HM plan for a 1:23, w/room to x-train?

I agree with ^^^^ this ^^^^

You need to be running as much as possible.  And yes, a lot of it will be slow.

If I were you, I'd find a marathon plan and follow it apart from capping long runs at 16 or so.  Given the 'stretchiness' of your goal, I'd say you should have a stab at following a pretty aggressive plan and see where it takes you.  Pftitzinger has some 12-week plans in _Advanced Marathoning_ that I think are nice.

Hmm...interesting question.  Looking at your times in your log, you're pretty much on a par with my performances at most distances.  When I trained up for my run at a BQ last year, I had a couple Olys on my schedule, so I had to maintain some cycling and swimming.  I got the BQ done on 4-5 runs a week plus 3 rides and 2 swims.

But...

My BQ time (got to 3:32 from a previous PR of 3:42) was less of a stretch than I think a 1:23 HM will be for you.  I definitely couldn't get close to that without switching to a run-only training schedule (as others have already suggested)...in all honesty, I don't actually think I could get to 1:23.  Assuming that your 1:39 HIM run equates to something in the low 1:30s for a standalone HM, that additional 7-10 minutes you need to pick up is tough...more than 30 sec's/mile.  It means getting your HM pace to your current 5K PR pace.  Can you get there on a 12-week schedule?  Anything's possible, but you may need to limit the cross training to get it done.

I agree that a run-focus is likely in order if you want to make a serious run at that target. You might be able to still fit in some maintenance bike/swim, but the plan will need to be built around the running. And given the stretch that you're looking at, I'd recommend to go into it as a test of how much you can improve your running in 3 months, rather than making it all about beating 1:23 or not. You could make dramatic improvements -- which you would have every reason to feel very good about -- even without making the NYC qualifier.

It seems that you already have relatively good ability to go long, so that's not a primary limiter. Though your mileage and your number of runs seems to be on the light side. You should aim to run pretty much every day, building to at least 40-50 mpw. Throw in some faster stuff once you have the mileage under control. You'll need to reach a point where a 6:00 mile feels fairly easy, since you're aiming to beat 6:20/mile for 13.1 miles. 

I ran a 1:24 PR a couple of weeks ago, and my speeds over shorter distances are pretty much in line with the McMillan equivalents (e.g., 38 min for 10k). I was running ~40-45 mpw leading up to that race, mostly at a comfortable 7:15-7:30/mile. Zero speedwork. My little bro', who ran a 1:22:30 PR in the same race, has been knocking out ~17:30 5K times every couple of weeks all summer. I think you're looking for a big improvement. You might want to throw in a series of shorter races of 5k - 10 miles between now and your goal race, in order to see how you're progressing.

Do update the thread with reports on your progress.

Thanks for the replies. I agree that 1:23 is a big stretch. I like to set three goals for each race, a baseline, an honest, and an optimistic. For this, I think 1:30 is the baseline and 1:23 is optimistic. The McMillan calculator says my 5k and 10k PRs put me around a 1:30, but both of those PRs were run during IM training on fatigued legs and no speedwork. I suspect I could run a 1:30 this afternoon. 6:51 to 6:20 is a big jump for sure, but with three months to focus on building speed, well, we'll see...

The question I'm left with is, what do you get for those extra runs each week? I picked up the Runner's World FIRST book from the library last night, and they cite their studies that show improvements on 3 runs plus 2 crosstraining sessions in VO2 max, VO2 max pace, LT pace, and marathon results vs. the same person before the training program. The comparison I'm interested in is do you get bigger gains on a FIRST-style 3-plus-2 or from having a couple shorter, easier runs each week. Anyone seen a study that compares those or have personal experience both ways?

You don't need "speed" for a HM.  You need endurance.  And for a 1:23, you will need a LOT more than you've shown so far this year.  Not trying to rain on your parade, just being honest.  It's unlikely to happen in 12 weeks but, if it's an important goal, make a dedicated attempt and see how close you can get this time out.

Durability and endurance.

They did a study that showed if you train, you will see improvement.  Miraculous! 

You will improve your running more by running more.  And, by running more frequently and building more mileage, you will build the durability and endurance to handle continually higher loads (for quite some time from where you are currently, at any rate).  It's pretty simple and there's pretyy much gobs of history to show that is the case.  From where you are today, it is EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely that a FIRST plan will get you to 1:23 in the next 12 weeks.

First, I'd agree with everyone else that this is going to be an entirely run-focused training schedule.

IMO slow running isn't going to get you to a 6:19 pace over 13.1 miles. I'd say you're going to be doing 45+ miles a week with a major effort towards increasing tempo run distance and speedwork.

I looked at your logs and it seems like you're September mileage is good as a base. Your 3/27/11 10k time is also good at ~6:36. Your goal seems hard but doable, although 12 weeks is pretty short and that is where I think a problem lies. You'll have to train very hard so the risk of injury goes up.

The advanced Higdon plan for a HM looks pretty good, although I wouldn't do two rest days in  a row. I'd also bike 'easier' on Wednesday rather than run 3 miles and strength train, but that's a personal thing.

Best of luck!

edit: pick a flat, fast course or one nearby that you're actually training on. There's a lot to be said for that home field advantage and knowing every lightpost and crack in the road. Especially in the last few miles.

I hate to say this about FIRST -- I like Furman University!.  But the 'use' that its advocates make of studies is really appalling.

I don't have the book (I once looked at it from the library) but I recall very distinctly that they either cited studies in which the conclusions were themselves very dubious, or they misconstrued the study.  Repeatedly.

An example of the former (again, I don't know whether they cite this study, but it is the sort of study that advocates of low mileage high intensity like to cite):

Marti B, Abelin T, Minder C.  Relationship of training and life-style to 16-km running time of 4000 joggers – The ’84 Berne Grand-Prix Study  Int J Sports Med 1988, 9, 85-91

This study purports to show (among other things), that there is a lack of strong correlation between weekly mileage and race performance.  They simply compared weekly mileage (and other things, but I'm focusing on mileage) with results in a large 10 mile race.   These were recreational runners none of whom had a ton of weekly mileage -- it ranged from zero to around 60 miles.  They found a correlation of -0.46.  Two comments:  (1) That's actually a pretty decent correlation.  (2) Indeed, it is to my mind surprisingly strong, given what was compared.  They were not comparing the time of a single runner under two circumstances (lower and higher mileage), nor even two initially similar runners, one of whom trained lower mileage the other higher.  They were comparing the results of lower and higher mileage runners who were otherwise not necessarily similar in any other way. That there was much of any correlation under those circumstances is a pretty strong testament that high mileage can overcome a lot of pre-existing differences amongst runners.

An example of the latter -- a study done by the FIRST people themselves -- is somewhere on their web site (sorry, I don't have a link handy).  They took 25 people (17 of whom had run marathons before) and put them on the FIRST marathon program for 16 weeks.

Here's what happened.

• 1 person dropped out for personal reasons.

• 1 person dropped out due to injury.

• 2 people dropped down to the half marathon due to injury.

(All of those who were injured had trained for and run a marathon successfully in the past, by the way.)

• This left 21 running the marathon, 13 of whom had run a marathon before.  7 of those 13 set a personal best.

(Note that the marathon was the Kiawah Island marathon (a fun race).  It is flat as a pancake, and temps are typically in the mid 40s to low 50s -- i.e., absolutely perfect conditions.)

This is a success?  If I wrote a training plan that left 12.5% of the participants injured, and enabled only about half to run a PR in a race that is basically designed for PRs, I would consider it a dismal failure and start again.  But they choose to construe these results as success.  Whatever.

I have an old college xc plan laying around I could send you. In my younger days it took from from a 21 min 5k and a 40+ min 10k to sub 17 and sub 38. Yes, this was in 12 weeks too. Gotta love off season summer training. While it might just be my experience personally, you could always check out the plan!

Let me know

I'd be interested in this just to check it out.  I don't think I could jump into the mileage and intensity of what a 20 year old college runner is doing right now but may be able to glean some nuggets out of it.

Also to OP.  I have the Jack Daniels book and the Pfitzinger book.  I'd definitely just buy them both.  They are relatively cheap on Amazon and both contain invaluable information. 

I'll also note that at first glance the Pfitzinger plans almost look pretty easy with a lot of steady running but they aren't as easy as they look.  I think the Jack Daniels book can benefit you because it has a lot of workouts for shorter races and you can integrate some of those track workouts in as well.

I'm not as fast as those guys above, but I'm sort of where you are in wanting to improve my run fitness quite a bit.  I don't think I'm anywhere near 1:23 but could maybe touch 1:30-1:31ish on a good day now and would be real happy getting to 1:27 by the spring.  1:23 is too big a stretch for me mentally to even state it as a short term goal but I probably have less talent than you and am fat.

@ acumenjay - sent you a pm for your email address. It is a lot of mileage but it definitely works!

I'm not familiar with any of the plans you mentioned, but I'll chime in anyway because this past May I ran a 1:23:05...pretty close to your goal time.
If I go back 3 months from the race, on May 29th, and look at my training it looks like this:

March
Swim: 15 workouts, 21.4 kms
Bike: 13 workouts, 455 kms
Run: 23 workouts, 211 kms - mostly all easy runs, 'cept 1 w/o 5k at 19:40 and I'd close out the long runs with a few clicks of 'race pace' effort.

April
Swim: 9 workouts, 13 kms
Bike: 14 workouts, 605 kms
Run: 18 workouts, 207 kms - all easy runs except 2 'tempo' pace runs (based on mcmillan calc)

May
Swim: 8 workouts, 12 kms
Bike: 24 workouts, 857 kms
Run: 16 workouts, 170 kms - mostly easy again w/1 tempo 10k w/o at 39:24 and again doing a few 'race pace' effort clicks at the end of my long runs.

You can see, it's totally possible to keep biking and swimming while being run focused.  Of note, I was in training for my "A" race - an Olympic Tri in mid-June and I likely have a bigger base then you because I have been runing 4-6 days a week year round for the last 2-3 years.
Based on your logs, I'd say you lack frequency.  You should start by running 6 days a week every week.  On the days you do short runs, do your biking.  On the days you do medium distance runs, swim.  Most important, don't over complicate it.  Just put on your 'effin shoes and go run.  I think you're in tough to reach the 1:23 mark based on where I was before March and where you are now.  I was already running 40m 10k's and I don't think you are (yet)...?