Minimum mpw for sub-3 marathon

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

50-60 mpw is probably the right amount. But what really matters the most is your 10k speed. If you are too slow you can train 120 miles per week and never make it.

I nearly did a sub 3 off no running. I had stopped running for 2.5 months before the thon(because I felt like I was breaking down). I cross trained a crap load. Walking, biking and elliptical. I got to 14 miles in the race and I had to stop. I struggled to walk for a few weeks. For the first week I could barely cover a mile walk in under an hour. It was a mess. It was a year after starting running. I look forward to going back to the thon again. I was so dumb with training when I started running. I'm sure 20 mpw would be enough if you are already fit from doing other stuff. Yesterday I spent the night with my uncle Buck having beers and ate pizza and smoked a bit of the magic dragon. I want to move in with him and am debating it but I need to be careful I don't take his habits or finishing under 10 hours would be hard. My uncle Buck says "hi" to letsrun btw

Forest Gump here wrote:

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

Yeah, while a lot may be capable of that, I think most who could run 2:55-3:00 on very low mileage probably train more and run way faster than 3:00.

I ran 2:52 in my second marathon, 40 mpw, pretty much took the winter off (20 mpw), and only managed 3:02 in the spring.

So, I have a sense of what my minimum was at the time. Probably about 30 mpw. Six months later, 42 mpw average (70 peak) resulted in 2:40.

Sub 3 marathoners averaged just over 50 mpw according to Strava data. Of course that also includes people who went a lot under 3 and could have run less mpw for just 2:59. So the average minimum for sub 3 would be less than 50 mpw, maybe even 40 mpw. https://www.outsideonline.com/2109861/strava-data-can-teach-you-how-train-marathon

nvbn wrote:

Sub 3 marathoners averaged just over 50 mpw according to Strava data. Of course that also includes people who went a lot under 3 and could have run less mpw for just 2:59. So the average minimum for sub 3 would be less than 50 mpw, maybe even 40 mpw.

Thanks for that! Exactly the sort of stats I was looking for. On another thread this morning, a novice marathoner had heard 70-90 mpw as the accepted minimum for sub-3, which seemed preposterously high.

Although I’ve not ran a marathon yet, I’ve been back training for 3 months after 14 years away from running and have managed a 1.17 HM, 35.20 10k and 17.10 for the 5k of roughly 40 mpw.

Last week I done an 18 mile long run averaging 6.43 pace, so it is definitely possible to run a sub 3 off low milage, I reckon I could do it quite comfortably right now of 40 mpw.

Markrunner wrote:

Last week I done an 18 mile long run averaging 6.43 pace, so it is definitely possible to run a sub 3 off low milage, I reckon I could do it quite comfortably right now of 40 mpw.

No doubt you are amongst those who would require only 40 mpw.

I'm thinking that of all the under age 45 male runners that are ultimately capable of a sub-3 marathon, 15% could go sub-3 off 30 mpw, another 15% would need 40 mpw, another 30% could do it with 50 mpw training.

Maybe 20% would need 60 mpw, the remaining 20% would need 70+ mpw. I'm only counting those who have the physical potential to run sub-3.

For female runners and older runners, the mpw requirements would skew upwards. For me, 20 mpw netted only 3:25 at age 57, versus 3:02 at age 22. At 58, even doubling my weekly mileage to 40+ resulted in only a 3:07. I estimate sub-3 would have required 60 mpw for me at that age.

Forest Gump here wrote:

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

50-60 mpw is probably the right amount. But what really matters the most is your 10k speed. If you are too slow you can train 120 miles per week and never make it.

2:58 off 25mpw, aged 45. You know nothing.

I think it really depends on talent and physical traits.

Uou know nithing wrote:

Forest Gump here wrote:

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

50-60 mpw is probably the right amount. But what really matters the most is your 10k speed. If you are too slow you can train 120 miles per week and never make it.

2:58 off 25mpw, aged 45. You know nothing.

I know more than you think.

What was your 10k PR when you did that? Probably fairly quick is my guess.

You just can't separate weekly mileage from your current max speed.

I ran 2:50 in the marathon off of 40mpw avg. Tried going for 2:40 but blew up, IMO cause it was quite warm that day and I ran too fast in the uphills. Also ran 1:15 for the half and 34 for the 10k while preparing for that marathon

My PRs before that year were 3h30, 1h28 and 42 or 43 mins.

Forest Gump here wrote:

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

50-60 mpw is probably the right amount. But what really matters the most is your 10k speed. If you are too slow you can train 120 miles per week and never make it.

There are a lot more people than you think that can go sub 3 off of very little.

I know a 2:28 guy that ran 25 miles max per week. He knew of course that this was not a good plan for anyone to run well but as you pointed out here the rules bend a little bit for talent. He was 13:40 for 5000 on the track.

I’m fairly confident I can break 3 off off 20-30 per week and I’m 48 and I probably could not run faster than 37 minutes for a 10k at this point.

Forest Gump here wrote:

30-40 mpw must be almost zero.

50-60 mpw is probably the right amount. But what really matters the most is your 10k speed. If you are too slow you can train 120 miles per week and never make it.

I would guess most in the OP time range are easily spread across 40-60mpw.

A lot can do it with far less although then you're getting into the lifetime mileage debate. A college teammate of mine in his early 30s just ran 2:40 off about 40mpw after a years of casual running.

I'd guess if I was to stop my normal training and run 15mpw for 6 months I would have no problem being well under 3. But I also have around 50K miles in the bank over the past 13ish years which matters. So when you ask this question there are two parts. What does their current build up look like and what does their lifetime history look like.

A few years ago I ran 2:44 on a moderate course in Asics Hyperspeeds. That was off of 4 months of 50-60 MPW. I think I could have probably gone sub 3 with only 30MPW.

Anecdotally I did it with room to spare off 40-45 mpw (highest week 52 or so). I think I have some speed and talent, but not exceptional. I think the posters are about right for many with some talent/speed it’s 40-45, for the very talented/those with years of training 25-35 is doable. And the largest group is probably people who need 50-55 mpw with high weeks around 60-65 mpw. There are others who need more or just aren’t physically going to get there.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I would guess most in the OP time range are easily spread across 40-60mpw.

A lot can do it with far less although then you're getting into the lifetime mileage debate. A college teammate of mine in his early 30s just ran 2:40 off about 40mpw after a years of casual running.

I'd guess if I was to stop my normal training and run 15mpw for 6 months I would have no problem being well under 3. But I also have around 50K miles in the bank over the past 13ish years which matters. So when you ask this question there are two parts. What does their current build up look like and what does their lifetime history look like.

So, shifting focus from averages and percentages to predictions for individuals, there's personal training history (lifetime miles, or perhaps going back a year or two), historical bests, and current 5K speed.

For instance, a 35-year-old has been fitness running for two years -- 3 miles three times a week.

In college, he ran 15:30 5K, averaged 60 mpw, but took a dozen years off from any training. Right now, he could run a 5K in 18:30.

With his current base of 9 mpw, he gradually builds mileage for five months, then averages X mpw for 16 weeks, and runs 2:59. What would be the minimum value of X?

I'd guess about 30. Same situation, but substitute 17:00 for college 5K, 20:00 current 5K, and I'd guess 40 mpw.

So many variables, but I bet a pretty accurate algorithm could be devised. The only point would be, "I'd like to break 3 hours -- how many miles would I need to train?"

Saw a 40 y.o from my club do 2:58 on 40 mpw with a 38 10k in the build up. Recovery is more important than excessive mileage.

I have a friend who is a 2:18 marathoner. He ran a marathon in early November and took a planned break of 2 weeks off entirely to let an old nagging issue resolve and get some emotional and physical rest. I was doing a marathon 3 weeks after his race and trying to break 3 for the first time. In only his second run in 3 weeks he paced me to a 2:58.

So his training was just 3 miles in 3 weeks before my race. That is about as low I have heard for a sub 3 hour marathoner. So the answer to your question is 1 mile per week average for 3 weeks, is the minimum mpw for a sub-3 marathon.

I can believe a 2:18 marathoner could do that easily, but this isn’t funny.