fairly successful post-recovery training is the slow and careful increase in mileage and effort. Even though the estimated 10% decrease in fitness after a month-long layoff seems low, at least for me, the rate of improvement in post-recovery fitness has been quicker than I'd anticipated. The adaptation curve is still staying above the aging curve! :)

Looking ahead, next week is a cutback week. The long run should be 19 miles, according to my training plan. Instead, I'll be running the Baltimore Half, as a training run. Then, for the following weekend, I'll do a final long run of 20 miles. If the trend in pace improvement continues, I should be at ~9:20, before starting the three-week taper.

For Harrisburg, a 9:20 pace would be ~4:05. That would be five minutes faster than my BQ time for Boston 2018 (4:10), which, because I'll be in the next age group, is 15 minutes slower than my current BQ of 3:55. I had been aiming for 3:50 or 20 minutes faster than the 2018 BQ. But, I'll be quite happy with a 4:05, given my injury-affected training cycle; though, I think a sub-4 is still possible. On any given Sunday ... :)

From one moment to the next ...

From despair to ... hey, it's gone! That often seems to be the case, in recovering from an injury. As the period of forced layoff gets longer and longer, one's thoughts get darker and darker, as in what if I can't ever run again!!!

Then, one day, just like that, it's gone!

That's more or less what happened in my recovery from that heel injury 10 weeks ago. I had to stay off the road for four whole weeks, the longest such period since I began to "seriously" train six some years ago. What helped with the healing was this foot massage wooden roller. More on this later.

After a four-week layoff and mindful of the need to be patient in resuming training, I've been very careful in slowly increasing mileage, over the subsequent six weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 6, 6.5, 7, 3 (5K race), 4, 8, 4, 5 (8K race), 12, 4, 6, 4, 15 (last Sunday), generally skipping a day in between runs. The 5K and 8K races were two of several that my kids and I run together each year, kind of a family tradition. So, I still ran them--though cautiously--and was quite relieved each time that the left heel came through fine. As with mileage, I slowly re-introduced workout components: strides, hill sprints, hill repeats, tempo runs, long runs (i.e., 11 miles or more). The first long run was two Sundays ago (12 miles); the second one was last Sunday (15 miles). Both were ~1 min/mi slower than my average long run pace leading up to Pocono.

The following pace chart shows the two recent long runs compared with the three long runs before Pocono. The loss in fitness, due to the month-long layoff, is significant, even considering the difference between the cooler pre-Pocono and the warmer September temperatures. The three long runs were at ~GMP for my current BQ (8:58), and I mostly hydrated and fueled on the run. The only exception was during the April 17th run, around Mile 5, on a hill up to the campus of Cornell University. In contrast, during both of the September runs, I had to (or felt as) take a 0.10-0.20-mile water/fuel walk every five miles or so. The two "sub-GMP" miles (12, 13) of the September 25th run were ~30-40 sec slower than the comparable pace before Pocono. (I usually try to run sub-GMP for the back half of long runs.) The lost fitness, though, is being slowly regained. Compared with September 18th, the run on the 25th was 7 sec/mi fitter. :) It felt easier and the legs felt stronger, even though the run was three miles longer.

So, the main conclusion from my recent injury and recovery is that the estimated 10% decrease in fitness after a month-long layoff seems on the low side. Or, there needs to be an age-adjustment to the estimates! The decrease in fitness is not just physical but also mental--indeed, perhaps especially mental. In the first longish run, all of six miles, two weeks after I began running again, I struggled against wanting to stop and walk at just over three miles!

Back to healing the heel. During that month off the road, I read up on various foot core exercises and ways to improve foot strength and began to incorporate some of them into my workouts. Then, I came across this article on plantar fasciitis and the benefits of deep-tissue massage. So, I dug out the foot massage wooden roller (photo above), which has been lying around the house mostly unused. I began using it daily, with one foot or both feet, with varying pressure, and with different combinations of rollers massaging different parts of the sole. Totally unscientifically (!), but I think the massager has played a major role in my heel's recovery. In any case, I've incorporated it into my post-run routines.

How do I get back sort of on track for the upcoming Harrisburg Marathon in November? This is the end of Week 10 already, in the 16-week training cycle. Tomorrow's long run should be 19 miles. I'm planning to do 17. I should have already done nine previous long runs (of 11-18 miles). I've done two so far, 12 and 15. There are four more long runs, before the 3-week taper, including the Baltimore Half as a training run. I'm planning to get up to 20 miles for the last long run. Still, I probably should readjust expectations for Harrisburg. I'm definitely rethinking how to run that race.

"Achieving one’s qualifying standard does not guarantee entry" - an update

It was a long shot. I knew, when I submitted my registration for Boston 2017, that the only way I might have a chance is the opening of a Week 3 of first-come, first-served registration. But, as was also the case for the past three years, registration was closed before Week 3. For 2017, one had to be 2:09 under the threshold qualifying time, for all age groups. For comparison, one had to be under by 2:28, 1:02, and 1:38 for 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. So, I am one of the 2,957 people for whom "achieving one's qualifying standard does not guarantee entry" turned out to be, alas, true.:(

I needed 3:52:51, 2:09 under my threshold qualifying time of 3:55:00. That's just five seconds faster per mile back in May (Pocono). "Just," I'm thinking, sitting here now. At the time, on the course, those would have been five looong seconds!

So, it's Boston 2018. I'll be in the next age group, with 15 more minutes (!) added to the qualifying standard. Goal will be to qualify by at least 20 minutes (3:50 or faster), which would put me in the group whose registrations get accepted first. Harrisburg is coming up in November. I was pretty confident of running a 3:50 there, until that left heel injury in July, which kept me off the road for an entire month. I'm quite behind in training, and I'm rethinking how I should run that race. Next year, I'll probably skip the early spring race (e.g., Rock 'n' Roll DC, Shamrock). I'm also thinking not to run Pocono again in May. I've done that race three years in a row now. Those rolling hills of Miles 19-23 make that net-elevation-loss course rather deceptive--even though I did finally BQ there. Instead of Pocono, I'm looking at a possible new one, Gettysburg in April, which goes through parts of the historic Gettysburg Battlefield. It's a small race, with just a few hundred people, on a course that's generally flat, with some hills in the early miles (in contrast with Pocono!).

Harrisburg and Gettysburg, my two qualifying races for Boston 2018. I expect to be toeing that starting line at Hopkinton in April 2018! :)

"Achieving one’s qualifying standard does not guarantee entry"

That's according to the 2017 Boston Marathon Registration. But, it does earn one the right to submit a registration! The BAA provides a handy calculator for when is one's time to register. Here's my calculator result, based on the 3:55 time from the Pocono Marathon. The first week (of September 12) is for those who qualified by five minutes or more. Starting the second week (of September 19), all qualifiers may submit a registration. That's me!

In the past couple years, to be guaranteed an entry to the Boston Marathon, one has to have qualified with a time that's faster than the required standard--by about a minute in 2015 and by about 2.5 minutes this year (2016). Given my qualifying time of 3:55 is at the threshold for my age group, the chance of my registration actually becoming an entry is probably next to nil. So, why bother? Because it's like playing the lottery? Because maybe, in my age group, there won't be more submissions than space allows? Yeah, there is probably a little bit of that. :)

But, much more the reason is, if I do get to run Boston 2017, that would be the last one in my current age group. It has taken me more than five years and more than 50 minutes to finally qualify. I began with a finish time at close to five hours; now, when I head out from the start line, I expect to finish under four. For Harrisburg in November, my goal will be under 3:50. This is why I really want to run Boston 2017, before I "age" up to the next group. The latter's qualifying standard is 15 minutes slower, which means I'll almost definitely achieve my qualifying standard--and be guaranteed an entry--for Boston 2018. Where is the challenge in that!

Besides, it's not my fault if there is not enough space in my age group to accommodate every qualifier. It's BAA's fault! :)

Patience is key

Easier said than done, that's for sure. Cabin fever, itchy feet, ... I wanna run!

OK, let me back up. In May, after I finally BQ'ed at the Pocono Marathon, I took about a week-long rest, followed by a slow ramp-up with short, easy runs. Usually, I'd then gradually sync up with the 16-week training cycle for my next marathon. This year, because I decided to skip the early fall marathon, I had some extra time before starting the training for Harrisburg in November: For some extra rest; some speed work ... or, some shorter distance racing! For the six weeks after Pocono, at two-week intervals, I ran the Nitro Trail Half in Point Pinole Regional Park, San Pablo, CA and couple 5K's near home. The possible significance didn't really register at the time, but, during that 6-week period, my left heel was feeling more and more stiff, especially in the morning, right after getting up from bed. Each time, after some movement, the stiffness would lessen somewhat--enough to feel as I could still run.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running.

Two weeks later, after the Saturday easy 4-mile run, hill sprints, and a set of plyometrics (using the front yard curb), the left heel felt decidedly stiff and painful, even to walk. I took the next week off; and, I was not going to run the following week as well. But, the pain went away; only the stiffness remained, a stiffness that lessened with movement.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running.

Then, four Saturdays ago, during my usual easy 4-miler, at just around two miles, I felt a sharp pain in my left heel. I debated whether to continue. Many a times in the past, I had run through these twinges until they had gone away. This time, the pain likewise gradually decreased.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running (at a pace faster than my goal marathon pace for Boston).

Of course, the damage had already been done; I just felt it with a time delay. I could hardly walk shortly after I finished the run. It has been almost four weeks now without running, the longest off period going back to at least 2010. All I've done are some core exercises, plus some for stabilizing the "foot core." (See Alex Hutchinson's 2015 article, based on a paper in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, "The foot core system: a new paradigm for understanding intrinsic foot muscle function.") ... I wanna run!

Again, how does one know when to stop and when to run through pain. I'd asked the same question about the twinge I'd felt during that 2012 Paris morning run. I just re-read that post and noticed that the twinge referenced there was also in the left heel. Hmm ... Maybe the next time I feel something not quite normal, I should just stop and not keep on running--and, be patient! See The 25 Golden Rules of Running (Rule 5). As Jack Foster, the "Ancient Marathoner," said, "if it hurts, don't run on it." But, easier said than done ...

Likewise, in resuming running after an injury, patience is key. According to the latter article, at around four weeks off now, I've lost about 10% of my VO2max, along with the related loss in conditioning in my musculoskeletal system. So, I need to remind myself to be patient, as I ease back into running. The general strategy is the same in resuming running after a break in training due to other reasons (e.g., schedule conflicts). "Start from where you are instead of ... where you 'should be.'" I "should be" nearing the end of week 4 of my 16-week cycle for Harrisburg in November. But, instead, I'm probably at more like week -2!

I kind of feel I could have run last weekend. But, I decided to take another week off. I may do a short test run this weekend. Be patient, be patient, be patient, ...

Rethinking Noakes

Having watched Mara Abbott's heartbreaking fourth-place finish in the women's cycling road race at the Rio Olympics, I'm rethinking Noakes' hypothesis regarding second place and lower finishers--that, in those cases, "physiology does not determine who wins. Rather somewhere in the final section of the race, the brains of the second, and lower placed finishers accept their respective finishing positions and no longer choose to challenge for a higher finish." Abbott had a 39-second lead, coming off the hills, after passing the Vista Chinesa, with about 4 miles to the finish but being chased by a three-person pack. The latter three were taking turns leading and, thus, had the advantage over Abbott. With about 200 meters left to the finish, they caught up with Abbott and sprinted to the finish for gold, silver, and bronze. Abbott did not respond to their move. Or, Abbott could not respond. With the finish line clearly in sight and Olympic gold at stake, does it make sense that she "accepted" not being first? At a post-race interview, Abbott said she gave it her all and left nothing on the course. From what I could see, I agree. In Abbott's case, at least, she didn't "choose" to not challenge for first. She couldn't challenge. The women's finish was very similar to the men's yesterday, where the solo rider at the front was similarly caught and passed by a small chase pack, not too far from the finish. So, in cycling, more than running, it could be more a matter of racing strategy, i.e., breaking from the pack and riding solo in front is risky, unless the lead is big enough. Cycling is not my sport; so, I'm just speculating here. Abbott was really impressive in the interview. Really classy.

Sub3 before 73

What is the marathon question (with the emphasis on "the")? If you're thinking it’s when someone will run a sub-2 hour marathon, you would be wrong! What? How could that be! The sub-2 marathon has been, for some time, the subject of intense debate. Michael Joyner et al. (2011), in The two-hour marathon: who and when? (Journal of Applied Physiology), discussed how investigations into the physiology of the 2-hour marathon could inform who might be first and when. Using past finish times, the authors projected a when between 2022 and 2035. Joyner has long been studying the physiological factors of human endurance. He had published, in the same journal some 20 years earlier (1991), a paper on Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors. The fastest possible marathon time predicted by his model was 1:57:58. See also Phil Maffetone’s 2014 book, 1:59.

Some three months after Dennis Kimetto ran 2:02:57 at the Berlin Marathon in September 2014, a dedicated campaign, the SUB2 project, was begun to help achieve a sub-2 hour marathon within five years. The New York Times recently had a two-part article, “Man vs. Marathon,” on this project (Part1, Part2). The following figure from this article shows a projected achievement year for the sub-2 marathon in the 2030s.

Not surprisingly, the SUB2 project elicited many responses. The most critical perhaps was Ross Tucker’s article, comparing the 2-hour marathon and the 4-min mile. His objection was not that a sub-2 marathon was not possible but that it was not possible to achieve within the next five years (i.e., 2019). Alex Hutchinson took a different approach in responding, by providing a detailed analysis of what will it take to run a 2-hour marathon. A similar extrapolation of past marathon records in Hutchinson’s article as that in the SUB2 project article showed a sub-2 marathon being achieved sometime before 2030, though he ended the article with a prediction of 2075. Richard Lovett provided a similar analysis in Looking for Mr. 1:59 but without a predicted achievement year.

Of course, a sub-2 hour marathon would be a really, really big deal! But, the marathon question for me personally relates to the sub-3 hour marathon, or, more specifically, Ed Whitlock's 2:54:48 that he ran in 2004, at age 73, a world record for that age group. See two recent articles on Whitlock (1, 2). Theoretically, then, I can still run a sub-3 marathon! So, my dedicated campaign is the SUB3 project. J

Much of what Hutchinson described about the perfect race and the perfect runner that would be needed for a sub-2 marathon also applies to a sub-3 marathon. For example, one of the factors of the perfect runner is “towering self-confidence.” Hutchinson noted that “physiologists have shown that what you perceive as your physical limits depends on what you believe is possible—change your beliefs and you can push your limits.”

If I also “extrapolate” my past marathon times, my sub-3 finish would take place somewhere around 2020. J This downward trend line is representative of the adaptation to training—It is still mostly a matter of training!

The other trend, of course, is my aging curve. Aging lowers the VO2 max, decreases muscle mass, makes one less flexible, and requires longer time for healing and recovery. (VO2 max is a measure of the maximum volume of oxygen that one can use.) See Richard Lovett’s article, “The science of aging and running” (2009). Lovett wrote a related article (2015), “Mastering running as you age,” in which he discussed how to adapt to the approximately 0.7% decline in the body per year, for each major age group. There was another article that, unfortunately, I can’t locate right now that contained this key idea: The decline in long-distance running with age is relatively slow, i.e., not until around age 65 (?) does one’s potential decreases down to that of a teen. I like that! J The journal Age had a paper on the development of sport and chess performances over a lifetime (Berthelot, 2012). A characteristic growth and decline could be described by a simple model. (Here’s a summary of the paper.) Ray Fair (2007) described a similar study on age effects on rates of decline. Handy calculators based on the results from the study give predicted minimum times by age in various running and swimming events, given one’s best previous time. (Here’s a related NY Times article on Fair’s work.)

For me, there’s also a lingering outlier. Using race time predictors, my predicted and actual best times are remarkably close for all distances, except for the marathon (see figure). For the latter, even with my recent BQ time of 3:55, I’m still about 13 minutes slower than my predicted potential of 3:42. Similarly, on Athlinks, my rankings for various distances, up to the half marathon, range from a top 21% for the 10-mile to a top 34% for the 8K. For the marathon, I rank only in the top 56% (see table).

My rankings on Athlinks 

Distance	Ranking (%)
5K	28.4
8K	34.3
4M	29.8
10K	26.0
10M	20.9
13M	33.6
26M	55.8

Why is that? Typical training long runs are at about 60-90 seconds slower than one’s goal marathon pace (GMP). In the recent one to two years, my training long runs have been at only about 10-15 seconds slower than my current GMP (or BQ pace of 8:58). How come I can't seem to be able to run marathons at a much faster pace than that of training runs? True, training runs don't go 26 miles. But, is there something else? Is it a need for more mental training? Or, more physical training, e.g., to increase the strength of the back kick? Not sure, but I am working on both. The photo below (from a NY Times article on Kenya, running shoes, and bribery) shows the beautiful back kick and form in general that I'm trying to work towards.

Anyway, here’s the general plan for my SUB3 project. I don’t have a September marathon scheduled this year. Instead, before the training cycle begins for the November Harrisburg Marathon, I’ll work on speed. That will allow me, instead of using the 5K and 8K in September (that my kids and I traditionally run together) as training runs, to actually race them and try for PRs. Speed work will also help improve my efficiency for Harrisburg. My goal for the latter is 3:50 (8:47 pace), which would qualify me for Boston 2018 by 20 minutes (will be in new age group!). The qualified by 20 minutes or more group is the first one to gain entry, followed by 10 minutes or more, 5 minutes or more, and then all other time qualifiers (until all spots for that age group have been filled).

Goal for 2017: To realize my predicted potential of 3:42 (8:28 pace) and remove that lingering outlier.

Goal for 2018: To become competitive with the top finishers in my age group or ~3:30 (8:01 pace). That's around my current tempo pace. Yea, I know. J But, I do think it's realistically achievable. This is my main goal for the SUB3 project, part 1. Will see how far I get!

That would leave a couple more years to complete part 2--which is an altogether different kind of story! J