You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

RE: Sub 2 45 marathon feasibility

Smoove wrote:

No offense, but I think 2:49 is overly aggressive as well. I would not rule out the possibility of 2:49 or 2:45 in future training cycles, but times don't drop quite as fast later on as they do early on. So a lot really depends on your running history - if you were a 17:00 5000m runner at some point in the past, that would be good to know. If you just started running a few years ago, that would be good to know. But it would all still be a guess.

In any event, I hope my assessment is wrong and you kill it.

No worries, it absolutely makes sense.
Last year, on 1st July on a 10k I couldn't even manage to break 40 minutes, but on 1st October (14 weeks later), I ran a 2:59 marathon without any issues.
Usually I am far better on long distances, that is what gives me hope.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.