wishful thinking? wrote:
Do you think a 3:08 for a guy indicates any talent at all off of this meager training?
The average guy in the street probably can't run 3:08 off of that kind of preparation so you're more talented than him. However, 2:19 guys are seriously good. One talent you'll need that you have no idea whether you've got is the ability to handle high mileage.
The odds are against you, but I like your attitude. Best of luck!
I have been wondering the same thing lately. But I have a bit more running experience. Started running after a long hiatus about 6 years ago, but I am 35.
Last spring I ran 2:44 on about 60mpw.
What does it take to go from 2:44 to 2:19?
You would need to take about 25 mins off your time
I say do a time trial in the mile to see where you stand with raw "speed." If you're over 4:45, then you probably have no shot in 2 years.
no and maybe.
me too, double your mileage and see how you hold up
I honestly doubt that I could run a 4:45 mile right now. But does that matter that much? I thought that rapid gains in speed are often seen with the addition of speedwork. I thought the thing which takes a long time to develop is the aerobic base / endurance.
dreeemer wrote:
I say do a time trial in the mile to see where you stand with raw "speed." If you're over 4:45, then you probably have no shot in 2 years.
me too. wrote:
I have been wondering the same thing lately. But I have a bit more running experience. Started running after a long hiatus about 6 years ago, but I am 35.
Last spring I ran 2:44 on about 60mpw.
What does it take to go from 2:44 to 2:19?
After extremely modest performances in high school and college, I gradually worked my way down from about 2:40 in my early 20s to under 2:19 in my early thirties, with various training interruptions for injuries and law school along the way. My training mileage in the months before my 2:40 was probably around 60 mpw; my training mileage before breaking 2:19 was often (typically, unless injured) well over 100 mpw. Jumping from 60-70 mpw on one run a day to over 100 mpw on two runs a day made a huge difference that was apparent within six to twelve months. I also did a lot of pool-running with a water-ski jacket (this was over 25 years ago, before running in water became relatively commonplace and a market for "aqua jogging" products developed); that was usually done at a very high level of intensity as a means of compensating for my inability to tolerate much high-intensity running on land.
The odds are probably against you, but anyone who claims to know your potential based on what you've told us is not particularly knowledgeable about marathon training and performance.
By the way, I'm not making any recommendations here about whether this whole enterprise is worth pursuing. That's a very serious matter that each person needs to decide in light of his own circumstances. You only get one shot at life (at least, that's my view), so choose wisely.
It would be less important if you didn't have such a short window - basically you need to have the natural "talent" (whatever that means) right now.Anyway, check out the guy named "SI" and his improvement: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=39540&page=1.Still, 2:25 is a long way off from 2:19. Good luck.
wishful thinking? wrote:
I honestly doubt that I could run a 4:45 mile right now. But does that matter that much? I thought that rapid gains in speed are often seen with the addition of speedwork. I thought the thing which takes a long time to develop is the aerobic base / endurance.
Didn't wardian run a similar time in his first marathon off similar, if not more mileage? Of course it took him years to get to 2:21 and the standard is now 2:19....
1) Find the list of guys who qualified for the 2008 trials with a time under 2:19.
2) Google each of them to find out if any ever ran a marathon slower than 2:40.
3) Don't expect to be encouraged by this.
Sorry, if it was just a matter of runnng 100mpw a lot more people would be doing it.