Boston Qualifying is easy

I started running road races in 2011 and after running countless 5ks and halfs, I decided to buckle down and train for a full in 2019. I wasn’t a former college runner or anything, but I was in good shape for a 37 year old and always did well in my age group. After putting in several solid months of 55 mile weeks, I ran my first marathon in 2:49 and felt pretty decent afterwards like I could have went a little harder.

After getting my BQ, the pandemic hit and I had no races to compete in and just lost motivation. I signed up for Boston 2021, but it always seemed like it was on the verge of being cancelled and I just couldn’t get pumped about training. I probably averaged 35 miles a week for the months leading up to Boston. My thought was that if I could run 2:49 with some left in the tank off of good training, I should be able to coast to 3:00 off bad training.

I ended up running a shade under 3:09 but was gallow jogging the last 3 miles, swearing I’d never run another marathon.

The point is that, even if you have the natural ability to easily qualify for Boston, you still have to put in the work or you won’t hit the standard. That is why a BQ is impressive. It shows that you put in the work.

Thanks for the post, I'm still learning (as seen by my DNF a week ago at mile 23). Was on pace for 3:25 in 13'F weather, then cramped up severely and had to DNF at 23, luckily, right at the start/finish line on the loop course. But no regrets

As many have mentioned, I blame the hobby jogger training programs. A few 2-4 mile runs, a 20 mile long run, and cross training / rest days to fill in the rest of the week. If you're getting > 50% of your mileage in on your long run day, you're doing something wrong. I think most folks who can't qualify for Boston either don't want to do the serious training, or can't due to injuries. I doubt many healthy young people willing to do the work (1+ years of running quality miles) would have a hard time qualifying.

And that's not to diminish the efforts of folks who do put in the work and fall short. 100% respect for taking a crack at it. I'm just saying the reality is that people are super undertrained typically. I have a buddy (wife's friend's husband) who is the "runner guy" of his friend group, and he does marathons and whatnot. But he only runs like 15-20 miles a week typically - and the non runners think that's tons of running.

If you're running 50+ mpw on 6-7 days a week of running, you're in a huge minority of Americans.

local sheep wrote:

And that's not to diminish the efforts of folks who do put in the work and fall short. 100% respect for taking a crack at it. I'm just saying the reality is that people are super undertrained typically. I have a buddy (wife's friend's husband) who is the "runner guy" of his friend group, and he does marathons and whatnot. But he only runs like 15-20 miles a week typically - and the non runners think that's tons of running.

If you're running 50+ mpw on 6-7 days a week of running, you're in a huge minority of Americans.

And even by LRC standards 50 isn't enough to BQ. You really need 70-80.

local sheep wrote:

As many have mentioned, I blame the hobby jogger training programs. A few 2-4 mile runs, a 20 mile long run, and cross training / rest days to fill in the rest of the week. If you're getting > 50% of your mileage in on your long run day, you're doing something wrong. I think most folks who can't qualify for Boston either don't want to do the serious training, or can't due to injuries. I doubt many healthy young people willing to do the work (1+ years of running quality miles) would have a hard time qualifying.

Yeah, I think it’s like most other endeavors where success is 80% doing the work and 20% having the talent.

I look at a BQ like I look at a scratch golfer. To a pro, a scratch golfer is still just a hack. But to the vast majority of his buddies, he is the best golfer they’ll ever know. Some of it is talent, but most of it is just spending a lot of time on the course.

Interesting post. I wonder if it would be possible for me to qualify. I’m a father with a demanding job, but have made time to learn to be a runner.

I started running in 2020 and have been focused on ultra distances. After my next 100 miler I am considering training to qualify for Boston, but wonder if it is possible. I’ve averaged over 30 mile weeks for two years and generally have one interval workout mid week. For the last two months I’ve been averaging between 45 and 50 mile weeks. I use to get injured pretty easily, but now sustain 40+ mile weeks without injury (fingers crossed). Sustaining mileage between 40 and 50 is very doable for me.

During training I lost 50 pounds and am now 5’10” and weigh 160 pounds. I have a fit and lean body, but am not super lean (not quite a six pack).
I PRed a 10k last week with a 45 min time. I’ve never run a marathon time trial, but my best 26.2 mile distance training run was 4:30. My fastest half distance was 1:54. I’m 38 and probably faster now than I was in high school. I suspect if I tapered for a time trial on a relatively easy course I probably could hit a 4 hour marathon. 3 hours (or close to it) feels like it may be out of reach.
My next goal is a sub 24 100. Once I complete it I may go for Boston if it is possible.

Any thoughts on it being possible for me to get there? Any success stories out there? What do you think it would take training wise to get there?

BQ’d many times and looking to do it next weekend for this first time since 2012. I technically BQ’d in 2017 but missed the cutoff. Haven’t run a marathon since.

It’s not that hard if you have a decent base or have a lot of time and a coach. I don’t have a lot of time or a coach.

The hardest part is definitely the sacrifices you make for training. Especially if you have a family and a demanding job. Especially training during the FL summer, the only time to get in quality workouts is really early or really late.

I should be able to do it next weekend, but I’d put my odds at about a 65% chance. Most non-runners I know would need at least 2 years, and even some runners would need well over a year to get into BQ shape.

Can’t tell if you’re serious since a lot of people rag on ultra runners. You’ll need to break 40 in the 10K. Focus on tempo and progression runs more than straight mileage.

I have ambitions to do an ultra one day, but I find it very difficult to put in proper training for 26.2.

Anyways, congrats on the weight loss and running progression, but you’ll have to change your training to BQ. You have to put in a lot of miles faster than 7 minute pace even if you do them one at a time with rest in between at first. Good luck.

If qualifying is so easy, why didn’t you qualify by a larger buffer?

Ironically the BQ was tightened the year after the original post. 3:10 now for 41 year old - which wouldn't get in you in unless all qualifiers are accepted.

It's really hard to tell whether you can qualify, given the way your running history doesn't provide much insight into how you respond to training that is more suited to racing. But really, if you've been running for <3 years and have already completed a 100, that says something.

I wouldn't rule it out at all, but I agree with Jogger262 that you'd need substantial changes to your training. Around 2 min./mile faster than you'd expect to run now is an enormous jump, but it's the kind that can occur when one moves from slow distance (ultras or just trying to complete a marathon) to training to race a marathon.

First, you wouldn't be trying until you're in the 40-44 qualifying window, so you'd need a 3:10 (probably 3:08 or a little under to avoid the cutoff).

Second, you'd probably need around 18 months of marathon training, cycling across three races. That would also give you time to learn how you respond to both the training and the race.

Third, given your previous susceptibility to injury and your age, you'd need to add each component slowly if they haven't been a consistent part of your training so far (increase base mileage a bit, core strength, leg strength prehab, strides, drills, hills, different tempo & progression runs, long run workouts). Will you be able to sleep enough to recover well? You'd probably need to eventually build to a plan that has a bit more volume than Pfitzinger's 18/55 (really not far off from where you've been).

The key is to have give yourself the right amount of time following a proven plan (even though you necessarily make some modifications to a cookie-cutter plan).

There's a lot of speculation here, because you can't know until you're into it. If that interests you and looks like something that suits your life and its many demands, you'd probably discover within around 8-12 months whether you're making sufficient progress, then maybe another 10-12 months or so to get there. And, of course, the key for me is enjoying the process; qualifying is the icing on the cake.

If you have the mental tenacity to complete multiple 100 milers, you can certainly qualify for Boston Marathon. However, you'll have to refocus your training on running 26.2 miles at close to 7:00 pace, as opposed to 14:00 min/mi pace for 100 miles.

At 32, I "ran" a 5:28 marathon. Over the subsequent 16 years, I lost 40 pounds, started actually training consistently year round and just qualified for Boston twice in the past 2 years, with a 3:05 at age 48.

Pick the first Boston where you'd be 40 on race day, then shoot for a 3:05 in the 12 months prior. That should give you a solid 1 - 1.5 yrs from now, to train for it.

Shoot for sub-19:00 5K, sub-40:00 10K and sub 1:27 half marathons en route to your goal marathon and you should be on track.

Loosening of standards is why it’s easy

real runners run 2:50 or faster

time to tighten up Boston

I'm not sure I could afford to travel to America and take part. How much would it all cost?

I technically qualified this year by running sub 3 at my first serious attempt. After I finished I returned the vaporflies for a full refund, lol.

GFD, you're a fine runner, the 5:28 to 3:05 is marvelous inspiration, and I've seen some great posts with good advice from you. But even though CW is young enough to have some spring in his step, he's still starting from ultra-level, ahem, "speed." "Shoot for"? Sure. But I'd be wary of letting CW lock into that as the best barometer, especially if he doesn't do any 5k-specific training. To flip this around a bit and offer context, when I was around 38, I know that I couldn't get under 3:10 with a 5k of 19:20, but that was on 35 mpw and wildly inconsistent training (and not geared strongly to 5k, not really great for marathon). Granted, even with >50 mpw and tempos rather than vO2 max at that time, I probably would've gone under 19 for 5K and would've had better marathon times, but I've since done enough sub-3:10 marathons (old guy stuff) when I don't think I could've broken 19:30 for a 5k unless maybe it was Berlin flat and I'd had some Harry Potter-style race day magic. So yeah, CW, listen to GFD, but maybe with just a minor adjustment. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Your mileage may vary.

Because it's the hobbyjogger Olympics

It is easy but going sub 3 is super duper easy. I consider 3:10 a slow recovery jog. For real. I just ate a big fat lunch but I could step outside and run 2:59 or faster for a 'thon if I got paid. It'd be a double day for me too but not so much as a bother.

Do you want to feel validated?

Just Stop. I know a guy who runs 100mpw and barely ran a half in 1:27. Totally worth it to him because it makes him happy. I’ve never qualified for Boston, but have ran 16’s for a 5k. All the training was still worth it.