what is the average mileage for 2:15 to 2:20 marathoners? also, what would you say are the extremes? being a moderately low mileage middle distance runner who plans to eventually move up (60-70 miles a week) it would be interesting to see what you guys think it would take in terms of mileage to run a good marathon.
I dont think there is very much of an average but I think youll find a lot running at least 100mpw, some running less, some running a lot more
100mpw at the lowest
Ran my first marathon 2:18:32 on 70 miles then stepped up to 120 and ran 2:11:08
I have a friend who ran 2:17 on 40-50 mpw, 2:16:54 on 60-70 mpw and 2:15:34 on about 120 mpw. The 2:15 came about ten years after the 2:16. Don MacGregor, seventh at Munich with a best of 2:14 was getting around 100 mpw in that year. Later on he ran 2:17 on ten weeks at 65-70.
I also know of people who've done over 150 and run in that range. I don't think "average mileage" is really going to tell you much that's useful.
I think what he's looking for is not so much an average, but more of anecdotal evidence that he'd be able to run a decent marathon off of relatively low mileage. Everyone reacts differently to 26.2 and the training that goes along with it. Having run in the 2:17-2:20 range on a number of occassions, I see no reason why you couldn't run at least 2:20 off of 70-80 quality miles per week. Off of that little mileage, quality really would be key: you'd have to use a program that enables you to get quality long runs, tempo/lactic threshold runs, and probably longer intervals... most likely in that order of importance.
I think once you start talking about 2:18 or 2:17 and faster (unless you are supremely talented or have years of high mileage under your belt), then you'd have to bump up to higher mileage.
wrong-o wrote:
I think what he's looking for is not so much an average, but more of anecdotal evidence that he'd be able to run a decent marathon off of relatively low mileage.
There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence that would indicate what the OP could run based on what an anomaly has done.
To answer the question, I see no reason why a 60-70 mpw distance runner with a good solid track background, can't run 2:20 or better. That happens often. But going into it trying to run 2:15 by being the anomaly is ill-advised. If you are the anomaly, you should already know it.
spiney wrote:
Ran my first marathon 2:18:32 on 70 miles then stepped up to 120 and ran 2:11:08
Spiney, when did you start running? Did you run at all in high school?
malmo wrote:
[quote]wrong-o wrote:
I think what he's looking for is not so much an average, but more of anecdotal evidence that he'd be able to run a decent marathon off of relatively low mileage.
There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence that would indicate what the OP could run based on what an anomaly has done. quote
Malmo, that's exactly my point: he seems to be looking for evidence, but the only "real" evidence he's likely to find is one or two guys (ie anomalys) providing their own anecdotal accounts of "fast" results off of low mileage. And obviously, what works for one runner has no real bearing on what works for another. I think you pretty much restated my post.