Assuming they did not get injured, how realistic would it be for an 18 year-old to start training and building mileage, with no other focus in life, to run under 2:20 within 10 years time? Give them no running experience outside of HS varsity basketball, from which they ran a 4:50 mile without any additional, focused training.
Well in general 2:20 is a big deal for an amateur runner. However, if, like you say, if there is no other focus in life I bet anyone That could train and not get injured with a modicum of talent could pull it off. That guy would be a total loser though.
Obviously you can't measure "talent" in any fashion (currently). But anyone who can run 2:20 is a very good runner, and most people couldn't do it. I ran 9:20 in high school and couldn't touch it.
4:50 off nothing but basketball training is very, very impressive though. Someone that did that might could do it.
2:20 is a major accomplishment for an amature. I know lots of guys who were Div. I scholarship athletes who crumbled when trying to break 2:20. Back when 2:20 was the B standard for the trials, there were still not much more than 150 guys who were under the standard. A 4:50 mile is solid for someone not having any specific training. But, the marathon is a different race. You can be a bit heavy or tall and still be able to crank out a 4:50 mile. But, those extra pounds will just destroy your chances of running 2:20.
Running 2:20 is not the difficult. Run a lot of miles. Voila. However, what makes it undesirable is that it is difficult to stay shredded (because of all the carbs) and it is impossible to add a nice amount of bulk muscles while training for 2:20. So why would you want to do it? Focus on what's important.
Take a look at the Boston marathon results. Out of 15,000 men only about 20 cracked 2:20? Of the 15,000, about 5000 are between 18 and 39-presumably in the prime of their running life. 20 out of 5000 of the most competive citizen runners in the world broke 2:20.
A Cross Country state champ from my high school-ran a 30 minute 10K in college. 2:36 marathon as a 34 year old.
notkenyan wrote:
Assuming they did not get injured, how realistic would it be for an 18 year-old to start training and building mileage, with no other focus in life, to run under 2:20 within 10 years time? Give them no running experience outside of HS varsity basketball, from which they ran a 4:50 mile without any additional, focused training.
4:50 off virtually no specific running training is impressive and indicates that you have running potential. Will that potential translate to a 2:20 marathon? There's no way to know from the information presented. The only way to find out is to try. Go for it.
see "Running to the Limits"
2:20 is not an easy time to run. People now have a sort of jaded view of it because there are so many East Africans and Japanese doing it and because it's so much further from the world record now than it was thirty years ago.
In a typical year you might have 40-50 Americans who can do it. A guy like Greg Fredericks, who was briefly the US 10,000 meter record holder and who trained on triple digit miles with regular runs in the 20 mile range was barely able to get under 2:20. Ron Clarke never managed it. On the other hand, a guy like Phil Stewart, currently director of the Cherry Blossom Ten had a best mile of 4:29 and managed to do it once.
So you never know.
Anyway, no one can even tell you clearly what "talent" is let alone how much of it you need in order to run under 2:20. You may have enough, a 4:50 mile with almost no training offers hope. But there are people who've run under 4:40 on almost no training who couldn't get under 2:20. There is really only one way to get the answer you're looking for.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
Running 2:20 is not the difficult. Run a lot of miles. Voila. However, what makes it undesirable is that it is difficult to stay shredded (because of all the carbs) and it is impossible to add a nice amount of bulk muscles while training for 2:20. So why would you want to do it? Focus on what's important.
Is Xfit guy for realz? Did it ever occur to him that some people value being fast over looks? OMG
The real answer? I'm not sure.
There are a lot of different types of 'talent' that are required to run a fast marathon.
To run a 2:20 as a male you need some, but not all of them.
Fact: multiple women have run sub 220.
Gary is his real name wrote:
Fact: multiple women have run sub 220.
FACT: Gary has no run sub 220 and could not if his life depended on it.
I think it's a rare person who can go sub 2:20, and keep in mind that half the 18 year olds are fat, and a third are obese. Perhaps if you allowed peds maybe you could get the success rate up to 15%.
I think you can go find lots of the correlations. There's data for...
calf circumference
foot size
height
shoulder width
BMI
Age
Years of serious training
VO2 max
VO2 responder?
durability
I think that, statistically, your best time to start serious training is your early/mid 20's. Fast marathon times come in your early 30s AND after 7 years of serious training
Obviously, the optimal performances will come from those who start training early AND are lucky enough to stay healthy
You might be better off training moderatly for the next few years and then gradually working your way up until you really drop the hammer in your mid 20's
Yes it takes a fair amount of talent and usually years of hard work.
True story, I guy in my backwater DIII conference was only a 4:40 1600/2:04 800 runner. He worked his tail off, went to a school with a great coach, continued to work his tail off, and ran in the OTs with a 2:20 while still an undergrad. But he had real talent and was running 8:40s for 2 mile by the time he was a senior.
4:50 is good for high school with not much training. To get to 2:20 an athlete would need to get to sub 15 (probably 14:40s or better) 5K and 30:30 for 10K. And as others have said, there are plenty of runners who have gone much faster than those times that never made it.
Your message board host twin brothers could probably provide you an adequate response. I have no idea what Rojo wan in high school, but Wejo ran 4:30. I didn't get the impression that he trained hard. He was fairly mediocre in college, but he has written an article why. Then he commits his life to the sport and runs 28:06/2:19. Rojo, identical twin, runs 2:23, but I think there were injury issues. Plus, 28:06 suggests much faster than 2:19, so I'm not sure Wejo reached his potential, though the marathon may not have been his gig. As others have stated, many intangibles come into play. But 4:50 coming from another sport with no real training sounds like talent. Get back to us in a year having "trained," even modestly. You'll have a pretty good idea of how good you can be. But, I would not let running dominate your life. You need balance.
This was the goal I dedicated 6 years of hard training to. I broke 1:10 for a half and 2:30 for the full. I trained hard.
Now, I must say that I while I was not that talented, I think that I possess better than average talent. In 7th grade, untrained, I beat all 200 kids in my gym class in the 600 fitness run - and by a fair margin. As a soph in hs I ran under 10:40 for two. You put those two together and you get above average, but not exceptional.
I'd say that, to do it, you would have to have better potential than probably 95% of the rest of the human race, and, then, train really really hard and be really really lucky. If you're among the top 1%, you probably have a decent shot.
The bottom line is that, except for the very elite, 2:20 is no joke. You need both talent and hard work to do it. As it should be.
notkenyan wrote:
Assuming they did not get injured, how realistic would it be for an 18 year-old to start training and building mileage, with no other focus in life, to run under 2:20 within 10 years time? Give them no running experience outside of HS varsity basketball, from which they ran a 4:50 mile without any additional, focused training.
How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin?
You can't measure talent by giving someone an ability level and asking how hard it would be for them to get to some standard. Reaching that standard is what defines their talent.
For an amateur who is not going to put together a great marathon training like Radcliffe, you will need minimum 14:30 5K. Probably 14:15. If you can't run that, you will not run 220 marathon.
4:50 mile w/o training don't mean much even without any training. I know a lot of people who ran fast in 800 and even 1500 to bomb out badly in longer races. You can put together a fast mile off sprint speed.