Over 40, don't want to run marathons unless under 3-hours would be really easy.

With a current 6:55-7:00 marathon pace now, an easy way to get into the 2:50s is to drop from say 168lbs to 158lbs and still a healthy BMI.

That puts the MP at 6:35 immediately and makes injuries less likely.

This is a huge advantage, right?

outsiderunner wrote:

Randy Oldman: Are you back running at all?

Thanks for asking. I'm so desperate I've just forked out $1,000s on an experimental treatment. I'd try stem cell injections but I can't afford $40K.

Theclock is ticking I've got less than 2 years to achieve my goal of breaking 62s at 55 y.o.

Are you replying to me or to the OP? I am currently 128 pounds and if I went any lower might wife might not think me alive...I might just fade away. I have the ideal marathoner's body--short and thin. As far as I am concerned, I should not be getting injured, and I should be able to run something like 2:49. Not being conceited here...just evaluating my body and its possibilities. Very few men are my height, weight, etc.

I wish you all the best, Randy. May healing and good running come your way. Yes, the clock ticks for all of us 40+ guys. I am almost at the point where I will not run unless I have zero pain in my body. It should have been this way 4-6 weeks ago, but the soreness remains. Actually, I have taken a couple of days off, and there is currently zero soreness. However, it seems to come right back after a mile or so. I want to be positive, and think I am finally over this injury, but I am not holding my breath. In either case, my left IT band remains tight.

I think they were replying to me, the OP. I'm currently at 24.5BMI, average height, and a bit of a soda gut. It might be a good idea to be a bit lighter. I hadn't thought of it until now.

That's the situation. 3:15 marathon at around 165lbs, 5'11" and 40mpw (undertrained). 155lbs isn't too skinny, right? It is still in the healthy BMI. I read some old threads and some LRC runners had success by dropping the weight. You don't hear about it anywhere else because people are afraid of promoting eating disorders, right? I think I have a good shot at 2:59 easy at one stone lower weight and 20mpw more.

Excellent thread. Any more thoughts on these matters?

I\'m 6\'3\" and 174 lbs and can\'t imagine being anything less or else I would be a stick. You can possibly get down to 150 and still be fine.

I ran 8 marathons in my mid 20s through mid 30s. All of them were sub 3, 6 of them were sub 2:45.

Now as I approach 40 I have no interest in doing another one. My prs are behind me so what's the point in beating up my body like that? I'm happy to hobby jog and jump into whatever 5k or 10k looks fun each weekend.

Shoebacca wrote:

Marathons aren\'t really healthy. The body isn\'t designed to fuel past 18 miles without help. Marathon training is healthy, but doing the actual thing is high risk. If you do the correct training, though, you\'ll finish many runs where you feel like you could have kept running to make it a marathon. Once you reach that point doing a marathon and taking a few weeks to recover isn\'t a big deal. If you enjoy putting a lot on the line, then go for a marathon. If you enjoy racing frequently, then avoid it and stick to the weekend racing circuit.

I agree, marathons are not healthy....for the vast marjority of people. But runninig a marathon is an expression of the \"great warrior motif\". People want to show that they are tough and formidabe! It helps them feel good about their self....I\'m strong, I\'m tough!

But as running go (physically) it\'s probably better to not speed your demise by running marathons when you are old.

However, in running... A sub 18 5k is about as good as a sub 3 hour marathon. And the sub 18 will probably result in less healty problems.

I agree with almost everyone on the thread, including OP! Actually, I'm 35, running 35 MPW, and I almost never race at any distance, because I'm only interested in doing it if I'm at least age-group competitive. Say a minimum of ~18:00 5K, ~38:00 10K, ~1:25 HM, ~2:50 M. I occasionally do workouts that indicate I'm within 5% of these marks, but am also frequently injured.

Even when healthy, it's a vicious cycle - I never want to commit to a race without being sure that I'm fast, but without a goal marked on the calendar I'm not quite consistent enough to build speed.

A friend pointed out a terrible truth to me recently: for sub-elites, no one runs a marathon under 2:45 without doing 70+ MPW. This certainly matches my experience; my lifetime PRs are 15:40 5K, 27:00 8K, and many of my training partners/teammates have run marathons anywhere from 2:30 to 3:20. Without exception, the fast guys were doing mileage. I almost wish I had jumped in a random weekend marathon and run a controlled 2:50 when I was in peak shape, because I am probably never going to get there again!

My thread from April got bumped!

"run a controlled 2:50 when I was in peak shape, because I am probably never going to get there again!"

Exactly what I want to do, a controlled pace. To break three hours without going "all-in" and maxing my heart rate out for the distance. Some may call this cowardly, but honestly the marathon "equivalent" from the calculations scares me. At peak 5000m pace, I can't imagine doing the equivalent "effort" for a marathon. A 5000m raced all-out hurts. A 10000m at the equivalent pace(slower) still hurts a ton. Racing a marathon all out can not be healthy. Running one below max pace seems the way to go.

Yes, running just below the "equivalents" doesn't seem so bad. If you could go all out in a marathon at 2:45, jogging in a 2:59 would be way more enjoyable. That was my initial point.

Great discussion.

ALH359 wrote:

The hay is in the barn before the race. All of the hard efforts you put fourth should be in training in order to prepare for the race. To me a race is a celebration of the hard work that I've put in. If I stay consistent in training and prepare myself well, then a relatively fast time is a given.

How did that work out for the Kenyans in the last WC marathon. Suppose you are better than them though

I didnt run a marathon for a few years because I didn't want to run one unless I had a chance at sub 3. I decided to run one last year just to do it but only go about 90%. It was great as I wasnt beat up for a month afterward. Ran 3:13 when my max probably would have been 3:09. This summer at 50 I have been running great times up to half marathon for me that Mcmillan says is right at 3. I signed up for a November marathon but I am not doing any marathon specific training. The plan is to go out in 1:31 and then see how long I can hold 6:45 miles.

I started running late in life (39) with zero athletic background. For some ridiculous reason (girlfriend wanted to) i focused on marathon only. I eventually got to a 3:00:45 marathon at age 43 but it was very gratifying race, near perfect splits 1:30:22/1:30:23.... I have no regrets that i didn't squeeze more out of my legs that day because there was nothing left to give. That was an optimal performance for me. I agree with others here that one needs to be in 2:56ish shape to get under 3:00. I think i was in 2:59/3:00 shape that day so my race was an excellent performance for me.

I got injured at Boston 2013 (not from the bomb), hamstring pulled but i foolishly finished the race. After 18 months of hamstring issues i realized i hated long runs. I enjoy short temp runs , speedwork, intervals and reps.... So i now focus on trying to get my 10k time to sub-38 at current age 48 (last year i did 38 high). My goals now are simply to stay in 37-39 minute shape as i push through age 50 (geez). I love tempo runs run progressive, starting at 730 pace and cutting down towards 600 pace. I also love doing intervals at 545-600 pace. And reps at 500 pace. This makes me happy and feel good. That is all that matters. I suggest you find what works for you and stop thinking about arbitrary numbers to impress other people.