Any healthy man can run a sub 2:30 marathon

Reg Fields wrote:

I trained my butt off just to finally break 3 hours. Some of us just don't have the talent. I think this perspective gets lost when you only hang around with mostly fast runners. And I've been running most of my life, many times training much harder than more talented teammates and still couldn't come close to their times. Talent is the most important factor in running.

Yes, talent is most important and it requires significant running talent to reach 2:30. We're not dealing with world class talent, but some talent.

This performance is comparable to a sub 4:30 mi or 2:01 800m.

Anyone who says that any health man can run 2:30 is either a troll or is a weak thinker especially if they are a serious runner.

Anyone reaching 2:30 is in the top 1% of all runners.

Lydiard's system as I recall, had runners do 100 miles a week on 1 run a day

The endurance phase would last about 9 months and would consist of.

Monday-10 miles flat

Tuesday-15 miles some hills

Wednesday-12 miles flat

Thursday- 18 miles very hilly

Friday- 10 miles flat

Saturday-15 miles flat

Sunday- 22 miles very hilly

as you get in better condition and get accustomed to this, you will get faster on all runs and the flat runs would get to 5:15-5:30 per mile and the longer hilly runs would be about 6 minutes a mile, including the 22 mile hilly run.

6:00 minute pace comes out to 2:37 for a marathon, so if your following the above schedule, you would just be running a little faster and a little longer than your weekly Sunday long run AND to run 2:30 that would be considerably slower than the pace for your flat runs.

So IF (how big the IF is depends on the person) you can work up to Lydiard's schedule 2:30 should not be a problem.

As to Snell only running 2:41 he ONLY followed the above schedule for 8 weeks (and I believe only 1 time) had he followed this schedule 9 months a year for 5-10 or more years consecutively then Snell certainly could have broken 2:30 EASY and by a lot.

Also Lydiard Included the 22 mile run in ALL phases, so a 22 mile hilly run at 2:37 marathon pace 52 times a year.

Lydiard also recommended a 2nd run a day of 30-60 minutes at a very easy pace to speed the recovery.

Now I don't know if ANY healthy man can work up to this schedule, but if they could 2:30 would be EASY, any person who was working with Lydiard had a above average work ethic, if they were willing to commit to the above workload.

What Lydiard refers to as any healthy man may refer to who he has coached, as that is all he sees, Just like a Division 1 coach with rare exceptions the least talented kid working out with their team was at WORST a 10 minute 2 miler in high school and Most will have run between 8:50-9:20 for 2 miles in high school, when you start with that level of ability and do the above schedule, it would be shocking if they can not run under 2:30 for a marathon even if they are big for a runner (Being smaller is an advantage in the marathon, being bigger is a disadvantage).

What Lydiard calls any healthy man might refer to who he has coached, and not in general, Example I would say any distance runner with a scholarship to The University of Colorado, Wisconsin, Oregon or any college can do it easy,

with the above schedule, but being they have scholarships they are not average, but for lets say Mark Wetmore a kid who runs 9:00 for 2 miles is nothing unusual, a prospect who needs to be developed to be able to compete, A high school coach who has a 9:00 minute 2 miler may think of the same kid as a superstore.

So Lydiard saying Any from his experiences, is not any to the general population.

Sorry if it was too long.

Happy New Year to all.

Bump

How many times?

As a Lydiard qualified coach I can tell you definitively that the Lydiard system does NOT dictate running 100 miles a week, or running twice a day and is time based rather than mileage based. For instance, he stated that runs of more than 2:30 -2:45 have a negative effect on the body.

The fact that some of his elites ran 100 miles a week was not something written in stone. He would recommend a plan based on what a runner can handle, based on various scenarios.

douglas burke wrote:

Lydiard's system as I recall, had runners do 100 miles a week on 1 run a day

The endurance phase would last about 9 months and would consist of.

Monday-10 miles flat

Tuesday-15 miles some hills

Wednesday-12 miles flat

Thursday- 18 miles very hilly

Friday- 10 miles flat

Saturday-15 miles flat

Sunday- 22 miles very hilly

He had me (and a bunch of others) do something similar but Sat was a 20 miler and Sun was 15. He did not care if it was hilly. And I did it in Eugene Brutting shoes which Arthur promoted.

bump

Yes I believe this is mostly true. I actually ran a 2:33 at 29 years old and I am clearly in the bottom 1% of the gene pool based on physical assessments I had during school and I have autism. In other words very untalented. My high school coach made a strong point of this to my father. This was the only marathon I ran after graduating from school because I did not like the experience at all so I think it is possible that I could have gone faster with more experience and more desire. I really don't think a 2:30 marathon is particularly noteworthy as any talented runner can do a 2:20 or faster. I have run 10Ks in the 31 min range so I don't think the 2:33 was some kind of anomaly either. However if you are as untalented as I am you probably need to start running in high school and train stupid hard like I did then. By the time I left school my training became much more sensible, a lot less intense and more enjoyable.

Not that this thread deserves any more replies, but here's another way to think about it.

I was gifted at math from an early age -- even theoretical post-collegiate math came easy. I studied a bit, because there's still a body of knowledge you have to learn, but my outperformance was mostly talent. It was hard for me to understand why other people didn't just "get it" like me. Why can't "any healthy person" prove the fundamental theorems of topology with enough instruction? C'mon, you idiots!

Struggling to break 20 minutes in a 5k, despite training my butt off, has made me much more humble about my math abilities. And much more grateful for the talent I was born with.

Assuming other people can be as good as you at something you're good at (if they just tried harder) is massively arrogant. Applies to math. Applies to running. Don't be a douche.

OP, 9/10

Does it apply to douchieness?

Manchester wrote:

I don't think so wrote:

By the way, the McMillan calculator shows the equivalent mile time to be 4:26 and the 800 is 1:59. Can any healthy man be trained to run those times also?

Non sequitur. You do not need to run anywhere close to 1:59 or 4:26 to run a 2:30 marathon.

I think it's a fair comparison. If you ran 2:30 without chronic injury and then did a season of speed work, those times would be very achievable. For a speed type like myself, 2:30 would point to world class times at the 800m and mile, but I will never run 2:30 unless I rack up so many miles I become more of an endurance type.

What's the point? The topic is not about self selected marathoner runners who have achieved a time of 2:30. If any healthy man can run 2:30 that includes sprint types, who should be able to run an absurdly fast 800m off that fitness.

Flagpole....

Enough said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLkPkqMdjk

ur rong wrote:

Flagpole....

Enough said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLkPkqMdjk

Lazy guy with a very high level of talent trains for marathon. Nothing to see here.

Is it just me, or whenever rojo mentions Cornell, does it make you think of Andy Bernard from the Office???I agree wholeheartedly with his point though.

rojo wrote:

NO WAY.

People of letsrun. Please realize the vast majority 'are into' running because it's something you excel it. You started it early, were good at it, work harder and got better. But you are people naturally inclined to distance running. Many of you don't understand that key fact.

Many people just suck at distance running. They are fast twitch people.

How can I get you to understand it? Think of it this way.

I'm sure there are weight training websites saying any normal man can bench 200 pounds, sprinting sites that say any normal man can break 11.00 in the 100.

The idea that most people can break 2:30 is flat out laughable. I had a guy at Cornell - one of the worse guys on the team - who ran 100 mpw and couldn't break 2:50. But he was a pretty good HS runner (10 minutes roughly).

Any healthy man can challenge Kobayashi and Joey Chestnut for the hot dog eating contest record. Given the right training.

To the original question, I disagree. 2.30 demands some talent, even 20 years of optimal training isn´t enough for a healthy man with very low natural talent.

jjjjjj wrote:

Okay, how many healthy men in their twenties and thirties trained 100 miles per week or more and did not break 2:30 in the marathon with a few attempts?

Very few people are capable of training 100 miles per week, even if they work up to it over a decade. They will get injured. Heck, I wasn't and I did break 2:30 (on 60-70 miles a week).

Old ass thread redeemed, but i highly doubt most "healthy people" could complete a half marathon under 1:30, or a 10k under 35 minutes. much less a marathon under 2:30. So i call bs, the only way someone could get there is having everything in your favor. Unlimited time, resources, and injury free-ness. Not a lean random person who runs 20 miles a week.

Any unhealthy man can make ludicrous claims such as any healthy man can run a sub 2:30 marathon.

As a 2:27 runner past my prime I have been amazed in the decade since my prs at how few fit, well trained runners run under 2:30.

I have met 14:20 5k guys, guys that are strong in RC at 10k guys with half marathon pr faster than mine that have had trouble at the distance.

I used to sell to running stores so I met and spoke with lots of runners, easily hundreds.

26 miles is pretty far to keep up that sustained pace, and can be pretty effing painful.