Boston Qualifying - are you on the edge?

Jim24315 · Dec 23, 2007

Although this post was inspired mainly to help those who are “on the edge” of being able to meet the qualifying standard for the Boston Marathon, all comments are welcome. What I am proposing is an approach that will send you to the starting line knowing that your chances of meeting your goal are very good instead of guessing. Rather than run marathon after marathon and gradually trying to whittle away at your goal, why not wait until you KNOW that are ready? I, for one, don’t believe that you have to run the first one or first few “just to finish”. You can do that on a training run (which I did, btw, before running my first). So how do you know if you are ready? First of all you need to be able run equivalent times for at least some of the distances that are short of the marathon. For example, if you are a 40-year old woman who wants to run a 3:50 marathon in order to “BQ”, you need to be able run 5k in something close to 23:30 in order to have a reasonable chance. If you are not in the ballpark, it is highly unlikely that any amount of race day magic is going to propel you to a 3:50 marathon. Of course, the farther you go up the distance scale—for example a 1:49 half marathon is the equivalent performance of a 3:50 marathon—the closer you are to having what it is going to take in order to meet your BQ goal. And being able to run equivalent times at other distances doesn’t quarantee you, by any stretch, that you will actually run a marathon in the time that your shorter races project. It only means that you have the ability to do it if you are trained to run the full 26 miles at what is a good pace for you. How do you know if you have the training? Ken Young, founder of the National Center on Running Statistics, used actual data and analysis to calculate the “collapse point”, the point at which one breaks down in a long distance race. His theory is that the training mileage over the previous 8 weeks sets the limits on how far you can hold a fast pace. The limit is about three times your daily average. Using this theory a runner who averages 9 miles per day (63 miles/week) can expect to collapse at 26 miles and loose the ability to maintain a fast pace. Training an average of 7 miles per day, your collapse point is at the proverbial 20 mile wall. I know, I know...many people BQ on a lot less mileage than that, but you are on the edge..remember? You don't have the liberty of taking any shortcuts. So don't say "I can't" until you've really tried. I'll bet there are many runners who don't believe they could ever BQ but actually could if they put all that they are capable of into it. So what’s it going to take?
<ul><li>Be able to run the equivalent times at 8k, 10k, half marathon, etc, that tell you that you have the speed necessary to have a reasonable shot of running a BQ time at the maraton distance. If you work on this part of your game before jumping right into marathons you will become a better runner and it will be less wear and tear on the body. The best runners do it this way, so why can’t we all?</li>
</ul><ul><li>Run 63 miles a week for at least 8 weeks prior to the marathon. Of course you can allow a couple weeks for taper that are less than this. And finally, there is more to training than just putting in the miles, but this is a starting point…if you don’t want to “crash”.</li>
</ul>You very well might be able to run a BQ on less if you have some overkill on ability as many do, but if you are right on the edge you probably will need to maximize your training and be able to run BQ equivalent times at shorter distances in order to succeed. Note that I said "probably". I am sure to hear about all the exceptions as soon as I write something like this but my hope is that it can help at least a few people and promote some useful discussion. Whenever I've set running goals I've usually approached them this way and I've found it to be helpful. My thinking has always been "if you want to run 26 miles at 8 minute pace, then you'd better be able to run 10 miles at least that fast first". Here is an equivalent times chart for all the Boston Qualifying times. I suggest that you work on getting some of these down to the needed level before even thinking about putting on a number an actually going for your BQ in an actual marathon. I think you will be glad that you did and you might even find that you enjoy racing some of these other distances too. Jim <img alt="" src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i61/stillrunnin46/BostonQualifyingChart.jpg" style="border:0px solid;">

kestrou · Dec 24, 2007

I'm with ya, Jim, on both points - but the one that gets most people is that mileage base part. Not too many are dumb enough to take a crack at a BQ if they can't meet the corresponding times at the shorter distances - but lots (and my hand's in the air! <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"> ) have taken a shot with short-distance speed, but not the mileage base. 
Now that I've moved up to ultra's and my average mpw is between 60 and 70 I'm not fading in the last 10K like I used to. What a coincidence, huh?! <img alt="biggrin.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif"> 
kestrou

Complete Pete · Dec 24, 2007

Those qualifying time equivelants speak volumes to how hard it can be to get to Boston. 
Interesting point about waiting until you are resonably certain you can qualify before taking a stab at it. Whitling away your time, marathon after marathon has some benefits, though. If, for example it takes you 3.5 years to qualify. If you've been slicing your time, a few times per year, when it comes to your qualifying race, you've got 6 marathons worth of experience under your belt. If you keep racing HMs until they show you've got a good shot at qualifying, your BQ attempt is gonna be your first marathon. I'd wager the experience you've gained from running several marathons prior would be worth a lot come race day.

Jim24315 · Dec 24, 2007

I will go out on a limb and say that you can whittle away at your marathon time without running one. In fact I'm sure you can. 
I don't know your age and race times, but let's say you are 45, which would make your BQ time 3:30. According to the chart I posted (based on McMillan) this would set your 10k equivalent time at 51:08. Now, instead of going out and running some marathons, get out on the roads, trails, tracks, or wherever you run, and work on getting that 10k time down to 51:08. If you want some suggestions on how to go about it, I would be happy to throw in my 2 cents. Make up your mind not to even think about entering a marathon until you do. Let's say that you finally run that 51:08. Now you know that you have the ablity to BQ--there's no quarantee that you will do it, but at least you know that it's a reasonable goal, and I promise you will that you will be very happy at having acheived your 10k goal! Promise! Now, let's go after the half marathon and see if you can break 1:40, which would be the equivalent of a 3:30 marathon (and a 51:08 10k). The beauty of it is that after you reach that 10k goal you might be able to break 1:40 without any additional training, and if you do need to work on it a little longer you won't be that far away. Now, if you can run that 1:40 you are ready to sign up for that marathon and start preparing for it. You are ready! 
There are just so many benefits from going at it this way that I get excited just talking about it. Not only to you become a better runner and give yourself a better chance of reaching your marathon goal, but it is extremely satisfying to reach those intermediate goals along the way. It's that journey that we hear so much about. 
What are some other advantages?
<ul><li>You can log more training miles. That's right and it's a big one. You don't have spend all that tapering and recovering time. I've read a poster or 2 who said that it only takes 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after. I think it's longer than that, but even if it is...4 weeks is 4 weeks. That's a lot in my book.</li>
<li>You can race more often and regularly gauge your progess and how well you are responding to your training. Shorter races are much easier to recover from than marathons (understatement).</li>
<li>You will get faster. The marathon is a endurance event--no doubt about it--but speed comes in very handy at all distances, even the marathon.</li>
</ul>
Jim

L Train · Dec 24, 2007

Jim - 
This approach is similar to what I decided early this year. I want to BQ in 2014 (45 - 3:30) and just as you suggest it seems silly to try to achieve that goal by running marathons. It's sort of like trying to get better at any sport by just playing games. This year I focused on 1/2 marathons and cut my PR from 1:59 to 1:45 - still nowhere near the 1:40 I need but with another year of training I might come close. Plus, I can still train like I'm running a marathon without running one (plenty of long runs) and it helps with the interim goals. That said, I plan to run a fall marathon next year almost as a reward for my work and to sort of get a gauge where I'm at. But my focus is not on that marathon - it's on the base mileage increase without injury and the 1/2 marathon.

Jim24315 · Dec 24, 2007

L Train, 
You might not have reached the level you need for your BQ (yet), but you sure have improved your running big time. A 14 minute improvement at HM is a massive breakthrough. Who knows where you will be by next fall? A lot could happen. To be knocking on door of BQ by then would not be out of the question. 
Whatever plan you been using has obviously working, but 10k's also work as great preps too. It took me more than 2 1/2 years to finally make the 10k goal I set for myself at the beginning of '05, but when I finally did it PR's at HM, 30K, and Marathon came right after it. There are several elites who have used the 10k as preps for major marathons too. Al Salazar and Paula Radcliffe are a couple who come to mind. Just something to think about. 
Half marathons aren't the same as marathons, but they are still long races and can take a lot out of us. I usually to try to hold them to 2-3 a year max. 
Anyway, you are doing fine. Congratulations on the great improvement in your HM time. Keep up the good work.

L Train · Dec 25, 2007

Thanks. For some reason I was thinking about this thread on my run today. Maybe this is assumed in your original post, but if the goal is to get better at the marathon, wouldn't you have to at least a few times per year ramp up the mileage (particularly the number of long runs) to get your body used to the distance? In your example, if I really used a 44:45 as a 10K goal prior to trying to run a marathon, I could probably get there with base mileage and long runs topping out at 10-15 miles. But long term, I'm still not as prepared for a future marathon as I would be if I were getting some 18-20 milers in there sometimes. From what I understand, it's those long runs where you get the physiological change required for marathoning.

Jim24315 · Dec 25, 2007

Absolutely I believe it’s necessary to ramp up the mileage. You've probably heard that oft repeated bit of advice "train for the marathon--just don't race it." I'm not saying to anyone that they should never race the marathon, but there is some wisdom behind that advice and some pretty good runners come close to following it. My feeling is that you should try to keep your mileage at what is a good level for you almost year around, even if you aren't going to race any further than 5 miles. Most top milers run 80-100 mpw, and some more than that. Mileage helps at all distances. None of us are elite runners and I'm not saying we should try to run that kind of mileage, but the principle is the same. Let's say that your peak mileage during a marathon buildup is 70 miles. I'd say that it's good idea to keep it at 50 or better even when there is no marathon on the horizon. The one time to back off would be during a rest break that many runners take once or twice a year at the end of a hard racing season. Before I ramble on much longer, I don't want to make like I'm an expert. Some of what I talk about is from experience, but most is just parroting what I've read and heard from some pretty good sources. The way I understand it, the primary difference in training for distances from 10k to marathon is in the length of the long run. There are some others as far as what key workouts to do, but that’s the main one. Personally I like get some long ones in 14-15 mile range even for 10k. For the HM I like to bump them up to 15-17, with an occasional 18. For the marathon, at least a few in the 20-22 mile range are necessary. Do as I say, not as I do, on that last sentence. I jumped into a marathon earlier this month with only one 20-miler in preparation and paid a stiff price over the last 10k. Somewhat to my defence the decision to run that marathon came very late in the game and wasn’t one that I specifically trained for. I was hoping against hope that I could get by on a little less because I’d run well in a 30k less than a month earlier and learned a hard lesson. As they say, "20 miles is the half way point in a marathon." How true it is.

tigger · Dec 25, 2007

I agree with most of what you've said Jim. Not sure on that collapse point theory. Noakes says it's not true. Nevertheless, the higher one can raise their weekly mileage the better they should be able to run, so it's not bogus. That's for sure. 
I ran a few stinky marathons around the turn of the century and then gave up on them because they were too hard on my body to run and too hard to train for. I vowed not to run another one until a BQ was within my grasp. Yet, here I am training for another one in my near future, and I have no hope of a BQ (3:45) this time. My reasons for running it are simple. I was voluntold by my boss. So I will run it, but under my terms. 
My PR's (1:57 HM, 52:40 10k, 0:25 5k) all suggest I can get pretty close to a 4 hr marathon time if properly prepared. I feel comfortable with that, which would be around 9:10 pace, but don't intend to do it because it would be absolutely meaningless unless I could somehow break the 4 hr window. This would be notable, but worth nothing, so I don't even intend to try for that goal. Instead I plan to run steady 9:40's, try to enjoy the scenery....at least for the first 20 miles or so, and finish with a fat PR and the hope of better things to come when I turn 60 and my BQ is 4 hrs even. I am not training half heartedly though. Weekly hours are pushing 11, with lots of 9's and 10's to keep my peak weeks company. I think that's serious training, although 11 barely gets me to 63 miles, and 10 gets me to about 56 or so. 
Focussing on marathon training is taking a lot of enjoyment out of running. Six months ago my typical weekend run was 2 hrs or so...about 12 or 13 miles. That was plenty to train adequately for HM's or 10k races, but now......that's just one of two mid week runs! I don't enjoy myself as much, and THAT I think is the reason people who are on the cusp should avoid running marathons if they are seriously looking for that BQ. It takes a lot of time and effort to properly prepare. Other life goals get put on hold. It could develop into an obsession if one kept running marathon every year. So I will run this one and try to protect myself, and then go back into hibernation until that elusive BQ is within my grasp....in another couple of years.

toe jam on crusty feet · Dec 25, 2007

Do you guys really think that much mileage is necessary, until the "ramping up" phase when you are actually training for THE marathon? I still feel that the mieage doesn't need to be that high unless you have plateaued and then, only when you start marathon trining for a specific race where you plan to BQ or PR or whatever. 
Tigger, I'm gonna use you as an example just because you gave so much info.... 
If Tigger cut his mileage back ( even just to 50 miles per week), but used some big time quality in there, like intervals that were a bit faster, or a good tempo run that was a bit faster, though maybe a bit shorter-- Don't you think the "quality over quantity" would kick in and he would improve at at least the same rate if not faster? I read somewhere (i'll have to find it) that one theory says you can't run a marathon faster on race day than you ran your fastes 26 miles in a week of training. Following that, there should be at least 26 quality miles in the week where the pace averages out to the pace you want on race day. Just a thought......

sistergoldenhair · Dec 25, 2007

I've never heard that theory and am anecdotal evidence against it ... nowhere in my latest marathon prep did I run 26 miles at 8:34 in any given week. 
I consider myself more a consistent student rather than an expert on performance marathoning, so take my perspective for what it's worth. I got within 3 and a half minutes of a BQ the first time I tried, not on high mileage or even with that much quality other than fast finish long runs. For me what did it was upping my mileage from low-mid 40s to mid-50s and introducing some quality workouts. That is still not "high mileage" by marathoners' standards, really, and I did feel very tired and got injured the first time I prepared that way. After recovering my body felt completely different the next training cycle, no fatigue or pains. It was like it learned how to handle the miles. 
The last cycle I actually did little tempo work and more intervals, and paid no attention to tune-up race times or shorter distance times or anything, because my focus and goal was the marathon. I raced a "tune-up" half very poorly 7 weeks out which was a predictor for 3:5x<img alt="mad.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/mad.gif">x and then decided to ignore that result as a less than optimal day. I raced a 5K well for a hot muggy day but my time still didn't put me in BQ vicinity prediction-wise. By the marathon I knew and felt was in shape to do it, though. 
The mental aspect and prep I did was also huge for me during the race, but I don't think it would have done anything had I not been physically trained. 
I do agree with Jim's point about bringing times down at some shorter distances (I would focus on the Half personally with marathon aspirations) and building up to tackle a marathon, but I also think there is a lot of value in experiencing the marathon distance. Even if you aren't fit to BQ, the average runner (not an elite as I know they can train for amazing debuts) can learn so much about the distance and strategy and fueling and just how your body responds by running the 26.2. 
I also want to add that I think there's more than one way to improve marathon times and running pace. Some runners do low heart rate training. Some do performance plans that emphasize quality. Some do high-mileage. I think finding the one that works for your body, and also importantly, is enjoyable -- this is supposed to be fun! <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"> -- is key.

Jim24315 · Dec 25, 2007

Toe Jam, I can’t answer for everyone, but if you ask if I think “that much mileage is necessary…” the quick answer would be yes. However, we are all an experiment of one and have to decide for ourselves what “necessary” means and what we hope to get out of our running. The initial post of this thread assumes, at least from a hypothetical point of view, that one will have to maximize their training to reach their BQ goal. This doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to get enough out of our running to enjoy it without going to that extreme. The quality vs quantity debate has been going on for ages. I know of several runners who have done very well over the years by emphasizing the quantity. For me, and I think for most runners, mileage is more important. I’ve never been a high mileage runner either, btw, but I do know that there is pattern that couldn’t be any clearer that shows I’ve run my fastest races during years when mileage has been highEST. It was that way when I started in my 30’s, again when I made a push during my 40’s, and now that I’m in my 60’s. I didn’t run much at all through my 50’s. For me a year around average of 50 mpw has yielded the best results. Of course that means having several weeks in the 60’s and some a little higher to balance out the inevitible 30’s, 40’s, or less that aren’t always planned. Here is one of my favorite quotes from all-time great miler, Steve Scott: “During my career, the most important aspect of my training regime was strength. You can spend the rest of your life working on speed and make little progress, but if you spend the rest of your running career working on strength, you’ll always continue to improve. Improvements are also achieved by increasing your endurance. What do I mean by strength or endurance? Mileage, Mileage, Mileage! The more miles you can run, the stronger you will be.” That made an impact on me, especially when you consider that he specializes in the mile. I believe that he averaged 80-90 mpw while running all those sub 4’s. If I could go back in time and start over again I would definitely run more miles.

Jim24315 · Dec 25, 2007

Sistergoldenhair, 
I've never heard that one either, about the 26 miles in a week at goal pace. I'm sure that it doesn't mean 26 in one run, but that's still a lot for a week. It's not something I think I'd want to do or could for very long without breaking down. 
Of course there has to be some value in the experience of having run a marathon. What I keep harping against is the practice of running multiple marathons every year. I will always believe that it's not the best way to improve. Personally, I like think one a year is a good number, and once in a while 2. Since so much can go wrong in an event that takes so much planning in advance, I also think it's probably a good idea to have a backup plan in case something goes wrong . For example I am thinking of trying Cal International (CIM) next December, which has had awful weather conditions in some years. If that happens I would opt for "plan B" of doing Rock n Roll in Phoenix that is run 6 weeks after that. Although I am not rich, I have no qualms at all about forfeiting an entry feel if things turn up bad. It's amazing the things people will go through because "I paid for it--I have to run even with this broken leg..." That's a rant for some other time <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"> 
congrats on your 3:44, btw 
edit to add: 
And one more thing--those equivalent times charts assume equal conditions for the distances being compared. Of course you can't give equal weight to a race that was run in hot weather, such as the 5k you mentioned, as you could one that was run on a cool day. When I make such comparisons I try to compare only races I've run on reasonably flat, certified courses. Comparisons become very difficult, if not impossible, otherwise.

roots · Dec 25, 2007

Thanks Toe Jam, for joining the discussion. According the teaching of Jack Daniels in his Daniels Running Formula, is just that. He suggests 'ramping' up the mileage in the very first phase. His idea is that the runner accustoms their body to the volume before introducing the quality phase. From a scientific standpoint, the concept is to introduce one variable at a time. 
The idea is that one 4-6 week phase prepares the runner for the next, and more difficult phase of training. 
An example: 
Phase 1: Build up the base of easy miles, ending with a few weeks at the max mileage for the season. 
Phase 2: Introduce a quality element, such as hills or intervals. 
Phase 3: Longer threshold pace workouts. 
Phase 4: Final sharpening and taper. 
This way, your body is already accustomed to the volume and ready to tackle the faster workouts. 
In this method, I've found that the body is very ready to accomplish the assigned workouts, especially late in the season. Your idea to wait until later in the season to ramp up mileage, IMO, is kind of late in order to realize the benefits of volume. 
As to your concept of running 26 miles in a week at your goal pace, Daniels also set weekly limits on quality. Its somewhere in the range of 10-12% of weekly miles for T-pace running and 8% of weekly miles for I-pace runs. You would have to run 120+ miles per week in order to fall in the range for 26 quality miles per week. This is a formula for breakdown. 
Becca- I know it sounds like we're all coming down on you, but please stay in the discussion. I know how very spirited you are to acheive marathon success. You will do it someday.

roots · Dec 25, 2007

An additional thought: 
Does anyone think like me that the "off the shelf" training programs, such as Advanced Marathoning, or the like, are too difficult for the average runner? I ask because I have seen more than a few marathoners start with this plan, which was likely a plan too difficult, only to sustain an injury and limp into race day. 
I believe that marathon training, especially for us hobby runners, is too individualistic to use a specific template. That's where a coach would help to allow some systematic give or take to the plan in order to help the runner arrive at race day in super shape. 
IMO, people make marathon training too hard for themselves. Marathon success can be achieved with far less quality than many of the "training plans" suggest to do. 
Someone needs to write a "Intermediate Marathoning" book!

tigger · Dec 25, 2007

Well....Yes!! It goes without saying that the "average" runner is stretching it if he attempts to follow an "advanced" program. I've long since lost my sense of "average" with respect to weekly mileage, but I've seen a lot of people try PF 18 wk schedules with a 25 mpw base. They usually struggle when they hit the first week of 40 miles, and with good reason. 
I don't think hobby runners need more individual schedule than others. Quite the opposite! My formula for them (and me) is less specific than for other runners. It consists of daily easy paced runs (with striders) of varying length, preferably on hills, but not necessarily, plus one weekly threshold paced portion of 20 to 45 min, depending on how close it is to race day. Closer means a bit longer threshold run. That's about as "white bread" as you can get it. Leave the speedwork etc for more advanced runners. 
HH has a variety of schedules for runners of different abilities. Trouble is they, like most other schedules are based on xx miles per week. This measure doesn't take into account the runner's inate ability, so you can have a 19 min 5k guy taking 5 hrs to accomplish the same miles as a 28 minute 5k guy does in 8 or 10 hrs. 
I think a big and unrecognized issue facing runners on the cusp is how to manage energy consumption over a lengthy race like a marathon. I may be wrong about this and I'll find out in a few weeks.

Jim24315 · Dec 25, 2007

I think the imporant thing is to understand what the purpose of the various workouts are rather trying to follow something as though it is carved in stone. There's nothing wrong, imo, with taking one of these popular plans and using it as a starting point to get ideas for formulating your own schedule. Fwiw, I've used a coach periodically for a couple years, most often when I've wanted to prepare for a key race or series of races. Even after 29 years of doing this I never assume that there isn't more I can learn. Not only that, but I find that I am more disciplined when working with someone than I am when left to my own devices, and it is great source of motivation to know that you have someone in your corner who is pulling for you to succeed.

sistergoldenhair · Dec 26, 2007

Hmmm ... now who could do something like that? 
I tend to agree about Advanced Marathoning being a lot for the average recreational runner. My coach & I have had success with a modified version of the 55 mpw plan, and by modified I mean slightly less miles and intensity for all but peak weaks. Having a coach was invaluable instead of me trying to follow Pfitz's plan on my own, especially at first. She helped me figure out how to tweak things so I could get in the best condition possible and minimize risk of injury. I definitely did less quality than prescribed and was fortunate to achieve the result I was after. (Again, I have only trained for 5 marathons and completed 4, so I am not "experienced."<img alt="wink.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wink.gif">

PacerChris · Dec 26, 2007

I think I'm dumber than the average bear - I read some of those programs and I don't want to put that much effort into thinking "What should my heart rate be? WHat's my max? etc". Now I've been running a long time (12 years of marathoning) and I can break it up into a few sections: 
years 1-2 - figuring it out, ran some decent times on youth and some basic ability, got into it and ran a barely BQ time 
Years 2-7 - Thought I knew more than I did and got out of shape after qualifying and couldn't get it back...even after training harder than I did before. 
Years 8-9 - Read an article in RT about base training which I've referred to many times (I'll see if I can find it and attach later) and liked the idea of building a big base, minimal speed and THEN going into a training program. I didn't follow it to a T but the concept of base mileage helped me reach a whole new level, well under BQ time. 
Since then - I still think about mostly consistency in training, at least 1 quality workout and a relatively long run every week, and keeping my enthusiasm about running high - I'm reaching levels I never would have thought possible. 
For me - keeping it simple & fun have helped me stay with it and the consistency is what has been key.

willamona · Dec 26, 2007

Advanced Marathoning plans are fine if you actually read the book and follow the instructions. You know, do the things like build a base, and then start training at the proper pace. Peeps now a days skip straight to the plans, run at the wrong pace and wonder why they got hurt. The best one is when they tell you they can't slow down because it hurts them, but I digress. We live in a on-demand society and the goals over time thing seems to go over the heads of a ton of people. If they can't buy it at Wal-mart why bother? Training over a few years for a single goal? Are you mad? Maybe you need another Twinkie. 
Oh, and I am within 2 minutes of a BQ according to my PR. I should have made it that day but shit happens. I will get to it soon enough. No hurries no worries. I just keep being the mileage whore I am. 
26 mile in race pace in one week? Who came up with that? Are they running 260+ mpw?

Boston Qualifying - are you on the edge?

Top Contributors this Month