I know people who can't get up to 40 due to injuries but I'd be interested to know anyone that has been there for at least a couple years and couldn't BQ.
I know people who can't get up to 40 due to injuries but I'd be interested to know anyone that has been there for at least a couple years and couldn't BQ.
Lol. BMI is just as arbitrary as height/weight. Hello, weight consists of water, blood, muscle, bone, and fat. There are many combinations of these. In the short term, trying to lose weight will get you injured.
6-3 / 192 lbs age 34 in 2006. 80-100 MPW. Qualified by 35 minutes.
Neal Van Dyke wrote:
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.
The higher qualifying standard was a brief aberration from 1980-86. From 1971-76, the standard was 3:30 for men. Before 1970, there was no standard at all.
Back in the "good old days," Boston was a second-rate marathon with no aid stations, no prize money and fields of questionable quality. The present is a huge improvement on the past.
miIoandthecalf wrote:
Out of the 400:
398 plan to purchase a "Boston Jacket"
7 plan to purchase and wear "Boston Qualifier" t-shirt
387 ran within 3 minutes (faster) of the time the needed to qualify
The main reason I don't run Boston is because I don't want to spend any more time than is necessary with people who want to run Boston.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
Lol. BMI is just as arbitrary as height/weight. Hello, weight consists of water, blood, muscle, bone, and fat. There are many combinations of these. In the short term, trying to lose weight will get you injured.
Assuming average talent...Trying to log enough miles with enough intensity to qualify while carrying excess weight will get you injured in the short term.
well8567 wrote:
I know people who can't get up to 40 due to injuries but I'd be interested to know anyone that has been there for at least a couple years and couldn't BQ.
How many people that can't maintain 40mpw because of injuries have self-inflicted issues vs born that way problems they cant get over.
From the small sample size of people I know, it's been self-inflicted. Too much weight. Too much too soo. Too fast too often. Stupid shoes. I guess their brain is an issue they may not be able to fix.
6' 0" 160. Qualified on first marathon at 42 yrs old. Running 40+ mpw. Started running 4 yes prior when 1 mile killed me at 205lbs. Built up to marathon on a whim and didn't even know what a bq was until after the first marathon. 13 years later with consistent 40-50mpw and never a plan, I qualify by large margin and my pr keeps dropping.
my 2c wrote:
Neal Van Dyke wrote:
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.
The higher qualifying standard was a brief aberration from 1980-86. From 1971-76, the standard was 3:30 for men. Before 1970, there was no standard at all.
Back in the "good old days," Boston was a second-rate marathon with no aid stations, no prize money and fields of questionable quality. The present is a huge improvement on the past.
Back then there wasn't anyone registered that did not belong there it seems. Does anyone know what the invite process was?
I don't agree that it was a second rate Marathon for the time period. Maybe by today's standards but it should be compared against other Marathons at the time. The prize money back then was to maintain amateur status. It was a different world in which you are apparently not familiar with.
In my opinion it became second rate in modern times when London was paying huge appearance fees and Boston was not. The only incentive to race at that point was to win the Marathon majors prize. This was back around 2007.
Raysism wrote:
miIoandthecalf wrote:
Out of the 400:
398 plan to purchase a "Boston Jacket"
7 plan to purchase and wear "Boston Qualifier" t-shirt
387 ran within 3 minutes (faster) of the time the needed to qualify
The main reason I don't run Boston is because I don't want to spend any more time than is necessary with people who want to run Boston.
This is spot on.
Trollin wrote:
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
Lol. BMI is just as arbitrary as height/weight. Hello, weight consists of water, blood, muscle, bone, and fat. There are many combinations of these. In the short term, trying to lose weight will get you injured.
Assuming average talent...Trying to log enough miles with enough intensity to qualify while carrying excess weight will get you injured in the short term.
If you are too heavy for training then you are ramping up your training too quickly. If you slowly increase mileage/intensity, the weight tends to come off naturally and evenly. Trying to control weight while also training hard (possibly outside your current ability) will lead to more stress and injury.
miloandthecalf wrote:The average weight for male respondents was 157 pounds. The average height, 5’8”. For comparison, the average American male is (allegedly, these statistics may be inaccurate) approximately 5'9 and thirty three pounds heavier (190 pounds).
On a personal note, I’m six feet tall and currently weigh about 175 pounds. That puts me about fifteen pounds heavier than the average six foot respondent. Clearly, I have work to do on the weight front.
So the average weight for 6'0" was basically the same as the overall average weight even though that is 4 inches taller than the average height?!?
Interesting. So shorter runners must be proportionally heavier (i.e higher BMI)? How many 6'0" runners did you get as your sample size?
M45.
5 9 148 lb.
BQ in fifth marathon, 50 seconds under the “real” BQ time, more than 5 minutes under the offical time limit.
1000 miles/year, so just 20 mpw on average, peak week 32 miles.
Maybe I should call myself “ low mileage guy” ;)
Had my best year in 2019 after running Boston, setting PR’s at age 45 of
-5k 18:20
-10k 39:58
- HM 1:29:30
-M 03:13
arunnerinwa wrote:
"While the vast majority of respondents used speed work in their training, the majority of runners (about 60%) didn’t use a canned program.
Similarly, the majority (64%) of runners didn’t run with a coach or club, nor did they engage in cross training."
This is interesting. In theory, perhaps 40% used a canned program, and 36% had a coach or club, leaving 24% having neither. I wonder how much overlap there is.
If you don't have a canned program or coach, how do you decide what to run? Do people instead create their own training plan? Or do they just go out and run what they're in the mood for that day?
(I always used a canned program. I'm a Pfitzinger fan, but I've been reading a Hanson's books lately.)
Most of us didn't have coaches or canned programs before the Nineties. I read training profiles, Fred Wilt's books, the ones in Runner's World, etc., or talked with others who were running well.
Raysism wrote:
miIoandthecalf wrote:
Out of the 400:
398 plan to purchase a "Boston Jacket"
7 plan to purchase and wear "Boston Qualifier" t-shirt
387 ran within 3 minutes (faster) of the time the needed to qualify
The main reason I don't run Boston is because I don't want to spend any more time than is necessary with people who want to run Boston.
The proliferation over the last few decades of excellent marathons with convenient logistics like a loop course and more reasonable registration and travel expenses have made it easy to pass up Boston.
Even other races with point to point courses and buses to the start don't usually have the long, hassled wait before the race in an 'athletes' village.'