How difficult is it to run a sub 2.20 marathon?

Being able to run fast Marathons with lack of speed in the 5k is a myth. It doesn't happen.

Ok, many may cite examples like Paula Radcliffe or Ryan Hall. Here is my belief: Paula could have run sub14 when she was in her crazy Marathon shape (2002-2005). She just never gave it a serious shot. Mostly ran (slow) championship races. Ryan Hall, he never races 5000 or 10000 but in his 2:06 shape from London I believe he could have run close to 13 flat.

Now to you: 4:30 mile indicates that you got enough speed to run under 2:30 with the appropriate training. So, go for it.

Just one advise: don't shoot for 2h25m in your first attempt because you would fail. Take the first one easy and learn from it. Shoot for something like sub2h40m.

I think that if you are an ordinarily good high school runner that matures some and then works hard at it, you can run in the 2:30s but 2:30 is about the limit. You have to be able to run at a bit higher level to do 2:25 and 2:20 ups the ante further. You do get a few 'grinds' that go beyond what you would expect, but to an extent "the exception makes the rule".

So, are you good enough o race college cross country (I definitely was not)? 32 and 15 are OK markers for college guys but you will need more than that to be even a walk-on at many (most?) DI schools I would think (i.e., those marks as a college-age runner, not as a high school runner).

You're going to have to get that 10k down close to 31 flat. 2:20 is 5:20 a mile...if you can't run 5:00 for 6 miles its going to be really hard to hold 5:20s for the full.

I ran my first marathon when I was in college and ended up with a 2:22 after being on pace for a sub 2:20 though 20 miles. To give you some idea of the progression that I took to get there:

I ran a half marathon in 1:09 the year before.

I was running xc and track in college and was top 20 at regionals in DI XC

I had run a tactical 10k on the track in 30:40s.

I had run over 100mpw probably 25-30 weeks out of the last 3 years.

It wasn't until 3 years later (and an average of 90-100mpw for every year with peaks in the 120s) that I finally broke 2:20...(and that was after running 2:30 and 2:24 in a couple disastrous races).

Good luck - I'd build up your mileage and try to get that half marathon and 10k down first.

Consider a college in a town with a major track club or a decent coach willing to coach you individually. A club or coach could save you the time lost through individual experimentation in training and also might limit the injuries inevitable to a driven marathoner.

I love your plan and logic...go for it!!!

Bcstcb wrote:

I love your plan and logic...go for it!!!

I love your love of his plan and logic...go for it!!!

excellent reply post.

Okay Mr. Teenager are you 13 and will try

your first marathon at age 16?

Or are you 19 and will try your first marathon

at age 22?

I say Follow Joe

Joe Henderson

Read this book...

http://www.joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/

understand it, accept it and embrace it

don't count miles in your training

you will basically know the rough number

if you insist on logging numbers, run hours of LSD

5:20 per mile is 2:19:50

Before you get there you have to be sub 1:07 in the Half

Also by then you will be sub 30:00 in the 10km

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!

well.. wrote:

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

That would be the exact reasoning

Would it be worth it, if it takes 5 to 10 years to go sub 2:20?

If so, don't worry about having a perfect multi-year plan. Just set plans for 1 year at a time. Be ready to make adjustments each year based on the previous year's success.

no way paula could run a sub14. Not even sub 14:15.

This whole thread is ridiculous. What's your current PB for 10K? Half Marathon? How many miles do you run per week?

Your mile time is good, but with the information given, nobody knows your potential for longer distances. Nobody knows how you cope with the miles required for marathon training. You can make plans from year to year; if your current PB is 33:30, you can aim for 32 in the next year, for example, increasing your milage from 50 to 80.

You almost sound like a person who thinks they can just stitch one half-year training plan after the next, "going from 4:00 marathon to 3:30", "3:30 to 3:15", "3:15 to 3:00", "3:00 to 2:50", etc.

It will not work.

I'm not saying you can't break 2:20 eventually, but if you believe a plan like yours is realistic, you could definitely benefit from an experienced coach.

Back in 1979 I ran 14:46 / 30:28 my senior year in college so I was a very good runner, but not outstanding. I ramped up for a marathon that summer as i went into grad school and ran 80-95 mile weeks and many 20-milers before my first serious marathon at Marine Corps where I ran 2:22:34. So, if you are a sub-32:00 guy and ramp up your mileage while maintaining your speed there is no reason why you can't go sub-2:25. The five minutes to go sub-2:20 will take experience and fine tuning, but with a three year commitment is a challenging, but achievable, goal. Go for it!

what Joe said. no way you are running sub 2:20 without a sub 30 first.

what he said wrote:

what Joe said. no way you are running sub 2:20 without a sub 30 first.

Generally, this is true, but there are exceptions. Rejean Chiasson ran a 2:17 at the Toronto Waterfront Marathon this year and I don't believe that he has ever broken 30 min for 10k (or, if he has, just barely). I know another guy who was a 30 min 10k guy and had a 1:07 half PR who ran a 2:19 as well so, while it's unlikely that a person will break 2:20 without being a sub-30 10k runner, it's certainly not impossible if you're a true slow-twitch athlete and train properly for the marathon.

OP here. My 10k PR is 33.35 on a fairly hilly course. I'm 19.

I'm a freshman at a school that's good for academics but is fairly abysmal when it comes to athletics. As such, I'm free to do whatever sort of training I want.

Thanks for all the great replies so far.

I enjoy running, so even if I don't make it to sub 2.20 I won't consider it a waste of time. I'll focus on improving my 10k for the next two years and then reassess where I'm at.

Nutella1 wrote:

Being able to run fast Marathons with lack of speed in the 5k is a myth. It doesn't happen.

YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. I ran sub 2:20 (2:18 actually) before I broke 15 in the 5km. And I did try very very hard many times to break 15 in the 5km.

The year I broke 2:25 for the first time in the marathon (2:23:46), my best time for the 5km the year before was 15:53. I am not making this up.

At the faster end of the scale, there are many many Japanese runners who have not gone under 28 in the 10km but have run sub 2;10. The most interesting was Atsushi Fujita, who's 5km PR was 14:09 when he ran his 2:06 marathon. His 10km PR was about 28:30 at the time.

supersonic wrote:

OP here. My 10k PR is 33.35 on a fairly hilly course. I'm 19.

I'm a freshman at a school that's good for academics but is fairly abysmal when it comes to athletics. As such, I'm free to do whatever sort of training I want.

Thanks for all the great replies so far.

I enjoy running, so even if I don't make it to sub 2.20 I won't consider it a waste of time. I'll focus on improving my 10k for the next two years and then reassess where I'm at.

OK we have your PR. Now if you will tell us what training you did to get that, we can advise. Basically if you have done months of mid- to hi miles to run 33:35 I'd hesitate to predict sub 2:20. If you are still only doing up to 30-40mpw then I'd say you have a chance.

what he said wrote:

what Joe said. no way you are running sub 2:20 without a sub 30 first.

One friend much older than me ran during the running boom of the 70s and 80s and ran many 10ks, his best ever being 30:20. He also ran the marathon usually twice a year and usually ended up in 2:19-2:23 (he ran about 20 of them and Boston every year -- Duane Spitz -- you can look him up). but his best was 2:18 at the Orange Bowl marathon, where he was about 5th and the winner was Kjell-Erik Stahl I think in 2:12.

So my point is that this was a very fast marathon and he had maximized his ability at 10k also, by running dozens of them and he just could not get sub-30.

He was not an "endurance-freak" ... I think 30:00 on the track at least equates more closely to 2:17-2:18 for most. I think that so many males who are 29:55 on the track or road underperform in the marathon ... but look at what Radcliffe did at both distances under very fast, very competitive conditions.