Sub2:30

Sorry if I go over top but I do not have time to read the whole thread right now.

I started running at 25. Before that I was a professional motocrosser and in high school I raced BMX nationally.

My first marathon I ran 3:35 virtually blind.

I ran for a top 10 national JUCO then a DII program. After college I ran a 2:29 in 1998 then I trained specifically for the marathon and went 2:23 in 1999 at age 32.

2:39Marathoner,

I am in the greater Denver area. I work with runners all over the country via email and phone. Scott Kent, the runner I mentioned earlier lived in Loveland, Co during our first few years working together, he now lives in Milwaukee, WI (works for FedEx who has moved him there). I usually workout coaching arrangements with each person I work with individually. Rafa1 is another one of the local folks I have assisted, getting him from a high 2:49 down to 2:40 and a few seconds at Boston a few years back. He is now doing tri's and wants to do the Ironman but keeps missing the qualifier by a few places. Feel free to write to my email and we can go into my approach in detail.

I have recently been named to the advice panel for the Arthur Lydiard Foundation. Quite an honor. I served as Arthur's translator during one of his stays in Venezuela.

Good running,

Glenn

2:39Marathoner wrote:

Is there anyone out there that started running in their mid twenties that has run a sub 2:30 marathon.

Not quite Jack Foster or Elijah Lagat, but I believe Chris Zieman started running only 5-6 years ago, in his late twenties. Was a cyclist before. Last year he was the top US finisher in Boston and he just ran a 2:21 PR.

Why real good benefits can an online coach give a struggling 2:40 marathoner to get him under 2:30. If the runner has the motivation and drive and knows the workouts needed to get him under 2:30, then what else could an online coach do besides take your money?

Who said anything about money? I have been coaching runners for 30 years, without pay. I have a job 8-5 that pays the bills. I coached the corporate team at one company I worked for. I like to coach, enjoy seeing others progress. And as I told Nobby Hashisume, I want to see Lydiard's approach to training passed on to more runners.

So what can a 2:40 marathoner gain, perhaps enought to take him to his potential? Perhaps nothing. Depends on the coach and the athlete.

Glenn

Also a sub 2:30 might get them into the Olympic trials.

I don't know if I'll get sub 2:30 but I'm targeting that as a long term goal. never ran at all before 2001 quit smoking and started running the same day. I'm 40 years old. I just ran 2:48 for a marathon but I know I can do better. I've ran 16:01 for the 5k. I hope that over the next two years to really lower these time even more. Good Luck!

Don Norman never ran in high school or college. In his early 20s he took up jogging with Brent Hawkins and by his mid 20s he ran 2:11 for a marathon.

Is that good enough?

Then again, he was cranking out 140 mile weeks, but that was only because an accident of birth allowed him to do it. Initiative and hard work had nothing to do with it. Not to mention the fact that there were no Kenyan gnomes to turn off his alarm clock every morning when "Spiney" was running.

Sub 2:30 sucks

Why didn't you ever run 2:11.

Lerry Gindgren wrote:

Why didn't you ever run 2:11.

Because I wasn't a marathoner.

Coach? wrote:

So how many of you guys that dipped under 2:30 did it without a coach?

Sub 2:20, no coach, no training partners.

same here

Jason,

Whats has your marathon progression looked like from the first one you ran to the last one you ran?

bump.

I curious about your progression as well Jason. Care to share your progression including how your training changed?

Thanks!

whomp! to the chump

my friend ran a 2:17 after 4 years of training, he started running when he was 24

MAYEROFF wrote:

Coach? wrote:

So how many of you guys that dipped under 2:30 did it without a coach?

Sub 2:20, no coach, no training partners.

I and several other local runners from the late 1970-1985 improved by just training harder and longer on our tempos and total weekly distance. (WITH NO COACH). We all wanted to qualify for Boston each year and when the qualifying time dropped to 2:50 we just trained harder. This is the opposite of today and it plays a role in the decline in the lack of sub 2:30 US marathoners (and sub 2:10 US born runners). This is not rocket science...the data are clear. Now the questions is what is missing that was there in the 70-85 time period. Well...I suggtest it is the media, driven by popular sports nutritionists and the supplement industry. They promote the need for runners to use sports beverages, CHO supplements and hydrations beverages during runs. We never had these in te 70-85 and YET WE ALL RAN faster than today's marathoners. So if all these new products are so great for performance then why are marathners obviously slower??? I ran a 2:28:33 at Boston in 81 and placed only 239th (check the Results). I was not elite...except that I broke 2:30. The US was full of sub 2:30 marathoners then. We did not take any CHO supplements during the marathon and there were few aid stations. When I first ran Boston in 1975, there were no aid stations and no mile markers (only the traditional sites that had known distances). It was the long intervals, tempos from 6 to 12 miles, high mileage 80-90 mi/ wk and the God given genes we recieved from our parents that made this possible. Today the genes are still there in the same number of lucky runners...but what is missing is the dedication and commmitment to training by the old fashion way (mileage and W/out CHO supplements and fluids)and the above training program. Like it's been said before " The secret is ...there is no secret...it's all about training".

This may not be an accurate quote but try this one that is ..from Tom Huggins,an Oregonian who trained with Pre when they were both in Jr. High School. Several years ago I ask Tom what I should tell my High School Boys X-C runners...he said tell them "to run long, run hard and run often." No mention of carrying hydration fluids, Gue or eating before, during or after long runs....and you know what??? Today's Scandinavian research has supported this approach...check out the studies authored and co-authored by Benta Pedersen of Denmark. The old guys (1970-1985)were correct (they ran faster than today's US marathoners) and the new way is for "wussies" (i.e, most can't even break 2:30) because they choose the modern way, which is not to endure discomfort. Sorry youth...but this is the hard truth and exercise science research now supports it. If we train like the rest of the world class marathoners we will run like them...again it's not rocket science, not new nor novel, it's a proven model (e.g., review the 1970-1985 runners training). Let's get going and do it the old fashion way...and become one of the top marathoner countries once again.

MAYEROFF wrote:

Coach? wrote:

So how many of you guys that dipped under 2:30 did it without a coach?

Sub 2:20, no coach, no training partners.

I and several other local runners from the late 1970-1985 improved by just training harder and longer on our tempos and total weekly distance. (WITH NO COACH). We all wanted to qualify for Boston each year and when the qualifying time dropped to 2:50 we just trained harder. This is the opposite of today and it plays a role in the decline in the lack of sub 2:30 US marathoners (and sub 2:10 US born runners). This is not rocket science...the data are clear. Now the question is what is missing that was there in the 70-85 time period. Well...I suggtest it is the media, driven by popular sports nutritionists and the supplement industry. They promote the need for runners to use sports beverages, CHO supplements and hydrations beverages during runs. We never had these in te 70-85 and YET WE ALL RAN faster than today's marathoners. So if all these new products are so great for performance then why are marathners obviously slower??? I ran a 2:28:33 at Boston in 81 and placed only 239th (check the Results). I was not elite...except that I broke 2:30. The US was full of sub 2:30 marathoners then. We did not take any CHO supplements during the marathon and there were few aid stations. When I first ran Boston in 1975, there were no aid stations and no mile markers (only the traditional sites that had known distances). It was the long intervals, tempos from 6 to 12 miles, high mileage 80-90 mi/ wk and the God given genes we recieved from our parents that made this possible. Today the genes are still there in the same number of lucky runners...but what is missing is the dedication and commmitment to training by the old fashion way (mileage and W/out CHO supplements and fluids)and the above training program. Like it's been said before " The secret is ...there is no secret...it's all about training".

This may not be an accurate quote but try this one that is ..from Tom Huggins,an Oregonian who trained with Pre when they were both in Jr. High School. Several years ago I ask Tom what I should tell my High School Boys X-C runners...he said tell them "to run long, run hard and run often." No mention of carrying hydration fluids, Gue or eating before, during or after long runs....and you know what??? Today's Scandinavian research has supported this approach...check out the studies authored and co-authored by Benta Pedersen of Denmark. The old guys (1970-1985)were correct (they ran faster than today's US marathoners) and the new way is for "wussies" (i.e, most can't even break 2:30) because they choose the modern way, which is not to endure discomfort. Sorry youth...but this is the hard truth and exercise science research now supports it. If we train like the rest of the world class marathoners we will run like them...again it's not rocket science, not new nor novel, it's a proven model (e.g., review the 1970-1985 runners training). Let's get going and do it the old fashion way...and become one of the top marathoner countries once again.