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

Sports Gene matters wrote:

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

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.

This means you are a high responder, and it is a genetic trait. So you discovered you have talent in responding to training better than most people. Good for you. There are also people who discover they are "low responders" as they train more. They usually don't come to message boards to brag how slow their progress is. That's why you may not be aware that they exist.

Of course I know they exist. My point is that neither you (nor the guy earlier who was describing how ridiculous an eventual 2:30 goal was for the OP) know which the OP is! Couldn't he be a high responder? Of course he could be. It absolutely can't be ruled out based on the info provided in this thread.

Only one way for him to find out. And, listening to the stuff Sciatica dude was spewing is not it. He's got to go put in the work and see.

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay > When you say you use Lydiards/Hadd for your base what exactly do you mean?

Is it a long aerobic base phase without going aerobic? Do you still base on HR or on feeling?

Do you still do sprint during base phase?

I have several version of Lydiard's phase and I'm not sure what to follow with a more modern approach.

Well, if he actually does come back here in 5 years after breaking 2:30, and I'm still around, I'll congratulate him and say I was wrong.

But until then, no way.

Sciatica Road wrote:

Well, if he actually does come back here in 5 years after breaking 2:30, and I'm still around, I'll congratulate him and say I was wrong.

Just by admitting the possibility, you're already wrong.

5 years would be plenty of time to get to sub-2:30 assuming genetics are suitable.

as for myself, i started running around october 2010. ran a marathon july 2011 in 3:10, then another april 2012 in 2:54. havent run one since then but i know that in spring 2013 i could have run about 2:40-2:45 (based on a 75min half off of 5000m training)

i almost made a sub-2:40 attempt in august 2013 but decided it would impact my xc season too much.

i've been in 72-73min half shape at various points of 2014-2015, so i assume i'd run 2:32-2:35 with any sort of marathon training. so that's about 4 years to get to 2:33ish shape, focusing on 5k-10k for 95% of the time.

i could totally see myself going back and changing a lot to be able to get to sub 2:30 within that first 4 years. definitely no sooner than 3.5-4 years though for myself.

i'd recommend starting by focusing on 5k for a couple years, getting to at least 16:30ish before moving up to 10k-15k distances for the 3rd year. if you can get to a 33min 10k within a few years, a 2:30 shoudnt be an issue with another 1-2 years.

The quickest and most obvious way is to get a coach, Training plans are a crap shoot. Everyone reacts differently to different stimuli.

If you can't afford a dedicated coach then joining a running club. It will cost you max $100 a year.

Search around and try to find one in your area with a reputable coach. In the meantime just keep doing what you're doing.

3:35 is not slow. I'll bet half the posters replying to this thread can't run sub 3:20. Not that that matters, there are lots of excellent coaches who've never run a marathon.

Not sure which is greater on this thread, the shear ignorance, or the shear hubris. For some reason, reed, I took thought you to be a more knowledgeable poster, at least with regard to running.Hope Precious Roy chimes in with an honest, non-pc opinion on whether he thinks the OP will ever go sub-2:30 within the next 4-5 years, based on everything the OP has said on this thread.

You make a HUGE assumption (no, not everyone is genetically gifted to go sub-2:30), AND IN ADDITION, even if the the physical genetics are there, regardless of how endowed with (little or great) BEYOND sub-2:30 someone potentially is genetically gifted, there still is required the huge amount of training to exercise and bring forth the genetic gift in order to successfully go sub-2:30.

Typically, any amount of modest training is going to reveal whether or not the genetics are there (obviously taking age and other factors into consideration), which was one of my original points. The OP has already had the time and demonstrated the motivation in his training already achieved, to show by now whether the genetics to go sub-2:30 are there or not. I don't think they are.

The above statement is only plausible, with qualification:

-Firstly, getting to a 33min 10k within a few short years is a huge "IF", demonstrating genetic potential for running.

-Secondly, however, if that 33min 10k was achieved on 10k optimized training, there is still a biological transformation required to get one to convert that fitness over to the marathon. It could take at least 1-2 years to convert one's 10k fitness over to the marathon distance. Witness Shalane Flanagan: how many years was Shalane in marathoning before she converted her 30:22 10000m fitness over to a 2:21:14 marathon? Four years?

-Thirdly, a 33min 10k is only worth approximately a 2:35 marathon, given the proper marathon training, NOT a sub-2:30.

Sciatica Road wrote: ...the shear ignorance, or the shear hubris...

Carry on.

Sciatica Road wrote:

Not sure which is greater on this thread, the shear ignorance, or the shear hubris. For some reason, reed, I took thought you to be a more knowledgeable poster, at least with regard to running.

Which he is...

Sciatica Road, what was your marathon progression from 50 mpw vs. 100+ mpw?

Haven't got to 33-minute 10k yet, but I am shoot for it next season.

I started running in early 2013, PBs for 5k,10k are 16:53,34:40,1:16 for the half (not an easy course)

I feel I am more of a strength runner who fares better at longer distances.

I wonder if I have the potential to run sub-230, or even 225 in the future.(I am pretty sure 220 is beyond the realms of possibility for me, so I don't ask...lol)

By the way, I am 26.

Self-doubter wrote:

Haven't got to 33-minute 10k yet, but I am shoot for it next season.

I started running in early 2013, PBs for 5k,10k are 16:53,34:40,1:16 for the half (not an easy course)

I feel I am more of a strength runner who fares better at longer distances.

I wonder if I have the potential to run sub-230, or even 225 in the future.(I am pretty sure 220 is beyond the realms of possibility for me, so I don't ask...lol)

If you can break 2:40, you are on your way. However, since you have not listed your marathon time, possibly you haven't run one yet? If not, I hesitate to guess how long it will take you to go sub-2:30 with decent training, even if you are a strength runner. A sub-2:20 typically requires the wheelhouse of a sub-30min 10K; a sub-2:25 will typically require a sub-31min 10K. Based on what you have said so far (less than 2.5 years running), if you can dedicate serious training over the next 5-7 years, a sub-2:20 might be in the realm of possibility; too early to tell.

sheer wrote:

Sciatica Road wrote: ...the shear ignorance, or the shear hubris...

Carry on.

Deer sheer,

thanks for the correction.

I'm glad Amber didn't listen to Sciatica's advice early on, and realize that she clearly didn't have any talent.

Yes, I know 2:40 is not 2:30. I also know this wasn't in 5 years. I still feel this is worth putting out there for the OP to read & consider.

http://www.runnersworld.com/olympic-trials/utah-woman-qualifies-for-olympic-trials-in-her-31st-marathon?cid=social50006236&adbid=10152942116121987&adbpl=fb&adbpr=9815486986

iwonder wrote:

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay > When you say you use Lydiards/Hadd for your base what exactly do you mean?

Is it a long aerobic base phase without going aerobic? Do you still base on HR or on feeling?

Do you still do sprint during base phase?

I have several version of Lydiard's phase and I'm not sure what to follow with a more modern approach.

In general, I mean stuff like:

- an extended base phase. Like 3+ months, rather than something like 6 weeks in a Daniels plan.

- Focus on getting the volume up as much as I can and stay healthy.

- Following the Lydiard principle of volume first, then faster paces.

I used heart rate a lot, but usually as an upper limit. I would let myself go at a lower heart rate than "scheduled" if necessary, but tried not to exceed the scheduled heart rate.

Typically, I would shoot for 2 high-end aerobic efforts per week. (like Tues & Fri) I used Hadd's idea of starting these at the low-end of the heart rate range, and over time as they became easier, work the heart rate higher in the aerobic range.

A few seasons I included a mid-week moderate-aerobic effort, at a medium-long distance. (when I did this, I did high-end aerobic effort on Mon & Fri, the the moderate on Wed)

Long run on Sunday.

Everything else easy to ridiculously easy.

I also used Lydiard's suggestions of including a second run (jog) most days. Usually 30-45 minutes.

Some seasons I included 3-5 strides a few times a week after easy runs. One season I included a weekly "fartlek" run that had short, sharp alactic strides.

I think the seasons I included strides worked better as I transitioned to the anaerobic phase.

If you want a pretty clear (with heart rates), modernized version of Lydiard, you might check out the book "Healthy Intelligent Training". It is very good. However, personally, there is something extremely motivating about reading Lydiard's actual words in his books. Perhaps that is partly why he was such a great coach - he was inspiring, and thus was able to get the most out of his athletes. I read Daniels and I understand the training principles, but it never inspires me to be a "champion" the way Lydiard does.

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

I also know this wasn't in 5 years.

EXACTO-MUNDO!

Nonetheless, notice, this stay-at-home mom is putting in the volume/hours that exceed what I mentioned, but her story is quite remarkable.

Other 20-something runners with any delusions about other aspects to this running game might want to read, for instance, this thread, too:

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

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

Sure you can; certainly, in your dreams, maybe.

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

I don't do marathons...

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

My first marathon ... was a 4:02. In another 12-18 months i think I will reasonably be able to attempt breaking 2:30. ...

^coming from the guy that said "I don't do marathons"

[/quote]

I know several others who have completely defied your theories.

Suuuure you have.

[/quote]

LMFAO.

[/quote]

Maybe you have a lot in common with that guy, Rossi, too? Or the other guy earlier on this thread that, subsequent to a lot of biking, dropped a 2:28 "About a year after" he started running?

Sciatica Road wrote:

LetTheCardsFallWhereTheyMay wrote:

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

Sure you can; certainly, in your dreams, maybe.

Time will definitely tell. My only wishes are that 1) I could make a financial bet with you now; and 2) would know how to contact you in 12-18 months to collect & rub your face in your idiocy.

All the best to you as you inspire others with what you don't think they can achieve.