Runners who attend FIRST Retreats and those who write to us want to know if their goals are realistic. They want us to tell them what race times they are capable of running now and what race times they can expect to run in the future. Based on their training times and, in the case of those who have visited our laboratory, their physiological profile, we can give a fairly accurate estimate of their race finish times. However, we don’t have a crystal ball and cannot provide a future prediction with certainty. That’s why you enter races.
There are many variables that determine race performances; not all of them are nicely quantified on a computer printout from a metabolic system. However, the more data from both lab and field tests we have to consider, the better we can help the runner set realistic goals.
In particular, marathon time prediction is difficult. Time prediction for shorter races, from 5Ks to half-marathons, is fairly predictable, assuming that the runner chooses a realistic pace and has prepared appropriately for the distance. Perhaps the allure of the marathon is related to its uncertainty. We love games that go down to the final minute of play with the outcome undetermined. Uncertainty is the element of sport that contributes to its popularity. I believe that the same is true of the marathon. I am seldom, if ever, surprised by the outcome of a 5K, 8K, 10K, 10 mile, or half-marathon race. I know within seconds what I will be able to run. With the marathon, it’s a mystery. Even during the race, whether you are halfway, at 20 or 24 miles, you won’t know what is going to happen next.
There are many variables that affect marathon performance. You battle physical challenges such as maintaining core temperature and fuel stores, muscular fatigue, and orthopedic stress all the way to the finish line. Any one of those factors can undermine great preparation and a good performance over many miles. Changes in environmental conditions, such as temperature, headwinds or humidity, also may spoil your best laid plans.
Marathoners who fail to achieve their goal finish times immediately begin to question their preparation and training. In many cases, their preparation was good and appropriate, but they may have been unlucky because one of the many variables noted above was not right on that day. However, setting an unrealistic finish-time goal that is just a couple of minutes too fast, particularly in the marathon, will lead to a too fast early pace that will undermine good preparation and a great effort.
Why is it that runners are disappointed with race finish times? Often it is not because of a poor performance, but it’s the result of their having set unrealistic goals. For example, a runner who just finished a 10K in 40:30 might be despondent because she had hoped to run under 40:00. It may be that she just ran a superb race. That is, based on her 5K and half-marathon times, her predicted 10K time was 41:00, which means she ran 5 seconds per mile faster than what was predicted. She just had a remarkable performance from what had to be a great effort, but her expectations prevented her from enjoying and appreciating it.
The question is: Why and how did she establish 40:00 as her target finish time for the 10K? Most likely her disappointment is a result of wanting to be a “30 something” 10K runner, just as runners want to be a “3 something” or “2 something” marathoner. If I had been coaching her, I would have told her that based on her recent performances at these other race distances and on her training paces, that running 10 seconds per mile faster than what was predicted was unlikely and trying to do so would likely result in her fading over the last couple of miles. I would have said let’s set three goals for your 10K: (1) 41:15, an acceptable run representing a good effort; (2) under 41:00, a very good performance and faster than predicted; and (3) under 40:45, an outstanding effort and performance.
As it was, she had an outstanding effort and performance, but was disappointed because she did not have a realistic goal. She could have benefited from good coaching advice. That’s why we have placed this important topic so early in this book.
Of course, we want to encourage runners to challenge themselves and identify ambitious goals. However, running too fast early in the race because you chose an overly ambitious, unrealistic goal almost always leads to dire consequences in the second half of the race. You’ll be disheartened when an outstanding performance is unsatisfying because you chose an arbitrary and unrealistic goal.
I find that many of the runners applying to FIRST for coaching have unrealistic goals. At least, they are unrealistic in the short term. They may be able to reach their goals with steady and wise training over a period of two years. Many expect miracles in 16 weeks. These unrealistic goal times result when runners select them arbitrarily, usually round numbers, or in many cases, a qualifying time such as that for the Boston Marathon. The way in which FIRST helps runners set realistic goals is just as valuable as our individually tailored training programs.
How do runners undermine their own performance? Consider this example. A runner with a 5K race finish time of 22:00 has a predicted marathon time of 3:34:05 (using Table 2.1). If the runner sets 3:30 as a goal, he or she will need to run nearly 10 seconds faster per mile than the pace required to run a 3:34:05. Attempting to run 10 seconds per mile faster for 26.2 miles than what your current fitness level indicates will most likely result in a disappointing finish with your questioning what element was missing in your training program. The only thing missing was a realistic goal.
• Use the time from your most recent race (5K, 10K, half-marathon or marathon) to determine a reasonable estimate or target time for one of the other distances (use Table 2.1).
• For marathoners, go to the Boston tables in Chapter 15 and review the criteria that indicate if each qualifying time is realistic for you. Those training times are good predictors of race performance.
• Know when it is wise to redefine your goals in either direction. Be objective about your training progress and apply all of the above criteria, including your ability to attain the target training paces for your key run workouts and races to determine if your goal is realistic.
Q. HOW does the selection of the goal finish time affect your performance?
A. Selecting a goal finish time that’s too ambitious will cause you to run too fast at the start. That fast start will likely result in a slower pace in the latter part of the race and a disappointing finish time.
Q. If my 10K time predicts a 3:13 marathon, is it okay to set 3:10 as my goal?
A. Running 3 minutes faster than your predicted marathon finish time means running 7 seconds faster per mile than the pace that is presumably representative of your current fitness level. For most marathoners, running 7 seconds per mile faster for the entire distance would be challenging and most likely not realistic. Trying to do so could lead to a disappointing finish time.
Q. Would it be reasonable to expect an improvement over a 16- to 18-week training period that would make the 3:10 in the previous question possible?
A. Absolutely, that’s why we train. While there are no guarantees, due to numerous variables (weather, course, personal health, etc.), a good marathon training program can produce that result. We have had runners in our training programs make much bigger improvements. For the purpose of setting a revised goal, don’t assume that improvement has occurred without confirmation from a shorter race or improved training times. In particular, we rely on long run training times to judge a runner’s improvement and his or her potential marathon performance; we use tempo training times to determine a runner’s improvement and his or her potential 5K and 10K goal times. Your improvement will depend on the type of training that you have done in the past.
Q. What distance is the best predictor? What if the 5K and 10K predict different marathon finish times?
A. The distance closest to the planned race distance is going to be the better predictor, assuming that the races were run under similar conditions. That is, a 10K is a better predictor of your marathon finish time than a 5K race finish time and a half-marathon finish time will be a better marathon predictor than the 10K time.
If your 5K predicts a faster marathon time than what you are able to run, it is an indication that you have more speed than endurance and you need to concentrate on your longer runs. Conversely, if your marathon finish time predicts a faster 5K time than you are able to run, then you need to work on speed and leg turnover.
Q. Are the prediction tables accurate for everyone?
A. Individuals differ in their abilities. Some runners have more speed than endurance and vice versa. For some runners their 5K finish times will predict a faster marathon than what they can run, while for others, their marathon times are faster than what their 5K times predict.
Q. Are there differences in the tables for men and women?
A. Generally, women will run faster for longer distances and men faster for shorter distances. That is, if you have a male and a female with the same 5K time, the female will likely run a faster marathon than the male. Conversely, if you have a male and a female with the same marathon time, the male will likely run a faster 5K than the female. From reviewing race results and single-age world records, we have found that older women (55 and older) tend to slow at an accelerated rate as compared to that for men. Is this inherent for females or is it a matter of culture? Will these race results and records change as more women with a longer history of competing become older?
Q. Does age make a difference in the prediction tables?
A. Aging runners usually have more endurance than speed. If a 55-year-old runner and 20-year-old runner have the same 5K time, it is likely that the 55-year-old would run the faster half- or full marathon. Conversely, if the 55-year-old and the 20-year-old had the same marathon time, the 20-year-old would likely have a faster 5K time. Older runners tend to be more economical and younger runners have more speed.
Q. How does the course profile affect the goal finish time?
A. The fastest road racing times in the world at all distances have been set on flat courses with few turns (Berlin, Rotterdam, Chicago). Hills, turns, rough or uneven surfaces all tend to slow the pace. While many runners will say that a flat course is boring and that they welcome a change to the repetitive, concentrated muscular contractions, there is a time cost for those changes. There are no clear measures to determine the time cost of specific elevation changes. Rolling hills may make the course more interesting and fun to run; they will not contribute to a faster finish time. Often, there are Web site forums where veteran runners of a race will estimate what the time difference is for a specific race course as compared to that for a flat course. Those postings by past participants in the race usually provide more helpful and accurate descriptions of a race course and its difficulty than the race’s Web site.
Q. Does my predicted finish time from the tables assume that there will be some elevation changes in the race?
A. Assume that the finish time prediction is valid if the race that you are using to predict your finish time at another distance is similar in terrain to that race. That is, if you ran a hilly 5K and you are using that race time to predict your half-marathon time on a hilly course, it is likely to be a reasonable predictor. However, if you ran a perfectly flat 10K and are using that time to predict your finish time on a hilly marathon course, then you should add time to that prediction to compensate for the additional time required for running the hills, depending on the length and steepness.
Q. How do environmental conditions influence goal finish time?
A. Ideal racing temperatures for most runners range from 40 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 16 degrees Celsius). A general estimate is that for every degree above 60 degrees F you will slow by 1 second per mile in the marathon. Of course, there are wide individual variations based on sweat rates and body size. Smaller runners, who are able to dissipate heat better than larger runners, have the advantage in the heat, but are disadvantaged in colder temperatures. The extra energy cost of maintaining body temperature depends on the length of the race and one’s body size. Even light winds on a cool day (less than 60 degrees F or 15 degrees C) can increase demands on the body for maintaining normal body temperature. Needless to say, having a race day with the ideal temperature, humidity, and winds is a rare treat for the runner. Look what those once-in-a-century ideal conditions produced at the 2011 Boston Marathon. Unpredictable environmental conditions are just one additional factor that makes determining realistic goals a challenge. Do not fool yourself by thinking that you will defy environmental conditions and their effects on physiology; you won’t.
Q. As I get older my race times are slower. Is there a way to determine comparable times at my present age to those that I ran when I was younger?
A. Yes, World Masters Athletics (WMA) has developed tables that adjust performances for aging. The age-graded factors and standards were developed based on the world records for that single year age. Look at the results from the St. George Marathon and you will see not only runners’ finish clock times and chip times, but also their age-graded percentage. This percentage represents a comparison of an individual’s performance to the world record performance by a runner of that age. By using this method, runners can compare their performances, or percentages, to other runners or to their own performances at a younger age. It is a method for aging runners to set realistic goals.
For example, a 50-year-old female with a marathon time of 3:55 can go to Appendix C (Road Age Factors WMA 2010) and convert that 3:55 to an equivalent time for a marathon run at prime marathon age (21-29) for females by multiplying her 3:55 (235 minutes) by the 0.8420 factor for 50-year-old female marathoners. That produces a 3:17:52 age-adjusted performance time.
Some races have begun to provide age-graded performance standards. What this means is that finish times are adjusted for the assumed performance decrement (percentage of increase in race time) based on age. Some races even present awards based on age-adjusted performance times. Younger runners no doubt see this method of adjusting times as noncompetitive, while older runners see it as eminently fair!
Q. How do I determine my age-graded performance level percentage?
A. Use the Road Age Standards WMA 2010 in Appendix B to find your age-graded standard and then divide the standard by your race time. For example, a 60-year-old male with a 5K time of 20:00 would divide the standard of 16:02 for a 60-year-old male by 20:00. The result (962 seconds/1200 seconds) would be 80.2 percent. That percentage could be compared to the age-graded percentages of performances run at earlier ages or with other runners of different ages.
Q. How do I convert my current race time to an equivalent race time at an earlier age?
A. Use Road Age Factors WMA 2010 in Appendix C for males to find your age factor. Multiply that age factor by your current race time to determine your equivalent race time at your prime-age time. For example, that 60-year-old male whose time is 20:00 for the 5K would multiply that 20:00 by the age factor of .8043 and see that his 20:00 5K at age 60 is equivalent to a 16:05 at prime 5K performance age for males, which is the 22- to 28-year old age group.
Q. What is the prime performance age?
A. You can see in Road Age Factors WMA 2010 in Appendix C that the prime age for running performances varies for males and females, as well as varying for the different distances. The age-adjusted times are based on world records for a single age. Males tend to run world-class times at an older age than females. Male runners also perform at their prime at an older age for longer distances. There are no adjustments in finish times for male marathoners until age 36, but 5K and 10K runners have finish times adjusted for age beginning at 29 and half-marathoners at age 32. Females begin receiving age adjustments for all distances beginning at around age 30.
In the seminal book The Lore of Running, Tim Noakes, MD, claims that the best predictor of running performance at any distance is a running time test, rather than a laboratory assessment of physiological measures. Marathoners can utilize various prediction formulas based on their race times at shorter distances. Numerous prediction tables for distances from 800 meters to ultramarathons exist. All of these tables assume appropriate race-specific training on the part of the runner. The table at the end of this chapter (Table 2.1) provides comparable race times for four popular race distances. These equivalent performances were developed by calculating race finish times as percentages of the world records.
Running authors Bob Glover and Pete Schuder cautioned that if marathon runners are more than 2 minutes faster than their target half-marathon split, then they have blown their marathon and will suffer for it over the last few miles. Marathoners commonly refer to a dramatic slowing of pace in the marathon as “hitting the wall.” Speculations about the causes of hitting the wall include a variety of physiological explanations. Through marathon preparation and proper nutrition, you can increase your muscle’s glycogen stores to high levels. My coauthor Ray Moss reminds runners that the amount of glycogen you have stored is all that the muscles have available to use throughout the race. Improper pacing will deplete glycogen stores and you’ll hit the wall before you finish the marathon. David Costill, noted exercise physiologist and running researcher, stated that hitting the wall is simply a matter of poor pacing. It should be noted that Stephen Seiler, an exercise scientist at the Institute for Sport at Agder College in Norway, explains that “An early misuse of pace results in a lactic acid accumulation that cannot be eliminated without a subsequent decrease in speed.” Furthermore, he reported that for each second gained by going under optimal pace in the first half of a race, 2 seconds are lost in the second half due to premature fatigue.
No matter how strongly we advocate not running the first half of the race too fast, most runners fail to follow that advice. There are good reasons for their failure: (1) the excitement of race day causes the adrenaline to flow and that exuberance causes the runner to lose the ability to judge pacing, (2) having runners surround you at the start of the race also distorts pacing, that is, you are just running with the crowd so it doesn’t feel too fast, (3) when you are rested from your prerace taper, your target pace feels easier in the early part of the race than in training, and (4) for reasons 1, 2, and 3 you get the sense that this is my day and you begin mentally revising your goal finish time downward. However, during the second half you begin to feel fatigued because you have withdrawn your stored energy in the muscle cells too rapidly and you begin mile after mile revising your goal finish time upward. Your marathoning experience will be much more satisfying and pleasant if you have a strong finish than if you fade over the last few miles, even if you were to achieve the same finish time in the two different scenarios.
We have analyzed tens of thousands of race finish times and found that only about 2 percent of runners run the second half of the race in the same time as the first half. Run the first half too fast and you slow down at a much faster rate in the second half. Run the first half too slowly and you can’t make up the time in the second half. We strongly believe that running even splits is a desirable goal and a realistic one for 5Ks, 10Ks, and half-marathons. It is far more difficult to maintain a constant pace over 26.2 miles. For the marathon, you should strive to keep the time disparity between the two halves less than 2 minutes, but a disparity of 5 minutes is common and can still produce a successful marathon. For example, 1:32 for the first half and around 1:35-1:37 for the second half. When the disparity between the two halves becomes greater than 5 minutes, the marathoner has failed to achieve the near-optimal finish time and reach her or his potential.
While the FIRST training programs were designed and have been effective for runners of all ages, they have been particularly popular with older runners. As runners age they need more recovery and that typically leads to reduced training volume. Much research is being conducted on older runners. Whether the research is focused on mental or physical functioning, the results are clear that the key to good health and performance is to stay active and to do so consistently, so as to stave off the deterioration that we once thought inevitable. Let me be clear that running performance will decline with aging, save for those who begin running late in life. However, the performance reductions predicted in the literature are being defied by a generation of runners who have maintained their intense training for decades.
Aging runners rarely escape without injury. As connective tissue becomes less supple and more susceptible to injury, tendinitis from inflammation is a common occurrence. After an injury that might sideline the older runner for weeks or months, fitness is lost and the attempt to regain it too fast leads to another injury and a vicious cycle of injury and recovery develops. This can lead to a more serious injury or a loss of motivation, both of which can lead to one’s becoming a former runner. That status contributes to weight gain and accompanying medical conditions associated with being sedentary. It’s important to find a way through treatment and rehabilitation of an injury to maintain your fitness.
As runners’ times begin to slow, there may be a loss of motivation to train intensely. Dr. Hirofumi Tanaka, an exercise physiologist at the University of Texas, in a New York Times article about aging recommended training intensely to improve oxygen consumption. In the same Times article by Gina Kolata, Dr. Steven Hawkins, an exercise physiologist at the University of Southern California, said that when you have to choose between hard and often, choose hard. He added that “high performance is really determined more by intensity than volume. Sometimes when you’re older, something has to give. You can’t have both so you have to cut back on the volume. You need more rest days.” These two exercise physiologists’ advice echo the philosophy central to the FIRST training program.
Training consistently is the key for aging runners because it is much easier to maintain fitness than to get fit as you age. While the times on the watch may represent slower performances, it is the intensity of the effort that matters. Yes, performances will decline, but serious training will reduce these inevitable decrements by 50 percent or more. Runners who continue to train seriously will typically experience racing decrements less than 1 percent per year from their late thirties to mid-forties. The slower performance times will most likely occur sooner in the shorter races—5K to 10K—than in the longer races. Marathoners can still run their best times in their late 30s and early 40s. For runners who sustain their training, performance losses in the 0.5 percent to 1 percent range can be expected from the mid-forties to mid-fifties. The slowing of performance times accelerates after age 55 with annual performance decrements ranging from 1 percent to 2.5 percent.
Bob Dylan had it right—“the times they are a-changin’.” We suspect that the aging literature about runners will be completely rewritten as the baby boomers march into old age. FIRST is proud that its programs have enabled runners in their sixties, seventies, and eighties, whose old ways of training had led to slower times and a loss of motivation, to report a renewed excitement with their training along with improved age-group times. The masters age-adjusted tables in Appendices B and C provide age-adjusted times so that older runners can determine their running times’ equivalences to those run at a younger age. These tables can be valuable in helping to set realistic goals.
Race Prediction Table (Equivalent Performances)
Use the table to determine comparable performance times for four popular racing distances. The comparability assumes that you are properly trained for that distance.
Dear all,
I wish to congratulate you on your great training plans. I have read your book Run Less, Run Faster and was convinced that this is the thing I was looking for. For years, I have failed to run a marathon below 3 hours since my first attempt in Berlin 2004 (3:02:11) until my last in Hamburg in April 2008 (3:00:59). I have started training with your plans 5 weeks ago and must admit that the key runs are harder than everything I did before, but I feel more relaxed overall, mainly by replacing junk miles with cycling. I feel improvements week after week and I am really looking forward to the target race (Essen Marathon) this spring. I will keep you guys posted on the result, of course! Anyway, when asked for a club I am running for I always fill in FIRST now.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Thomas Alder
Operations General Manager, Biolitec
Bonn, Germany
FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE:
Bill, Scott -
I am pleased to inform you that I have finished the Essen Marathon in 2:58 on Sunday thanks to your great training schedules. This was my fifth try to break through the 3:00 wall having worked with different programs since the Berlin Marathon in 2004. As I avoided to take any risk to not finish in sub-3 but keeping my heart rate low, I am strongly convinced that I could have finished in an even faster time (my average heart rate during the race was 156).