You should be able to predict your half marathon time by your 5k/parkrun result. If I run 18:15 and all the splits are 6-6:05 then I know I will run 1:21-1:22, assuming I am consistently jogging 30-40 mpw.
I ran my first marathon in May, 1972 in 4:34:30. It was much slower than even my most conservative expectations. I'd thought running for an hour each day and for about two hours once a week would have me in decent shape.
When I looked at my diary I saw that I'd really only had three weeks when I had actually done that. I skipped a LOT of days. So I quit doing that and got to 50 to 70 a week through the summer and autumn. In November '72 I ran an hour five minutes faster.
If the OP and probably you knew me then I imagine so much improvement in so little time would make you suspect me. That wouldn't have bothered me. I think I'd have laughed about it. But a great thing about this sport is when some who's dabbled in it and never showed any ability gets really serious and gets performances s/he could once have only fantasized about. It's sad if such people aren't given all the credit they deserve.
I, at 71, have no idea where I'd get the drugs you're talking about. But I suspect that many of the people who do know and do take them are not doing it for improved running but to be able to do things they can't anymore because of age. Better running is a by product, though I may be totally wrong here.
At 71 you could get a prescription for testosterone (TRT - testosterone replacement therapy) from your doctor. Countless Americans do now. Some of them are senior athletes.
This is one of the highest constructive comment to dumb post ratios I’ve seen in a while
That's the kind of comment I used to see on the Houlihan threads before she was busted. And most of the posts put her improvements down to "better training" - as they do on this thread.
This is one of the highest constructive comment to dumb post ratios I’ve seen in a while
That's the kind of comment I used to see on the Houlihan threads before she was busted. And most of the posts put her improvements down to "better training" - as they do on this thread.
Why would an average Joe start taking PEDs to improve their 1:32 half-marathon? You are so hung up on steroids that you probably decorated your house like a laboratory, eat out of a petri dish, cook on a Bunsen burner, use a blood bag as a pillow, and have pictures of syringes hanging on your wall.
Clearly, you have never ran with someone who 1) has not trained seriously until joining 2) has more genetic potential than you (sometimes called "talent"). I have ran with people who respond incredibly well to training and also show great progression. At some point the progression will taper out but if their body can handle it and they are stubborn enough they can hit impressive drops in times.
Correct because when you started again you where probably not able to run 70 miles a week. You had to build back up to that fitness or something similar in workload like 40-50miles and 2 workouts.
The ability to run 70 miles a week, where run excludes jogging or walking but is something like Daniels E Pace, indicates Aerobic fitness.
I do not know a single runner male or female who runs regular 70 mile weeks and is not able to run faster then 1:32 half.
I am much more suspicious of a guy who runs super times of low milage and scientific training, especially weights balanced on a bosu ball...