But if we just met for the first time and you said hey I'm a dad of 2 kids and I ran 4 hours I'd probably shrug that off - hence why I'm asking here.
OP, please just stop. The reason you're posting is to draw attention to yourself in some sort of bro-slacker-I'm-awesome-yawn way. You'd 'shrug off' the 4 hour marathoner above because you are a jerk. Let's just leave it at that, that you're a jerk who is not as awesome as you think you are.
Those who are willing to engage in a marathon race and finish it (no matter the time they achieve) possess a stamina and a level of fittness way above the average Joe.
Furthermore in massive marathon races without criteria of eligibility and time barriers the average time of finishers (who are much much fitter than the average Joe) is around 04:15:00.
People who are capable of running times below 03:00:00 are talented, well trained with knowledge about everything I mentioned above.
When a 02:45:00 marathon guy asks what is the average time they don' really seek an answer but just attention.
I am continually surprised that people on this board miss this. Marathons, to a point, are still self selecting activities. Most people who do them have a certain level of athleticism. This is also why bigger marathons (not ones that require qualifiers) have a tendency to have slower average paces. They are bucket list races that pull runners that may be less physically talented.
Running friend groups are also often self selected. If you are running with a group you probably already are with physically more talented runners because people who suck at it are not going to run for fun in a group. It is the rich person in Beverly Hills believing everybody must have a lot of money because everyone around them is rich kind of thinking.
I train as much as I can, but I can't do a lot of mileage as I get injured. I have hired coaches to help me with my running plans but I still max out around 50-60 miles a week on my peak weeks and but I can't maintain it for long or I break. I only managed a 25k race result of 1:56 last year. Not exactly burning up the course but that still put me in the top 15% of finishers and its unlikely with my current fitness I could break 3 hours in the marathon. I have been running consistently for years and that is the best I can do.
One of the main things people with running talent miss is that the ability to handle training is part of your natural ability. I love running, I wish I could run 80-90 miles a week. It isn't lack of desire or effort putting in the work. I just can't hit that mileage without my body self destructing. I am very easily injured doing speedwork as well which makes it hard to build up speed. I am jealous of people who can crush themselves in training, because I can, but then I will be out for a month with an injury.
Just run slowly enough that you can get the miles without injury. The speed will improve on its own. It isn't as though you need to run actually FAST to run a good (sub 3 hour) marathon. You just need to have the ability to keep going at that pace.
I like the post by WhatABunchOfJerkOffs, time grading the different talent/commitment level of marathon runners.
I guess you are talking male times, but as it's the marathon it's not too far off for women or men.
As a marathoner who used to be a miler, I'm thinking that "JerkOff" should do this time grading thing for the mile too.
As an older runner who's been beat up a wee bit by marathon training, I'm considering taking a crack at the mile again, why not? It's all just for fun when you are my age. But guess what--it was all just for fun when I was 18 too, and slightly fast.
Any time is a good time for the general population. I don't care if you ran 2:35 or run/walked a 5 hour race. Beey few people will ever xo plate 26.2 Miles of running or walking and as long as they are happy I'm happy.
That being said, if we are looking for a time that jumps out as good I'd say sun 3 hour. Not many people that didn't run seriously in college will hit that time, especially once they have real jobs and families.
According to Run Repeat’s investigation, the overall average marathon time worldwide is 4:29:53. Breaking it up by sex, the average time to run a marathon for men is 4:21:03, and the average time to run a marathon for women is 4:48:45.
What’s A Good Marathon Time?
With that being said, according to Running Level, a “good” marathon time across all sexes and ages is 3:48:20. Breaking it down by sex, 3:34:56 is a good marathon time for men, and 4:08:09 is a good marathon time for women.
OP, please just stop. The reason you're posting is to draw attention to yourself in some sort of bro-slacker-I'm-awesome-yawn way. You'd 'shrug off' the 4 hour marathoner above because you are a jerk. Let's just leave it at that, that you're a jerk who is not as awesome as you think you are.
Yawn.
Man you have a lot of issues. I'm comfortable with myself and attitude and never thought I was all that great. But since this is getting under your skin for some reason you must be pathetically slow.
According to Run Repeat’s investigation, the overall average marathon time worldwide is 4:29:53. Breaking it up by sex, the average time to run a marathon for men is 4:21:03, and the average time to run a marathon for women is 4:48:45.
What’s A Good Marathon Time?
With that being said, according to Running Level, a “good” marathon time across all sexes and ages is 3:48:20. Breaking it down by sex, 3:34:56 is a good marathon time for men, and 4:08:09 is a good marathon time for women.
Thanks then my perspective is way off if 4hrs is good for a young woman. I remember a runner who was BQing around 50+ and she was not 'fast' in my book. I was happy for them as a friend but was thinking wtf really.
I guess we're getting back to that 9:00+ pace is just so slow imo. I know 70+ year olds running sub 10:00 miles ~ 50mpw for fun (not even training) so to say that a 4:00 time is fast for people that actually train just confuses me.
I know people who moved to a place like Boulder who run relatively fast (say, sub 2:45 marathon) but they are humble about it, they know they are often mid packers in the competitive local races, whereas the guy in insert random local town/city USA who is even a sub3 marathoner feels like a superstar top5 serious local runner for his area, he is one of fastest at the local running store there and guy may assume name in the paper just for qualifying for the Boston Marathon. bottom line: train hard, be humble, have fun
I'm curious in which city a 2:45 marathoner will be a "midpacker" in a "competitive race". Assuming that "midpacker" means someone who has about as many people ahead of him as there are behind him.
I haven't witnessed a single marathon in which the median time is 2:45.
I know people who moved to a place like Boulder who run relatively fast (say, sub 2:45 marathon) but they are humble about it, they know they are often mid packers in the competitive local races, whereas the guy in insert random local town/city USA who is even a sub3 marathoner feels like a superstar top5 serious local runner for his area, he is one of fastest at the local running store there and guy may assume name in the paper just for qualifying for the Boston Marathon. bottom line: train hard, be humble, have fun
I'm curious in which city a 2:45 marathoner will be a "midpacker" in a "competitive race". Assuming that "midpacker" means someone who has about as many people ahead of him as there are behind him.
I haven't witnessed a single marathon in which the median time is 2:45.
That's because like many of the posts on this forum, it didn't happen. I believe the reason the LR forums are "World Famous" is because it's got the highest concentration of people who post on a specific topic they seem to know nothing about.
The OP is correct in the 'talent required' aspect, but of cause we are dealing with a population pool that is on average overweight, males at 30 BMI and females at 25
You'd think I would be happy to be labelled 'talented' or 'above average' simply for busting my gut to run 2:30, but I know how I went against 'real elite' athletes' , I'm not living in dreamland.
So yes, maybe our OP is 'average' but he did way more training than the 'average ' American
It's almost impossible to have an indication of average performance, when your sample pool is in no way inclined to train (relatively) the same as the elites.
I run marathons in the 2:35-2:45 range as a 40 year old male. I'm not that good myself, maybe decent. I think of myself as slightly above average even though "average" is probably 4:00 for males and 4:30 for females. But those are embarrassingly slow times. If someone tells me that I'm like sure.
But what times should I be impressed with? or feign it? (yeah I'm just a jackass who only thinks times faster than mine are impressive). If someone says they ran a 2:5x I'm thinking that's decent though I'd hate that myself. When they say 3:0X my ears close off and at 3:3x I'm like so you even trying bro (or gal). I think most ppl I know who train seriously/semi seriously run from 2:18 - 2:5x so my perspective is a bit warped.
My family always thinks my times are like record breaking but to me they're just good but okay.
Most healthy/fit people (so already above average), who don't run, even struggle to hold 8 min mile pace for a 5k. So I'd say getting to the point of being able to hold 8 min mile pace for a full marathon is quite good for the average population.
I want to punch every poster here so far. Trolling, smug, toxic bros, and/or arrogant are all of you, especially you OP. So, for you, 0/10.
Whatever. I had coaches in middle school and high school tell me that I wasn't an athlete. I don't think I could have even broken 65 in a 400m as a healthy 18 year old. I ran 3:17 after a year and half of training and topping out at a 55 mile week. I can't dunk, I can't bench 150 lbs. My natural body shape sucks. All it took was time and effort to run nearly 3:15. Most people don't want to work that hard. It's not arrogance.
I know a guy who ran 2:38 (and ran for Big Ten School) on a mere 35 miles a week. That should tell you the true divide between a non-talented unathletic runner like myself and somebody who ran for top collegiate program.
Most people cannot get to 55 miles per week without injury.
My friend ran 2:36 at the Boston marathon, and he thinks he’s the best in the world for some reason (lol, one of those types), but he literally packed up and moved to Boulder to pursue running. Barely broke 17 in college. His life revolves around his running. Literally obsessed with strava and spends his entire day trying to get as many followers as possible haha. My other friend (female) ran 2:38 on a difficult course last year. Both are early 20s. But she’s in med school. Has a job. Her life does not revolve around the sport. My point is, I’m much more impressed with her time because of the fact that she has other demanding things going on in her life and wasn't able to give it 100% (and also she’s a woman, so it’s a much better time in comparatively).
I’m much more impressed with someone who has a family, who has a full time job, who can’t plan their life around their runs. So, for the general public, if a guy runs sub 3 or a woman runs sub 3:30 I’m super impressed. But if someone who ran 4 years in college moves to Boulder to train and gives it their full time and commitment, I think it would take a sub 2:22 for guys and sub 2:40 for women for me to be impressed.
You're telling me a woman ran 2.38 whilst being in "med school" AND having a job? I don't believe you as I am a student doctor and there is not enough time for all three. Typical internet lies.
Marty Hehir ran some very fast marathons while in med school...
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.