Can I run 2:58 in the marathon

I can’t run anywhere near a low 5:XX mile and I ran a 2:52 in Tucson (downhill) and 2:58 in LA. I ran higher mileage though, maybe averaged 75 MPW over 18 weeks.

To the OP, 170 is a little heavy for a marathoner. Dropping 10-15 lbs will make a big difference

Probably true, but I was at least 175 in Chicago.

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

Probably true, but I was at least 175 in Chicago.

Yes, GT, but you are 6’2”. I agree that 170 is high (and I would say quite high) for marathoner. I cannot think of a top E. African that is over 130, and really cannot think of any top marathoner that is over 130. Rupp might be 135, but he is 5’11”. Kipchoge is pretty typical at 5’6”, 123. The marathon is a race for very small people.

> So, if I follow a decent plan, train for a real 16-20 weeks, and put in 55 or 60 mpw as a peak, do I have a shot of running high 2:50’s?

No. not even close. That's not going to get you 2:58 with your numbers. 55-60 isn't much of a peak and you don't have to shorter distance speed to carry you. I ran 2:58 in my first marathon, with a peak of only mid-60's, but I ran a half under 1:25 before I even put in serious training, and I got to sub 60:00 for 10 miles during my training. All or my other times at the time were far faster than yours (except the marathon, as I hadn't run one yet). I'm 55 now, and well past my 2:58 days, and I'm still faster than you at every distance you mentioned.

That doesn't mean you'll never get there, but you need to be much faster before you can break 3:00 with such low mileage.

I have run in the area of 2:55 several times, and can break 5:00 for a mile any day of the week... I have got to think you need to be at least low-5 for the mile to have a shot at sub-3.

What in the world are you guys smoking? You don't need to be able to run a mile 1:45 faster than goal MP. You think Rupp can run 3 minutes flat for the mile? When I was a 2:30 marathoner I could barely break 5 minutes, not that I spent much time on it, cuz it has jack to do with the 'thon.

outsiderunner wrote:

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

Probably true, but I was at least 175 in Chicago.

Yes, GT, but you are 6’2”. I agree that 170 is high (and I would say quite high) for marathoner. I cannot think of a top E. African that is over 130, and really cannot think of any top marathoner that is over 130. Rupp might be 135, but he is 5’11”. Kipchoge is pretty typical at 5’6”, 123. The marathon is a race for very small people.

OP is 6ft and trying to run 2:58, not 2:08, so I think my comp is more comparable than Kipchoge.

Like I've said: there was a day where I was where the OP is, but heavier, and 1.5-2years later I'm where the OP would like to be. So all he needs to know right now is it can be done, and he doesn't need to weigh 123 to do it.

Gordon Tremeshko wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

Yes, GT, but you are 6’2”. I agree that 170 is high (and I would say quite high) for marathoner. I cannot think of a top E. African that is over 130, and really cannot think of any top marathoner that is over 130. Rupp might be 135, but he is 5’11”. Kipchoge is pretty typical at 5’6”, 123. The marathon is a race for very small people.

OP is 6ft and trying to run 2:58, not 2:08, so I think my comp is more comparable than Kipchoge.

Like I've said: there was a day where I was where the OP is, but heavier, and 1.5-2years later I'm where the OP would like to be. So all he needs to know right now is it can be done, and he doesn't need to weigh 123 to do it.

Never said 2:08 or 123. Just tried to make the point that weight is a key factor in marathoning. It is a race that is suited to small people.