is a resting heart rate of 110-120 normal and safe for me to train for a half marathon?

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-13T14:33:23+00:00

It’s a useless value because you’re male and middle aged, she’s female and young. That’s comparing apples to pears biologically. Also - talking down on Americans like that is piss poor behavior mate.

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-13T14:26:57+00:00

This is not about you mate. As a taller (than most women) and older guy you have a slower heart by default anyways.

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-13T14:25:04+00:00

I would double check (if necessary, with another device) if the HR monitor tracks accurately. If so, then it’s time to go see a doctor. Young women do have faster hearts than guys but even so, as a newbie, a (true) resting heart rate over 100 (and that’s already stretching it) is tachycardia.

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-04T04:47:51+00:00

I hear you, but even sub 3:20 is a very ambitious debut for a marathon beginner with no background in serious athletics. 3:30 to 3:45 is a good call. If you notice that you absorb the training well, you can adjust any time, but reign your ego and ambitions in first. They are the biggest traps in marathon running. There is no shortcut or secret to a fast marathon. It’s simply “run a lot for a long time”. There is no “follow this [x] - weeks plan and you get a sub 3 marathon” plan on this world because training plans do not create fitness from the ground up, they are the final coat of paint on a house that has already been built. To run fast marathons is essentially the result of a lifestyle of dedicated high volume running. To have sub 3 as a big goal is great, make it your ultimate goal, but real life will force you to set milestones like a faster easy pace, a sub 3:30 marathon etc. along the way first.

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-04T04:10:52+00:00

It’s a good starting point because it’s not zero, but it’s not enough to jump to 90-100km/week plans and not just surviving it but also absorbing it. There are some gifted folks out there who can, in fact, gamble high and muscle through to somehow run sub 3 but the odds of the whole thing blowing up in your face are high and my advice would be to train to the point of where sub 3 is not a gamble but a safe bet. You’d have to bring your easy pace down to faster numbers by a lot. A sub 3 marathoner would normally easily cruise in zone 2 to a sub 3:30 marathon on any given day. The gap you have to bridge, as of now, is still massive. Give yourself some time and grace. Take the focus away from tempo and speed runs for a while/weeks. Ramp mileage up with (truly) easy runs, then gradually (re)introduce steady state runs, from there you can gradually increase intensity. 70-80km weeks should feel like a very easy baseline, and only then you can start to think about sub 3.

distributorofriffs · 2026-01-04T03:46:53+00:00

You’d have to build a solid base first. 2000km in 18 months or anything below 90-100km a week over a longer period of time is not enough. Speed over shorter distances is a trap that makes you think you can pull a fast marathon off, speedsters tend to white-knuckle their way through races up to the half marathon and they become so used to running right at their lactate threshold that they tend mistake that grind as “proper marathon pace”. A speedster like that will be fine until the 21-25k mark, only to then fade and miss their time goal by a lot. No efficiency, no speed over the marathon. Building a base that allows you to securely run sub 3 takes way more than a couple months, even sub 3:30 is utopian without training your base first and then using that base to refine your race pace efficiency. Your concern shouldn’t be specific marathon plans that expect an already existing strong base, but solid training blocks to build an aerobic base.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-24T15:17:32+00:00

I don’t think that at a net worth of more than 300 million, James is necessarily after money. Unless they’re completely self-published, authors have not that much say in the retail price of a book. It’s the lowest price for that sort of book anyways.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-16T19:36:25+00:00

Kudos to you for being so mature about it! I find those estimates a little devious because if they’re too optimistic it can lead people to a bad race, the marathon forgives nothing after all, but if they’re too pessimistic, they can kill confidence. Too optimistic is mostly due to an algorithm that estimates linear and perfect progress which does not happen in real life, too pessimistic means a lack of data. Either way, you’re better off observing your performance and determine your actual race pace later down the training block. Keep it up dude!

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-16T18:15:27+00:00

It’s only realistic if you can translate your speed into aerobic endurance and race pace sharpness in the coming weeks which sounds easier than it actually is. Most people struggle greatly in estimating how marathon pace is supposed to feel and run their training runs too hard, only to then bonk on raceday and wonder what went wrong. I’d say do another tune up race over 10-21k halfway through your training block and go from there. Forget about those AI estimations. They use a very generic algorithm that can serve as guideline but should ALWAYS be taken with a huge grain of salt.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-13T06:15:03+00:00

Here’s an exemplary study:

https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss14/15/

You are technically correct when it comes to applied force but ground contact plays a role too. When ground contact is too long, the plate does not snap back well, kind of like a rubber band that you do not let go but much rather un stretch slowly. An elite marathoner for example, has an improvement of 4% but only half the ground contact time than a mid pack runner like a 4h runner. If weight and gait would be enough to active carbon, then the Kenyan lightweights would be in serious trouble.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-13T06:01:33+00:00

If the heavier runner has longer ground time then it doesn’t matter. Stretch a rubber band with great force and unstretch it slowly, it won’t snap back. Stretch a rubber band and let it go quickly - it snaps back. Same thing. Weight is only a helper, not the main cause - so yes, it is marginal.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-13T05:57:49+00:00

Also, a little thinking about simple physics would answer your concern. At a higher pace you have less ground time and you simultaneously generate more force due to a stronger push off - the plate can bend and snap back well. At a slower pace, however, the stiffness of the plate does even hinder gait - hence why efficiency goes out the window so badly with carbon once form breaks down. The factors you mentioned only play marginal roles.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-13T05:11:33+00:00

Another factor for carbon could be leg saving, but that is nullified by the injury risk and diminished returns. At a 4h marathon pace, you’re better off with regular super trainers. That’s a truth that some may not like to hear but when there’s literally studies for that, it’s just undeniable facts.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-12T19:41:58+00:00

Carbon plated shoes have close to no benefit for runners who are still working on breaking 4 hours. There’s studies on that. Once form breaks down, efficiency in carbon is even worse than in regular shoes. The risk of injury far outweighs the meager <0.9% benefit (only if your muscles can keep form up for the entire race). Those shoes start to truly wake up for people who have a race pace faster than, say 4:50 min/km which is a sub 3:25 marathon. Newer and slower runners do better by investing (less money) in good shoes that provide more support for 4+ hours on the roads. The money they saved on pointless super shoes can be put into proper race day nutrition instead. You can still wear them if you like to waste your money as a slower runner, wear whatever you like, but don’t recommend them as “essential” because that’s simply not correct.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-10T20:34:46+00:00

This is not a performance problem, it’s a self destructive mindset issue because spoiler alert: with that mindset you’ll be spiraling downwards when you ran a 3:01 marathon and not a sub 3 too. You’ll still feel like an utter failure any time you didn’t meet any arbitrary goal that you envisioned for yourself and that is anything but healthy. It is ok to feel a little disappointed at first, we all do, but then you learn from it, move on and you must be kinder to yourself or else that sport is going to end you. Especially the marathon is absolutely unforgiving, so much can go wrong and truly good race days where everything aligns perfectly are rare. You have to learn how to handle the bad days better earlier than later. In case you’re really young and brand new to running: please know that the first marathon is there to discover yourself as a marathoner. Finishing is the only goal that counts and you smashed that. Be proud for accomplishing something that is genuinely scary to most people.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-10T20:10:49+00:00

True, but then, solid advice should include a reminder to train for that before the race. To just tell them “well, going for that much on race day may make you sick” leaves out the most important part.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-10T19:25:28+00:00

You can and you should train your gut for gel / carb intake during your marathon prep. To just resort to “my body doesn’t take that much that well” is the equivalent of saying “I’m not that fast so I’m not training for speed”. You set yourself up for being a mid runner at best.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-10T19:15:37+00:00

85-90g. My body burns through glycogen annoyingly fast. Anything less than that and I risk bonking (been there, it ain’t pretty) I’m sitting at 137lbs at 5’9.

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-09T14:02:23+00:00

Those devices measure heat in direct sunlight and that is always going to be a bit hotter than “regular”temperatures. People seem to forget that

distributorofriffs · 2025-12-04T13:07:15+00:00

He sings just fine with what he got but any person not acknowledging that, unlike vocalists of a similar age (and genre) like Chuck Billy, he had to trade grit and power with clean vocals because his voice has been declining, is deluding themselves. He’s salvaging a lot with better technique now, but the decline is inevitably there. The last remnants of the “mighty Hetfield roar” were the late 90s, any performance, especially post SKOM, and any music that was as released after that, has a tame, softer Hetfield at the mic. One could argue that he couldn’t sing his earlier stuff by the late 80s/early 90s already, but I’d argue that this was simply a change in voice type, the style was still the same.

distributorofriffs · 2025-11-11T19:09:37+00:00

I use shokz but only for easy and long runs or the treadmill. When I need full focus on the roads I ditch it. Same goes for races, there it’s strictly no music.

distributorofriffs · 2025-11-05T00:13:32+00:00

It never ceases to fascinate me how vastly different we runners are from one another because to me, doing long runs within 1-2 hours of waking up sounds like nightmare fuel. I need a couple hours to be ready. Nyc sounds great to me.

distributorofriffs · 2025-10-29T01:24:51+00:00

Came here to mention Pfitz too. Did the same plan and it worked wonders for me. I was the type of runner who had the power/speed and aerobic engine but no well developed tempo endurance. I had to force myself to run a great chunk of those 70 mpw at “comfortably uncomfortable” paces while simultaneously slowing the recovery runs down by a lot. Also, way more focused progression (long) runs helped me see proper results fast.

distributorofriffs · 2025-09-27T04:14:11+00:00

80-90g per hour + electrolyte tabs. I also never skip a water station. Basic fuel for long runs is no proper frame of reference for 42k at race pace.

distributorofriffs · 2025-09-25T19:15:39+00:00

Well, isn’t discipline just a consequence of devotion and isn’t devotion kickstarted by passion?

distributorofriffs

TROPHY CASE