Reg fields wrote:
I'm going to change up my routine and do my long runs slower this year and I'll do multiple 20 milers so I'm doing what I can on the routine front.
I still say most males in this forum could've broken 3 with my training so genetics is a factor.
Lol stop with the genetics. If you can run a half under 1:20, you can run a sub marathon. If not, it is your preparation that is preventing you from doing it. Not your genetics.
I agree. This is pure gold!
reggggy wrote:
Reg fields wrote:I'm going to change up my routine and do my long runs slower this year and I'll do multiple 20 milers so I'm doing what I can on the routine front.
I still say most males in this forum could've broken 3 with my training so genetics is a factor.
Lol stop with the genetics. If you can run a half under 1:20, you can run a sub marathon. If not, it is your preparation that is preventing you from doing it. Not your genetics.
Not saying I can't, I just haven't so far. My genetics argument is lets say everyone has a hypothetical ceiling, lets say most on here is a 2:30 marathon and mine is a 2:50. In theory, I have to do a lot more right to make it happen. That's the point I've been trying to make.
Muebele wrote:
I am shocked at how arrogant fast runners can be. For the majority of the world, running a marathon is hard and running at the paces needed for boston is harder. That is why most marathon runners don't qualify. Most people on this site act like people who don't qualify are lazy slob. They are not, they are not fast runners.
But remember, marathons and most races are run for everybody, not just the ones up front.
Most people have no clue how to train, don't bother finding out how, and don't train very hard.
You know what? I can't bench press 200 pounds because I only lift 2-3 times a month and don't know what I'm doing. That doesn't make benching 200lb. some awe-inspiring achievement.
Reg fields wrote:
Not saying I can't, I just haven't so far. My genetics argument is lets say everyone has a hypothetical ceiling, lets say most on here is a 2:30 marathon and mine is a 2:50. In theory, I have to do a lot more right to make it happen. That's the point I've been trying to make.
No you don't have to do "a lot more right" you're doing "a lot more wrong" than the rest of us, you just have to train properly for the marathon
Reg, what kind of mid race fuel do you have for yourself? Obviously you are in shape. Perhaps you are just extremely depleted, either dehydrated or low on sugar or something...
I alternate drinking Gatorade and water at the stations. I have a power gel about every 45 min- 1 hr so about 3 total. I also have tried salt tablets hourly and one before the race.
It's hard to describe what's happening, I don't really feel that tired even late in these races but my calves and groin start cramping to the point I have to slow down quite a lot. In the half marathons my last mile is always my fastest in the race.
I know being 6'2" 195 prob doesn't help but I've always been a big guy...
Reg fields wrote:
It's hard to describe what's happening, I don't really feel that tired even late in these races but my calves and groin start cramping to the point I have to slow down quite a lot. In the half marathons my last mile is always my fastest in the race.
That is nothing special. That's how the marathon is. You don't feel "aerobically tired" but the pounding, cramping, and glycogen depletion get to you. You can even watch a video of Matt Tegenkamp or Ritz describing basically the same thing.
Broooooooooo wrote:
Reg fields wrote:It's hard to describe what's happening, I don't really feel that tired even late in these races but my calves and groin start cramping to the point I have to slow down quite a lot. In the half marathons my last mile is always my fastest in the race.
That is nothing special. That's how the marathon is. You don't feel "aerobically tired" but the pounding, cramping, and glycogen depletion get to you. You can even watch a video of Matt Tegenkamp or Ritz describing basically the same thing.
Exactly. Muscle damage - and the subsequent cramping, etc. - from the pounding would be exacerbated by being 195 lbs too. You'd be pretty damn fast at 20-40 lbs below that.
veteran of the slowbie wars wrote:
A lot of them ought to lighten up. It's long forgotten now but qualifying standards used to be a lot more stringent for Boston. For men 18 to 39 it was 2:50, and 3:10 for 40+ masters. I don't even recall what it was for 50s, or 60s, nor do I remember women's times but maybe something like 3:15 or 3:20 for open 3:40 for masters.
Bring back some real standards and no charity joggers at Boston!
I agree with this. Charity is good for raising money but BAA probably has enough money without it.
The standards should go back to how they were that one year with the 2:50 standard, if not more aggressive. Maybe lower the standard to sub 240 for men under 40, then 40-50 men need sub 250, and guys over 50 need sub 3 hours. Do it that way and it would be more competitive and more awesome, and the marketing would be easy just call it something along the lines of "The Boston Marathon: The World Championships of the non-elite."
But we live in an "Everyone is a winner society" so that would never happen.
NotAustin18 wrote:
The standards should go back to how they were that one year with the 2:50 standard, if not more aggressive. Maybe lower the standard to sub 240 for men under 40, then 40-50 men need sub 250, and guys over 50 need sub 3 hours. Do it that way and it would be more competitive and more awesome, and the marketing would be easy just call it something along the lines of "The Boston Marathon: The World Championships of the non-elite."
And yet the "World Championships of the non-elite" has tons of elites at it.
Fukuoka is already exactly what you described and it's kinda lame.
Reg fields wrote:
I'm going to change up my routine and do my long runs slower this year and I'll do multiple 20 milers so I'm doing what I can on the routine front.
Are you saying that you only run one 20 miler in preparation for your marathons?
I would say men under 40- 2:45
woman under 40- 3:00
then stick with the standards they have for age groups 40 and up.
bosstone wrote:
I would say men under 40- 2:45
woman under 40- 3:00
then stick with the standards they have for age groups 40 and up.
while we are at it.... lets get the olympic trials standards in line as well. 218/243 isn't needed. Just keep the A 215/237.... or even drop it 213/235? Keep a 1/2 marathon standard, but that needs to be 103.
Reg, I'm no expert but that seems solid. You do break down in a marathon... Have you tried running in calf compression sleeves? It looks dumb, but research has shown that it can serve to keep your lower leg moving in the right positions.
You're really almost there, you've just got this one little obstacle keeping you from getting there!
veteran of the slowbie wars wrote:
A lot of them ought to lighten up. It's long forgotten now but qualifying standards used to be a lot more stringent for Boston. For men 18 to 39 it was 2:50, and 3:10 for 40+ masters. I don't even recall what it was for 50s, or 60s, nor do I remember women's times but maybe something like 3:15 or 3:20 for open 3:40 for masters.
Bring back some real standards and no charity joggers at Boston!
I remember well that open qualifying standard, because I couldn't quite make it as a 25 year old in 1983 with my 2:53:30. I was happy at the PR, but bummed that I hadn't quite made the grade.
These days, 2:53 would probably get you top-3 in a small marathon. Tupelo, for example.
I think they should bring back those standards. Of course, the rot has gone so deep by this point that they'd probably have a hard time filling Boston up if they went by the old standards.
But maybe that would be good. Let the race shrink to the contours of serious runners, rather than expanding the boundaries of "serious runners" to the point of absurdity.
Reg fields wrote:
At the time last year I was running high 50's to low 60's MPW.
The point I was really trying to make is that the training I did probably would have been sufficient for some to break 2:50 yet I couldn't break 3:05 with it. I'm giving a BQ one last chance at Philly this fall so I guess we will see as I ran 3:09 in NYC then 3:08 in Philly 2 weeks later last year so 3:08 is now my PR
I hate to break it to you, but I do not think going 90-100 km/week will maximize your potential in the marathon. Try to increase your mileage to 70+ mpw for a couple of months in your next marathon build up.
Reg fields wrote:
I know being 6'2" 195 prob doesn't help but I've always been a big guy...
Hey Reg, I think I caught you on a another thread before. I'm 5'11" and just finished my first full a little under 190 lbs and did it in 2:54 and my half PR is a little slower than yours.
The differences for me, was a little higher mileage - 60-70mpw and every other week taking a bigger chunk of my long run at a faster pace. I started with 4 miles and worked up to a 20 miler where the last 9 were 620-630.
Also, something to consider with nutrition - at a heavier weight your going to naturally burn more calories than a heavier runner. While you're able to store more glycogen than the average runner, you would probably need replenish at a higher rate. 3 gels is what you or I would burn off somewhere a little over 2 miles, where a 150lb runner might only need 200 calories to cover the same distance. Just something to consider. I took a little more nutrition than you did and still hit the wall at about 22. But that might be more of a factor of me running 15-20 too fast.
Muebele wrote:
I am shocked at how arrogant fast runners can be. For the majority of the world, running a marathon is hard and running at the paces needed for boston is harder. That is why most marathon runners don't qualify. Most people on this site act like people who don't qualify are lazy slob. They are not, they are not fast runners.
But remember, marathons and most races are run for everybody, not just the ones up front.
Isn't the point of a race to win? That means they are meant for the ones with a chance to win, better known as the people up front.
Hayduke wrote:
Reg fields wrote:I'm going to change up my routine and do my long runs slower this year and I'll do multiple 20 milers so I'm doing what I can on the routine front.
Are you saying that you only run one 20 miler in preparation for your marathons?
Yes, I intended to do 2 29's last time but due to an injury had to modify the schedule down to one.