Can an average guy run sub 3:10 in the marathon?

The Way We Were wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

You are seriously underestimating the time it would take an average runner to complete 100 mpw.

The average runner, being generous would run a 9 to 10 minute per mile pace , which would equal around 15 to 16 hours of running a week.

That’s an incredible amount of running, seeing as most elites don’t even run that much.

A guy who was running at 9-10 min / mile @ 30 mpw will improve his fitness and average running speed as he increases his mileage. By the time he hits 100 mpw, it will be more like 7 min / mile. But most people don't get there because they lack motivation.

You have described a lot of training for a little bit of success.

Runners who are able to race sub-3:10 for a Marathon, usually are (or were) able to run 30 miles per week at 6:00 to 8:00 minutes per mile. Not building up to 100 miles per week and then cutting down. I am referring to runners who never have run more than 35 miles per week.

The Way We Were wrote:

A guy who was running at 9-10 min / mile @ 30 mpw will improve his fitness and average running speed as he increases his mileage. By the time he hits 100 mpw, it will be more like 7 min / mile. But most people don't get there because they lack motivation.

Or, you know, they have jobs and family commitments.

a dedicated person could do it wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

You are seriously underestimating the time it would take an average runner to complete 100 mpw.

The average runner, being generous would run a 9 to 10 minute per mile pace , which would equal around 15 to 16 hours of running a week.

That’s an incredible amount of running, seeing as most elites don’t even run that much.

There's 168 hours in a week.

Yes it's a lot of time but that's different from saying it's not possible.

My point isn’t about lack of time; the average person probably watches more than 15 to 16 hours of tv a day. Rather it’s about the stress caused by running that much.

Seeing as elites run for less than 15 hours a week, it’s safe to say running that much isn’t sustainable. As far as running stress goes total time running is more important than distance covered (given the same level of exertion).

'95 - 3:54

'96 - 3:34

'97 - 3:27

'98 - 3:29

'98 - 3:29

'99 - 3:17

'00 - 3:09

'03 - 2:56

'04 - 2:52

'05 - 2:44

'08 - 2:34

'09 - 2:31 (V40)

I was one of the least "talented" runners at my secondary school (came next to last in the final year aged 16).

Did zero exercise until I was ~22 when I was doing graduate studies and my supervisor got me into running.

First marathon at age 26.

Then it was just a very gradual iterative process of working out what sort of training worked best for me and gradually increasing the mileage over the years as I was able to tolerate it.

I'm 5'8" and was always reasonably trim, but dropped from ~65kg in 1995 to ~60kg in 2009.

So I tend to lean towards the opinion that an average guy, trained right could definitely run 3:10 if they had the discipline to do the training.

Average 3:07 guy wrote:

Average Joe bro wrote:

Serious question but can any average guy trained right run sub 3:10?

The average in the US is around 4:10 or 4:22 depending who you quote.

So a 3:10 Marathon is above average.

But I always thought I was an average runner when I ran 3:07.

Can you do it? We don't know your specifics. Age, weight, training so far...

But I don't think it is impossible.

https://marastats.com/marathon/

I am surprised that this did not end the conversation. Livestrong reports the median time for men to be 4:17 in 2012 (consistently with the range given above) and 3:30 in the 1980s. The time from 2012 is more representative of the whole population as more people ran marathon in 2012 compared to 1980s. Even now the people who run marathons self-select. So, I believe that decent running talent (including the ability to run high mileage injury-free) is required. My interpretation of these stats is that an average male simply does not have the ability to run a 3:10 marathon.

The population of LRC MB has a massive self-selection bias as well as survivor's bias and has no idea what average is like. People who are more injury-prone or have less genetic talent for running typically don't become lifelong members of the community of dedicated runners. You may think, "Hey, I'm a runner, and I'm slow and injury-prone. If I can do it, anyone can." But you're only comparing yourself against other runners. You aren't comparing yourself against all the people who tried running but quit because they couldn't ever run more than 15mpw at 10:00/mi without getting injured. You are comparing yourself to a self-selected community that is inevitably going to disproportionately contain people who are naturally talented at it.

I have no idea what the potential of the average person is, but you definitely won't find it by surveying a self-selected group of survivors. A lot of runners mistakenly believe that anyone can run high mileage without injury if they just follow the 10% rule. This is complete bologna. First of all the 10% rule is completely worthless for the people who need it the most--beginning runners and runners who struggle with injury and are returning from injury--because 10% of 0 is 0. Second of all, just because the 10% rule (or some other strategy) worked for you doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. This is survivor's bias. I suspect that the ability to run the kind of mileage needed to achieve a 3:10 marathon without injury may be far more rare than most LRCers think it is.

You also won't find it by looking up the average finishing times on a marathon stats website. That only tells you the actual average finish times--not the potential finish times of an average person. There are plenty of marathon finishers who don't achieve their full potential in a given race, but there are none who exceed their maximum potential. So the actual average finish time is skewed much lower than the maximum potential of the average person.

average guy runs 30mpw and is 20lbs over weight. 4hrs is realistic

LOL this is very true. In my mind, I am the same level I was at in high school because there's still guys I'm competing against and guys beating me. When I take a step back I realize this is ridiculous. Looking at the level I was at in high school, then in college, then after that. At each step, the field has been culled and it has become a more and more select group. But at each step of I've reset my expectation of what is good and what is normal because there is always enough people I can think of better than me. Maybe if I made an Olympic final, which ain't happening, that would change the mindset.

I think the same thing is happening here. A lot of guys who ran in college say all my college teammates could have run 2:30. Well, all my college friends weren't the normal running population. In fact, they were the very select group of thousands of high schoolers. Looking at that group is absolutely worthless when trying to find what the average person is capable of.

Hot Buns wrote:

The Way We Were wrote:

A guy who was running at 9-10 min / mile @ 30 mpw will improve his fitness and average running speed as he increases his mileage. By the time he hits 100 mpw, it will be more like 7 min / mile. But most people don't get there because they lack motivation.

Or, you know, they have jobs and family commitments.

There are many people who have run 100+mpw with jobs and family commitments.

Remember that before there was such a thing as a "pro runner," most top runners held full time jobs.

They are just more motivated than you.

Ruminator wrote:

I am surprised that this did not end the conversation. Livestrong reports the median time for men to be 4:17 in 2012 (consistently with the range given above) and 3:30 in the 1980s. The time from 2012 is more representative of the whole population as more people ran marathon in 2012 compared to 1980s. Even now the people who run marathons self-select. So, I believe that decent running talent (including the ability to run high mileage injury-free) is required. My interpretation of these stats is that an average male simply does not have the ability to run a 3:10 marathon.

No it did not end the conversation because once again it is not what the OP asked

BTW, the owner of Slowtwitch forums, Dan Empfield once wrote that any male under 40 that has no physical impediments, should be able to do 38min for 10km and sub 3 marathon if trained properly, lose weight etc etc.

I agree with him.

Look at the males around the median and slower, do they look like they can't lose more weight? Do they look like they run with good form? Do they look incorrectly/under trained?

THIS. THIS. THIS.

Less than 1% of runners can run 100mpw without eventually getting hurt.

You're completely right the "average" guy runs for a few weeks and either gets hurt or loses motivation and quits. And not getting hurt and staying motivated are the key components of marathon training.

That's ridiculous. Most of the people who joined XC in high school were band geeks or people who got cut from another sport, not talented athletes, and everyone got down to at least 21 minutes if they were semi-dedicated for more than one season. At least half of them could have gone on to run a 3:10 marathon if they got serious about it. And who cares what percentage could run 100 mpw. Not necessary.

I am Sam wrote:

BTW, the owner of Slowtwitch forums, Dan Empfield once wrote that any male under 40 that has no physical impediments, should be able to do 38min for 10km and sub 3 marathon if trained properly, lose weight etc etc.

I agree with him.

I used to believe that, but I no longer do. I'm a 135 lb 35 year old male who's been training for 5 years and has a marathon PR of 4:04 (though I did have very hot, humid weather for a couple of races where I thought I was in about 3:45 shape). So I am proof that Dan is wrong unless you want to claim that my training is so bad that it makes the difference between a 3:00 and 4:00 marathon. But the training advice I see everywhere online and in books is basically the same (couple of faster workouts per week, one long run, easy runs or cross training on other days, one rest day). So it's not like there's that much variation between my training and any training advice or plan that I've ever seen. The thing is that no matter how gradually I try to ramp up my training I can never get anywhere close to the kind of volume or speed that a 3:00 runner would do without getting injured.

Based on my personal experience, I am skeptical that the average male under 40 is capable of 3:00, but I am absolutely 100% positive that it's absurd to say that ANY male under 40 who isn't overweight can do it.

If you run a 2:45 marathon, are you really average??

Well, one way to find out what is a full potential of a median male runner is to get a sample of boys at the age of 15 and give them financial means and incentives to fully focus on running for subsequent 10-15 years. This way they can reach their genetic potential as they would peak around their prime. Obviously, this is very expensive and no one will do that, so one looks at the statistics available, such as the median time of marathon finishers. Now, the quoted 4:17 probably is not that but it does provide some useful information and it is far from 3:10.

However, the time 3:30 from the 1980s is arguably closer to a potential of a group of serious, in many cases life-long runners who were way more talented then general population. And even then the median did not reach 3:10. So, it is highly unlikely that an average man can get to 3:10, no matter how hard he tries.

What Dan Empfield (whom I do not know) says is just another opinion that is hard to evaluate as it is not clear how he arrived at it - he may be an experienced coach but a lousy statistician, who knows.

Hardloper wrote:

Charlesvdw wrote:

As always, LRC is overestimating the average guy’s running ability.

Not really. Average people usually underestimate their own potential especially if they started at an older age.

The average finishing times at most marathons are well over 4hrs, generally. 3:10 is not average. I understand that the male vs female average is usually different, however.

Yes, I agree that "a male" can get below 3:10 with training, but someone to trains 75 miles a week and lives a 2:45 marathoner lifestyle is not average either.

Hardloper wrote:

That's ridiculous. Most of the people who joined XC in high school were band geeks or people who got cut from another sport, not talented athletes, and everyone got down to at least 21 minutes if they were semi-dedicated for more than one season. At least half of them could have gone on to run a 3:10 marathon if they got serious about it. And who cares what percentage could run 100 mpw. Not necessary.

It's a silly question because the whole "if they got serious about it" part is not something that most people want to do.

It's just a silly hypothetical. The ''average guy" doesn't want to train that hard or run that much.

And many serious people get hurt. It's a LONG way from a 21 minute 5k to a 3:10 marathon (you know almost 8 21 minute 5ks in a row).

This is a silly question wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

That's ridiculous. Most of the people who joined XC in high school were band geeks or people who got cut from another sport, not talented athletes, and everyone got down to at least 21 minutes if they were semi-dedicated for more than one season. At least half of them could have gone on to run a 3:10 marathon if they got serious about it. And who cares what percentage could run 100 mpw. Not necessary.

It's a silly question because the whole "if they got serious about it" part is not something that most people want to do.

It's just a silly hypothetical. The ''average guy" doesn't want to train that hard or run that much.

And many serious people get hurt. It's a LONG way from a 21 minute 5k to a 3:10 marathon (you know almost 8 21 minute 5ks in a row).

The original question is if the average person could run 3:10 if they "trained right." If people don't train or never want to train seriously then they don't count for the purpose of this hypothetical.

I probably should have noted that I'm now 62, so the marathon was more than 25 years ago. I still do 5k road races, and masters track. I'd accept that I may not have perfected marathon training, but it certainly wasn't a question of not being able to push myself. If anything I over did that when I was younger.

What I was trying to convey is that even with a degree of athletic ability, your genetics are going to determine the distance range over which you can effectively deploy that ability.

My genetics predisposed me to the shorter end of things. I could do sessions of 3 x (4x150m) acceleration runs and crack 12:00 for the last 100m, and I ran 52:xx for 400m. While it's not exactly flying, for a club runner it indicates reasonable speed. The fast twitch that let me do that, combined with a decent V02 max, made me best at 3000m. I did manage to place in the U.S. Masters at 5000m also, but I never had a stage where I could actually run 5000m hard. I did also manage an 88% age graded 10k at 54, but generally always did get comparatively worse the further up from 3000m I went.

For me, however, build and percentage of fast-twitch, meant that I was always going to be limited at the marathon.

You are probably a runner with more slow-twitch, and than enables you to run much closer to your maximum pace - and you're clearly admirable determined - had I gone through 10k faster than my 10k best, you would have needed a dustpan and brush to clear up the mess.