How fit would you need to be to do a marathon in 2hour 45minutes

robinph

tunney wrote: »

Spade a spade - as far as marathon running goes 2:40 is a good club level nothing more.

That means there is only one "good" runner in my current club at the moment then out of several hundred members?

Yes, that person is faster than the rest of us and would be good if more people could run faster. The rest of us following in his wake are far from rubbish though, well my own mediocre efforts excluded.

Brianderunner

RayCun wrote: »

:rolleyes: So there are only 70 "good club level" marathon runners in Ireland.

70 good club runners that did the marathon this year. Agree with Tunney on this one, over 2'45 cannot be considered good club standard. Neither can over 60 mins for 10 mls, over 17 mins for 5k etc. Just look at the world records for some perspective.

TheRoadRunner

bart simpson wrote: »

there no way ya could listen to music doing a 2:45

ha, i beg to differ.

OP give the 2.45 marathon a lash and as heffsarmy says let us know how it goes. Impossible to say if you could do it or not when you have provided very little info about your physical well being etc. Also would need to run with somebody for a while before getting an idea (and a very vague one at that) of their true ability.

robinph

All depends on your definition of "good" and of "club runner".

Club runner = someone that runs for a club.
Good = not entirely sure, but I'd say that calling less than 1% of club runners as "good" is not fair on the rest.

Agreed that doing a 2:40, whilst out of the reach of many on here even, is not that great a time in National or even Regional standards. It is still a bloody good speed. and most "club runners" are never going to get anywhere near it.

You can complain that marathon running times in general have declined with these mass participation, just get round wearing a daft outfit races. But if any section of the population is actually going to be putting in anywhere near the required training for a marathon then it is these "club runners", if the vast majority of them are still not able to get close to a 2:40 then I'd rate that time as a step above "good" at least.

tunney

robinph wrote: »

That means there is only one "good" runner in my current club at the moment then out of several hundred members?

Yes, that person is faster than the rest of us and would be good if more people could run faster. The rest of us following in his wake are far from rubbish though, well my own mediocre efforts excluded.

Using McMillian (which all of ART seems to love so why not) - the equivalent time for a 2:40 marathon in 10km and 5km is 34:00 and 16:30.

Not that impressive.

Could I run 2:40 (34 or 16:30) - nope, but am I a good club runner? Nope.

MrThrifty

tunney wrote: »

I also disagree with the "last 10km" business. If its that bad for the last 10km then you've not done the miles, the training or lived the lifestyle to let you go out at the pace you were aiming for at mile 1.

??? For anyone running their first marathon, the last 10km can and usually is a big deal. Even if the person has done long runs in the weeks building up to the marathon, these might be ~20 miles at most, meaning that the person has NEVER run a full 26 miles. There is therefore a possibility that they will run into problems during the last 6 miles/10km then, whether that's injury related or just down to fatigue. Bear in mind here that even if the person sets out at the right pace, the actual weather conditions on the day (e.g. hot day, or very cold day) or even nerves can have a significant bearing on what happens towards the end of the race.

I was in a running club for years and have seen runners new to marathons do all the 'right' training prior to one and still 'hit a wall' or suffer from an injury etc. at the end. These runners would have been well advised by previous marathon runners with VERY high placement (as in top 10) results. I presume that comes under what people seem to be terming here 'smart' training!

Marathons are a challenge on the body... If doing one for fun, then grand, you'll likely get through it no probs. But if doing one seriously to break a particular time like 3 hours, then that's a different story. I've seen high placed runners take a month to recover properly afterwards (some catch a cold or virus immediately after that takes them down for a bit, others might just be worn out, others might suffer an injury (DESPITE all good training practices) etc.).

TheRoadRunner

MrThrifty wrote: »

??? For anyone running their first marathon, the last 10km can and usually is a big deal. Even if the person has done long runs in the weeks building up to the marathon, these might be ~20 miles at most, meaning that the person has NEVER run a full 26 miles. There is therefore a possibility that they will run into problems during the last 6 miles/10km then, whether that's injury related or just down to fatigue. Bear in mind here that even if the person sets out at the wrong pace, the actual weather conditions on the day (e.g. hot day, or very cold day) or even nerves can have a significant bearing on what happens towards the end of the race.

I was in a running club for years and have seen runners new to marathons do all the 'right' training prior to one and still 'hit a wall' or suffer from an injury etc. at the end. These runners would have been well advised by previous marathon runners with VERY high placement (as in top 10) results. I presume that comes under what people seem to be terming here 'smart' training!

Marathons are a challenge on the body... If doing one for fun, then grand, you'll likely get through it no probs. But if doing one seriously to break a particular time like 3 hours, then that's a different story. I've seen high placed runners take a month to recover properly afterwards (some catch a cold or virus immediately after that takes them down for a bit, others might just be worn out, others might suffer an injury (DESPITE all good training practices) etc.).

The point tunney is making is that if you do hit "the wall" you have either gone off faster than you had planned on or haven't trained hard enough for that pace. I've hit the wall more times in training than racing therefore training hard enough ensures I don't hit the wall in competition!

Rantan

I think OP should give up his ambition to run a sub 2.45 marathon..............................................and focus on running a 4 min mile instead...................it would be much more achievable...................................................in the long run!!

TheRoadRunner

Rantan wrote: »

I think OP should give up his ambition to run a sub 2.45 marathon..............................................and focus on running a 4 min mile instead...................it would be much more achievable...................................................in the long run!!

True, sure it's only a mile. Real athletes run the marathon, pussys run the mile

MrThrifty

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

The point tunney is making is that if you do hit "the wall" you have either gone off faster than you had planned on or haven't trained hard enough for that pace. I've hit the wall more times in training than racing therefore training hard enough ensures I don't hit the wall in competition!

Out of curiosity, for your first marathon, did your training at any point prior to it involve running a full 26 miles at marathon pace? If not, then I rest my case.

Agree that heading off faster than planned can lead to this but there are lots of subtleties too (e.g. weather conditions on the day, meals prior to race, nerves etc.) that can lead to it.

TheRoadRunner

MrThrifty wrote: »

Out of curiosity, for your first marathon, did your training at any point prior to it involve running a full 26 miles at marathon pace? If not, then I rest my case.

Eh no, that would be idiotic. When I train properly I do sessions that simulate the last 10k of a marathon. For example might do long miles during the week so legs are tired then do a 20 miler at the weekend with the last 6-8 miles at MP. Why would you leave your race in training. That's crazy

tunney

MrThrifty wrote: »

Out of curiosity, for your first marathon, did your training at any point prior to it involve running a full 26 miles at marathon pace? If not, then I rest my case.

Agree that heading off faster than planned can lead to this but there are lots of subtleties too (e.g. weather conditions on the day, meals prior to race, nerves etc.) that can lead to it.

Nothing escapes the fact that if you "hit the wall" then you went out faster than you had prepared for.

Hitting the wall is a combination of inadequate preparations and an unrealistic assessment of those preparations.

robinph

tunney wrote: »

Using McMillian (which all of ART seems to love so why not) - the equivalent time for a 2:40 marathon in 10km and 5km is 34:00 and 16:30.

Not that impressive.

Could I run 2:40 (34 or 16:30) - nope, but am I a good club runner? Nope.

I think you are comparing the quality of runners in the majority of clubs to a much higher standard.

It is a god awful international standard.
It is a mediocre national standard.
It is a half way decent regional standard.
It is a good club standard.

There are 280 clubs in Ireland, yet less than 70 people doing sub 2:40 in Dublin marathon. Even if you say that there are another 70 sub 2:40 runners in the country off doing Berlin or NYC instead, that still makes a 2:40 time an excellent "club" standard if less than one person in each club is capable of it.

It is rubbish in terms of International or European running, but that is not what we are on about.

MrThrifty

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Eh no, that would be idiotic. When I train properly I do sessions that simulate the last 10k of a marathon. For example might do long miles during the week so legs are tired then do a 20 miler at the weekend with the last 6-8 miles at MP. Why would you leave your race in training. That's crazy

Exactly, that's my point! It's all about trying to prepare 'as best as possible' without doing the real thing. Therefore, there is always a possibility then that things will not go according to plan. You can obviously minimise the chances of encountering problems but to imply that the only reason for not achieving your target time is either poor training or heading off at too fast a pace is short-sighted in my opinion.

As an analogy, it's like preparing for winter driving in icy conditions by doing an advanced driving course with a car that 'simulates' icy conditions. It is never the same thing and while it teaches you the basics, it cannot guarantee that you will react ideally should the circumstance arise in real life. Alternatively, take the A student who everyone expects to kick ass in say the Leaving Cert exams and they bomb out - that's not down to lack of studying, but the fact that they have never experienced the LC situation before.

T runner

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Eh no, that would be idiotic. When I train properly I do sessions that simulate the last 10k of a marathon. For example might do long miles during the week so legs are tired then do a 20 miler at the weekend with the last 6-8 miles at MP. Why would you leave your race in training. That's crazy

Although Renato Canova apparently has his Kenyan athletes do 45-50k long runs averaging M pace + 15% (as well as 20-30k of intervals at faster than M pace) in the "special" period of their marathon buildup. (4 peroids: intro, fundamental, special, specific)

That said that is only 150 mins ish running for those guys so as they run it so quick it might be feasable to run long runs over the marathon distance for them. If im running a long run at pace i dont think id go over the duration of my predicted race time.

Edit: Apologies, i just saw that the poster said a marathon lenght run at M pace. You rightly pointed out that there are other ways to test your energy systems at race pace and other paces.

bart simpson

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

The point tunney is making is that if you do hit "the wall" you have either gone off faster than you had planned on or haven't trained hard enough for that pace. I've hit the wall more times in training than racing therefore training hard enough ensures I don't hit the wall in competition!

yeah you shouldnt hit a wall if you train and pace right....But the last 10k or 5k still should be very very hard in my opinion...if its not hard at that stage then maybe you are running within yourself. if your running near the edge of your potential there is a risk of blowing up, and imo a person that has trained and paced right can also "blow up" if they risk trying something they are a bit unsure if they can do it or not.

TheRoadRunner

bart simpson wrote: »

yeah you shouldnt hit a wall if you train and pace right....But the last 10k or 5k still should be very very hard in my opinion...if its not hard at that stage then maybe you are running within yourself. if your running near the edge of your potential there is a risk of blowing up, and imo a person that has trained and paced right can also "blow up" if they risk trying something they are a bit unsure if they can do it or not.

of course but if they are taking a risk that implies they haven't done the training that will give them a high probability of pulling it off.

bart simpson

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

of course but if they are taking a risk that implies they haven't done the training that will give them a high probability of pulling it off.

if the probability of pulling it off is 90% your still going to blow up once in every 10 times, but the other 9 you will have reached your full potential on those days, the risk you take should be well measured and small but if there is no risk of "blowing up" at all, you cant be at the edge of your potential. what i mean when i say "blowing up" is miles near the end of the race that are one or two minutes slower than race pace that mean their target goes by the wayside because of it, most elites will blow up in there careers by that definition, and thats because they take risks.

AEDIC

bart simpson wrote: »

yeah you shouldnt hit a wall if you train and pace right....But the last 10k or 5k still should be very very hard in my opinion...if its not hard at that stage then maybe you are running within yourself. if your running near the edge of your potential there is a risk of blowing up, and imo a person that has trained and paced right can also "blow up" if they risk trying something they are a bit unsure if they can do it or not.

Doesnt add much to the overall discussion, but just wanted to add that for my first half marathon I set a pace that I thought I could comfortably manage and I ended up pacing it perfectly and came in within 10 seconds of my taget time...however.... I left it all out there, I wasnt ambitious enough and would have preferred to have been coming down the last half mile or so virtually on my knees having put everything into it.

I have learnt since then and will always set more ambitious splits...its about pushing to see where that wall is I guess.... rather that wanting to crash right into it.

Gringo78

bart simpson wrote: »

when do you think genetics begin to become a big factor? it must be 2:40 surely?

There was a study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9502354 which suggested genetics plays up to 50% part in determining VO2 max. Maybe its making a bit of a leap to say it, but thats means that if you have been dealt a very bad hand as regards genetics, then 45-50 may be the max VO2 you could ever acheive through training (a 3:15-3:30 marathon), but even average genetics should leave you capable of reaching VO2 max of 65 (a 2:30-2:35 marathon). Obviously to do that would involve best possible & most suitable training and the number of years to do that would vary for people.

Main problem with people not achieving say a 2:30 marathon is lack of conistent training - we want fast results - thats why threads pop up with "Can I run a 2:45 marathon in 1 year". If the thread was "I'm going to train determinedly, smartly & consistently for 8 years - can I run 2:45?" the answer would be a resounding yes I think.

drquirky

AEDIC wrote: »

Doesnt add much to the overall discussion, but just wanted to add that for my first half marathon I set a pace that I thought I could comfortably manage and I ended up pacing it perfectly and came in within 10 seconds of my taget time...however.... I left it all out there, I wasnt ambitious enough and would have preferred to have been coming down the last half mile or so virtually on my knees having put everything into it.

I have learnt since then and will always set more ambitious splits...its about pushing to see where that wall is I guess.... rather that wanting to crash right into it.

AEDIC-
I appreciate what you are saying here but IMO a distinction needs to be drawn between the full 26.2 and the HM. The cost of a pacing error in a full marathon is much much more pronounced than in a half. If you get it wrong- you can be completely exposed in a way I've certainly never experienced before. I've gone out too hard in 5ks and 10ks before and paid a price by getting smoked by competition over the last bit and losing 30 secs a mile etc- In a marathon going out too hard for your fitness can mean replicating the Bataan Death March over the last few miles of the race- not pleasant and something to be respected. I categorically refuse to believe that a 2:45 is possible by an inexperienced runner w/out absolutely insane and perfect training....

tunney

Gringo78 wrote: »

There was a study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9502354 which suggested genetics plays up to 50% part in determining VO2 max. Maybe its making a bit of a leap to say it, but thats means that if you have been dealt a very bad hand as regards genetics, then 45-50 may be the max VO2 you could ever acheive through training (a 3:15-3:30 marathon), but even average genetics should leave you capable of reaching VO2 max of 65 (a 2:30-2:35 marathon). Obviously to do that would involve best possible & most suitable training and the number of years to do that would vary for people.

Main problem with people not achieving say a 2:30 marathon is lack of conistent training - we want fast results - thats why threads pop up with "Can I run a 2:45 marathon in 1 year". If the thread was "I'm going to train determinedly, smartly & consistently for 8 years - can I run 2:45?" the answer would be a resounding yes I think.

Is the limiter in a marathon VO2max or running economy?
(leading question)

Gringo78

tunney wrote: »

Is the limiter in a marathon VO2max or running economy?
(leading question)

Whatever is the limiter, I suppose my point was training can overcome that limiter - training cannot overcome genetics but for the average person, genetics will never be the limiting factor so does not need to be overcome. Of course there are outliers who have bad genetics and will put in enormous amounts of quality training but never say break 3 hours in the marathon, but for the majority of people, training will accomplish a lot.

Intuitively, I would say for marathon runners, running economy is prob the major limiter. At elite level, you see awkard looking muscular 5k runners but less so at 10k and rarely at marathon distance.

Is running economy a bit like swimming? As in, the technique is trainable but for some people it will just take years & years & years because they have to unlearn the technique they already have. Hence such an advantage to have swam correctly as a child.

ThePiedPiper

I've absolutely no idea why so many people here are actually contemplating that the OP could actually go out and do this. I know that there's one or two posters who simply get a bit of craic out of saying that 2.45 is not even fast by "club standards" and obviously others who have done it are being somewhat modest in claiming they have no genetic or hard earned talent from years of training. Honestly, does anyone here know any average Joe who'd never done any running come to the sport at 32 and run 2.45 in less than a year?

It's been a couple of days now since the thread has started. The OP has surely had the opportunity to put on a pair of runners, do out and run a mile, or even a half a mile, whatever. Let us know how fast you can run a mile, absolutely belting it. We can beat around this topic for another week but I would guess that if you're not getting around a mile right now in less than 7 minutes, then you will not be running 26.2 of them at 6.15 per mile. So, put us out of our misery OP and put put your runners on.

TheRoadRunner

RunForestRun wrote: »

Honestly, does anyone here know any average Joe who'd never done any running come to the sport at 32 and run 2.45 in less than a year?

Apologies to pronator if I have this arse ways but I think he has run sub 2.45 and is only running a couple of years (AFAIK).

rom

RunForestRun wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea why so many people here are actually contemplating that the OP could actually go out and do this. I know that there's one or two posters who simply get a bit of craic out of saying that 2.45 is not even fast by "club standards" and obviously others who have done it are being somewhat modest in claiming they have no genetic or hard earned talent from years of training. Honestly, does anyone here know any average Joe who'd never done any running come to the sport at 32 and run 2.45 in less than a year?

It's been a couple of days now since the thread has started. The OP has surely had the opportunity to put on a pair of runners, do out and run a mile, or even a half a mile, whatever. Let us know how fast you can run a mile, absolutely belting it. We can beat around this topic for another week but I would guess that if you're not getting around a mile right now in less than 7 minutes, then you will not be running 26.2 of them at 6.15 per mile. So, put us out of our misery OP and put put your runners on.

I did a 6 30 mile the other night but still only finished around the same time as yourself if that was you in the checked shirt and slacks in Dublin.

Must start training smarter ...

ThePiedPiper

Cheers TheRoadRunner, that didn't take too long to be disproved!!:D Anyway, there's a difference between one and two years, and I'd hazard that Prontator is no ordinary Joe or has some sort of background in some sport.

Rom, I don't really understand what you mean? I wasn't wearing a checked shirt in Dublin. But, yes, I was lashing out miles of 6.3x for 17 miles of the DCM and still only finished in 3.07. Tunney would have a field day with that statement and tell me I should have been running 7.00 per mile. If somebody never pushes their own limits, they'll never get anywhere. Even Haile G can get it wrong, as he has done on numerous occasions in the marathon, Berlin, New York and London I think he has DNFed in all of them.

TheRoadRunner

RunForestRun wrote: »

But, yes, I was lashing out miles of 6.3x for 17 miles of the DCM and still only finished in 3.07. Tunney would have a field day with that statement and tell me I should have been running 7.00 per mile.

6.50 would have done

ThePiedPiper

Bog off TRR, if you'd been running proper pace for the first mile, I never would have made such a balls of it!!!:p

But, this is a perfect example of how bloody easy it is to miss out on a target time and once that target is slipping away, how easy it is to not give a toss anymore and run 12 minutes slower than that target. I've ran 12 marathons, I know my body pretty well, I knew that a target of 2.55 was bang on for my current ability. And, I still managed to get it wrong.

It takes more than a decent club runner to go out and run 2.45 on their marathon debut. And it takes a very special sort of person to go out and do it with no background in running.

T runner

RunForestRun wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea why so many people here are actually contemplating that the OP could actually go out and do this. I know that there's one or two posters who simply get a bit of craic out of saying that 2.45 is not even fast by "club standards" and obviously others who have done it are being somewhat modest in claiming they have no genetic or hard earned talent from years of training. Honestly, does anyone here know any average Joe who'd never done any running come to the sport at 32 and run 2.45 in less than a year?

It's been a couple of days now since the thread has started. The OP has surely had the opportunity to put on a pair of runners, do out and run a mile, or even a half a mile, whatever. Let us know how fast you can run a mile, absolutely belting it. We can beat around this topic for another week but I would guess that if you're not getting around a mile right now in less than 7 minutes, then you will not be running 26.2 of them at 6.15 per mile. So, put us out of our misery OP and put put your runners on.

I agree with you. I reckon if a runner can run 2:45 in one year then he could potentially run around 2:25 in 5 years. (i said sub 2:20 earlier but that may be too quick). And that implies genetic advantages.

So the thread should be "How fit would you need to be to do a marathon in 2hour 45minutes within a year of starting running?" which is very different to having a lifetime target of 2:45.

BeepBeep67

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Apologies to pronator if I have this arse ways but I think he has run sub 2.45 and is only running a couple of years (AFAIK).

I'll apologise also, my understanding is that he's back running about 3 years or so after a long break, but used to run previously.

rom

RunForestRun wrote: »

Bog off TRR, if you'd been running proper pace for the first mile, I never would have made such a balls of it!!!:p

But, this is a perfect example of how bloody easy it is to miss out on a target time and once that target is slipping away, how easy it is to not give a toss anymore and run 12 minutes slower than that target. I've ran 12 marathons, I know my body pretty well, I knew that a target of 2.55 was bang on for my current ability. And, I still managed to get it wrong.

It takes more than a decent club runner to go out and run 2.45 on their marathon debut. And it takes a very special sort of person to go out and do it with no background in running.

Oh sorry wrong person. I thought you may have been the guy who dresses as forest gump. my bad. then I was a long way behind so

donothoponpop

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRoadRunner
Apologies to pronator if I have this arse ways but I think he has run sub 2.45 and is only running a couple of years (AFAIK).

I'll apologise also, my understanding is that he's back running about 3 years or so after a long break, but used to run previously.

2:40 in Dublin. SJ and I actually did apologize to Pronator three years back, for running too fast for him in a training run. That won't be happening again any time soon, the jammy fecker:p

Pronator

donothoponpop wrote: »

2:40 in Dublin. SJ and I actually did apologize to Pronator three years back, for running too fast for him in a training run. That won't be happening again any time soon, the jammy fecker:p

Jasus I thought this thread was about a 1st marathon sub 2.45??:D Paul your spot on, you hill runners left me for dead;)


BeepBeep and TRR, I've done 10 marathon's at this stage, but I'm only training properly for 18 months IMO (smart you guy's call it). I was injured and missed most of 2009. I used to run miles with no structure to them. Now I think I see the picture and I've given up playing soccer and GAA


Still not sure its possible for someone to run a first marathon in 2.45?? I think this thread has said it all at this stage:eek:

TFBubendorfer

Pronator wrote: »

Still not sure its possible for someone to run a first marathon in 2.45?? I think this thread has said it all at this stage:eek:

Haile Gebreselassie ran his first marathon in 2:45. That one, of course, supports the "genetically gifted" argument.

billyhead

drquirky wrote: »

Really? I went back through your posts and you said a few years ago that you ran your 1st marathon in 3:02....which is it?

That was my second. I ran New york in 2:52

Onaragatip

Hi have been a regular browser to the site but dont really get a chance to contribute. Would have to agree with some of the posters that a 2:45 marathon is achievable within a year, but only if that individual has a very good aerobic base from participating in other sports, trains "hard" and smart, is disiplined with regards to diet etc.

Other things to consider would be race selection and also time of the year of the race. I have been running 3 years myself and one thing that has held me back from not running a marathon in that time has been injuries. For me if you were to achieve a 2:45 marathon after one year of consistent running, assuming you have all of the above, the biggest downfall to not achiving this time would be injuries and recovery, how many of us have fell prey to silly injuries when we first started running first?

Just to further add to the debate and show that maraton times are achieavable even for so called ordinary guys and girls, I know of a guy last year who broke 2:30 when running his first marathon after taking up the sport 2 years earlier, he would never have been considered very athletic prior to this "played sports alright", but trained hard and got his rewards on the day along with a bit of luck.

..... I think if you train hard/sensibly and you set yourself realistic goals along the way most people today can set themselves a prity good marathon time

bart simpson

Onaragatip wrote: »

that maraton times are achieavable even for so called ordinary guys and girls, I know of a guy last year who broke 2:30 when running his first marathon after taking up the sport 2 years earlier

he wasnt an ordinary guy

brownian

drquirky wrote: »

AEDIC-
I appreciate what you are saying here but IMO a distinction needs to be drawn between the full 26.2 and the HM. The cost of a pacing error in a full marathon is much much more pronounced than in a half. If you get it wrong- you can be completely exposed in a way I've certainly never experienced before. I've gone out too hard in 5ks and 10ks before and paid a price by getting smoked by competition over the last bit and losing 30 secs a mile etc- In a marathon going out too hard for your fitness can mean replicating the Bataan Death March over the last few miles of the race- not pleasant and something to be respected. I categorically refuse to believe that a 2:45 is possible by an inexperienced runner w/out absolutely insane and perfect training....

Jeez, you really had a good time in DCM then, DrQ?

Pisco Sour

Lads this thread is blatently a piss take!

TFBubendorfer

04072511 wrote: »

Lads this thread is blatently a piss take!

And it took 7 pages for someone to point this out :eek:

tunney

04072511 wrote: »

Lads this thread is blatently a piss take!

Some of the best threads are

Pisco Sour

tunney wrote: »

Some of the best threads are

Like the 4 minute mile thread

robinph

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

And it took 7 pages for someone to point this out :eek:

It may not have started out as a piss take, but that is what we turned it into.

shels4ever

Yep it's a bit of a piss take 7 pages aboud doing something that anyone who puts their mind to can do...

what about 2:30 marathons must be worth another few pages

Clearlier

bart simpson wrote: »

he wasnt an ordinary guy

The problem with this assertion is that it's a circular argument along the lines of:
I know an ordinary guy who did 2:45 after two years of training
He's not ordinary
Why not?
Because he ran 2:45 after two years of training....

04072511 wrote: »

Lads this thread is blatently a piss take!

Yes, but most people secretly want to believe that they could do it. It's a chance to day dream.

I was going to bring Steve Way up as an example of somebody who as an ordinary guy ran 3:06 but when he decided to find out what he could do ran 2:35 after 6 months of serious training. The thing is - I suspect most people would say that he isn't an ordinary guy. Is he not ordinary because he takes his training seriously though or because he has some extraordinary ability? I'd argue it's more the former than the latter although that's not to say that ability has nothing to do with it just that I don't see that he has some kind of freakish talent that puts him on a different level to most of the rest of us.

Rantan

rom wrote: »

Oh sorry wrong person. I thought you may have been the guy who dresses as forest gump. my bad. then I was a long way behind so

me too actually...I saw that guy in Kildare in May and passed him in dublin this year looking a bit wrecked near thte end...tough running in a pair of chino's I would imagine....

T runner

Pronator wrote: »

Still not sure its possible for someone to run a first marathon in 2.45?? I think this thread has said it all at this stage:eek:

I ran my first marathon in 2:44. I had been running for 8 years at that stage though. If i had to run my first marathon after a year i may have managed 3:10-3:15.

rom

So 79 people ran DCM in sub 2:45 (as there is 3 WCH under that time). That's of 11720 finishers.

So 79 runners minus the 12 Kenya's which leaves you with 67 runners.

Thats .57 of 1% of finishers.

Something tells me that those 67 are not "trying to get fit" or would start such treads.

Its like saying how fit would you have to be to do the tour de france. The top percentage at any sport takes a little more than just hard work.

IMHO you would have to go through a good few rocky style montages to get there.

I suggest you start off with this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP3MFBzMH2o

ecoli

04072511 wrote: »

Lads this thread is blatently a piss take!

I have to say have alot more time for these threads in recent years just from experience.

In college we had a kid with no major sporting background walk up to the athletics stand saying Im pretty fast can I join I wanna make the Ireland team.

That would have been a piss take type scenario except that year he made the Ireland team and now is a sub 22 200m guy

I know there is a difference between the aerobic base needed to be built up etc but for every one of these threads there can be a 00.001% chance they do it.

Stick to a simple explain the difficulty in it point them in right direction and leave it at that. Its alot easier than spending page after page trying to slam them or any person with the notion of aiming for high standard (be it realistic or not)