Advice/is it realistic to shoot for a sub 2:30 marathon?

Have someone ready to pick you up around mile 18-19 to drive you home.

Pure talent only gets you so far in a marathon. 22 min 6k after minimal training shows a lot of talent. You will break 2:30 in the marathon. But odds are trying to do that the first time out is not going to go well.

If you're a real person (why would a 21 yo male be that interested in running and not on a competitive team of some kind?) I'd be willing to coach you for free.

My only qualifications are 12 years of running experience and coaching a variety of friends and former teammates (some very very talented, some not), but I'm certain I could be a very good coach.

Wow, you've got some overly optimistic replies here.

Here's the lowdown as I see it.

22 min 6k after 3 months of training is good. Certainly better than above average. But it's not that great and it's not special and while you may have some of this magical "talent", that 6k time doesn't really showcase it to an extreme. Not to mention this was a few years ago?

So with that reiterated, you have ZERO chance of running 2:30 next year. Not 5%, not 1%, ZERO percent chance. Not only is 2:30 a super, super legit time, but it's a super legit MARATHON time, which, if you haven't noticed, is approximately 7x longer than your "good, not great" 6k time from a few years ago.

My advice? Focus on 5ks and 10ks over the next year or two, maybe give a half a shot at the end of 2014. 2016 might (MIGHT) see you ready to tackle a fast marathon if you last that long.

Good luck.

Only one way to find out.

It is not impossible. In fact it is way easier than trying to shoot for a 2:08 marathoner. But if you really like the fish-in-the-barrel feeling, shoot for the 4:30ers. Slow moving AND a bigger target.

A 1:15 half marathon by 2014 would be a better goal to start with and if you can attain that then I would say a 2:30 is totality possible by 2016.

Nice post. Totally on the mark.

But you can only reiterate that which you have first iterated.

Instead say, "That said, you have ZERO chance of running 2:30...".

I agree with some of the more discouraging replies in at least one way: Depending on the course, your 6k is nothing special.

Other than that, I disagree with the pessimists. In HS, my first XC race as a sophomore was a 3 mile in about 18 minutes. I was 15, but, that's not very good. And I broke 2:30.

Here's the truth: You probably do not have any great talent for running, but, luckily for you, breaking 2:30 doesn't require it. Work hard, stay healthy, be focused and patient. It may take a few years for you to achieve your goal, but, it is possible. I'm living proof.

Lots of variables. I advise you start with a half marathon. Then a full marathon in maybe 6 months, the goal being to finish in say under 330 ( 8 minute pace). Then maybe your second marathon under 3 hours. I think sub 3 hours should be attainable by your 2nd or 3rd marathon. Some runners in my running club who run 18:xx for a 5k run 2:5x.for a marathon. I would make the 5k more of a focus though at first. You would need to get your 5k under 5 minute pace if you want to be able to maintain 5:45ish pace for a marathon. Not sure how much running background you have or how much you weighed when you pred. Also not sure if you are more of a mid distance type runner or endurance runner. The good thing is that running performance peaks in your late 20s and early 30s. If your only running background is a 3 month period of 30 mpw then you definately have some improvement ahead of you, the only question is how much, which can only be determined by years of consistent training.

Link wrote:

I agree with some of the more discouraging replies in at least one way: Depending on the course, your 6k is nothing special.

Other than that, I disagree with the pessimists. In HS, my first XC race as a sophomore was a 3 mile in about 18 minutes. I was 15, but, that's not very good. And I broke 2:30.

Here's the truth: You probably do not have any great talent for running, but, luckily for you, breaking 2:30 doesn't require it. Work hard, stay healthy, be focused and patient. It may take a few years for you to achieve your goal, but, it is possible. I'm living proof.

Did you run break 2:30 the year after you ran 3 miles in 18 minutes?

Because that's what the OP is trying to do. Run 2:30 NEXT YEAR (which is actually yearS after his 6k run).

Still disagreeing with the pessimists?

Reiterationator wrote:

But you can only reiterate that which you have first iterated.

Instead say, "That said, you have ZERO chance of running 2:30...".

That was wholly irrelevant, now wasn't it?

realisticist wrote:

Reiterationator wrote:

But you can only reiterate that which you have first iterated.

Instead say, "That said, you have ZERO chance of running 2:30...".

That was wholly irrelevant, now wasn't it?

Absolutely.

But, you will never make that mistake again. And the world will be a better place for it.

For everyone that thinks it is possible, but definitely not next year: why not? If he trains really hard, he will probably be about as good as he is going to get in two years.

Consider This wrote:

For everyone that thinks it is possible, but definitely not next year: why not? If he trains really hard, he will probably be about as good as he is going to get in two years.

Not how running works. Lifetime mileage and a long term progression that you build on each year is how you improve. You can't just train "twice as hard" and get the same result.

Now if he's a 2:10 guy hiding underneath an undertrained exterior, maybe he can run 2:30 on 18ish months of training (after all next year is 2014, that could be up to 22 months).

But yeah, you don't seem to understand how training works.

dan_cooley wrote:

Consider This wrote:

For everyone that thinks it is possible, but definitely not next year: why not? If he trains really hard, he will probably be about as good as he is going to get in two years.

Not how running works. Lifetime mileage and a long term progression that you build on each year is how you improve. You can't just train "twice as hard" and get the same result.

Now if he's a 2:10 guy hiding underneath an undertrained exterior, maybe he can run 2:30 on 18ish months of training (after all next year is 2014, that could be up to 22 months).

But yeah, you don't seem to understand how training works.

No, I understand you might get some better over a longer period of time, but some of this BS that you people believe about lifetime progression is just an illusion caused by the fact that most American runners start running in their early teens and it takes a long time to reach physical maturity. If you start at 21 it is going to be a very different progression than if you start at 12.

Yes but if you start at 21 and train intelligently for 5 years w/o getting hurt you'll be a lot faster than you were at age 22, no matter how "hard" you train.

dan_cooley wrote:

Yes but if you start at 21 and train intelligently for 5 years w/o getting hurt you'll be a lot faster than you were at age 22, no matter how "hard" you train.

Sure, but I doubt you'll be that much better than you were at 23.

Consider This wrote:

dan_cooley wrote:

Yes but if you start at 21 and train intelligently for 5 years w/o getting hurt you'll be a lot faster than you were at age 22, no matter how "hard" you train.

Sure, but I doubt you'll be that much better than you were at 23.

That still doesn't make sense. The improvement curve is so much steeper, as you've said, for an untapped runner. Two years of training for an untrained runner can MAKE a huge difference, whereas for someone like me, who has run basically the same times for 5 years w/ minimal improvements, it's a longer process.

Each year makes an even BIGGER difference for a new runner.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy but I can't. Something like: "instead of studying spanish intensively for 2 years," why don't you just study twice as long each day for 1...you'll be exactly as good at Spanish." It just doesn't make sense.

There are not unlimited short term returns. Some aspects of training take a great deal of development to get to. Say for instance that the OP wants to run a 2:30 marathon. Well, a common predictor workout would be 12-16 miles @ MP. That's faster than his 6k PR pace, isn't it?

Training twice as hard for a short term period still isn't going to get him to the point where he can do a workout effort for 4+ times the length of the pace of his 6k PR. There are too many intermediate steps of fitness along the way.

No one's going to be in, say, 17:30 shape halfway through their marathon buildup and suddenly be in 2:29 shape two months later just b/c they are new at it. They simply won't be able to handle the increase in both volume & intensity that quickly.

And by no one I mean no one w/ mortal talents.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I mean, maybe he can continue to get better, but I would guess that if he has a 2:29 in him he'll probably be able to run ~2:35 in two years.

At any rate, he should just give it a try, as that is that is the only real way to find out. Plus it will be fun!