The Runners Blueprint Blog

I went through a phase where I thought 180 cadence was basically a running law. If my watch showed 164 or 168, I’d start shortening my steps and trying to get that number up because apparently 180 meant good form and anything lower meant I was doing it wrong.

It made some of my easy runs feel ridiculous. My feet were moving faster but the rest of me wasn’t, and I felt like I was doing tiny nervous steps just to make the watch happy. That was probably the point where I should’ve asked the obvious question... what problem am I actually fixing?

Cadence changes with pace. Run faster and it normally goes up. Jog easily and it may drop. Height, stride length, hills, fatigue and your own mechanics matter too, so expecting every runner to magically land on the same number makes very little sense.

Now if somebody is really overstriding, landing way out in front and braking with every step, then yeah, cadence can be useful. A small increase can shorten the stride and clean things up. But that’s very different from taking a runner who feels smooth at 165 and telling them they need 180 because somebody once decided that was the magic number.

I think this is another case where running data went from being useful information to becoming a test we think we have to pass. Cadence can tell you something about your stride, but the number itself isn’t the goal. If nothing is actually wrong, I’m not sure we need to invent a problem just so the Garmin graph looks prettier.

So check your watch because I want actual numbers on this one. What’s your normal easy-run cadence, and have you ever deliberately tried to change it? More importantly, did changing it actually make you run better... or did you just get better at hitting the number?

If you’ve ever wondered whether your cadence is actually too low, why everyone talks about 180 SPM, or when it’s worth changing at all, I broke the whole thing down here:

https://www.runnersblueprint.com/running-cadence/

There is a weird badge of honor in running around how little fuel you can survive on. “I ran 18 miles on water.” “Never touched a gel.” “Did my half fasted.” Okay... but surviving the run and fueling it well are two different things.

For a normal run under an hour, most runners probably don't need to carry carbs around like they're crossing the Sahara. Once the run starts stretching well beyond that, especially past 90 minutes, fueling becomes a different conversation. Something around 30 to 60g of carbs per hour is a useful starting point for many runners, then longer efforts may justify more if your gut has actually been trained for it.

The biggest mistake isn't choosing the wrong gel flavor. It's waiting until you feel empty. Once the legs are disappearing, the brain gets foggy and your pace starts falling apart, you're already trying to rescue the run. Fuel works a lot better as prevention than emergency treatment.

And fuel doesn't automatically mean gels either. Sports drink, chews, bananas, dates, gummy candy, whatever you can carry and your stomach tolerates can work. Gels are popular because they're stupidly convenient, not because your muscles know whether the carbs came from a shiny packet.

I'd also rather see somebody practice 40g an hour and tolerate it beautifully than copy some 90g number from an elite and spend the next two hours looking for a toilet. Your gut needs training too. Long runs are where you figure this stuff out, not race morning.

So long-run people, what are you actually using right now: GELS, REAL FOOD, BOTH, or NOTHING? And tell me roughly how long your long run is, because “nothing for 70 minutes” and “nothing for four hours” are very different flexes.
If your long-run fueling is still mostly “I'll eat something when I feel terrible” 😅 I broke down when to start, how often to fuel, carb options, hydration and gut training here:

https://www.runnersblueprint.com/nutrition-hydration-fueling-your-long-runs/

How do you REALLY prefer to run?
A: Alone. Running is my quiet time
B: With one person who understands silence isn’t awkward
C: Small group, same pace, nobody showing off
D: Big run club. Noise, coffee and chaos
E: Alone... but uploaded immediately so everyone knows I ran 😂
Pick one.
And group runners:
Does running with other people make you better...
or just make you run faster than you were supposed to?
A good group can make long runs easier and keep you accountable.
The wrong group turns easy runs into races and makes slower runners feel like a problem.
The group itself isn’t the answer.
Finding the right one is.
Here’s how to find a group that actually matches your pace, personality and training →
https://www.runnersblueprint.com/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-running-group/

A 37-year-old man runs a 3:00 marathon. A 72-year-old man runs a 4:20 marathon. For Boston 2027, both can say exactly the same thing: I hit my qualifying standard.

And I know the immediate reaction from some runners will be “how is that fair?” But I think raw finish time is the wrong way to look at it. Running 26.2 miles / 42.2 km at 72 is not the same physical proposition as doing it at 37, and Boston has always built age into the standards for a reason.

Still, the gaps are pretty interesting when you actually put them next to each other. Men 35–39 need 3:00. Men 50–54 get 3:20. Men 60–64 get 3:50. By 70–74 it’s 4:20. Women in those same groups go from 3:30 to 4:50.

And before anyone says 4:20 at 70 sounds easy, go find a bunch of 70-year-olds holding 9:55 per mile / 6:10 per km for an entire marathon. I think the number looks very different once you attach an actual human body and 42.2 km to it.

There’s another catch too. A BQ is not automatically a Boston entry. If too many qualified runners apply, being right on the standard may still not be enough. So in reality, a lot of runners are trying to beat these numbers, not simply touch them.

This is where I want the marathon people to argue it out though. **Are Boston’s age-based qualifying times fair… or do the older age groups get too much time?** And if you’ve ever BQ’d, tell me your age, qualifying time and how much you beat the standard by. I put the full 2027 Boston qualifying guide in the first comment.

A lot of runners do this completely backwards. They’ll spend 10 minutes stretching before an easy 4-mile run, then show up to intervals and basically use the first rep as the warm-up.

Easy running usually doesn’t need much ceremony. Start slow for a few minutes, let the legs loosen up, and you’re probably fine. Same with a recovery run. If the whole point is low stress, turning the warm-up into its own workout makes no sense.

But tempo, hills and intervals are different. You’re asking the body to go from normal life to pretty hard running quickly, so 10–20 minutes of easy running plus a few pickups, strides or drills can make a real difference. Rep one shouldn’t be the moment your legs finally wake up.

And then there’s the weird one... the 5K. It’s short, but that’s exactly why it can need MORE warm-up than a marathon. You don’t have 2 or 3 miles to slowly settle in. The gun goes and you’re basically supposed to be ready to race straight away.

A marathon is almost the opposite. You should be starting controlled anyway, and you’ve got 26.2 miles ahead of you. Burning a bunch of energy before the race just because “a proper warm-up is 20 minutes” can be completely unnecessary.

These are starting ranges, not laws. Some runners need longer, older runners often like more time, and cold mornings change things too. But I wanna know what people actually do... before intervals or a 5K, are you properly warmed up before the first hard effort, or is rep one still secretly part of the warm-up?

7:00 per mile sounds like sub-3 marathon pace. It isn't. Hold it perfectly for all 26.2 miles and you still finish around 3:03:32.

That's the part about marathon goals people underestimate. To actually break 3 hours you're closer to 6:52 per mile, around 4:16/km, and now you have to keep doing that for 42.2 km. Not for one good mile. Not for a 10K when you're fresh. The whole thing.

The same math gets interesting further down the chart. 9:00/mile gets you roughly 3:56, so that's knocking on sub-4. But 10:00/mile becomes about 4:22, and 12:00/mile becomes about 5:15. One minute of pace looks small until you multiply it by a marathon.

And this is where goal times can mess with runners. We pick 3:30, 4:00 or 5:00 because the number sounds nice, then work backwards and assume we'll somehow become that runner on race morning. Marathon doesn't really work like that.

I think the better question is whether you've actually earned the pace in training. Can you settle into it without fighting? Can you still hold something close when the legs are tired? Because a pace that feels pretty comfortable at mile 5 can feel like absolute robbery at mile 22.

So forget your dream finish time for a second. What pace could you HONESTLY hold for 26.2 miles / 42.2 km right now, and what finish time would that give you? I'm curious how different that answer is from the time you're actually chasing.

Drop your longest run from the last 4 weeks.
Not your planned long run.
Not the one you “almost finished.”
Not the 18-miler you did three years ago.
The one you actually completed recently.
And add what race you’re training for.
Because runners love comparing long runs without mentioning what they’re actually preparing for.
A 7-mile long run can make perfect sense for one goal.
The exact same 7 miles can leave another runner badly underprepared.
And one heroic Sunday doesn’t fix twelve weak weeks.
I put together the full long-run guide by race goal: how far, how fast, how often, and when going farther starts stealing from the rest of your training →
https://www.runnersblueprint.com/long-run/

A VO₂ max of 40 can look pretty ordinary on one runner and seriously good on another. That’s the part I think gets lost when everyone starts comparing watch numbers like we’re all the same age.

Look at the men’s side. A VO₂ max around 42 sits near the middle for runners in their 30s, but by the 60–69 group, 40.3 is around the 90th percentile. Same number, completely different context.

Women show the same thing. Around 30 is roughly average for women in their 30s, while a woman in her 60s with a VO₂ max of 27 is around the 90th percentile in this dataset. Getting older changes the comparison, even if the watch makes it look like one simple score.

And this is where watches can mess with your head. Garmin drops your VO₂ max from 44 to 42 after a hot week and suddenly you're questioning your entire training block 😂 But that number is still an estimate, and heat, fatigue, heart-rate accuracy, terrain and other stuff can move it around.

I’d use VO₂ max more like a trend than a report card. If it’s gradually improving while your running is improving, nice. If the watch says you're “losing fitness” but you're racing better, recovering well and running stronger, I’m probably trusting the runner before the algorithm.



If you want to understand what your VO₂ max number actually means, what counts as good, and how runners can improve it, I put the full guide here.

https://www.runnersblueprint.com/vo2-max/

Running social media can make a 25-minute 5K feel painfully average. The actual race results tell a very different story.

Across roughly 35 million results, the middle 5K finisher is around 34:37. Run 25:20 and you’re around the top 10%. Get down near 18:40 and you’re talking top 1%. That’s a massive gap between what feels “normal” online and what runners are actually doing at races.

Same thing happens as the distance gets longer. A 1:47 half marathon puts you around the top 10% here, while 1:23:59 is top 1%. For the marathon, roughly 3:31:46 gets you into that top-10% territory and 2:50:48 is around the top 1%.

And no, these numbers aren’t some ranking of who counts as a “real runner.” Course, age, weather, experience and who actually enters the races all matter. But they are useful for one thing... giving you some perspective when Strava has convinced you that everybody except you runs a 19-minute 5K.

Honestly, this is why I like big race datasets more than comparing yourself to whoever happens to show up in your feed. Your 30-minute 5K might not look impressive next to a bunch of club runners posting PBs, but you’re probably a lot further up the field than the internet makes you feel.

Want the bigger breakdown? I went deeper into average race times for the 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon, including age, gender and what these benchmarks actually mean:

https://www.runnersblueprint.com/average-5k-10k-half-marathon-and-marathon-times-by-age-gender/

If your ni***es start bleeding mid-run, do you stop… or just accept the shirt is ruined?