Title is 100% right, any healthy man can run a 2:30 marathon. If you can't, run more and train harder. If you still can't, repeat. Eventually you will run 2:30, or get injured, in which case you are not a "healthy man," are you. Q.E.D.
Title is 100% right, any healthy man can run a 2:30 marathon. If you can't, run more and train harder. If you still can't, repeat. Eventually you will run 2:30, or get injured, in which case you are not a "healthy man," are you. Q.E.D.
Mudder wrote:
Put it this way --
Do you think Albert Einstein could have gone sub 2:30 ? he was an average healthy male in his time.
how the hell are we supposed to know? because he is smart, he must be slow? is that the best proof you could think of?
I trained my butt off just to finally break 3 hours. Some of us just don't have the talent. I think this perspective gets lost when you only hang around with mostly fast runners. And I've been running most of my life, many times training much harder than more talented teammates and still couldn't come close to their times. Talent is the most important factor in running.
Not without a significant amount of slow-twitch muscle fibre.
I was a low 9 min 2 miler, and could stretch out to a 53 minute 10 mile. I also tested with a V02 max of 72+ on two occasions, 20 years apart but I couldn't have broken 2:30 while I had a hole in my you know what.
I did do a couple of marathons in my late 30s, and even running even pace (30 sec. difference between the two halves) on a fast course (London), I was outside of 2:40.
I also had a friend who badly wanted to run sub 2:30, and despite having a 29:48 10k track best, and a 67 min half, he could never make it either.
Let see...Lance Armstrong ran the 2006 New York Marathon in 2h 59m 36s, finishing in 856th place. He said the race was extremely difficult compared to the Tour de France. In 2007, he ran it in 2h 46m 43s, finishing 232nd. Clearly, he was at least an "average" male. Does anyone know what his training was like?
know body wrote:
Interesting article, do you guys agree or disagree with the statement that with the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30? I'd say I agree, but it would take a ton of dedication for most. Discus
http://hitsystem.com.au/any-normal-man-can-break-2hrs-30min-for-a-marathon/
I love these kinds of discussions. And most the posters on this board talk with NO scientific information or study to back it up. When I was in my prime, I could run mid 53 for 400meters... Just over 2:00 for 800 (although I never really trained for it. But after that, it fell off hard. Best mile ever was just over 5 minutes. and 5K?... Well it isn't worth talking about. I was 6%body fat, so I was lean. I could NEVER touch anywhere close to 2:30 for a marathon no matter how much i trained. These things don't correlate as nicely and simply as everyone seems to want them too. Let's face it!... If you have been blessed With the talent to run at these speeds, be grateful and thankful. Don't minimize it and make it sound like just any old schmoe can go out and whip off this kind of effort. Cheers!!!
Then you were training wrong for the marathon.Man, 2:30 is attainable by almost any man (almost meaning no chronic heart or lung ailments). If you could not come near 2:30 then you were training WRONG WRONG WRONG.2:15 was AVERAGE in many British running clubs in the 70s and 80s. 2:30 would be almost embarrassing....
Old Runner wrote:
know body wrote:Interesting article, do you guys agree or disagree with the statement that with the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30? I'd say I agree, but it would take a ton of dedication for most. Discus
http://hitsystem.com.au/any-normal-man-can-break-2hrs-30min-for-a-marathon/I love these kinds of discussions. And most the posters on this board talk with NO scientific information or study to back it up. When I was in my prime, I could run mid 53 for 400meters... Just over 2:00 for 800 (although I never really trained for it. But after that, it fell off hard. Best mile ever was just over 5 minutes. and 5K?... Well it isn't worth talking about. I was 6%body fat, so I was lean. I could NEVER touch anywhere close to 2:30 for a marathon no matter how much i trained. These things don't correlate as nicely and simply as everyone seems to want them too. Let's face it!... If you have been blessed With the talent to run at these speeds, be grateful and thankful. Don't minimize it and make it sound like just any old schmoe can go out and whip off this kind of effort. Cheers!!!
Sorry for you I guess wrote:
Then you were training wrong for the marathon.
Man, 2:30 is attainable by almost any man (almost meaning no chronic heart or lung ailments). If you could not come near 2:30 then you were training WRONG WRONG WRONG.
2:15 was AVERAGE in many British running clubs in the 70s and 80s. 2:30 would be almost embarrassing....
Old Runner wrote:I love these kinds of discussions. And most the posters on this board talk with NO scientific information or study to back it up. When I was in my prime, I could run mid 53 for 400meters... Just over 2:00 for 800 (although I never really trained for it. But after that, it fell off hard. Best mile ever was just over 5 minutes. and 5K?... Well it isn't worth talking about. I was 6%body fat, so I was lean. I could NEVER touch anywhere close to 2:30 for a marathon no matter how much i trained. These things don't correlate as nicely and simply as everyone seems to want them too. Let's face it!... If you have been blessed With the talent to run at these speeds, be grateful and thankful. Don't minimize it and make it sound like just any old schmoe can go out and whip off this kind of effort. Cheers!!!
Are you trolling?
know body wrote:
Interesting article, do you guys agree or disagree with the statement that with the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30? I'd say I agree, but it would take a ton of dedication for most. Discus
http://hitsystem.com.au/any-normal-man-can-break-2hrs-30min-for-a-marathon/
i'd say no way
make it 3 hours and we are on the mark
Only 30 guys a year in Canada are breaking 2:30 in the marathon. I guess that the others are all training wrong.
http://www.marathoncanada.com/mcMarathonRankings.htm?year=2014
any healthy man can be trained to run 3:30 given the aforementioned qualifications.
2:30 is a huge stretch in my opinion. Even sub 3 hours would be pushing it.
my opinion.
the best women in the world are struggling to beat 2.20
how is any tom dick or harry going to break 2.30
If we want to say "any" then that means any. The age adjusted calculator tells us a 75 year old male who runs 2:30 has an age adjusted time of 1:43. Slightly below WR pace
I think 3:00 or even the baseline of a Boston qualifier for men is more reasonable. If someone really wants to put in the work a fair number of people can do it. Many would have to make this the 'lifestyle choices' though to do it. But 2:30? That is not attainable for many.
mjohnson5 wrote:
Let see...Lance Armstrong ran the 2006 New York Marathon in 2h 59m 36s, finishing in 856th place. He said the race was extremely difficult compared to the Tour de France. In 2007, he ran it in 2h 46m 43s, finishing 232nd. Clearly, he was at least an "average" male. Does anyone know what his training was like?
I believe Lance was training with the PharmaRunner group.
You still need to be a naturally pretty fast runner over a mile to go under 2:30 and most people just don't have it in them
Is it normal to run 120 miles a week for years anyway without much reward?
Sorry there isn't a physiologic basis for this statement. Either the OP is trolling or ignoring basic physiology.
From Daniels pacing tables Vdot O2 for 2:30 is ~66-67. In reality this performance requires a Vo2Max over 70 not to mention the abillity to sustain a high rate of Vo2 for 26 miles. What's the 'average' Vo2Max of a health young man?? roughly 45? 90% of the population is genetically incapable of ever reaching the Vo2Max required to even think about a 2:30 marathon, let alone sustain the training to develop LT and aerobic efficiency to run at this pace for 26 miles.
Cam Levins has a VO2Max of 60, you morans.
messi wrote:
T-Rex wrote:Could well have been.When this was proclaimed back then years ago, people who then ran were serious, and fast and maybe talented runners. As Roger's article pointed out it IS evident winning road times these days wouldn't have gotten you into the top tens or maybe the top twenties back then.
Myself I was a 32 3/4 min. 10 km, 15 3/4 min. 5 km guy but was just able to run 2:37 for the 'thon. And preparing for that race did take hard work - but maybe for me a few more regular 100 mpw's could have taken my time 5 or 6 min. lower?.
I too saw Roger Robinson run Vancouver, BC, Canada 1981 marathon in 2:18 and on a really wet miserable day, 'monkey's weather' as described by I think the second placer.
Roger Robinson had really efficient running form with good leg turnover.
Didn't he make Kiwi international teams in his late thirties?
Also, he was the voice of the 1974 Commonwealth Games.
Yes, R. Robinson was one efficient runner and had a great masters career.
Point of my post was, the better runners then in the 60s, 70s KNEW they were good and were ABLE to do the amount of training without injuries being a factor. And, what I do recall from those 'glory times' was that all or most of us just got there and put in the miles, and more miles - after building up to it. Speed work, etc were the weekend races, all ran full tilt.
Track running, the 1500 (one mile) or shorter, needed a different approach.
Thanks messi for acknowledging & commenting on my $.02 worth here.
VO2Max = idiocy wrote:
Cam Levins has a VO2Max of 60, you morans.
Besides name calling to be rude, what is your point?