What I've learned from surveying almost 400 runners who've qualified for Boston

huh what wrote:

It’s pretty remarkable that we’ve gotten to a place where a statement like “marathoners tend not to be fat” needs to come with a trigger warning.

Bruh it's just about being respectful. The point is that body type is one marker but not the be all end all. Plenty of fast runners out there that don't look maybe the stereotypical part. Pretty remarkable that comments like this need to follow a comment that's just trying to be aware of all of the different attitudes/feelings at play given the sensitivity of the topic. Nobody is policing anyone or anything. It's just about trying to be a decent person. I can't believe that's so obscene in some smaller circles in our community.

Milo -- I know I gave you data back in 2012 for my first BQ. Do you think there's a statistically relevant change if any of these markers given the faster qualifying times? I ran 3:03 in 2012 but was running pretty solid mileage and ran a 2:53 two months later, so decently under the 3:00 barrier that became the new standard.

miloandthecalf wrote:

There's a number of posts with graphics available here:

https://miloandthecalf.com/2016/01/05/data-analysis-of-the-boston-qualifier-questionnaire-part-i-overview/

Ah, thank you!

Basically

1. They figure out the following within 4-6 years.

2. Get the weight low enough for your God given talent to be able to train/race fast enough to not get injured.

3. Run enough(40+MPW ), with enough speed work, to get fast enough but not too much as to get injured.

4. If you can't figure those things out in 4-6 years then your chances of ever figuring it out as you get older diminish quickly.

After chasing it for years I finally qualified...for 2020 and 2021. Lol.

One more statistic:

Out of 218 women surveyed, just 12 admitted to being virgins

Of the 182 men surveyed, 127 admitted to being virgins

Out of those 127, all 127 were also living in their parents basement AND are posters of letsrun's message boards.

Out of the remaining 52 non virgin males, only 7 said they were living in their parents basement. Out of those remaining 45 living on their own, 0 post on LetsRun.

miIoandthecalf wrote:

One more statistic:

Out of 218 women surveyed, just 12 admitted to being virgins

Of the 182 men surveyed, 127 admitted to being virgins

Out of those 127, all 127 were also living in their parents basement AND are posters of letsrun's message boards.

Out of the remaining 52 non virgin males, only 7 said they were living in their parents basement. Out of those remaining 45 living on their own, 0 post on LetsRun.

Are the 3 missing virgins (182-127=55, you say 52), held hostage in your parent's basement with you?

I must be a huge outlier. I started running in 1975, ran my first Boston in 2009. I didn't have a problem with a BQ but I had a real problem with BA (Boston airfares) and BHR (Boston hotel rates).

Trollin wrote:

Are the 3 missing virgins (182-127=55, you say 52), held hostage in your parent's basement with you?

Sorry. Bad math.

Taller 6’00”, lighter 148, avg mileage 35, no speed work, no coach/club, no HS or college, no real plan but got in my long runs and tempos. Qualified by 16 minutes at 31, married, 1 kid. Got a jacket but not the huge tacky symbol official jacket.

Trollin wrote:

Basically

1. They figure out the following within 4-6 years.

2. Get the weight low enough for your God given talent to be able to train/race fast enough to not get injured.

3. Run enough(40+MPW ), with enough speed work, to get fast enough but not too much as to get injured.

4. If you can't figure those things out in 4-6 years then your chances of ever figuring it out as you get older diminish quickly.

I think this actually boils down a Boston Qualifying time for a newly minted runner very well. Do the minimum you can to get that BQ and done. If they lost more weight, ran more miles, ran more workouts a BQ time would be the least of their concerns but most don't wan to be told the truth. They want sunshine blown up their asses about 'body types being differen', 'crosstraining is good for your running', 'weight-training is better than that time spent running' etc.

Rainy Day wrote:

Taller 6’00”, lighter 148, avg mileage 35, no speed work, no coach/club, no HS or college, no real plan but got in my long runs and tempos. Qualified by 16 minutes at 31, married, 1 kid. Got a jacket but not the huge tacky symbol official jacket.

I didn’t see the “first BQ” part. Only qualified by 3’03” and 5 years after my first 10K. Seems like I do fit the mold.

Rainy Day wrote:

Taller 6’00”, lighter 148, avg mileage 35, no speed work, no coach/club, no HS or college, no real plan but got in my long runs and tempos. Qualified by 16 minutes at 31, married, 1 kid. Got a jacket but not the huge tacky symbol official jacket.

If all true.. you have a bunch of natural talent. Good for you, not that easy for everyone.

Trollin wrote:

If all true.. you have a bunch of natural talent. Good for you, not that easy for everyone.

Maybe a little, but again only qualified by a little more than 3 minutes the first time. The 16 minutes was 2 years later. I think the weight is a huge factor, I may have been closer to 144-145.

10 years later and 10 lbs heavier and I get injured every time I start making real progress. Can barely run a 5K at my old MP.

Hi there!

I am a writer for Canadian Running Magazine, and I would love to talk to you about your questionnaire, as I believe our readers would be very interested in learning this information. Is there an email I can reach you at?

Thank you,

Brittany

Don't mean to demean OPs work but didn't Paul Slovic do a similar study DECADES ago? And wasn't Slovic merely tweaking Ken Young's theory? Can any cagey veteran from the 70s confirm? In any event it's all about the miles.

I think you need a larger sample size in your survey. 400 out if how many thousands of participants seems too small to draw any conclusions.

When I ran Boston I had been running for 20 years. I assume your data on accumulated miles has more to do with Boston being the hobby jogger Olympics than the total miles on legs.

Most runners I know who have been lifelong runners have no problem qualifying.

NERunner53 wrote:

Nobody is policing anyone or anything. It's just about trying to be a decent person. I can't believe that's so obscene in some smaller circles in our community.

Pretty sure the Stillman weight calculator had to be taken down because of you people.

Interesting read. The fact that most runners qualify within six years leads me to think that one is either genetically predisposed to BQ, or not. If you have the talent, and put in the work and the miles over a few training cycles, you will BQ. On the other hand, there are people who train seriously for years and never get in.

What'd really be interesting would be to know what number (or percentage) of BQ times nowadays would meet the far more demanding qualifying standards of, say, 1985. I'd guess that today's field of 35,000 would dwindle down to about 4,000-5,000.