Any F.I.R.S.T. folks out there?

That is incorrect, going faster does not help.

According to Daniels, once you achieve 100% VO2 Max and train at that percentage, there is nothing to be gained by going faster either aerobically or anaerobically.  It take anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes to get to your VO2 max when doing intervals and then the time after that goes towards maintaining that level and working on the system.  So for example in your 3:14 set interval pace, you would spend the first two minutes getting up to the max and then run the rest of the time at that level, so you get 1:14 in the bank.  By going FASTER, you are actually putting less time into the interval and would gain less from the effort than if you stayed right on pace and put in the correct time.  The "ideal" interval time according to Daniels is 5 minutes.  For most runners that would be a 1,000 - 1,200.  Fast runners that might be a 1,600.

Now, the question is, how did you establish your interval time???  Is it simply based on a formula of wanting to pace a 3:30 and they extrapolate your splits for various paces from there, or is it based on actual performance in an event (like the McMillan calculator).

If it is based on a "prescribed" pace from a chart based on hopeful pacing, then it is completely hit or miss as to what your pace should be.  It may simply be that your interval pace is wrong, and that it should be faster.

If he should really be running 3:05 800's based on his VDot/VO2 max levels, then yes, running that speed makes sense.  But if his VO2 max is actually attained at 3:15 pace, then he is actually detracting from his interval work.

Example:  If you hit your VO2 max at 185 bpm and you go really hard in your interval, say 192 or so and finish :10 faster you have done nothing for pushing your VO2 levels.  At 185 you are taking in as much oxygen as physically possible.  All you have done is decreased the amount of time that you are at that max level.  But you HAVE now increased the recovery time needed to run another interval at the same pace.  And the chances of being able to repeat all 6 of them at the same pace diminishes. BUT ....... if you stay at 185 and take that extra few seconds to complete the interval you have now allowed your body to tax your VO2 max for longer and given it the opportunity to adapt and grow more.

The purpose of interval training is NOT to complete each one faster or as fast as possible.  It is to allow training adaptation to take place.  This is why you want to really understand the pace that you should be running so that you can get the maximum benefit from the least amount of effort.  Obviously intervals are never going to be easy, but it is counter-productive to push yourself BEYOND the needed limit because you do not give yourself the opportunity to reap the most benefit from it.

I still go back to the fact that he most likely has the wrong pace zone to work with.  If he continuously can average 3:05 across the board with the same rest interval, then the 3:14 is probably wrong.

Track paces are important, because they will affect how well you run the other training runs.

If you run too hard, then you risk bringing down the other workouts.  With the FIRST program, you need to hit all the workouts to see the success; the limited number can be a detriment in this resepect.

Yes, you need to run faster to get faster.  But running too fast doesn't do much for you, other than break you down and beat you up, this affecting your other training.

To paraphrase Dr. Daniels here:  If you want to train faster, prove you're ready by racing faster.

The part about putting less time into the interval makes sense, but I don't know how Daniels and Furman align or don't align in their theories. I'd rather not mix and match philosophies at this point. I'd like to get input from experienced Furmanites.

It's a combination of the two. I want to BQ, my past performance on shorter races indicates I am close, my actual marathon performance does not. So, I'm trying something different. Based on the 3:30 goal time I used the Furman pace calculator tool to arrive at the various pace times for the key runs.

I will say that hitting a 20 miler on week 4 was interesting. This plan has me doing 5 20 mile runs in total. The second was easier than the first ,and was 15 seconds per mile faster (and was not in the hills of NH while on vacation!!!) so it looks like I am improving. We'll see how it all works out

I also wonder about my own physiology and ability to run shorter/faster, longer/slower..if that makes sense. The whole equivalent performance thing. It may be that while I'm no sprinter I'm better suited for shoter distances and that MacMillan's equivalent performance doesn't quite fit. FWIW, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I did note that the Furman paces were different than the MacMillan paces.

What else have you tried?

Regardless of the training philosophy, the physiological aspect remains.  The purpose of interval work is to push your VO2 max.  If you are not hitting your VO2 max with intervals that are slower than you need, or if you are going too fast and not gaining the benefit of doing them that at the prescribed duration, you are going to be short-changing yourself on both accounts.

As Scout mentioned, your pace on the track combined with the type of workout makes a big difference in the results garnered.

Higdon, twice. But only once with a BQ goal. I actually think I would have made it but I didn't run the race I planned.  I ate more/later than I had planned the night before ( and got a CB @ mile 15) and I decided race morning to use a pace team. They guy went out way too fast and I went with him. I am well aware that I have an agressive goal to BQ on my 2nd and now 3rd marathon given that my first was 4:10:04. I did improve by almost 15 minutes last year with 3:55:49

Gotcha.

Tough to say specifically what FIRST will do for you.

But based on this, and your previous comment about shorter distances showing a faster predicted finish than what you've got so far, I'd say that endurance is more the issue.  If it were the other way around, I'd say it's more a speed issue.

I used the First to Finish 16 week training plan for my last marathon- Bayshore Marathon in May.  That was my first time using the plan and I really loved it- I got pretty fast and felt strong with almost all my runs.

I did find that my training paces were realistic in the beginning.  However, as my training progressed I gain a lot of speed and ended up running all my longs and intervals faster than prescribed.  But it felt easy and right so I didn't think it was a problem- I thought it was better that I run faster.

I actually ended up peaking about a month too soon- oops.  Not sure if that had anything to do with running too fast or what.  But...even though I hit all my goal times in training or did better, I wasn't able to hit my goal for my marathon   Talk about disappointing!

I plan to use the same plan again, this time sticking with the prescribed paces in hope that I can hit my goal time at the Houston Marathon and see how that works.

So- I guess after all my rambling, I'm not really sure what to advise you to do, because I had the same problem as you in training and I'm still trying to figure it all out.  But I thought I'd share my experience with the plan.

I'm hoping the 5 20 milers will help with endurance

As a reference, I did a half late Sept last year before the full in Nov. Finished in 1:42:01, which Mac says should give me a 3:35:09... pretty darn close to 3:30

The number of 20 milers in that plan were awesome! 

I only did four out of the five 20 milers- the first 20 miler fell on a weekend that I raced a 1/2 marathon.  For me, running the four 20's help me tremdously- I was amazed at how easy it felt after running the first 2.  By the time I ran my last 20 miler I had already peaked out though.  I did think that the 3 week taper was too long for me- I plan to cut that back to only 2 weeks this time around in hopes that I don't peak again too soon.

I did supplement in two 5 mile runs on the "Cross train/ EZ run" days, because I mentally didn't feel like I was running enough.  I would recommend doing that- just to get in more volume. I think I was averaging about 40 miles a week when doing so and running 40 per week felt much better than just 30 miles a week. 

I think it is obvious to you  and everyone else that you are in better than 3:30 shape, in particular if you have your 5 prescribed long runs.  That is commonly the case,when you add in your long runs, everything gets faster and you need to adjust.  A good half marathon, 15K,10 K or less importantly 5K race would help you to know what pace you should race/train at.  

I think it has been pointed out that most of us can run 800's at a faster pace than is necessary for our longer event (Yasso 800's if you are familiar) mean you are capable of running a marathon at that pace if you can complete the workout and if you have the stamina.  It is the endurance/stamina part that leads people to go out optimistically based on their 800 times and blow up in races.  Realistically you gain little benefit (to your goal race) by running at paces that are > 20s per mile faster than your intended race pace.  You want over-unders right at your LT-hence some faster some slower than lactate threshold.

Find a longer race and run it, that will help you know where you should be running your intervals. If youhave the endurance to go along with your speed, you will be better than 3:30.  If you have 5-20 milers in it is likely you are way faster than 3:30. 

Also, check out www.mcmillanrunning.com to see where your paces falls.  When you calculate your paces off with FIRST, you just get a single time.  With mcmillan, you get a range.  You can always use that range as a guide- you might just be falling on the low end of the range.  Or you're just faster and don't realize it

I did. They have the 800's even slower:

3:18.6 to 3:27.8

Maybe I am faster now than I was last year. I've only done one road race since the marathon; a 10 miler I didn't train for (1:20:30). Other than that just tri's. I am hesitant to use the run legs as predictors.

ETA the 10 mile race. Forgot about that one....

When/what was the last stand alone race you've run?  I agree with Rick- go find a race and see where you stand. 

It's a race.  Race it.  Why bother going if you're not gonna race?

The fact that you can push through the shorter distances, and the 800 paces are slower than what you're looking at definitely shows me you're muscling through your shorter races. 

This thread is awesome...thanks guys, I am learning a lot.

 To the OP, I am following a similar plan with 3-20 milers , a 19 and an 18...so I will be following your logs to see your improvement ( I also have a half right on the 13 long run day).  So please keep up updated as to your experience slowing down, or whatever it is you end up doing.

yeah....I don't keep a log here. Been thinking about it though....

I do think I'll race on Sunday and see where I end up. I had been considering that option anyway. May be an ego thing, but I didn't want my published (and public) time to be slower than what I am capable of really doing.