If you can't run a sub-3 marathon after 12 months of running then you haven't trained properly

26.2 is an arbitrary distance and 3 hours an arbitrary time. Reframe this as Lydiard did: most people can complete a marathon, with the proper training.

I'd estimate half, but I doubt that many have trained an entire year (or track season) focused on running an 800 or 400.

I can't believe that anyone thinks this is true. It shows that SO SO many people in the sport are naturally really gifte runners, they work hard and get better and love that about it. But they think everyone is the same.

They are not. Many start WAY SLOWER.

Lance Arsmtrong ran 2:46. Lance was WAY better than me in HS at running. He was incredible. He was a TDF winner. If he's only running 2:46,

I believe there are definitelys cores of people who could train hard and never break 4:00.

I had guys that ran D1 at cornell - admittedly the last guy on the team - who ran 100+ and only managed 2:50.

It's like that thread - everyone can break 15:30 right? Not even close.

The women's OTrrials standard is 2:43. So for women, you think everyone in the country can come within 17 minutes of that???

Yeah right. So every man can run 2:33.

I'm pushing 40 years old, 158 lbs., 6''. No medical problems. I run 7 days per week. I sometimes take 1 or 2 days off per month depending on how tired I am or work schedule. I get home late from work so I can't do doubles.

Here's a link to a screen shot of my weekly run totals for last two years. I promise it's not spam or anything nasty.

My last several months of running have been:

Sunday: long run of 15 to 18 miles. Sometimes very slow; sometimes fast. Basically, if I feel good I go harder.

Monday: easy 9 miles.

Tuesday: I do 4 repeats of a fairly steep hill that flattens out in second half. Distance is maybe .75 miles. Afterwards, I run harder than usual for rest of run. Total miles 12 or 13.

Wednesday: easy run of 11 to 13 miles.

Thursday: very hard effort of 6.7 miles. total for the day is usually 11 miles.

Friday: easy 9 miles.

Saturday: easy 4 miles.

In terms of people who run the same volume as me, I bet I'm one of the slowest. I love running, though! I'm up to the challenge if Brupt or anyone else is willing to try to coach me to a sub 3 or anything close to it. I'd be absolutely ecstatic if I could run that fast!!!

Henry Cooper wrote:

I think this is a statement we can all agree on?

Not at all. Clearly, you have never worked with beginning runners.

I trained my heart out and still couldn't break my goal of 3 hours. Genetics play a huge factor in running. I can run a 1 hr 20 min half but always cramp up in full marathons and end up around 3:10, very frustrating. Considering most people run 5K's at 11-12 min/mile I doubt "anyone" can break 3 with a year of training.

Flagpole wrote:

The mentality behind this is not what it first appears. You would THINK that those who break 3 hours might like to say that most other people CAN'T do it, thus putting themselves in an elite group (and feeding their ego). When in fact, the issue is that those who have broken 3 hours (I have broken 3 hours) who say that everyone can do it mean that THEY just did the work necessary and should be lauded for that. That puts them in elite company because they believe they did the work necessary while other people simply do not (because they are lazy).

Just utter BS.

Right on. It's akin to successful entrepreneurs who grew up poor or poor-ish and then insist that *anyone* can become rich - after all, they did it all by themselves! - and that people who are poor are just lazy.

If you're so confident, OP, how about you design a 12 month program to prove anyone can get under 3 hours and have some volunteers like the previous poster try it out. Of course, for many people, a barrier is injury and the fact that their bodies can't hold up to heavy mileage, so you'd have to factor that in. You'd probably want to emphasize a lot of cross training at least at the beginning.

No. Some people will NEVER run sub-3hrs regardless of age or training. They just don't have the body type. Do you think Shaq could have run sub-3 hrs even when he was younger if he trained for a marathon for a year?

Not a Coach wrote:

That a have been the view before the first running boom of the seventies

In my defense I'm middle-aged, I work exhaustive hours andmy body breaks down whenever I run more than 45 mpw regularly.

If one has studied English for 12 months and is not familiar with "would," as in "(t)hat would have been the view..." one hasn't studied properly.

Or in other words, does the question require clarification? Are marathoners required to run sub 3 hours, or be capable of running sub 3 hours (not concerning ourselves with failures due to poor pacing, weather, race-day nutrition and hydration, motivation etc.)?

Exactly, I gave it 100%, put my heart into training and can't break 3, I'm 6'2" 195-200 lbs and genetics just aren't on my side. I can train my way to a 1hr 20 min half but the marathon really catches up with bigger runners. Here's me in the video before you say I'm fat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwVQiGHfUJg

I have yet to make it to a starting line healthy for the mary, 5:48 mile-11:44 2mile, 19:01 5k, 25:44 4mile, 1:29:30 half w/3mins bad tangent running. 6'1 145 lbs 34yrs old could always run a 5:45 mile in gym class from 9th grade on. Never ran cross country or track in high school or college. Going for sub 3hrs for 1st marathon this year.

Sub 2:30 advice from Sacha:

http://www.asksasha.com/Running/How-do-I-break-2-30-in-a-marathon.html

Assuming someone is healthy and active but has never run before would anyone believe this to actually be true?