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

I'm slow-twitch--everyone on my FB feed can beat me in a 100m but I improve above 5000m.

I'm hoping to get back in the sub-20 bracket before 2020 for 5k and run my first 'thon. I hate this stupid heat though; August hurry up and be done with!

glaukos wrote:

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.

Exactly. I don't know what the exact answer to this question is, but if by average you mean the "median guy", the answer is no where close to 3:10.

of the TINY percentage of people that self-select to run a marathon, most can't run a 3:10. You know that already.

Are you asking if the 99.9% of non-runners would somehow fare better?

.

Bananarooney wrote:

Probably closer to 2:30, If they actually trained properly.

As late as 1970, one could win big marathons with such a time.

old knackered ex-runner wrote:

'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.

This exposes the fallacy of reasoning badly from selective anecdote. You suppose you are average, so your progression suggests to you that the average guy could experience a similar progression. Never mind that the "data" refers only to one person (you) and may anyway simly prove the falsity of the assumption that you are average.

I'm slower than you, and it took me a long time to realize that I'm well above average as a distance runner, the more so given that I have a strong, heavy build.

I'd generally be hesitant to question the training of a low 15min/ 4:20 guy, but in your reply to the 'honest question' poster you never mentioned your training mileage. I'm going to speculate here, but did you hold 60+ miles per week for at least 5 months? I'd be surprised. Did you practice marathon pace in the last half of long runs? 70s difference between 10k and marathon pace is dramatic, and points to a lack of specific training for a 3 hr race/ glycogen depletion. If you've run 34 min, that dispels your 'purely fast twitch' argument. The drop off from your 15:22 to 34 10k sounds like too much VO2 max work and not enough base/threshold.

Your story sounds very similar to mine. I could never run sub 12 100m, but 52, 4:25 mile, 15:45, 1:17 half, ....which would indicate low/mid 2:40s potential, but my marathon is twenty minutes slower at 3:04! Partly terrible pacing sense (I've split 1:23, and ended walking in at 3:04/3:05 on three occasions- yeah stupid), but also, average mileage of 45-55mpw. I'm certain that had I held 70mpw and gone out slower- in 1:27, I would have easily broken 3hrs (that was 15yrs ago, so likely moot point now).

Another mistake I'd always make was taking excessive rest so interval workouts always became repetition VO2 work. 3 and 4 minutes between km repeats so I could break 3:00 (basically my 3k pb pace) when I should have done more at 10k 3:15- with 60-90s recov)

Reading these forums, you can get a skewed perspective from those who post that they've run 2:40 on 40 mpw. Either outliers or just regular liars.

BTW- I would never accuse a 15:22 guy of 'complete lack of mental toughness' Anyone who can run for 15 minutes at sub 5 pace has some mental toughness.

Charlesvdw wrote:

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

Bing-F'n-O

Only God knows the answer and he whispered to me that the answer is no. He said that it is more than 4 hours for a male. Statisticians confirmed it by looking at data of millions of marathon finishers over 50 years.

Ability= current performance level

VS

Potential-IE as the OP mentioned [any average guy trained right.

Of course, the average guy couldn't go out and run 3:10 today. The average person runs a marathon to say they've completed the distance, irregardless of pace. Next level are ppl who aim to break some time barrier -4hours or 3:30 for instance. The majority under 45 could likely do that on 5 days a week 40ish miles, at a BMI that is towards the high end of the recommended range.

Any male in their 20s or 30s who has put in a year of solid 60-70 mile weeks w long runs of 18-22 miles and hasn't broken 3:10 is an outlier.

70mpw is not a professional level commitment. It's an hour an a half daily at 9min pace, which is about where you want to be for 80% of those 70miles.

Sorry to hear about your injuries. What type of injury is it? 4 hours is around 9min pace. What's your typical training pace? If you're hammering all your mileage out at MP or faster, your body won't be able to recover. You want to be 9:30-10:00 pace most of the time, and do longer tempo runs maybe just once a week around 8:30 pace for 45-75minutes. Don't need to go too fast in your interval days, and hills might be less stressful than track reps. Are you able to do fast strides to address mechanics and turnover. 5 or 6 100m strides on a soft surface- not a full out sprint, maybe 3 or 4 seconds slower than all out. Are you doing any strength work?Might help correct an imbalance. Deadlifts, lunges (incl side and back lunges) and deep squats. Start with bodyweight if you're unsure. What's your 10k?

MUT and Road Runner wrote:

2:05 is one in a 100 million

Unless your Kalenjin. I think there are only 5 million Kalenjin in the world.

47 Kenyans have broken 205 or faster in the marathon. I'm going to say 75% of them are Kalenjin. Anyone know if it that's a good guess?

That would mean roughly 35 Kalenjins have done it.

So one in 1/142,857 Kalenjins can go sub-2:05 but that includes females so roughly 1 / 71,400 males Kalenjins can do it.

World wide your numbers are way off as well.

There are 7.7 billion people in the world. Divide that in half and we get 3.85 billion men. 97 men in world history have broken 206.

So that means 1/39,690,721 men.

So its' basically 1 in 40 million overall not 100 million.

The Kalenjin are 555 times better at it than average.

I ran a 3:15 marathon on only 35 to 40 miles per week at age 27; longest run leading up to it was one 20 miler, and several 16s. I was an average 18 min. 5k runner. After the marathon I ran a 16:20 5k pr. I suppose with a little more effort I could have gone sub 3:10. Later at age 42 I ran a 1:24.00 HM on pretty much the same amount of mileage. Never was a big mileage guy but now wonder what could have been had I been.

Actually, I was 15:22 road 5k and 32:22 road 10k, the road 10k at the end of a summer where I'd primarily been competing at 800m -to 3000m (or 3000m s/c) on the track.

At the time I lived in England, and the system there provides club competition on the track through summer.

When I came over here, I switched to 5k road-racing, and later to that + master's track competition, and concentrating more on the relatively longer distances ran age graded equivalents of 14:58 5k and 31:30 10k (I've got a couple of state single age records at that distance). That might be a reflection of where I would have maxed out if I had focused on longer stuff when I was young, or might be a little flattering, as I seemed to experience a relatively slow decline.

I think I'd have been 36/37 when I did the marathon. It's 25 years ago, so I wouldn't remember the exact mileage (I never wrote it down anyway). If I'd have made an error, it would have been running the long runs too fast. I did one longer run as 3 miles at 6:00 + 74 minute half marathon. I did do a couple of 20s, and one of those at 2:45 pace. I did also have more than 20 years of running/racing behind me at that point, with regular weekly runs of 10 miles+ and more frequently in the winter.

More than anything, I'd have a tendency to 'bonk' - just completely run out of gas. If I'm off for a couple of weeks after a competitive peak, I can 'bonk' on a 5 mile run - just go from running easily to running on empty in a matter of a couple of minutes. In those days we didn't have gels, just water, and maybe some kind of sports drink. I actually did my 20s without water/food.

I did two marathons, both London, 12 months apart, The first year I was cruising, and passing people from halfway up to the end of mile 21, and then just ran out of gas. The following year 1 ran splits of 1:23.30, 1:24.0 and felt decent most of the way.

That tells me that although I probably could have trained smarter, and run somewhat faster, the 'anyone could run 2:30' argument didn't apply to me. Maybe I could have run under 2:40, but no way under 2:30.

jonnykaa wrote:

What type of injury is it? What's your typical training pace? Are you able to do fast strides to address mechanics and turnover. 5 or 6 100m strides on a soft surface- not a full out sprint, maybe 3 or 4 seconds slower than all out. Are you doing any strength work?Might help correct an imbalance. Deadlifts, lunges (incl side and back lunges) and deep squats. Start with bodyweight if you're unsure. What's your 10k?

Many different injuries. PF the most common, but in addition there's always something new. This year the new things I've been dealing with is pain on the top of the feet behind the toes, and to a lesser extent, pain right in the middle of the front of the shin. Over the winter most of my running was at 9:30/mi pace and during the hot, humid summer I'm doing 10:00-10:30/mi. My "speed" workouts are around 1:35/400 or a 10-20 min interval at 7:30-8:30/mi.

I don't like strides. Since there's no target pace and no way to evaluate whether I'm on target and the duration is too short for any limiters to kick in, I tend to accelerate up to speeds that are closer to sprinting than I was trying for. I don't really have any way to gauge how hard I should be going when I try to do strides. I don't know what you consider a "soft surface." The streets where I live are concrete, but I will usually try to include some running on a short asphalt loop especially if I'm doing intervals. I'll go drive somewhere to run on a packed gravel trail (former railroad bed) or asphalt trail for my long run on the weekend, but I don't want to get in my car and deal with traffic and add a commute time to every weekday run.

As for strength work, I do squats occasionally when I go to the gym to swim and the squat racks aren't all taken. I guess I have very unusual body proportions though in terms of the ratio of legs and arm lengths to body length. It seems like it's physically impossible for me to position my body properly to do deadlifts without an enormous strain on my lower back. Squats also seem to sometimes cause lower back pain and exacerbate PF.

I've only run 10Ks as part of Olympic triathlons, so my 10k PR is :49 or :48 if you count the 10k split during my HM PR. 5k is :21. HM is 1:43.

Imamess2 wrote:

I ran a 3:15 marathon on only 35 to 40 miles per week at age 27; longest run leading up to it was one 20 miler, and several 16s. I was an average 18 min. 5k runner. After the marathon I ran a 16:20 5k pr. I suppose with a little more effort I could have gone sub 3:10. Later at age 42 I ran a 1:24.00 HM on pretty much the same amount of mileage. Never was a big mileage guy but now wonder what could have been had I been.

The question is always about who is average. I would say 16:20 is a pretty darn talented runner. Especially off 40 mpw. People just like to compare themselves to the more talented crew and not the less talented people.

Reality is nobody knows what would happen if everyone out there trained from say 13-25 to run a fast marathon (i.e. we shoot everyone who doesn't break 3:10:)). Obviously there would be orders of magnitude more people doing it than now but if the average would be 2:40 or 3:30, I don't know. We know of the self selected crew that do run marathons, most can do it in 4 hours. But most don't train (i.e. not many are breaking 60mpw for 3+ years) seriously.