Sub 2:22 marathoners....

jorvack wrote:

I have no talent so the miles are really the only alternative.

Mine had a lot to do with the MILES as well, one reason for my name.

For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?

Hi Jorvack

Just what do you call no talent when talking about yourself? Just curious what effect an mileage-only program has on an 'average' talent runner.

thanks

E wrote:

For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?

My peak mileage was 140 that year and I hit it twice. In 2002 I ran 4547 miles which would be an average of 87 miles per week.

Miles and Miles wrote:

E wrote:

For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?

My peak mileage was 140 that year and I hit it twice. In 2002 I ran 4547 miles which would be an average of 87 miles per week.

We know it's tough for you not to hijack every thread with your autobiography, but please note the thread head--sub 2:22 marathoners. Unlike USATF, we're sticklers about this sort of thing.

careful reader wrote:

We know it's tough for you not to hijack every thread with your autobiography, but please note the thread head--sub 2:22 marathoners. Unlike USATF, we're sticklers about this sort of thing.

Please read the previos posters and see how many are SUB 2:22. Someone asked me my mileage, smartass.

Progress after a debut depends on a number of things from talent to how much was put into the first marathon. A good (albeit not typical) example is Aaron Church. He debuted in 3:43 after reading a book called "Four Months to a Four Hour Marathon." Four years or so later, he ran 2:21:47 to qualify for the 2004 Trials. He made a fairly steady progression between those times and said that when he ran a 2:34 was the first time he thought he might be able to qualify for the Trials. Obviously he has some talent, but a lot of his progress was from hard work and consistency. Shows you never know what might happen.

Miles and Miles wrote:

careful reader wrote:

We know it's tough for you not to hijack every thread with your autobiography, but please note the thread head--sub 2:22 marathoners. Unlike USATF, we're sticklers about this sort of thing.

Please read the previos posters and see how many are SUB 2:22. Someone asked me my mileage, smartass.

This is odd reasoning--because others ignored the sub 2:22 thing, it's okay for you also to do so? Again, we're not USATF here; seconds count. And where did someone say Miles and Miles, tell us your mileage (for the 8 gazillionth time)?

Actually, I believe the following question was posed:

"For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?"

That means its open for anyone to answer, including Miles and Miles.

Californian wrote:

Actually, I believe the following question was posed:

"For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?"

That means its open for anyone to answer, including Miles and Miles.

That's true, but that's not what M&M said. He said someone asked him his mileage. To be fair, we could say that M&M asked himself.

That's the accomplishment I want to copy. I know I have the talent too - at least all my coaches have been baffled by my progress in two years with relatively little effort.Did A.C. write a book, or can I find a feature story on him or something? Maybe his email address...? Does he post here?

RTC wrote:

Progress after a debut depends on a number of things from talent to how much was put into the first marathon. A good (albeit not typical) example is Aaron Church. He debuted in 3:43 after reading a book called "Four Months to a Four Hour Marathon." Four years or so later, he ran 2:21:47 to qualify for the 2004 Trials. He made a fairly steady progression between those times and said that when he ran a 2:34 was the first time he thought he might be able to qualify for the Trials. Obviously he has some talent, but a lot of his progress was from hard work and consistency. Shows you never know what might happen.

Californian wrote:

Actually, I believe the following question was posed:

"For you mileage hogs, During your best marathon preparations, what was your peak mileage? average?"

That means its open for anyone to answer, including Miles and Miles.

If you read where the above was asked. Read the BLUE lettering just above it says "in reply to:" it says my name. So I would say it was posed to myself, Jovorak, and others. Thank you both for your concern though, ha.

Yeah, Miles and Miles, I appreciate your input. Why are people so bitter over a few seconds anyway? Anyone who has run fast enough to get into the OT marathon after hacking minutes off of his or her time is an inspiration to me despite running 2:22 and some change. So I am happy to hear from you.

Out of curiosity, why the bitterness, careful reader? If you have some good stories or information about how to get to a 2:22 marathon, I would love to hear it. If not then I am sorry you have become so angry. Have you run some marathons?

So, do you experienced guys think it is feasible/likely to go from a 2:33 that I prepared pretty well for (average of 80ish peak of 105) to a 2:22 or faster? My debut was a bit of a distaster in terms of execution and the humid 80 degree weather probably didn't help either. I really felt 2:28 was easily within reach...but it just didn't happen. Needless to say I was a bit disappointed.

"E" et al. - I know of a guy who

- Opened with a 2:32

- A year later paced a friend to a 2:53

- A year after than ran 2:23-mid

- 5 months after that broke 2:20 (which even a "careful reader" must admit meets the criteria to be a valid opinion-giver on the topic)

I don't worry about it's just the nature of letsrun, I am used to it. I have my haters and since they are annonomous it gives them the opportunity to get off on taking shots at me, no biggie.

Anyways 2:33 is definately on the way to 2:22. Just keep doing what works for you and maybe a touch more, get that 2:28 and then reevaluate and I am sure you can get to 2:22. If I can, just about anyone can. Good luck.

It's all about probabilities:

Look, if you are a moderately talented runner, you can probably train to run sub 2:22 or even sub-2:20 if you give yourself a chance.

It depends what running means to you, and it means a helluva a lot to ME.

I ran Berlin in 2002 and ran 2:18 because I knew I was very fit at the time and I knew that if I would have waited 2 more months (I was signed up to run the Seoul Joongang Marathon in November) my window-of-opportunity would have passsed.

THINGS TO DO TO PUT THE NUMBERS IN YOUR FAVOR:

(1) Train 100 miles a week.

(2) Do a long run every two week, 22-25 miles.

(3) Stop drinking.

(4) Train in altitude for 2-3 weeks at a time.

(5) Sign up for one of the faster races such as Berlin, Chicago, etc.

(6) MOST IMPORTANTLY: NEVER GIVE UP.

Jason

Jason, you say some really weird crap on letsrun sometimes but you always manage to come out with some great advice. Thanks a lot; I hope that I can do what you have done. You had achilles surgery at one time didn't you? What events led to that? I have had a chronic achilles problem for some time now and I can't seem to shake it this time. What type of surgery did you have? Anyway, thanks for the advice; I really appreciate it.

Definte moderately talented.

bump