So much good info here. I’m around a 2:00 marathon- PR is 1:56 but the majority of my past races have been 2:00-2:10 depending on then-current fitness. I’m thinking my goal for the full will be under 4:30 IF training goes reasonably well.
That makes a significant difference to the math.
Could you beat either a 26:05 5k or 54:23 10k at your current fitness level?
These are the suggested training paces based on my calculator. So circling back on the Higdon Novice 2 plan calculations, you're looking at:
With a suggested LR pace of 10:24 min/mile, the weekends would be something like 2:30-3:30 hrs (14-20 miles). The Tuesdays/Thursdays would be around 54 min. The Wednesdays would be 45-75 min. At the peak (Week 15) it would be around 6:15 hrs of running (55+45+55+3:30), and the week prior would be around 5:15 hrs (55+1:15+55+2:05).
I think a goal of a sub-4:30 is reasonable under similar conditions to your ability to run a 2:00 HM. But the Disney M can be notoriously all over the place in terms of weather. Some years it can be near 30-40s F and other years 70-80F. So that'll play a role for sure. According to Williams and Vickers real world race equivalency conversion data, a runner capable of a 2:00 HM has:
6% of runners will run a M in 4:10 or less
10% of runners will run a M in 4:12 or less
25% of runners will run a M in 4:17 or less
50% of runners will run a M in 4:27 or less
75% of runners will run a M in 4:35 or less
Based on the time you're running for in peak training (6.25 hrs), and the LR encompassing about 56% of the total weekly duration, I think something in the 4:27-4:35 range (50-75% of runners who can do a 2:00 HM). I think that if you could do some running on Saturday and Sunday (so five days per week, but even if that was only on peak weeks and you did four days per week on non-peak weeks) you could move into the 4:17-4:27 range. Something like 90 min on Saturday + 150 min on Sunday, which totals 4 hrs on the weekend instead of a single peak of 3:30hrs in a single run, making the peak 6:45 hrs for the week and LR encompasses 37% of weekly duration. According to Vickers and Williams data set would likely yield a better conversion.
For completeness since you gave a range of fitness, a person capable of a 2:10 HM would look like:
6% of runners will run a M in 4:31 or less
10% of runners will run a M in 4:33 or less
25% of runners will run a M in 4:39 or less
50% of runners will run a M in 4:48 or less
75% of runners will run a M in 4:56 or less
So there's a relatively large difference in predicted M times when comparing a 2:00 HM runner vs a 2:10 HM runner. If you're closer to a 2:10 HM fitness level, then a 4:30 is almost impossible. If you're a 2:00 HM runner, then about 65% of runners are capable of a sub-4:30 at that fitness level. So still not a guarantee, but more likely.
This is my previous post I'm referencing about Williams and Vickers data set if you want to read more (
link).
Thinking about your response, it’s more about getting out the door for the weekday runs (3 kids, work, general chaos of life). Once I’m out, anything under an hour is pretty manageable so I don’t think it’s as much about the monotony of the plan/miles, more about the challenge of the commitment. In my past training I’ve always been able to commit to long runs pretty consistently, but I know missing weekday runs is what’s left me short.
That makes sense. It's hard to carve out that time when we've got so many other commitments in life. Based on your fitness level, it looks like even at your peak you'll still be under 60 min on a consistent basis. You're totally correct that it's the totality of the plan that matters more than any single run. So we tend to get hung up on the long run and can be more dismissive of those weekday runs as of lesser importance. They all play a pivotal role in the big picture of building fitness. Try to find ways to make it something you just normally do as part of your normal routine. Try and find ways to make running not something you
have to do, but that you
get to do. A privilege more than an obligation. But trust me, it's easier said than done sometimes.
I know the Galloway plans are usually only 2 short weekday runs. I’ve done half cycles with that approach and finished, but those were not my best race experiences. Do you think there is a way to do as little weekday running as he Galloway plans and still feel well-trained?
I think being properly prepared for running well relative to your fitness level during a marathon on three days per week with two weekday runs in the 30 min range is going to be almost impossible. I think it goes back to a definition of running "well". Because someone could do Galloway and do the race much slower than they're capable of on a different plan, but run it "well" because they take the race nice and easy. So their conversion wouldn't be great, but they could feel alright doing the actual race with proper conservative pacing. But if you define "well" as achieving a certain time relative to your current fitness level, then I think most would struggle to convert well on Galloway's plan versus a different plan. I think Galloway's 3-day a week marathon plan is best for a completion mindset, and less useful when you're striving for a certain performance level relative to your own fitness level.
That explanation is specific to the Galloway 3-day a week marathon plan, and not specific to run/walk in any way. Runners can be a good converter using run/walk, but it almost always takes more than 3-days per week and there tends to be more balance in the plan (lesser LR and more days per week).
From my own personal data,
-I did three days per week training (including Galloway and FIRST) from 2012-2015 and ran marathons in 4:50, 4:35, 4:20, 4:27, and 4:58.
-I did six days per week training (including Hansons and Daniels) from 2015-2018 and ran marathons in 3:38, 3:55, 3:28, 3:23, 3:20, 3:14, and 3:15.
-I did four days per week running + four days per week cycling + 3 days per week dumbbell workouts from 2018-2021 and ran marathons in 3:41, 3:35 and 3:29 (and I was doing as much as 20 hrs of total training per week).
-I returned to six days of running per week in 2021 and ran a 3:15.
I could run a HM really well with run+cycle+strength (PR of 1:28), but I could never get my marathon performances on the reduced running volume to be as good. My conversion off the 1:28 HM to the 3:41 M, 3:35 M, and 3:29 M respectively were essentially 100% (meaning almost everyone capable of 1:28 was capable of better than a 3:41 M), 98%, and 91%. So relatively speaking those marathon times were pretty poor compared to my HM time. Even my 3:15 last November is still a 45% of runners could do it when being able to do a 1:28 HM. The marathon is still the one distance I haven't personally cracked which is what keeps me coming back to it. That's not to be dismissive of the tremendous progress I've made since I started nearly 10 years ago. The purpose of the above personal data was to show my own experience when comparing times I was doing less days per week to more days per week (sometimes including a massive amount of cross training as well).
: 
).
Nope nope nope. (He probably will, but still...)
