Have you ever tried to make the Olympic Marathon Trials?

Jim Bob Cassidy wrote:

If so, what was your PR progression, training, did you make it, etc.

I'm a 1:10 guy after only racing three half marathons (first one was 1:22 three years ago). Still need to do a full but I'm young. Not in any rush to do one though.

Yes, the 2016 OTs. Alternate B-Standard was 1:05 HM and B-Standard was 2:19 M.

Progression:

November 2013: 1:05:54 debut HM

March 2014: 1:05:44

June 2014: 1:05:28

November 2014: 2:23:54 debut Marathon (2:18 pace through 30k)

January 2015: 1:04:22 (OTQ!)

June 2015: 2:18:52 (OTQ!)

For reference, I never ran a provisional qualifier for Division 2 track (14:52PR), nor qualified individually for XC nats.

I haven't gone after personally it but I've known and trained with quite a few guys and gals who have made great efforts.

One of my good buddies got out of d2 on a low mileage 4:0x mile PR. He had an opportunity to train with a top mid distance program and passed it up, bs'ed around for a few years and started working full time. Started training with me and some others in 2014 and started getting fit again. He went under 4 for the 15 pretty easily early spring so went to debut at the half looking for a 67 thinking it would be an easy confidence booster. He had to solo effort it and blew up hard, came through totally wrecked over 70. He was only running 60 mpw at the time and doing mid distance workouts since that's what my group is focused on. He realised he would need to up his mileage and run more specific workouts but got burned out after 8 months or so running alone. Gave up on running entirely before he could nab it. Really sad, he had a lot of unlocked talent.

I dated a girl that missed B qualifier in 2012 by less than 10 seconds, but then had an injury that sidelined her. Unfortunately she went full Ryan Hall and dropped her coach and let "God" take over when she was getting close for the 2016 cycle. It was unbearable to watch. We didn't date that long but I followed her to see what happened. Of course she overdid it, screwed herself up and blew up on her last chance race day. She ran in the 2:50's, then tried to back to back it for another effort and sidelined herself for months with injury. She's still running but not at that level and her time has passed.

Third one I'll talk about has run a few trials now but had a really rough go on his last attempt. He's a lone wolf and always has been, went full focus heading in '16 trials and lost his girlfriend over it. Got dropped by his sponsor too, just his whole year crashed and burned. He blew up super hard in the last mile of his spring full and missed by less than a minute because he went > 6 on the last mile gallojogging. Real tough break so he went for the half and missed again. Then USATF flipped the script and pulled the standard up to 2:19, so he squeaked in and got back in shape. Had a relatively good day at the trials and is running competitively again. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever met so it's nice to see things turning in his favour.

In my (limited) experience one of the biggest issues is finding training partners or keeping the motivation without a group. A lot of people just don't know how to do it solo, and the late bloomers seem to have an advantage on this front because they've never relied on a team. My personal recommendation would be to get a real coach and start grabbing guys now as they are graduating while they still have legs and motivation. Post collegiate training partners will be a rotating door unless you can get on a team.

To me, softening the trials standard seems a no-brainer.

Pros:

- More people training hard after college because they have something to shoot for.

- More local heroes drawing attention to the sport.

- The event itself would be a major national reunion for the amateur running community. It would be epic, and that's not a word I use lightly. Think Club Cross squared.

Cons (and responses):

- Race would be logistically more difficult

Response: True, but the difference would be quite small. We're still talking about hosting a tiny road race. Any difficulty could be offset by registration fees.

- Would "incorrectly" imply that some athletes are "elite" when they are not even close.

Response: It isn't the place of USATF to arbitrarily define what constitutes "good." The wonderful thing about track is that nobody can define "good" for you; it all comes down to the clock. True, we have qualifying standards for many events, but almost all such standards are a result of natural constraints such as not wanting too many rounds in a meet or not wanting athletes of vastly inferior ability to interfere with an event--such as by being lapped repeatedly or by delaying the start of the next event. Even Boston only instituted qualifying times once there were too many runners to accommodate. At present, in the Trials marathon we're so, so far from the point where the numbers are logistically a problem. I suppose it's true that we have to put the bar somewhere, or else we'd potentially be hosting a typical big city marathon, but I would much rather have a system where the time bar is specifically tied to the number. So, for instance, you could say the goal is to have a field of 1000, and each year the time would be set at a number that is estimated to allow for a field of about that size. I'd set it at 2:35 for men and 3:00 for women.

Tougher standards "raises the bar" for U.S. Distance running.

Response:This is the actual reason that USATF gave for raising the standards. It's ridiculous. The bar is raised organically by faster guys at the front competing for the same three spots as always. The qualifying standard has absolutely no effect on them.

A guy I knew and ran with in Texas missed it by like 23 seconds back in '95. He ran St George, which was strangely still a qualifier back then despite the elevation drop. It was tough to miss by less than a second period mile. Paul....did you ever recover from that one or did it haunt you for the rest of your life?

Old Ultra Guy. I ran Boston 1979. Went through 10 mile in 56-min and 1/2 at 1:13. Both PR's at the time. Did the same...death march started in Newton. Second 1/2 was 1:30. Finished in 2:43. I was age 21.

The 1:13 first half made me think with more training and years I could get close. 2:37 was the best I did.

Would the women who made the trials mind elaborating on their training and mileage build up? I found your stories inspiring. I am a former D1 runner who sort of peaked in HS/freshman year of college before I fell prey to the normal college experience of drinking and socializing. My PRs are 4:30 1,500m and 17:21 5k, respectable but never very competitive in college. I never went over 45 miles per week and was always distracted by social endeavors, had terrible eating habits, drank a ton, so I think there's more in me. I ran a 6 mi tempo sub 36 once in practice.

After an eight year running hiatus I am very slowly getting back into it. I have about 20 lbs to lose to get down to race weight. I am currently logging 30mpw and don't really know where to begin or how long it takes to get up to something like 70-80mpw. Should this take months or years? Any advice how to do so without getting injured? I am in awful shape (struggling to run sub 7 pace in 4mi races right now lol) but I think within a year I can be back to my old self; just not sure what to do to move up a distance with the long term goal of a 2020 marathon OTQ.

Jim Bob Cassidy wrote:

If so, what was your PR progression, training, did you make it, etc.

I'm a 1:10 guy after only racing three half marathons (first one was 1:22 three years ago). Still need to do a full but I'm young. Not in any rush to do one though.

As someone who has made the trials don't wait, go for it now. A few years down the road you don't know if your running health will hold up, have seen plenty of guys who broke down. Also things come up quickly in life. If you want to take advantage of that window you have to go for it while its open and not wait because it closes faster than you expect.

OTQ2016 wrote:

Jim Bob Cassidy wrote:

If so, what was your PR progression, training, did you make it, etc.

I'm a 1:10 guy after only racing three half marathons (first one was 1:22 three years ago). Still need to do a full but I'm young. Not in any rush to do one though.

Yes, the 2016 OTs. Alternate B-Standard was 1:05 HM and B-Standard was 2:19 M.

Progression:

November 2013: 1:05:54 debut HM

March 2014: 1:05:44

June 2014: 1:05:28

November 2014: 2:23:54 debut Marathon (2:18 pace through 30k)

January 2015: 1:04:22 (OTQ!)

June 2015: 2:18:52 (OTQ!)

For reference, I never ran a provisional qualifier for Division 2 track (14:52PR), nor qualified individually for XC nats.

Especially cool that you went for the marathon standard after already getting the half standard. Questions:

Were you shooting for the standard in the first three halfs and your first full?

a. If so, you were close but not agonizingly close each time. how did you keep the motivation to keep at it and have that breakthrough with your 1:04?

b. If not, which was your first attempt at qualifying and how did your training/lifestyle change when you made that decision?

I was a "all nothing" D1 runner that loved being on my team and made varsity but lets face it there are a lot of good runners out there. My college PR's were like 17:20 5k and 35:50 10k. Looking back I was struggling with injuries and really only ran 2 full track seasons. I did run all for cross seasons.

I ended up in the same city as another former team mate and she and I started to run together. I never was completely out of shape like "once a female runner" mentions but I spent a lot of time having fun after college when I had a job, money and no morning runs.

I ran only once a day, usually every day and got up to max 70ish miles. Back then the standard was "softer 2:50" but I was able to go from 3:15 first marathon to 2:58, a bunch of 2:5x.

My former team mate moved up and punched out a 2:48 on her first marathon try. She was very organized and well planned with her races so I wasn't that surprised. She was 4 time MAC champ in the 1500 in college (not sure of her PR).

Her qualifying motivated me that I could do it. I added a weekly track session of 3-4 miles of intervals and a good hard tempo run of 8 miles with her(from the Royal Oak Hanson's store) and we did our long runs at low 7 pace. I was able to get a 2:49. Probably the best accomplishment of my running career.

We both came back and qualified again in 2000 - I had gotten married and she had twins in the meantime. We both have PR's of 2:48 so we were never "contenders" but had a great experience.

You definitely have the talent to get there. I have a similar 1500 meter college pr. I got my 5k down to 16:43 in college and was able to drop it more after. I typically will run 60-70 miles a week most weeks. I don't really peak any higher than 75 miles per week. If I were you I would train for a couple of month's and then jump into races for fun and for the joy of running. A typical week for me nearly every week looks sort of like this...

Sunday- 12-16 miles.. Sometimes I do a workout during it like 8x5minute reps or a longer fartlek.

Monday- easy double am-4, pm-7 miles

Tuesday- am- 4 miles ( I typically do this run on my lunch break more in the afternoon).

Pm- some time of speed workout.. My favorite is 10minutes hard, 2 easy, 2x5 min hard/ 2 easy, 4x2:30 hard/ 2 easy, 6x1 min hard/ 1 min easy. (This workout got me quick relatively quick.)

Wednesday- 9 miles

Thursday- hills or some other type of speed workout

Friday- 4-6 miles easy

Saturday- I race a lot ( I typically find a race to do to keep myself motivated) If I can't find a good race I'll do another workout.)

I made it to the trials by staying consistent and not giving up. My senior year of track in college was pretty bad. I made NCAA XC nationals, and finished 6th at regionals. All the girls who beat me broke 16:10 that next track season, and I couldn't even break 17:40. It was awful. I almost gave up running, but I decided to continue and saw some success again. Keep at it. You definitely have the talent. Start by having fun, eating clean and slowly building up.

What if we had OT qualifying by place rather than time? Marathon courses are not standard like tracks. So to get to the OT you have to place, say, in the top 30 at Boston, NYC, Chicago, or top 25 at some other races, or top 10 at still others. That would make racing the key to getting to the trials rather than even pace and easy courses. The race is the thing. Then we would know exactly how many will qualify. Set it at 100 slots. Make for drama.

Tom

I wanted to get the full standard in addition to the half to prove to myself that I actually belonged at the MARATHON Trials. On that day, though, I was shooting for sub-2:18, and came up short, only to find out a few months later that they added a minute to the time standard. So it was a delayed OTQ, but one nonetheless :-).

But, aside from a few "training" half marathons, I was shooting for the standard every chance I got. I had a history of injuries and knew my legs only had a few good races in them before they would inevitably yield to yet another injury, so I didn't want to waste an opportunity. After the three 65s, I had learned enough about the distance to nail my next one, especially with good competition, weather and consistency in training (not changing anything drastically, just continue doing what I had been doing, maybe with a tiny bit more intensity/volume). The stars aligned in Houston for the USA HM Champs in early 2015 - perfect weather, GREAT competition and on top of that, FAST course. I just rolled with it.

I seem to have a pretty unusual runner's physiology in being an absolute plodder, born without a single fast-twitch muscle fiber in my body. I struggled desperately to run an 80-second quarter and my best time for the mile was about 5:40. A 4:30 1500m is otherworldly to me. But what I could do was grind out close to a maximum effort for a very long time. I ran three marathons under 2:48, including my OTQ of 2:42:50 (on an honest course, Twin Cities) but I never broke 18 minutes for 5K. So what worked for me might not work for a more "normal" runner.

This was a long time ago and I don't have training logs from back then, but more or less this is how it went. I was a casual runner through my 20s. I am 5'5" with a small bone structure and very narrow through the shoulders and hips, and in my late 20s I weighed around 130, way overweight for a runner. About age 30 I got serious about running, cleaned up my diet, gradually ramped up from 20-30 mpw to 50+ over the course of a year or so, and slimmed down (over a couple of years) to about 105. I looked like a concentration camp survivor but I did get faster.

During the 12-month period in which I sliced my marathon from 3:08 to 2:43, I was running roughly 75-85 mpw. Typically this was a steady 8-10 mile run each morning, one mid-day interval workout per week (quarter intervals or mile repeats), and one weekend long run. Long runs were usually at least 16 miles and went up to about 24. I never ran quite the marathon distance in training but I sometimes ran for as much time as the marathon would be. And the long runs were often done with a group that included some good male runners, and they were hard efforts, not just jogging along for 20+ miles.

Somehow, despite all that volume, I managed not to have a significant injury until the day of my OTQ race. I finished the race OK, running the last few miles with a sense of elation that I had a big time cushion (the standard was 2:45) and I was still running well. However, several hours after the race I could barely walk or use my ankle enough to drive a car. I got over that injury but after that it was one injury after another, until I gave up on trying to run fast.

I am now two weeks short of age 59 and still running regularly, but I can't seem to stay uninjured long enough to train for a marathon. I run lots of half-marathons but am now doing well to get in under 1:45. Which is still very competitive in my age group in local races. And I still do a lot of volume, 70 mpw on a good week, but almost all of it slowly. I still love running and hope to be able to keep doing it for a long time.

Thank you, ladies. This is all supremely helpful info. I will have to do more research how to cater my specific training. Amkelley, I always had the opposite struggle of you - I always felt extremely strong at middle distances when I was at my best. The mile was my sweet spot but I also ran 2:50 in 1k and 2:13 in 800, but I always sucked at cross country (best collegiate 6k was 21:58 on an easy course) and found anything over 3k kind of unbearable. My body just felt like it was fatiguing and falling apart anything over these distances. That may have been due to my low mileage and middle distance specific training though, but interestingly, I am also 5'5 and your overweight 130 was very close to my 125 HS racing weight. At 125, I was lean and muscular, but I am sure carrying around a solid 20 lbs more than most of my competitors doesn't help once you get into longer distances. I am hoping my body adapts to longer distance training and I can be competitive at the marathon. I think sometimes it comes down to body types for what race you excel at but it will be interesting to see now that I won't be racing anything less than 5k and will probably move up!

Doubtful Pre Doubtful wrote:

Yes I also beat Joan Benoit Samuelson in the 1984 Boston Marathon.

Shure shure

Your reading comprehension is weak for getting such a short piece so wrong. He said, "1979 Boston Marathon" and her first Marathon AR was 2:35:15.

Why do you find that so hard to believe? While I never beat Joan Benoit, I ran a 2:35 marathon and I was in 11th grade.

Stephan is a good guy (I think that's the lone wolf you are talking about). Glad to see the standard get bumped up. He isn't totally lone wolf and travels in his van to work out with people. I did half/marathon specific work outs with him during his build up when he hit the time. He knows how to race. If you aren't talking about him, then well this is embarrassing.

I qualified with a 2:18 just a little over 3 years after I was "a 1:10 half marathon guy."

Word to the wise....train your endurance, not your speed.

I wish you well.

Zee wrote:

For the women responding did any of you make the trials while raising little ones? I guess first I have to see if I can manage getting runs in with two rugrats, but if that can somehow be managed I'd like to see how fast I can get with uninterrupted training. I have yet to do a marathon though which is kind of putting the cart before the horse. I'm a bit worried that I flop my first but it seems like many of the female posters were able to shed off time with more experience at the distance? After my first baby I ran HMs in 1:21/1:22. I guess my goal is to see how fast I can get with over a year of uninterrupted running (which I have not done yet), but were any of you able to juggle this goal after little ones?

There's a lady I've read about by the name of Mary. After her first child she ran a really fast Half Marathon. It was a World Record at the time. Then she had another and well, you can imagine what happened. I heard she was trying to finish the London Marathon just a few days ago. You could look up the results to see how she did.

I graduated in spring of 2014 from a D3 school with a 30:12 10k PR and upped my mileage to 100-110 mpw that summer. I ran 1:07:45 for my first half marathon that fall in November 2014, ran 1:05:50 a few weeks later in December, and then 1:03:31 in January 2015 and got my B qualifier.

In 12 months time I went from having a 15:08 5k PR to running 1:03:31 in the half, which goes to show that you never know when you're gonna have your big breakthrough. So even if you are light years away from qualifying, keep trying because eventually you might hit it just right on any given season.