Marathon Training

sikes

Hi

I need some advice. I need to run a marathon in under 3hours 10minutes. Would this be possible in 7 months for a 23 yo with no running experience? I have a sweet running bodyIMO, 6ft2" with not a ounce of fat on me.

I used to play football a good bit, but not since the summer. Any pointers tips?

Cheers

RacoonQueen

Depends on your fitness levels. At the height of your training you'd want to be running close to 100 - 140 miles per week to get a time like that unless you're already a very strong runner.
Have you ever done any sort of endurance training before?
Playing football and running a marathon are two verrryyyy different scenarios.
Best of luck anyway, there's no better feeling than crossing the finish line of a marathon.

Edit: Go into the athletics and marathon forums. You'll get plenty of pointers in there.

mikemac

mp1972 wrote: »

Depends on your fitness levels. At the height of your training you'd want to be running close to 100 - 140 miles per week to get a time like that unless you're already a very strong runner.

140 miles a week? :eek:
Do you mean per month?

Some good programmes here OP
Sure you can change them around but it gives you a starting point
http://www.halhigdon.com/

thirtyfoot

mp1972 wrote: »

Depends on your fitness levels. At the height of your training you'd want to be running close to 100 - 140 miles per week to get a time like that unless you're already a very strong runner.
.

You'd want to be an elite runner (say sub 2:20 male or faster) to get real benefits of running 140 miles a week, otherwise its just muck running for the sake of it in my opinion.

But I'd agree to run 3:10 off 7 months it would probably be more about inate ability and that would be the basis for whether you can do it. Unfortunately having a "sweet running body" doesn't mean you are a natural runner. I know a guy who ran 2:40 ish in the last Dublin off a years training, but he ran all through his teens and had stopped for 6 or 7 years.

g'em

moved to marathons/ triathlons

--amadeus--

sikes wrote: »

I need to run a marathon in under 3hours 10minutes

Why would you NEED to run it in under 3:10?

sikes wrote: »

Would this be possible in 7 months for a 23 yo with no running experience?

At the risk of sounding like an Addidas advert nothing is impossible. In reality though you want to go from a standing start to a fairly competitive level with no experience at all.

To put it into a football context it's like someone landing on a football forum saying that they've never kicked a ball before but they are a tidy runner so how hard would it to be play semi-professional football (say Eircom Prem Div level). 3:10 is the qualifying mark for the Boston marathon and is considered "good for age" for London, in other words running that sort of time is running to quite a competitive level.

sikes wrote: »

I have a sweet running bodyIMO, 6ft2" with not a ounce of fat on me.

:rolleyes:

Until you actually get out and do some distance running you don't know that - it's as much about the biomechanics of your stride as your fat content.

Realistically you can go from a standing start to a marathon in 7 months. But you'll need to put in a lot of hard work. You'll need to be running 4 - 6 days per week with a weekly long run that will max out at 20 - 22 miles. You'll need to buy a couple of pairs of decent trainers and download a few novice marathon training plans. Find a local 10k, enter it and make a judgment on your actual (rather than target) pace based off that.

We get a few people on this board who fancy the idea of running a marathon and have the idea that it's not that hard, or that they can record fast times despite never having run before. It's easy to be cynical and dismissive so apologies if we come across that way and best of luck with it.

hunnymonster

sikes wrote: »

I need to run a marathon in under 3hours 10minutes.

I'm intreagued, why do you need to run this marathon?

Would this be possible in 7 months for a 23 yo with no running experience? I have a sweet running bodyIMO, 6ft2" with not a ounce of fat on me.

Fat is not the be all and end all of running marathons. Sure, the elites are 5% guys but I'm fat and I run marathons. More important would be your muscular endurance and other physiological traits like lung function.

3:10 is generally held up as the standard that senior men who are regular runners should be able to aim for. I think a lot of this has to do with the Boston qualification times. At least one Boardsie is going for this time in the next couple of weeks in Rotherdam. He is a handy runner and has been training for 4 years (I think) to reach this standard. Then again, you might find you have a talent for running and get it in 7 months.

hunnymonster

damn amadeus can type faster than me. I agree with what he says though!

--amadeus--

I bet I can do lots of things faster than you

except marathons - yet!

hunnymonster

we'll see on the 13th April

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

To put it into a football context it's like someone landing on a football forum saying that they've never kicked a ball before but they are a tidy runner so how hard would it to be play semi-professional football (say Eircom Prem Div level). .

Although I wouldn't be the biggest fan of the physical conditioning of Eircom league players to say being an Eircom league player is akin to running 3:10 is a lot OTT. 3:10 is very average in the scheme of things, being an Eircom Premier league player is not. The point you are making is valid, but bad example.

Off topic but interesting comparison though, good club athlete standard in Ireland for man would be - 400 (50.00s) as a starting basis, 1500 (3:57s), 10k (30:51), Marathon (2:32) Using the IAAF event scoring comparison. Because of this a "eircom league" comparison would probably be the 2:32 range. 3:10 is like a 36m 10k or a 5 minute mile or a 12.5s 100m or a 58s 400.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/ScoringOutdoor2008_742.pdf

--amadeus--

Eircom league was just an example off the top of my head as something that might look easy to an outsider but in reality is pretty tough - it was less to do with physical conditioning and more to do with outside perceptions. FWIW I think that the amount of work that those players (and the GAA boys) put into thier physical conditioning versus the rewards they get (esp compared to the players across the water) is amazing.

We could argue all day about what a good time is (maybe a good subject for another thread) but I'm not sure I would agree 3:10 is "very average".

By definition the average finishing time is the time the average runner finishes in. I don't know about over here but in the States in 2007 that was 4:29:52 for men. Even Boston - a pre-qualifier event had an average finish time of 3:54. So by definition anything faster than 4:30 is "above average". That opens up the debate about teh dumbing of the marathon, etc.

Interesting that you would consider a 30:51 10K average club standard - most events round here are won in more than that (Gerry Ryan of the Galway City Harriers mops up most 10ks around here in 31:xx usually). I think that shows the difference between those of us who are recreational runners and those for whom it's a viable career path.

hunnymonster

I would say 2:32 is a VERY good club runner. Eg, 4 irish men did that or under in Dublin 07, same in Cork. (under 3:10 shows 161 and 51 irish club men for the same races). I guess it's a question of perspective. "Good" to one person means being in the medals, good to antoher means being well above average.

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Interesting that you would consider a 30:51 10K average club standard - most events round here are won in more than that (Gerry Ryan of the Galway City Harriers mops up most 10ks around here in 31:xx usually). I think that shows the difference between those of us who are recreational runners and those for whom it's a viable career path.

Not my standards, but the IAAF comparisons. Our marathon running of late (outside of Fagan, Carroll) has been very, very poor so using 10k races and our city marathons isn't a good gauge. The basic times I referenced, ie 50sec 400, 3:57 1500 are very average senior men times and not even getting a final at national championships or gauranteed gold at the irish schools let alone being a viable career path. If you are a woman these are around viable running career times, similar to a 2:32 for a female marathoner. Bear in mind a 2:19 marathon won't get you into the all-time top 50 mens times in Ireland.

Having said that, with what Fagan has done at such a young age may lead other guys to start looking at maybe moving to marathon as a qualifying event and this will bring the standard up. There are youngish guys at shorter distance who could run a decent marathon. Maybe Dick Hooper (an unbelievable 2:12 man himself) could turn Vinnie Mulvey into a marathon man, I really think he could do damage there.

Now I'm very off-topic:)

RacoonQueen

I thought I'd changed that to 70 - 100 miles. *scratches head*

--amadeus--

Tingle wrote: »

Not my standards, but the IAAF comparisons. Our marathon running of late (outside of Fagan, Carroll) has been very, very poor so using 10k races and our city marathons isn't a good gauge. The basic times I referenced, ie 50sec 400, 3:57 1500 are very average senior men times and not even getting a final at national championships or gauranteed gold at the irish schools let alone being a viable career path. If you are a woman these are around viable running career times, similar to a 2:32 for a female marathoner. Bear in mind a 2:19 marathon won't get you into the all-time top 50 mens times in Ireland.

Having said that, with what Fagan has done at such a young age may lead other guys to start looking at maybe moving to marathon as a qualifying event and this will bring the standard up. There are youngish guys at shorter distance who could run a decent marathon. Maybe Dick Hooper (an unbelievable 2:12 man himself) could turn Vinnie Mulvey into a marathon man, I really think he could do damage there.

Now I'm very off-topic:)

I think we are basically agreeing, but coming from different angles at the same point...

From the viewpoint of people who operate at the pro / national level (runners, coaches or at the very top end of the club scene) then a 31 min 10k is no great shakes. The yardstick you're using is that of international competition and you won't find an argument from me on that.

But from the recreational runners perspective - the average joe who goes out and runs for the hell of it and as a hobby - those times are off the map.

So a 3:10 marathon is very average by international standards, I agree. Likewise using your frame of reference so is a 31min 10k. By the standards of the local running scene around here though a 31min 10k is medal standard. Big fish in small pond I guess.

Last off-topic post, I promise!

(Interesting discussion though, we probably should have a separate thread on it)

Stupid_Private

thought I'd changed that to 70 - 100 miles. *scratches head*

I'd change that to down around the 50 mark! I ran a few 3 hour marathons without ever going above 55 miles in a week and have run sub 3 with no more than 65.

RacoonQueen

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I'd change that to down around the 50 mark! I ran a few 3 hour marathons without ever going above 55 miles in a week and have run sub 3 with no more than 65.

That makes me feel more confident about Cork then. I'm still a bit away from running a 3 hour or so marathon mind.
I would have run about 50-60 miles p/w coming up to Dublin(which I ran disappointly slow) up until say August when I started throwing in long runs as well which would have increased my milege to around 80 or so.