Any healthy man can run a sub 2:30 marathon

It's cliche, but almost all of my teammates I had in high school and college were more talented than me. As I have broken 2:30, I am sure there bodies were capable of it under the right training.

That being said, anyone who has ever run on a big high school team knows that there are those athletes that bust their ass for years and just aren't any good. No way in h#ll they could break 2:30 under anyone's tutelage for their whole life of running.

So, no, it ain't true. I don't agree with the gentlemen that said only 1 in 1000 healthy men could do it, either.

Pretty much in any sport a claim like

"Any healthy young male could perform at an elite/professional female level"

is utterly insane. This is another way of thinking about the claim. He is basically claiming that any healthy male should be able to run with the likes of the top 10 or so women in the united states. That is just stupid.

lease wrote:

If you define "healthy man" as "one able to train to break 2:30 in a marathon," then you're all set.

Otherwise that's a total crock. Not one "healthy" (in most people's usage) man in a thousand could break 2:30.

THIS^

Good lord. You runners are a funny lot. The kernel of truth for this kind of thing is that it is so ego-maniacal to believe that any healthy man could run 2:30 if he just trained. On the surface it appears that it is the OPPOSITE of that, but here's why it shows HUGE ego to believe this:

IF you believe that all it takes to run 2:30 is just the focus on it and the time and the effort, then you are putting WAY too much stock into your own drive and focus and training as it relates to your own accomplishments. You believe that your successes have little to do with inherent talent. And that's so odd, because we have so much evidence to support that talent is the overriding factor.

Look at successful high school teams or college teams where for the most part all of the runners do the same kind of training...perhaps individualized a little bit here and there, but for the most part the same training. How is it possible that there's usually one or two who stand out on that team? How is it that most of us know a kid who ran all through middle school and all through high school (6+ years of training) and ended up not running faster than 23 minutes for 5k? I know several guys like that...and they LOOK like runners.

Have to train to get the most out of your talent, but proper training will only get you to the level of your talent, and in no way is 2:30 the mark for healthy men...that is just WAY too fast. 4:00? Maybe. 3:45 considering all is perfect in training and no injuries? Maybe. 2:30? No freakin' way.

Any healthy person can build up to complete a long run. Time is another matter, involving several variables over which people have limited control, including mass, stride length, uptake etc.

We skinny and short dorks have been dealt a lucky hand.

Agree w some of the posts above that point out the fact that a lot of really dedicated, motivated runners -- even with ideal training & no misfortunes -- cannot break 2:30. I was one such runner. I could have done some things differently in my so-called peak marathon years, but even with absolutely ideal training, no way could I ever have run sub-2:30. I did not have the talent. And that was true for a lot of the club runners I trained with -- most of their bests were 2:30s-2:50s -- off of a lot of training. Perhaps the case that most -- perhaps all -- former D1 distance runners can do sub-2:30, but most marathoners who are trying to achieve their best are not from that group. They are, rather, the talentless but dedicated club runners trying to go sub-3:00, sub-2:50, sub-2:40.

know body wrote:

Interesting article, do you guys agree or disagree with the statement that with the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30? I'd say I agree, but it would take a ton of dedication for most. Discus

http://hitsystem.com.au/any-normal-man-can-break-2hrs-30min-for-a-marathon/

Totally disagree!

That's probably one of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard. I did not read the article, but the average man simply does not have physical make up to run that fast no matter how much and hard they train.

know body wrote:

Interesting article, do you guys agree or disagree with the statement that with the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30? I'd say I agree, but it would take a ton of dedication for most. Discus

http://hitsystem.com.au/any-normal-man-can-break-2hrs-30min-for-a-marathon/

Def'n: Healthy, normal man (n) - a man who can run a 2:30 marathon given the right training.

Proposition: With the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30.

True

Proof: by definition

Flagpole wrote:

IF you believe that all it takes to run 2:30 is just the focus on it and the time and the effort, then you are putting WAY too much stock into your own drivel and focus and training as it relates to your own accomplishments.

.

+1

Dictionary Dabble wrote:

Def'n: Healthy, normal man (n) - a man who can run a 2:30 marathon given the right training.

Proposition: With the right training, any healthy, normal man can run 2:30.

True

Proof: by definition

Hey dickweed, i just substituted 2:30 with 2:00, now all healthy men can break the unbreakable 2 hr marathon. So why don't you go run a sub 2, make yourself a pile of cash, and buy yourself a new brain to fill that empty skull of yours.

And the average healthy man can bench press 500 pounds, because geez, that's not even 50% of the world record so much easier than a measly 2:30 marathon.

Ackley wrote:

I think Ron Daws once wrote something similar.

Wasn't he obsessed with running?

A healthy man with an UNhealthy running form is not gonna break 2:30.

Does anyone not use their brains anymore, or is all their energy put into training for a sub 2:30? Have you not seen millions of Americans who run forever year round and still can't break 50min 10k?

To break 2:30 you need a VO2 max of about 67-72 depending on which tables you consult. The average VO2 max in a male is about 40-45. The average maximum increase in VO2 max is 10%, which get's you to 44-49, and hey guess what, a 50min 10k is about 47 VO2 max!

There are extreme outliers who improve upto >30%: Lance improved 35% from baseline post cancer treatment/zero training of about 60 to 83, and that was cheating with EPO, and as i said, this is extremely rare, average is only 10%. But even these extremes only get you to at most 58, still wayyyy short of minimum requirement. Of course VO2 max is not the be-all end-all, there's efficiency, but if a two fully trained healthy men raced, and the guy with a VO2 max 10-12 points lower won the race, that is not at all average, that is freakish.

Lydiard of all people should know this claim is not possible. Coming from New Zealand, he should have seen 100s of average Maori men with 48 inch chest, super short legs and giant arms. Could they ever run a 5 hr marathon let alone 2:30. Sheesh.

Yes. For the majority of people, they are not that fast in their physical prime because they are 20-30 pounds overweight. If those people dropped 40 pounds and trained properly, yes, the majority would break 2:30.

fred wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

IF you believe that all it takes to run 2:30 is just the focus on it and the time and the effort, then you are putting WAY too much stock into your own drivel and focus and training as it relates to your own accomplishments.

.

+1

I see what you did there.

I went to large, diverse (relatively) junior and senior high schools. In 7th grade, on the first day of class, 250 of us 7th graders (half the number of 7th graders) ran a timed 600m on grass. I won. Easily. The winner of the of the other section was the only guy who had a faster time than I. In 9th grade he and I were the best distance runners on the track team - he broke 5 and I ran around 5:10. I write this to make the point that, though I'm not talented by LR standards, there is every indication that I am pretty talented compared to the general population.

I did break 2:30, but it took 8 years of high mileage and an almost total focus on running fast in my early and mid twenties to do it. And I didn't break it by much and I only did it once.

The other kid from my junior high ended up running DI XC and track. He managed to run a 51 minute 10 miler at one point, so, he probably could have run a sub 2:30, but he could never stay healthy long enough to get the proper training in. The XC 'record' holder at my HS, who graduated 4 years before me ran 15:04 in HS and also only broke 2:30 by a bit after training for it for years after college.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but based on my own experience and what I know about running there is no way that an 'average' healthy male could break 2:30. No way.

Think about this: Could your average hs male classmate ever beat the best femaie runner on your hs XC team? Then think about how many american women have managed to dip below 2:30.

It takes either a exceptional talent (like one in 10,000) or well above average talent (still probably one in 100) and fanatical dedication to run that fast.

Could well have been.When this was proclaimed back then years ago, people who then ran were serious, and fast and maybe talented runners. As Roger's article pointed out it IS evident winning road times these days wouldn't have gotten you into the top tens or maybe the top twenties back then.

Myself I was a 32 3/4 min. 10 km, 15 3/4 min. 5 km guy but was just able to run 2:37 for the 'thon. And preparing for that race did take hard work - but maybe for me a few more regular 100 mpw's could have taken my time 5 or 6 min. lower?.

I too saw Roger Robinson run Vancouver, BC, Canada 1981 marathon in 2:18 and on a really wet miserable day, 'monkey's weather' as described by I think the second placer.

Says Roger, Yes, 2:30 was ordinary. Runners I regarded as joggers in my early days were running 2:35-2:40.

So, guys in the running club who were already self-selected to be, you know, runners, were able to run fast.

I'm shocked.

Next up: Based on my experience at Julliard, everyone with a modicum of talent can learn to play the piano well. It just takes practice.

But could a REAL man break 2:30?

The author is Keith Livingstone. He is a big self-marketer and likes to stir things up. But he is the real deal when it comes to distance running, both as a former pro and a current coach. I think he fully understands that there are significant genetic factors that need to be in place for a runner to be able to succeed at distance running. He is really just trying to make a "back in the day" point about how current training and attitudes may be holding people back. Back in the day, there were bigger groups training together and there was more of an attitude that anyone could work hard and break into the pro ranks. Now, we have tiny and highly selective elite groups. The feeling is that only the best of the NCAA Div I runners are worthy of hard post collegiate training and everyone else should just run the local 5ks. Back in the day, Lydiard would take just about anyone and have them run tons of miles to see what happened. There was minimal separation between the top guys and the rest. Everyone was hammering it and thought that they could be the next champion. Now, we spend too much time thinking of reasons why we shouldn't be training hard and see the top runners as genetic freaks who have the benefit of superior training resources. That keeps people from just going for it like they did back in Lydiard's day.