How difficult is it to run a sub 2.20 marathon?

If you are breaking 15 in the 5k and 32 in the 10k, you'll be coveted by many DII or NAIA schools out there. If you run NAIA you can compete for a university/ college in the Marathon too.

if you have to ask if your plan is too ambitious don't even bother. Anything is possible for him who believes!

If you dont run in college, then yes go for it. I always wonder what I could have done at age 22-24. Now if you are running for the school you're obligated to compete in track and not do your own thing.

First of, only about 30 guys in the entire country have qualified for the olympic trials by running sub 2:19 so sub 2:20 is pretty elite company.

You say you don't have speed, but sub 15 for 5k versus sub 32 for 10k and 70 for the half tells me quite the opposite. Somebody running sub 15 for 5k with better endurance than speed should probably be running close to 31 flat for the 10k and sub 69 for the half.

Also, why are you expecting to run 2:25 averaging 120 mpw for year 3 then run 2:20 averaging 110 mpw for year 4? You realize you only taper for a few weeks before a race not a whole year right?

Correction. 73 guys have qualified with a sub 2:19. 3 more qualified by placing in the Marathon Championships. Still pretty rare air.http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-Marathon/entry/entryMen/eligible.asp

Contradictions wrote:

First of, only about 30 guys in the entire country have qualified for the olympic trials by running sub 2:19 so sub 2:20 is pretty elite company.

Well I'm not really sure of the specifics yet, I suppose it would be better to keep up the high mileage until maybe 4 weeks out from the race. This is all conjecture though.

What I want to know is does the whole idea of a fairly good but not great young runner bypassing the whole track scene and aiming to run a fast marathon seem like a good one?

My gut tells me that its the route I should take.

I know I love going for long runs but interval training does nothing for me. And the whole history of the marathon really appeals to me also.

I have a very driven personality, so if I can avoid injuries I have no doubt I can hit the required mileage to post a fast time.

To answer your original question and not spouting off a bunch of bullsh!t like others seem to be inclined to do--It's difficult, man. Pretty fvcking difficult.

It terms of difficulty running a sub 2:20 marathon would be as hard to achieve as bowling a 750 series.

900 series- sub 2:04:10

In cricket on the order of hitting six sixes in one over

There's only one way to find out!

You can't avoid running intervals if you want to get under 2:20...

hey kid wrote:

if you have to ask if your plan is too ambitious don't even bother. Anything is possible for him who believes!

Then why aren´t you an olympic champion. Don´t you belive strong enough?

Go for it. If you try to go sub 2:20 and don't achieve it, so what. Maybe you end up with a 2:21 PR and faster than 95% of everyone else that runs marathons.

My gut tells me that while one may be able to avoid the college track scene and still run sub 2:20, it will still require significant enough chops to have run well on the track, regardless of having done it or no, and that interval training will still be required.

It's rare air for lack of effort among the general running community. As his been discussed before, most of America's talent is focused on the 1500m - 10k. They won't attempt a marathon until the twilight of there career.

Not to diminish the performance too much, but 49 guys broke 29:00 in the US last year.

1 Under 27

6 27:00 - 27:59

11 28:00 - 28:29

31 28:30 - 28:59

Probably another 200 under 30.

(About 80+ additional collegiate kids ran under 30 in D1 alone). I don't know how many in D2/D3/NAIA/post-collegiate. So 200 is my estimate.

So in summary, each year, the U.S. puts out 250 sub 30s, I don't think he should be too scared by the fact than only 73 people have run under 2:20.

The E. Africans have been getting faster at the marathon in large part by having athletes commit to it around 18-19 instead of waiting until they are mid to late 20s after proving themselves on the track. I think the same would happen for US runners. But no one would give up a full ride to college to be a better marathon runner.

joho wrote:

Go for it. If you try to go sub 2:20 and don't achieve it, so what. Maybe you end up with a 2:21 PR and faster than 95% of everyone else that runs marathons.

I think 2:21 would be faster than 99.99% of people who run marathons. At the very least 99.9%.

supersonic wrote:

For a teenager who loves running but doesn't have the basic speed to achieve things on the track, the logical thing to do is shoot for a fast marathon.

I have a rough four year plan made out that looks something like this

Year 1: Break 32min in 10k and 15min in 5k (running 80mpw)

Year 2:Break 70min in half marathon (90- 100mpw)

Year 3: Run first marathon, aim for 2:25 (120 mpw)

Year 4: Run another marathon, aim for sub 2:20 (110 mpw)

I remember reading on here that mile time is really no indication of marathon potential so my relatively slow track times (4.30 mile) isn't going to act as a deterrent.

You really haven't given very much to go on. You say your year 1 plan is to go sub-15 and sub-32. How close are you to that?

Also teenager is a pretty wide range. If you're still in high school and you think you can go sub-15 in the next year, your options might not be as limited on the track as you think.

The obvious answer is that it isn't likely you'll go sub-2:20 as very few people do. But if you need approval of people on a message board to launch into a 4 year plan, then it's probably not worth doing anyway. If you really love running, then give it a shot. Even if you come up a little (or a long ways) short, it might still be worthwhile for you.

splits wrote:

It's rare air for lack of effort among the general running community. As his been discussed before, most of America's talent is focused on the 1500m - 10k. They won't attempt a marathon until the twilight of there career.

Not to diminish the performance too much, but 49 guys broke 29:00 in the US last year.

1 Under 27

6 27:00 - 27:59

11 28:00 - 28:29

31 28:30 - 28:59

Probably another 200 under 30.

(About 80+ additional collegiate kids ran under 30 in D1 alone). I don't know how many in D2/D3/NAIA/post-collegiate. So 200 is my estimate.

So in summary, each year, the U.S. puts out 250 sub 30s, I don't think he should be too scared by the fact than only 73 people have run under 2:20.

This is simply not true. There are not 250 Americans running under 30 minutes each year. How can you possibly believe this?

Yes, you almost certainly can break 2:20, but it will take full commitment for the next 3 or 4 years. BTW your 1600 PR is not that slow, certain not slow enough to make this goal impossible. I'd go out an buy Daniel's Running formula tonight. Spend the next 24 weeks following the 5/15K training plan and run a good bunch of 5-15K road races this spring/early summer. Take 2-3 weeks off, then follow the elite marathon training plan for the next 24 weeks and run a marathon this fall. Don't neglect the 5-10K races, keep developing both speed & strength, alternating them each year. Follow that pattern for the next 4 years, slowly inching up your peak mileage each cycle. I was a NCAA qualifier in the 1500 and really wish I'd have left the scholarship $ on the table and raced on the roads instead. Your early 20's only come around once and it gets damn tough to run >100MPW once "real life" sets in. You should be able to do pretty well in terms of money and since you don't have to follow NCAA rules, it's totally legal. I think the NCAA T&F opt-out is gong to be the wave of the future, if the kids have any sense these days.