If you can't run a sub-3 marathon after 12 months of running then you haven't trained properly

Harry Silver wrote:

I don't agree.

Why not? 12 months is a decent amount of time to train and 6:52 per mile is not a very fast pace

That a have been the view before the first running boom of the seventies

In my defense I'm middle-aged, I work exhaustive hours andmy body breaks down whenever I run more than 45 mpw regularly.

Not a Coach wrote:

In my defense I'm middle-aged, I work exhaustive hours andmy body breaks down whenever I run more than 45 mpw regularly.

So your work prevents you from training properly. If your hours weren't so exhausting and impacting your recovery then you could train properly and run sub-3.

true if they are: 1. young (under 40) 2. not overweight with at least a modicum of fitness. 3. if they are willing to do the training. 4. male

gashdfhrd wrote:

true if they are: 1. young (under 40) 2. not overweight with at least a modicum of fitness. 3. if they are willing to do the training. 4. male

Agreed. I work with a bunch of 'runners' that run 13 - 15 minute pace for 5Ks. No way you are getting them down to 6:52 pace in 12 months.

Not a Coach wrote:

That a have been the view before the first running boom of the seventies

In my defense I'm middle-aged, I work exhaustive hours andmy body breaks down whenever I run more than 45 mpw regularly.

Hence the train properly comment. You make do with what you have available. Nothing wrong with that as you have a life outside of running. But if one devoted 12 months to training and training only I would expect most would do faster than 3 hours.

Or you lack the ability to run fast, you weight too much, you ran into poor race conditions, the course was too hilly...

Some people can train like crazy but never run 3 6:52 miles much less 26.

Ralph Wiggum wrote:

Hence the train properly comment. You make do with what you have available. Nothing wrong with that as you have a life outside of running. But if one devoted 12 months to training and training only I would expect most would do faster than 3 hours.

Who on earth devotes a year of their life to training? I mean honestly, no one with any kind of a life does.

in my late 30s i can still run in the high 17s for 5K, but i can't get under 3 for the mary because i have no idea how to get 60+ mpw and still work hard, be an actual father, and get 6 hrs sleep. i need another hour or two each day.

Henry Cooper wrote:

I think this is a statement we can all agree on?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this. However, I think it is funny when posters can't properly debate the statement.

It clearly says "if you haven't trained properly" not if you didn't have time to run properly, your job makes you tired so you can't run a lot, etc.

If you can't train properly because of some kind of conflict in your life then relax because it does not apply to you.

gashdfhrd wrote:

true if they are: 1. young (under 40) 2. not overweight with at least a modicum of fitness. 3. if they are willing to do the training. 4. male

Even if you are "willing" to do the training, (and even have the time), your body may still break down by running a high mileage or doing intense workouts.

And most of us cannot afford biweekly massage sessions or high tech recovery gadgets. (Or sleep 9 hours per night plus 90 minutes of afternoon nap.)

Probably need the ability to run about 5:30 in the mile or better before you can run sub 3. What percent of the ambulatory/healthy (and not obese) population can even run 5:30--even with several months of background training?

my office is noisy wrote:

Probably need the ability to run about 5:30 in the mile or better before you can run sub 3. What percent of the ambulatory/healthy (and not obese) population can even run 5:30--even with several months of background training?

If we are talking about optimal training and complete lifestyle dedication then I think every able bodied male under 40 who isn't morbidly obese should be able to achieve that.

6:52 pace may seem easy breezy to a 15 min 5k guy. But for the vast majority of people out there, 6:52 is a respectable goal pace for a 5k. Body type pretty much submarines about half the population from ever being able to run a sub 3 marathon. I know a guy who can run a 1:19 half but cannot get anywhere close to 3 hours in the marathon. He is 6'2" and 190-200 lbs of muscle. He is an incredible athlete but just carries to much weight.

Also, 12 months just isn't enough time for the body to make the adaptations to all the pounding if the runner has not been exercising much prior to starting training.

What's "trained properly"? Give us some details on that statement. What is the magic formula for a sub-3 marathon?

For a young male, I think it would require two years not one.

It's not that simple. Tall people are less able to run marathons well.... look at the size of elite marathoners. Old people are certainly less able to run quickly. And some people just can't tolerate mileage, they just get injured when they try to put the miles in.

I really don't understand why people keep posting threads like this, that state that such and such a running feat is within the reach of everyone. Is it just trolling, or do people seriously have such a degree of self-loathing that they go out of their way to disparage any accomplishment in our sport short of world dominance? Is it just people who have no frame of reference for how unfit the vast majority of people are?

I wonder if there's a golf message board somewhere that has threads saying anyone can be a scratch golfer, or a 3 handicap or something, within a year if they just practice properly?

I think there is an enormous chunk of the US population who could not be trained to run three consecutive hours at ANY pace within one year, much less 6:52 pace. And out of the population that could be trained to run for three hours, a whole bunch of them could never sniff 6:52 pace for any distance, much less for a marathon.

Flagpole started a thread a while ago stating there are some people who are just never going to break 20 for 5k, and I think he's right. There is a wide range of aptitudes for running, and some people are just never going to be any good at it. So take comfort in your 2:52 marathon. The elitists on this board will tell you that you suck (because after all, you didn't run 2:05), but you're better at running than a huge proportion of the population.

This is spot on, brother.

How is it that people who start such threads haven't seen the thin fit-looking guy who couldn't run ONE mile in under 7 minutes to save his life let alone 26.2 of them in 6:52.

The mentality behind this is not what it first appears. You would THINK that those who break 3 hours might like to say that most other people CAN'T do it, thus putting themselves in an elite group (and feeding their ego). When in fact, the issue is that those who have broken 3 hours (I have broken 3 hours) who say that everyone can do it mean that THEY just did the work necessary and should be lauded for that. That puts them in elite company because they believe they did the work necessary while other people simply do not (because they are lazy).

It's all BS. You have to have SOME level of talent to break 3 hours in a marathon. It is not something that is achievable simply by putting in the work. There are fit, thin, even athletic MEN who might be able to outbox you or bench 200 pounds more times than you who could NEVER train to break 3 hours in the marathon.

Our bodies all process oxygen at different efficiencies, produce energy at different efficiencies, and while you can train to improve that, the Law of Diminishing Returns says that improvement can not go on forever.

So, why does the OP set 3 hours as the line we can all meet? Why not 2:30? Or 2:20? Or 2:15?

Just utter BS.

OK