5 years to make a good marathoner from 0, how would you do it?

First off, I will admit my embarrassment in confessing that I thought he said he had been running for two years. Your thoughtful reply caused me to go back and check.

I agree with everything you say regarding the ability to do unimaginable things athletically for beginners starting out, and did not at all mean to discourage the guy from dreaming big.

If the OP took only one year to already get up to six days a week and 50 mpw, dropping a 3:35 in the process, then he was not a non-athletic fatty starting out. He probably did something, even if it was trick-skateboarding, but probably something more, involving some type of youth sports, if not just a lot of bike riding. So that probably being the case, then glimpses of 2:30 running talent would already have shown through, in some capacity, be it shorter time-trials, etc.

Even if this guy can get down to a sub-2:50 from his 3:35, within four years, would be an incredible achievement. To go sub-2:40 would quite remarkable, even within five years...but then there is that chasm to sub-2:30.

An interesting and educational exercise might be to compare the similarities, or disimilarites, of the OP's trajectory to the skyrocketing improvement of the mid-20's Patty Dillon. ( a board search might turn over a thread on her trajectory)

Sciatica Road wrote:

An interesting and educational exercise might be to compare the similarities, or disimilarites, of the OP's trajectory to the skyrocketing improvement of the mid-20's Patty Dillon. ( a board search might turn over a thread on her trajectory)

I found it:

Here is the trajectory of the overweight, sedentary, cigarette smoking 23 year old Patty Dillon after she took up running at the age of 23:

Apr-May 1976 (age 23): Patti takes up running

Oct 1976: 2:53:40 Marathon

Oct 1977: 2:47:20 Marathon

Oct 1978: 2:44:11 Marathon

Dec 1978: 2:43:10 Marathon

Sept 1979: 1:14:03 Half Marathon (WR)

Oct 1979: 2:40:28 Marathon

Dec 1979: 2:40:07 Marathon

Apr 1980: 2:38 Marathon (injured foot)

May 1980: 1:08:36 20K (WR)

Aug 1980: 53:40 10M (AR)

Sept 1980: 2:30:57 Marathon

Oct 1980: 2:29:33 Marathon

Dec 1980: 2:35:26 Marathon

Feb 1981: 1:44:25 30K (WR)

Mar 1981: 49:34 15K (AR)

Mar 1981: 25:48 5M (WR)

Apr 1981: 32:09 10K (AR)

Apr 1981: 2:27:52 Marathon (AR)

Notice, although Patty was very driven in her running aspirations, it did not take long to reveal the running talent, as she went sub 2:54 within 5 months from when she started running. Four years later, she went sub 2:30, but she was incredibly driven in her running pursuits, and was putting in an incredible volume of work by then.

[Note, Patty did do some swimming as a youth.]

BTW, 'koach man',

koach man wrote:

For all you know, this person was sedentary and overweight their whole life prior to this. I was until age 20, and then I turned my *** around and have done some things athletically that many said I couldn't.

With you athletic background, did you truly go 2:28 eventually in the marathon, as you imply in an earlier post?!? That would be truly remarkable if you did! How many years did it take you?

Wow, thanks for this info on Patty. I had not heard her story! I'm really looking forward to reading about her. Funny to see she only quite smoking in 1978!! What a beast.

Sciatica Road wrote:

BTW, 'koach man',

koach man wrote:

For all you know, this person was sedentary and overweight their whole life prior to this. I was until age 20, and then I turned my *** around and have done some things athletically that many said I couldn't.

With you athletic background, did you truly go 2:28 eventually in the marathon, as you imply in an earlier post?!? That would be truly remarkable if you did! How many years did it take you?

I started cycling when I turned 20. I somehow ended up with the crazy goal of doing it professionally (I had no idea just how hard that would be.) I literally lived like a monk for 3+ years... training, eating, sleeping, etc. By year 3 I was riding 400+ miles per week. I decided to quit cycling after a bit, and then picked up running. About a year after, I ran 2:28.

koach man wrote:

Wow, thanks for this info on Patty. I had not heard her story! I'm really looking forward to reading about her. Funny to see she only quite smoking in 1978!! What a beast.

Patty's trajectory was mind-boggling! On first perusal, one may ask if she contradict's my earlier statement about the disparity of a "non-athletic fatty starting out" being able to get up to 'only' 50 miles/week, and dropping a 3:35 in the first year process. I don't think so, because the salient point is that Patty may have been a 'fatty' starting out, but there nonetheless was a running 'athlete' in all that flesh which didn't take long to reveal itself.

However your story might be more remarkable than Patty's; however, some things about your story are quite fishy. Firstly, you obviously weren't in the same stratosphere on the bike as 'the Beast', Lance Armstrong. And yet, that guy, even with his prior triathlete background, barely broke 3:00, in his first year of marathoning. Secondly, if you truly dropped a 2:28 in your first year of running, the Brojo's would likely have caught wind of it, somehow, even if wasn't later in further pursuit of your running career, and they likely then would already have written you up on their website.

Edit, should read:

"...even if it was later in further pursuit of your running career..."

Wow, thank you for the information and for the reality check. It might be better now than in five years to know what to expect from my performance and my natural talent. I always assumed talent played a role, I did not know it played that much of a role.

I read stories of people going from nothing, putting the miles (80-90mpw) and getting sub 3. I assumed, I could achieve the same quite soon; I might be wrong on this one.

I am also interested in the more global view of the question on top of my general case.

For my background, I was never overweight, I did youth sport but never competitively.

For the mileage so far: 730 miles in 2014 (mostly starting from June) and 780 so far in 2015.

My 10k and half are better than my marathon time even if I never trained specifically for them (half was part of marathon training and done in 1h40). 10k was for fun in 44 minutes.

I will be interested in reading more about JK, all I have read was from this board. For Hadd, I read much more (the PDF, the forums and posts from Pete), but I'll be happy to talk more about it.

I agree that Canova does not seem wise for my case. I believe he said: "worry about my training when you can do sub 15 for 5k".

Thanks for all your help

To add to that, my 10k when I started was around 55 minutes.

Thanks for the feedback post, providing more to work with.

"I always assumed talent played a role, I did not know it played that much of a role. I read stories of people going from nothing, putting the miles (80-90mpw) and getting sub 3. I assumed, I could achieve the same quite soon; I might be wrong on this one."

Based on what you've said so far, yes, you could possibly go sub-3 within 1-2 years, If, IF, you can get very dedicated, and put in 20-30 hrs/wk of volume, including x-training (biking, swimming, etc.). However, even with such dedication, you could just as well end up knocking on the 3:05-3:01 door for a while, requiring 2-3 years to go sub-3.

But there is a HUGE chasm between sub-3 and the sub-2:30 you originally referred to. Typically, guys that go sub-2:30 are good runners from their youth, and used to the long dedication required to go sub 2:30. If they came to it later in life, then they were typically good athletes in some other sport/activity, but nonetheless can put in the body of work to convert there athleticism over to decent running times.

One of the very basic tenets of HADD was the concept of extending one's aerobic fitness over longer distances. The idea with his base training was to, for example, bring up a guy's marathon time so that it lined up (per the 'calculators') with the athlete's race times at shorter distances. Your time's seem to already line up. With more training volume, you hope to see that trend continue.

So much potential, man. Nobody can tell you right now if 2:30 is achievable or not. You've barely gotten started. Just take the long road approach, get a good plan, put in the work, and have confidence that you'll reach your potential. Whether that is 2:59, 2:49, or 2:29 (or even faster!). 2:30 is pretty arbitrary right now, either way. Look up & read about Steve Way's story if you want to read an example of where 2:30 would have been shortchanging himself.

But, the fact that you can imagine yourself doing 2:30 is a huge step in the right direction.

I'm telling you, check out Lydiard. Make up your own mind if it makes sense to you. Even if there are some minor inconsistencies between some of the books, the overarching PRINCIPLES are sound, and I found them quite inspiring, and helpful. I found Daniels first, and Lydiard opened up a whole new world of development for me. Study his principles. Pay attention to each step (each is important). Don't get hung up on the details (I must hit XX miles/week). Just gently push you limits, wherever they are, let your body recover, and do it again.

I don't do marathons, but punch these numbers into a calculator and get a rough idea of what's possible. I only discovered Lydiard going into year 5 and am sure my development would have been accelerated a little if I'd gotten the mileage up earlier in my hobby jogger career (I'm middle-aged, so you've got youth on your side) - I was running easy runs too fast (targeting Daniels E pace) and as a result, couldn't manage any more mileage than I did each year until I backed off those efforts a bit and added in a few faster runs each week, a la Hadd or Lydiard.

Year 1: 1:37:45 Half Marathon (555 annual miles)

Year 2: 1:28:40 Half Marathon (1,345 annual miles)

Year 3: 1:22:13 Half Marathon (2,045 annual miles)

Year 4: 1:20:02 Half Marathon (2,246 annual miles)

Year 5: 1:17:04 Half Marathon (3,022 annual miles)

Year 6: 1:13:45 Half Marathon (3,096 annual miles)

I'm pretty sure I can get down to 1:11 or so in the next 12-18 months.

Thank you again for your answers. I will reevaluate my goals drastically.

My mistake is probably to not seeing the gap between 2:50 and 2:30, I realize it now.

Will you advise me then to boost aerobic running (eventually reaching 100mpw) and not focus too much on racing shorter distance?

Or should I have intermediate goals as well such as 10k or half every X months? I like racing as said before I tend to do better with a plan and a goal.

Oh yeah, I should mention, that I mostly do Lydiard/Hadd for the base phase. Essentially I use Lydiard's(Hadd's) Marathon conditioning phase for an extended base, and then go into something resembling a Daniels plan (phases 2,3,&4 from his plans). This was originally because I was familiar with Daniels' principles & paces, which made sense to me.*** I also looked at Lydiard plans and got scared away from the quantity & frequency of his anaerobic workouts in his later phases. I tend to be injury prone, so 2 of Daniels' workouts a week seemed safer to me at the time.

**Daniels principles are excellent, I just felt that he didn't stress the importance of the base for newer runners. I was trying to do the 6 weeks of base shown in his plans and had no idea that the 3-5 months (a la Lydiard) would have helped me tolerate the more intense workouts much better. For a relatively new runner like you (and I back then), I believe the aerobic conditioning is where the huge long-term gains will come from, with selective use of anaerobic training.

Best of luck to you.

Hah! The story of Steve Way (if one can actually believe it) as told in Runner's World, only corroborates what I've been saying, in spades! His story is another Patti Dillon, supercharged; a 230 lb smoker trains for three weeks and drops a 3:07:08 out of the gate!?

Thank you, yes my aerobic conditionning might be the most important thing to work on. Congratulations on your consistent progress over the years, that is impressive.

I feel like Daniels is really directed to athletes where seasons are important (less for me), that is why is plan have almost the same duration for every event. I learned a lot from the book though.

Sciatica Road wrote:

Hah! The story of Steve Way (if one can actually believe it) as told in Runner's World, only corroborates what I've been saying, in spades! His story is another Patti Dillon, supercharged; a 230 lb smoker trains for three weeks and drops a 3:07:08 out of the gate!?

Well, I don't corroborate what you've been saying. My first marathon (at only about 10 lbs heavier than I am now, and non-smoker) was a 4:02. In another 12-18 months i think I will reasonably be able to attempt breaking 2:30. My point to the guy is to put in the training and find out how much "talent" he actually has. It seems the more I've trained, suddenly the more "talented" I become. LMFAO. I know several others who have completely defied your theories.

Thank you for your optimistim. I agree it would be silly to cap my goal because I would be describing myself not talented enough. To add to your point, Alex Vero in "Running to the limits" experienced the same thing you describe (become more talented as he did 100mpw).

I still believe I will rather focus on internalize my goal on being the best I can be and not attach that to a particular number. Time to put the miles.

koach man wrote:

I started cycling when I turned 20. I somehow ended up with the crazy goal of doing it professionally (I had no idea just how hard that would be.) I literally lived like a monk for 3+ years... training, eating, sleeping, etc. By year 3 I was riding 400+ miles per week. I decided to quit cycling after a bit, and then picked up running. About a year after, I ran 2:28.

A 2:28 marathon after one year of running. Yeah right. This guy is a clown.

I don't think this is impossible. He already had had three years of cycling under the belt before he took up running.