Realistic Goals Starting Fresh at 48?

No, it’s not realistic. current 5K time predicts like a 3:50 marathon. In 6 months, if you stay healthy and ramp up mileage I would think <3:30 would be a more realistic goal.

dunkirkmcgee wrote:

I'm currently 48, 6 foot even, about 170. I haven't run more than a few minutes since high school except last week i went to the track and ran a 5K in 23:40 and that took everything out of me to do that.

My son in law wants me to run a marathon in the fall with him and I'd like to kick his ass in it.

1. With prior training is it even remotely realistic to go under 3 hours with about 6 months of training?

2. What would be the absolute best time I could hope for

Training time and effort isn't a concern, and neither is money for better gear within reason. But before I start getting my hopes up I want to gauge if I can hit those goals. (his marathon PR is just over 3 hours).

Thanks all.

I started at 47 , ran 3:30 with little training. It took 6 months to get to 3:10, and 4 years to get to sub 3. The ass that will get kicked is yours.

No chance of sub 3.

If you haven't done much running for 30 years, you need to be very cautious building mileage, or you will get injured.

Starting from where you are starting at age 48, 4 hours would be a good result.

As others have said I think it is very very unlikely. It would be one thing if you were like 220 pounds but you are already reasonably lean. Honestly, I don't mean to be rude but at your age and 5k starting point I think it is an ambitious goal in general (forget 6 months).

dunkirkmcgee wrote:

I'm currently 48, 6 foot even, about 170. I haven't run more than a few minutes since high school except last week i went to the track and ran a 5K in 23:40 and that took everything out of me to do that.

My son in law wants me to run a marathon in the fall with him and I'd like to kick his ass in it.

1. With prior training is it even remotely realistic to go under 3 hours with about 6 months of training?

2. What would be the absolute best time I could hope for

Training time and effort isn't a concern, and neither is money for better gear within reason. But before I start getting my hopes up I want to gauge if I can hit those goals. (his marathon PR is just over 3 hours).

Thanks all.

It really depends.

How about working on your 5k, see how fast/if you can get to sub 20:00?

Make sure to include a long run. My suggestion is that you increase the long run's time until you get to 1h30

If you get to sub 20:00 for 5k, and two or three 1h30 runs per month before April, I would say you have a chance.

Also, unless you are really mechanically sound in your stride, the chance of you getting hurt just attempting to run a "fast " marathon that soon is really high. You may be able to eventually get there through a sound training plan, good nutrition, and adequate sleep, but it will take a while (years?) and you must really listen to your body along the way. Good luck!

In order to run a sub 3 marathon, you would have to cut about 3 min off your 5k time. Then you would need to run back to back 5k PRs 8 times in a row and then you would still have another 2k to get to the finish line.

If you really want to get into running marathons, you should not try to run for time on your first try. Your sole focus should be safely acclimating to higher mileage training and getting to the point where you can do a 20 mile long run and feel pretty decent at the end.

After you finish your first marathon, you can start looking at training plans and trying to hit a reasonable time goal (probably 3:30) and go from there.

I ran sub-3 at 48, but that was 4 years after returning to regular running after a long layoff. The good news is that you're starting reasonably lean and fit. The bad news is that at 48, you absolutely have to be much more careful to avoid injury and take a gradual approach.

I think you could get in shape to finish a marathon by the fall, but sub-3 is pretty unlikely (unless you have amazing levels of talent - what were your HS PRs?). What times has your son-in-law run in races?

But step 1 is pretty much the same, whatever you do. Get some good running shoes at your local running store and start running. Take 1-2 months to work up from an easy jog-walk every other day to short, easy runs 5-6 days per week. Once you're at 6 days/week running, you can think about running longer or faster on some days. But don't underestimate how long it can take for your joints/tendons to get used to daily running. It may feel stupidly easy at first, but the only way this is going to work is for you to be very patient right now and not get injured.

If you have some sort of reasonable level of talent and the dedication (and remain injury free), I bet you could shave 2 min off your 5k time (to 21:30ish) in 6 months. Do all the work necessary to prep for the marathon distance and be in shape for a 3:30:00 marathon which would age grade to like 3:11:00. That also assumes that you execute on race day which is another matter entirely. You probably still won't beat him with your age graded time since it sounds like he is running low 3hrs.

This guy ran sub three and he’s 70. How hard could it be?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/health/gene-dykes-boston-marathon-record-ultrageezer-20190412.html%3foutputType=amp

whoop there it is wrote:

This guy ran sub three and he’s 70. How hard could it be?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inquirer.com/health/gene-dykes-boston-marathon-record-ultrageezer-20190412.html%3foutputType=amp

Well. That guy had been running in earnest for 14 years before he broke 3 hrs. The poster here wants to do it in 6 months. Thats the difference.

spinozza wrote:

No, it’s not realistic. current 5K time predicts like a 3:50 marathon. In 6 months, if you stay healthy and ramp up mileage I would think <3:30 would be a more realistic goal.

Current 5k is pretty meaningless if the OP has run more than a few mins in the past 30 years. Even if he has been doing aerobic stuff like swimming, biking and staying great shape, you should still see massive improvements with 3-4 months of solid running.

What exactly those improvements are nobody can say. 3:30 seems like a reasonable good guess but with the marathon a lot depends on how you can handle mileage and the pounding on the legs. Again nobody can predict how you will respond.

That being said I would vote for aiming for a half.

3:50 is a reasonable goal. If you can't break 4:00 though, I wouldn't be too disappointed.

3:40 would be a stretch goal. 3:30 would be a tremendous stretch.

You don't have the endurance required now, and 6 months is not very much time to build endurance.

dunkirkmcgee wrote:

I'm currently 48, 6 foot even, about 170. I haven't run more than a few minutes since high school except last week i went to the track and ran a 5K in 23:40 and that took everything out of me to do that.

My son in law wants me to run a marathon in the fall with him and I'd like to kick his ass in it.

1. With prior training is it even remotely realistic to go under 3 hours with about 6 months of training?

2. What would be the absolute best time I could hope for

Training time and effort isn't a concern, and neither is money for better gear within reason. But before I start getting my hopes up I want to gauge if I can hit those goals. (his marathon PR is just over 3 hours).

Thanks all.

Why would you even want to run a marathon? Why the obsession with a marathon?

Why not swim the English Channel? Fewer have done that. One legged guys have run a marathon.

Running events that are not in your wheel house, or skill set, or talent, is an absolute waste of time.

If you have no talent for the marathon, then all you are doing is some masochistic exercise where you can say you finished. If you want to run, and improve, find an even that suits your body, and drive it home. Learn how to flog your body for performance improvement, not just for boring, outlast the fat guy next to you, type kumbaya.

Find a distance where you can have a beginning, middle and ending, that shows some sort of plan. Not a plan to survive into the 3 rd hour.

The marathon is a stupid event for anyone who doesn't have the make up for running marathons. Its not the same event for elite marathoners as it is for you joggers. Its like them taking a walk in the park. Its not an ordeal. They can race it. You can't. You can just out last the old lady running alongside.

Running 3 - 4 hours in an organized "race" is not racing. Running in a crowd is not racing.

Go find a race. and run hard.

skip the 'thon/full mary OP, those are terrible for most folks

im a non-runner [swimmer in HS/college, ex sprinter], 6'2 /200 and lean enough. At 40 I decided to run [and not just swim/bike], and deciding to be a 'thon-er was a huge mistake

fortunately I focused a bit more on the 400/mile/5k and got some decent results there for my age and in my early 40s managed to tick of a 65s 400, sub 6 mile, and sub 20 5k [usually in different years] off ~15-25 mpw

then 'thon planning took over. First slow half's, then a thon. Being mired in the mid/low 1:40s for a 0.5 mary I still thought a BQ was possible.

A 3:50, hip problems and a nearly nuked achilles later, I'm back to ~3-5 mpw for fitness only, and can ~squeak a sub 6 mile still [um, yay?]

so anyways. Pass on the 'thon OP, they are terrible for bigger people [generally]. Far more fitness/health benefits in the <=5k realm, particuarly the 400-mile imho

dont do it man. worst case fun run the half---you wont get injured at least in the event nor the training unlike the mary on the 'crete

No actually is the single most useful piece of information he provided. His current fitness level is an all out 5K of over 23 min. It shows he’s not even in the same state as the ballpark to a 3hr marathon. what makes you think that in six months he would be able to significantly improve his aerobic capacity to run a marathon in three hours? Not gonna happen.

I started at 41, not out of shape, but with some excessive muscle. The goal was sub-4 marathon in 6 months.

I ran a 5k TT in 20:20 in about 3 months. Then my goal marathon in 3:29:xx (at 42 y.o).

Next one in another 6 months in 3:20:07.

Next one in a year in 3:09:04 (sub-optimal course and preparation).

I feel I was in roughly sub-3 shape though shortly before that, if conditions were ideal. 5k TT was 18:32 by this time.

I think that's a good picture of what you can expect if you have slightly above average talent with consistent training.

But you never know, maybe you're outlier. The biggest factor is how durable you are and how easy it would be for you to build up the mileage without losing time to injuries.

"I feel I was in roughly sub3 shape". Haha how many times have we heard that from people who never broke 3? It's not easy approaching 50 and it takes years not months if it ever happens.

I would ask yourself what you really want to do:

Do you want to beat your son-in-law? Talk him into a shorter race and see how you do. Much less pain than a marathon. You may beat him?

Do you want to run a marathon? Train as best as you can, and accept what ever marathon time this throws out. You can achieve this.

Do you want to try and run a sub 3 marathon? This will take a few years of dedicated training, and you will then be the wrong side of 50. Possible, but unlikely.

Do you want to try and run a sub 3 marathon, in 6 months time, and beat your son-in-law? No chance!