A good 1/2 marathon time on zero miles running

The 1:16 off 10 mpw simply isn't bullshit. Although it's flattering that so many people think it's not possible, considering I did do it, i.e. it is possible.

ridiculous1234 wrote:

I bet sub- 1 hr HM guys could take a year off from running and run 1:07 just by maintaining fitness through intense cross training.

You think you can take a year off from running and run only 7min slower in the HM? No way. Double that and we're talking.

FWIW, my PR is 1:12, ran around 60mpw at that time. Right now, running around 30mpw, I hover around 1:20. That's 8min more with 30mpw less.

The 1h HM guys are logging ~140mpw, so they'd run around 140mpw LESS. HUGE difference.

Of course those guys have ridiculous talent but you know what there biggest talent is? Taking a lot of milage without getting injured.

So what does that mean for me? I don't have the talent to take huge training volume without getting injured, but I can run well off of very little training. If I can run 1:16 HM off of just 10 mpw, then I would bet a sub-1 hr guy who maintains fitness by cross training (while losing running specific fitness) would still be atleast under 1:10. If that wasn't the case, that would mean I would be a potential 1 hr HM guy if I could handle 140 mpw... which I doubt, but I guess I will never know.

ridiculous1234 wrote:

If I can run 1:16 HM off of just 10 mpw

You can't.

ridiculous1234 wrote:

So what does that mean for me? I don't have the talent to take huge training volume without getting injured, but I can run well off of very little training. If I can run 1:16 HM off of just 10 mpw, then I would bet a sub-1 hr guy who maintains fitness by cross training (while losing running specific fitness) would still be atleast under 1:10. If that wasn't the case, that would mean I would be a potential 1 hr HM guy if I could handle 140 mpw... which I doubt, but I guess I will never know.

You said you had no recent history of high mileage. How much did you run and how long ago? Also, why do you keep posting this? I've seen you post about your 1:16 at least ten times now.

If you actually ran a half marathon in 1:16 off of 10 mpw then you're an idiot for not trying to work your way up to even 60-70 mpw and becoming a nationally or at least a regionally competitive runner.

I am trying to work up to higher mileage. I am running 30 mpw now and slowly working up. Already much fitter than I was on 10 mpw, but been having calf issues.

ridiculous1234 wrote:

I am trying to work up to higher mileage. I am running 30 mpw now and slowly working up. Already much fitter than I was on 10 mpw, but been having calf issues.

30 miles per week, huh? Why slowly working your way up? Are you 8 years old?

I ran 30 mpw once ... in sixth grade.

Seriously dude, 1:16 is not great, but it IS great for someone running 10 mpw. I think everyone would agree that with real training you should be able to improve :30 per mile. That adds up to 6:30. If you are under 25 you should be able to improve more than that just by consistently training for years at a time.

Get on that and report back to us. Nobody cares about how little you can run, that impresses no one.

Just to add another data point to this discussion, I ran a half marathon (more than 2 and 3 years removed from run training) in 1:13 2 years in a row on 0 miles per week BUT I was biking on average 50 km/day to and from work (in the Summer) and my job required me to be on my feet all day. In the Winters, I did swim workouts every morning with some elite triathletes and ex-collegiate swimmers, which probably aided my VO2 max. In high school, I also entered a marathon on zero run training and ran 2:54, splitting 1:17 at the halfway point, before badly running out of gas and needing to take walk breaks in the second half.

I ran collegiate track and cross country for 2 years, as a walk-on, with no real running experience before joining and had some success, but never managed to stay injury-free for more than 3 months at a time. Eventually, injuries forced me into quitting and I took up swimming to stay in shape.

A few years after graduating, I started to do some run training on my own again and got down to 1:08 for the half and 30 min for 10k on pretty inconsistent training.

I've found that how quickly you adapt to a sport depends a lot on your natural body-type and background. I know that for me, if I don't swim for 6 months, I lose a ton of muscle and fitness, but other guys who have natural swimmer bodies and a long history in the pool, can get back in the water after an extended period away and not lose nearly as much. I don't think that there was ever a time (since high school) when I couldn't have easily broken 35 min for 10k if I wanted to, whether training or not.

azaleas wrote:

ridiculous1234 wrote:

So what does that mean for me? I don't have the talent to take huge training volume without getting injured, but I can run well off of very little training. If I can run 1:16 HM off of just 10 mpw, then I would bet a sub-1 hr guy who maintains fitness by cross training (while losing running specific fitness) would still be atleast under 1:10. If that wasn't the case, that would mean I would be a potential 1 hr HM guy if I could handle 140 mpw... which I doubt, but I guess I will never know.

You said you had no recent history of high mileage. How much did you run and how long ago? Also, why do you keep posting this? I've seen you post about your 1:16 at least ten times now.

This.

That's like 80% of what I see you posting. Sometimes its only marginally related to the topic at hand too.

^^^^^^^^ wrote:

Just to add another data point to this discussion, I ran a half marathon (more than 2 and 3 years removed from run training) in 1:13 2 years in a row on 0 miles per week BUT I was biking on average 50 km/day to and from work (in the Summer) and my job required me to be on my feet all day.

You mention that you ran before and were good at it. There is a lot to be said about muscle memory, running form economy etc.

Also, cycling 50km (=30mi) per day is quite a bit....like 2h min, probably more since it was a commute. Add your time on the foot - walking around I assume...sounds reasonable.

It is still a dumb idea to run a HM with that - best chance of getting injured but believable.

But that douche was saying he ran 1h16m with no run history, no cycling etc.

But that douche was saying he ran 1h16m with no run history, no cycling etc.[/quote]

"douche"?, really?

Not "douche." Crossfitter "douche."

I don't have the talent that some of the posters on this board (say they) have. I used to be proud of the fact that I could run a 39-minute 10K on 20-25 mpw of jogging, with no speedwork. That seemed like a decent time for a recreational runner. Now that I'm over 40, I think, "What the hell could I have run if I'd trained hard?" Running a 1:16 half-marathon only means you ran a 1:16 half-marathon. It's not more impressive because you barely trained for it.

Alright. Honestly, why are letsrunners so obsessed with seeing how fast they can race on low-mileage, when CLEARLY running more will yield better results? Yes, some people may be naturally aerobically gifted, and some may be more injury prone, so they don't run more because they already excel to a degree or because they want to avoid injury. However, there are absolutely no long-distance elites who run 10-30 mpw. So cut the BS, shut the hell up and stop bragging about your dumb 1:16 half-marathon on 10 mpw, get your lazy bum off away from your stupid computer, and run more. And if you're going to argue that mid-to-high mileage is going to injure you, that's also BS because anyone who can finish a fast HALF-MARATHON is capable of doing daily runs consisting of over 8 miles. Ugh. Some people's children.

ridiculous1234 wrote:

The 1:16 off 10 mpw simply isn't bullshit. Although it's flattering that so many people think it's not possible, considering I did do it, i.e. it is possible.

It is BS because you have run a lot more than that in the recent past. So you've got the miles in the bank and just doing a little bit of training when you are young allows you to bring some of that back

Like the other poster said if you could run that off 10 mpw what's stopping training properly and running 63 mins

Who cares what if you ran 0mpw to get 1:16. You can only harness talent if you train. No training == wasted talent. That is worst than someone who works hard but still not able to achieve a good time. For all I know, you can have Usain Bolt talent, but if you don't train, you're not going to be a world beater.

So the solution is simple, step up the plate and train to see what you've got, or shut your mouth about your 0mpw 1:16 HM.

There's nothing to be proud of telling people you don't train to attain success. God gifted talent is easy .... you're born with it. Doing the hard work to maximize your potential is why less talented folks become the best in the world.

It's not always about talent.

Otherwise, the guys with 92 VOmax, and efficient stride should win all the races, and grab all the Olympic Gold medals.

web2dot0 wrote:

Otherwise, the guys with 92 VOmax, and efficient stride should win all the races, and grab all the Olympic Gold medals.

They do. But they still put there work in.