Writer Matt Fitzgerald ran 2:39:30 at Chicago after running with NAZ Elite for a couple of months

Strange I haven't seen any other threads on this, but I was interested in following Fitz's results.

Very impressive for a 46 yo. I think it was a 5 or 6 minute PB, with the previous PB ran almost a decade ago?

One thing about Fitz is that he has maintained (or developed, not sure which) an impressive lean muscular runners physique. He almost looks like a retired elite. I'm sure this helped a lot, although he obviously trained his butt off too. Kudos to Matt.

Good result but "Writer Who Trained with Elite Runners Unexpectedly Becomes One"... Even at his age that's far from Elite (if we were to consider 45-49 as the age group).

In any case good for him. I like some of his writings, just not his if-I-say-so-it's-indisputable attitude on some fronts.

Perhaps you can enlighten us. What defines Elite?He finished among the top in his age group and would have at most other major marathons.

wrg wrote:

Good result but "Writer Who Trained with Elite Runners Unexpectedly Becomes One"... Even at his age that's far from Elite (if we were to consider 45-49 as the age group).

In any case good for him. I like some of his writings, just not his if-I-say-so-it's-indisputable attitude on some fronts.

I like his writing and that's a great time and he is way faster than me. It age grades to a 2:27:59. I kind of agree it isn't "world class", but so what- he is an excellent runner and top level writer and good for our sport.

I read the first article and I kind of get the sense that he had previously learned that stuff anyway, based on what he preaches.

Does anyone else think that this was more of a marketing campaign / awesome experience you can't say no to? Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say no to it.

I think Martin Fiz just ran 2:28 at Chicago at 54 to put Matt's 2:39 in perspective.

lkjy wrote:

I think Martin Fiz just ran 2:28 at Chicago at 54 to put Matt's 2:39 in perspective.

Fiz is a former world champion. What´s your point?

rare critical thinker wrote:

I read the first article and I kind of get the sense that he had previously learned that stuff anyway, based on what he preaches.

Does anyone else think that this was more of a marketing campaign / awesome experience you can't say no to? Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say no to it.

My guess is that the whole point was to get a book out of it (and I will definitely buy it when it comes out).

According to Athlinks, he ran 2:58 at CIM in December 2016 and a 1:17 half two months earlier but not a lot of racing in the years before that. So, he was in pretty good shape going in. Still, a 2:39 for 46 year old (in not ideal conditions) is a great result.

This is a book that I most likely will buy also.

It sounds very interesting.

It was a good idea by Mr. Fitzgerald.

2:39 is smoking for average guy runners such as myself.

Icy Hot delivers wrote:

Perhaps you can enlighten us. What defines Elite?

He finished among the top in his age group and would have at most other major marathons.

wrg wrote:

Good result but "Writer Who Trained with Elite Runners Unexpectedly Becomes One"... Even at his age that's far from Elite (if we were to consider 45-49 as the age group).

In any case good for him. I like some of his writings, just not his if-I-say-so-it's-indisputable attitude on some fronts.

He is good, I praised his result, but yes, what is Elite? What would you consider Elite for 18-35?

2:05? 2:10? I would go for 2:12. Why not?

Now, if we take into account the number of 46 year olds who still train to their best ability and do the math, where does that place Matt?

I don't know. It's an honest question.

I said what I said because I know a 49 year old who recently ran a 2:40 on a hot day and he wasn't even top-3 in his age group.

And that was a "normal" small European city marathon.

I wonder if Matt regrets his youth now partying too much and not focusing on running. He probably wonders what he could have done at 26 and 36, not 46. He should write a book on wasting talent.

lkjy wrote:

I wonder if Matt regrets his youth now partying too much and not focusing on running. He probably wonders what he could have done at 26 and 36, not 46. He should write a book on wasting talent.

I thought talent never goes away.

I couldn't stand to read anything more he wrote after finding a Biochem mistake in his book Brain Training for Runners. He's a writer and journalist, not a scientist. Will stick to reading books written by actual scientist. Anyhow good for him running sub 2:40. How about the 49 year old who ran 2:29 PR at Berlin wearing the Vaporfly's?

"Elite" for masters is generally considered 90% or better on the age-graded tables. 2:39:30 age 46 grades at 83%. In better conditions maybe he would be 85%? Very good but not really "elite", except to fitness runners, which is who he will market his writing to.

Solid run... he did a great run.

I followed it and was impressed.

Is it top notch...yes and no. To Pr at 46! Is awesome!

Not many can say they have done that. Could he do bettter? Yes!

He can run 2:33-36 if he gives himself more time and is more patient. I was shocked how greedy he was during intervals.

He got a bit super greedy in Arizona and needs to think 2-3 cycles ahead at all times. Had he just backed off he would have run even faster.

He can run 2:36 or faster ....if he stops trying to pr' in workouts. Slows down just a bit.

Amazing run! I was stoked he pulled it off!

It isn't easy to pr' in the marathon no matter the goal! Nice job!

I was told by Dave Scott (6x Ironman World champ) That Fitzgerald's book Iron War about him and Mark Allen was total BS. I have no respect for the guy.

Chief Wahoo wrote:

This is a book that I most likely will buy also.

It sounds very interesting.

It was a good idea by Mr. Fitzgerald.

2:39 is smoking for average gay runners such as myself.

Once you spend the money for his book, you can get there too.

Ackley wrote:

rare critical thinker wrote:

I read the first article and I kind of get the sense that he had previously learned that stuff anyway, based on what he preaches.

Does anyone else think that this was more of a marketing campaign / awesome experience you can't say no to? Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say no to it.

My guess is that the whole point was to get a book out of it (and I will definitely buy it when it comes out).

According to Athlinks, he ran 2:58 at CIM in December 2016 and a 1:17 half two months earlier but not a lot of racing in the years before that. So, he was in pretty good shape going in. Still, a 2:39 for 46 year old (in not ideal conditions) is a great result.

I followed Matt's blog throughout his experience and was rooting for him to run well at Chicago. Perhaps more impressive than his exact time was the way he did it -- a 2 second positive split. He held almost perfect 6:05 pace the entire race, which is exactly what Ben Rosario assigned him. A successful combination of astute coaching and race execution.

Nick Danger wrote:

I was told by Dave Scott (6x Ironman World champ) That Fitzgerald's book Iron War about him and Mark Allen was total BS. I have no respect for the guy.

That's weird because I was told by Mark Allen (6x Ironman World Champ) that Fitzgerald's book Iron War about him and Dave Scott was totally accurate.