John ODonell wrote:
The gentleman presents some very good points here. I'll only take issue with one, and this argument is more than twenty years old now and has been beaten to death elsewhere.
The 5-6% figures he cites from the Chicago Marathon I'll accept as accurate, but that does not mean certain standards are difficult to meet. It means you have to actually train to meet those standards. If only 6.7% of the male entrants at the Chicago Marathon broke 3:10, I'd suggest the reason is that maybe 2% of the entrants train seriously. Many guys in their twenties can break 3:10 on fifty miles per week, and that's very moderate training.
I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful post.
I can see the validity of your post. However, I think your 2% number is quite low. But even if you're correct, I would argue that a vast majority of those runners only running 50 mpw would likely not be able to physically withstand much more and would end up injured should they try to get to 80, 90 or more. "Many guys in their twenties" is subjective, and I contend that it's still a relatively small percentage of runners.