"The average runner has the ability to run a 2:30 marathon"

Running Bing

Came across this article today:

http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/RON_DAWS.pdf

Now I haven't read the article yet so I cant vouch for the training info but what jumped out at me was the opening quote:

You might be surprised to learn that the average male in his 20's or 30's has the potential to crack 2:30

I do feel the average male in his 20's/30's is capable of performing to a high level if they are really dedicated and make a choice to devote themselves to running but 2:30 seems optimistic to me.


What are other peoples thoughts on this? Can the average Joe run 2:30 or is that the preserve of super talented running freaks?

robinph

Not without no longer being average they are not.

ecoli

I believe this to be possible as long as a runner can maintain heavy workload and stay injury free though this is a very fine line. I hope to be a guinea pig for this when i hit my late twenties and finally move up to the marathon fingers cross:D

little mazungo

this is very true, there are numerous professional marathon runners who have gone from being 32-31min 10k guys to sub 2:20 marathoner

that is more at the elite end of things, so whats to say a 35-38min 10k guy cant break 2:30?

it would take complete dedication a safe, well planned program with 100-120mile weeks for months, and years on end (injury free) but it is most definitely achievable in my eyes,

it is truely is a lifestyle choice to go after such goal, as a great man once said

"If you want to run, run a mile. If you want to experience a different life, run a marathon"
Emil Zatopek

for me i will stick to my mile......for now,

estariol

little mazungo wrote: »

this is very true, there are numerous professional marathon runners who have gone from being 32-31min 10k guys to sub 2:20 marathoner

that is more at the elite end of things, so whats to say a 35-38min 10k guy cant break 2:30?

I wouldn't call anyone running those 10k times average runners!

dermCu

You might be surprised to learn that the average male in his 20's or 30's has the potential to crack 2:30

Sorry to say but that’s rubbish. Even though it doesn’t explicitly state it in the article I think the author is basing his 'average male' baseline on the average male senior club runner i.e a 35 min 10k.

Even if you make that substitution the original statement is still wildly optimistic. Most people just don’t have the talent or biomechanics to run a 2:30 marathon.

I've trained with guys who have PBs around the 2:30 mark. They are not a different species but they are on a totally different level to your average sub 3 hour marathoner. No amount of hard work can bridge that lack of talent.

To be honest I think it’s just a hook to get you interested in his training philosophy.

Running Bing

estariol wrote: »

I wouldn't call anyone running those 10k times average runners!

I think a 38 min 10k is very achievable for the average runner. Would take some time and good consistent injury free training but very doable.

Sorry to say but that’s rubbish. Even though it doesn’t explicitly state it in the article I think the author is basing his 'average male' baseline on the average male senior club runner i.e a 35 min 10k.

Even if you make that substitution the original statement is still wildly optimistic. Most people just don’t have the talent or biomechanics to run a 2:30 marathon.

I've trained with guys who have PBs around the 2:30 mark. They are not a different species but they are on a totally different level to your average sub 3 hour marathoner. No amount of hard work can bridge that lack of talent.

I agree maybe 2:30 is a little optimistic but I dont think it would be a million miles away from that. I would say 2:45 is definitely doable and 2:40 likely. I imagine a lot of people could get close to 2:35 with the correct training.

Im far from an expert but it seems to me fast marathons are all about good aerobic endurance and a high Lactate threshold and both of those things can be improved hugely with the right training.


I suppose it falls more down to a runners ability not to get injured.....I mean how many runners run 100-120 miles a week, do the right workouts, eat well, sleep well, do the correct supplemental work and dont get close to or break 2:40?

Stupid_Private

I totally believe this. He's saying you need talent to go under 2:20 and anyone can achieve 2:30 with hard work.

Sorry to say but that’s rubbish. Even though it doesn’t explicitly state it in the article I think the author is basing his 'average male' baseline on the average male senior club runner i.e a 35 min 10k.

Even if you make that substitution the original statement is still wildly optimistic. Most people just don’t have the talent or biomechanics to run a 2:30 marathon.

The 2:30 can be achieved by anyone who puts in the dedication for a few years on end - ie turn themselves into the average club runner and gets a proper running routine going on. He's not talking about someone who just picks a marathon once a year, does the hal 'whats his face' training program for 18 weeks and then waits a year to start all over again. That'll never turn you into a 2:30 marathoner.

The average man is just that at the start, probably fit and healthy with no running expertease. The dedication of running week in week out for 5+ years is what turns a no talent, non-runner into a 2:30 marathoner.

I've trained with guys who have PBs around the 2:30 mark. They are not a different species but they are on a totally different level to your average sub 3 hour marathoner. No amount of hard work can bridge that lack of talent.

I know plenty and all - they're certainly no different then anyone else, maybe dedicated but there's no massive talent there. The lads who can run 2:16 and less are a different lot - I had one 2:16 marathoner take me for a 20 minute tempo run down at the track one time. At the end of that I was finished for the day. He just started into the warm up with the rest of the lads down at the track and then into the track session afterwards. That's a different level!!

TheRoadRunner

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I totally believe this. He's saying you need talent to go under 2:20 and anyone can achieve 2:30 with hard work.

+1. I think the marathon is the one event where the more hard work up put in the more you get back.

I remember reading a quote from Dick Hooper a couple of years back and he reckoned if you had the ability/pace to run a mile in 5 minutes then with the correct training and determination you should be able to train your body to string 26 of these together. Ditto for 6/7/8/9 minute miles. I wouldn't totally agree with this but i can see his logic.

cfitz

Well it's a bit of a silly statement to start with isn't it - nobody really knows what the average male is, never mind what he's capable of. Lydiard seemed to be a good coach, so if he were the Boards AC coach right now and 50 of the younger lads here did exactly what he told them for the next five years then I reckon there'd be a good few sub 2:30s.

--amadeus--

Two things I'd like to throw into the pot...

First, what you consider a fast marathon and by extension what you would consider the average runner to be capable of is very much dictated by your own circumstances and PB. When I was sweating to break 4 hours I thought anyone running 3:15 was on a different planet. Now that I've beaten that time I'm pretty sure that anyone with dedication could do the same. The faster you are the faster you think everyone else is.

But over 40% of male finishers across all marathons in the USA in 2007 came home between 4:00 and 5:00. So clearly the average runner is 2 hours off 2:30. Incidentally:

Just 1.7% of all marathon finishes - about 6,929 - broke the 3 hour mark - a goal for the faster marathoners

(link)

Now you can argue about marathon dumbing down but there is obviously a huge gulf between the average runner and even sub 3, let alone 2:30.

Second point - I'd argue that genetics is a better word to use than talent. To do the training being talked about - years of consistent high mileage you need a number of things, good biomechanics and injury resistance for a start - and these things are genetically fixed. Some people simply cannot maintain the training that would lead them to fulfil thier theoretical potential

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Two things I'd like to throw into the pot...

First, what you consider a fast marathon and by extension what you would consider the average runner to be capable of is very much dictated by your own circumstances and PB. When I was sweating to break 4 hours I thought anyone running 3:15 was on a different planet. Now that I've beaten that time I'm pretty sure that anyone with dedication could do the same. The faster you are the faster you think everyone else is.

But over 40% of male finishers across all marathons in the USA in 2007 came home between 4:00 and 5:00. So clearly the average runner is 2 hours off 2:30. Incidentally:

(link)

Now you can argue about marathon dumbing down but there is obviously a huge gulf between the average runner and even sub 3, let alone 2:30.

Second point - I'd argue that genetics is a better word to use than talent. To do the training being talked about - years of consistent high mileage you need a number of things, good biomechanics and injury resistance for a start - and these things are genetically fixed. Some people simply cannot maintain the training that would lead them to fulfil thier theoretical potential

Although some people are built better for these things, biomechanics and injury resistance are both things that can be worked on. Good coaches do work with young athletes to improve their technique and also concentrate on things outside of just running miles to improve resistance to injury. The fact that most people ignore these things doesn't make it impossible for an average male to overcome any potential issues in these areas.

What male marathon finishers in the USA in 2007 did and what they are/were capable of doing may not be closely linked.

Stupid_Private

Them stats don't really work for this from what I can see. It's not talking about the average marathoner and the times they are currently doing or what percentage are going under 3 hours. It's what can be achieved with the right work.

You also have to remember this article was written in 1978 - Back then you'd have been struggling to be in the top 10 Irish men with a 2:20 marathon... whereas now you'd be first in the Irish Champs (assuming Fagan doesn't show for it)

TheRoadRunner

I think this is going to be a bit of a pointless argument to be honest. Different people will have different perspectives depending on their ability and experience.

Here is my perspective.

Of the 10 guys I regularly train with, I think all (including me) are capable of running 2.30 with the correct training, luck etc. I have train with others who are 3.30 men and while 2.30 may be a stretch for them 2.45 isn't.

Will we all run 2.30, probably not. I reckon me and my regular training partners are average male runner as we train and race regularly.

--amadeus--

Good point Cfitz - I suppose the point I was trying to make is that a runner might have the talent to perform at a certain level but may never be able to make it to that point due to other weaknesses. Even down to mental attitude - we all know talented people who didn't achieve what they could have because they were to lazy, or the guy who was quick but injury prone or whatever.

SP - I agree that standards have gone down as more people run (I hadn't realised it had fallen so far though). But what I was trying to say is similar to what Cfitz was saying in his first post - it depends on how you define "average runner". Is it teh average club runner or average entrant to a local 10k? Or the average person who does a few k on teh treadie at the gym? A tiny, tiny percentage of people run 2:30, the vast majority run between 4 and 5. Could those 4 - 5 hour runners improve? No doubt. If they put in several years of consistent, well planned training would they know vast chunks of time off? No question.

But are they all capable of sticking (mentally and physically) to a training plan of close to elite intensity? That I'm not convinced of.

shels4ever

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I think this is going to be a bit of a pointless argument to be honest. Different people will have different perspectives depending on their ability and experience.

Here is my perspective.

Of the 10 guys I regularly train with, I think all (including me) are capable of running 2.30 with the correct training, luck etc. I have train with others who are 3.30 men and while 2.30 may be a stretch for them 2.45 isn't.

Will we all run 2.30, probably not. I reckon me and my regular training partners are average male runner as we train and race regularly.

I think everyone is capable of running sub 30 / 5 miles with the correct training/diet/lifestyle (if not 27/28 mins) So sub 3 (2:45 maybe) should be possible for most . I've done neither yet plan to!! .

kennyb3

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I think this is going to be a bit of a pointless argument to be honest. Different people will have different perspectives depending on their ability and experience.

Here is my perspective.

Of the 10 guys I regularly train with, I think all (including me) are capable of running 2.30 with the correct training, luck etc. I have train with others who are 3.30 men and while 2.30 may be a stretch for them 2.45 isn't.

Will we all run 2.30, probably not. I reckon me and my regular training partners are average male runner as we train and race regularly.

i agree with this, big difference between what can be achieved and what will be achieved. can i run a 2.30 marathon? probably! will i? unlikely to say the least.

its all to do with your interpretation of the wording. The average runner is used but so is the word ability. In terms of ability here i think he is talking about able to, not talent.

anyway as an example is there anyone here on the boards who has run a 2.30 i know we have a few in the 2.40 s.

TheRoadRunner

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But are they all capable of sticking (mentally and physically) to a training plan of close to elite intensity? That I'm not convinced of.

Maybe the majority of 4/5 hour guys aren't average runners. Maybe they are coming from another sport and were previously average footballers/golfers etc.

TheRoadRunner

kennyb3 wrote: »

anyway as an example is there anyone here on the boards who has run a 2.30

Yes there are. Would be interesting to hear their perspective

kennyb3

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But are they all capable of sticking (mentally and physically) to a training plan of close to elite intensity? That I'm not convinced of.

I think thats a key point, i dont think the average runner can maintain that lifestyle regime. They are capable of it. but your average person just cant for numerous reasons

kennyb3

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Yes there are. Would be interesting to hear their perspective

+1 to that.

--amadeus--

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Maybe the majority of 4/5 hour guys aren't average runners. Maybe they are coming from another sport and were previously average footballers/golfers etc.

And I think that's why you were right that this is an argument that'll never get resolved. To my mind they run and finish in an average time, therefore they are average runners.

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Yes there are. Would be interesting to hear their perspective

Something else I didn't know - I thought yourself and SP were the two fastest, I agree it would be great to hear what they think (and if they think they are average )

tunney

estariol wrote: »

I wouldn't call anyone running those 10k times average runners!

Ah but an average runner would.

TheRoadRunner

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I think that's why you were right that this is an argument that'll never get resolved. To my mind they run and finish in an average time, therefore they are average runners.

Yep it's a vicious circle. The average runner in my club would run a marathon around the 3hr mark. The average club runners in my club 30 years ago ran sub 2.40.
Times, age profiles, diets, work commitments and the definition of average runners has changed.

Gringo78

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

The average club runners in my club 30 years ago ran sub 2.40.
Times, age profiles, diets, work commitments and the definition of average runners has changed.

I wonder what the world of distance running will be like in 30 years time....for example, if the Kenyans start being taken to school on the back of a moped instead of running the 10K there and back, what effect will that have? I wonder has the drop in 'average' times over the last 30 years more to do with the fact that kids are driven to school now, they don't walk or cycle, they're not allowed run in the playgrounds at school now.....I think there's no substitute for that 'base training' which Ron Daws talks about in his article and maybe that has to start from a young age. Kids are still involved in sport nowadays but to no more extent than 30 years ago only there was an additional hour or 2 a day of extra, incidental training back then becasue of the walk to school, the football in the street in the evening rather than the playstation etc.

So maybe the average male is capable of 2:50 now rather than the 2:30 in 1978. But maybe the average kenyan / ethiopian male is capable of 2:30 but that will drop as the country becomes more developed.

cfitz

Schools not allowing kids to run in the school playground makes cfitz sad.

MCOS

Is that true in general?! My son starts school this Autumn and I'll be properly miffed if that is the case

Running Bing

I should point out he says average male and not average runner....I dont think this is about defining what the "average runner" is.

To me the question is:

Can you take an average male in his 20's or 30's(for me it would be more early 30's), give them a training plan to stick to and have them eventually run 2:30?


Im defining "average" as being of reasonable health and having no serious biomechanical problems.

To me 2;30 might be optimistic but given years of dedicated training I feel you could get very close.

Of course having the ability/potential to do something and actually dedicating a significant proportion of your life to a goal and consistently training well are very different things. But I think thats a separate argument.


I think the bottom line is a lot of runners (especially newer runners) underestimate what they are naturally capable off.

kennyb3

Running Bing wrote: »

I should point out he says average male and not average runner....I dont think this is about defining what the "average runner" is.

To me the question is:

Can you take an average male in his 20's or 30's(for me it would be more early 30's), give them a training plan to stick to and have them eventually run 2:30?


Im defining "average" as being of reasonable health and having no serious biomechanical problems.

To me 2;30 might be optimistic but given years of dedicated training I feel you could get very close.

Of course having the ability/potential to do something and actually dedicating a significant proportion of your life to a goal and consistently training well are very different things. But I think thats a separate argument.


I think the bottom line is a lot of runners (especially newer runners) underestimate what they are naturally capable off.

I have a compulsive personality. i ll let you know how i get on in 5 years with my sub 2.30 attempt

TheRoadRunner

kennyb3 wrote: »

I have a compulsive personality. i ll let you know how i get on in 5 years with my sub 2.30 attempt

In my books a bit of madness or OCD are advantageous for an average/good runner

kennyb3

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

In my books a bit of madness or OCD are advantageous for an average/good runner

i hope so! i ve only taken this up recently and now im obsessed. it drives me mad missing a days training and all day long in the office i cant wait to get home and run. if only i could drag my lazy ass out of bed in the morning i could get my fix before work

mrak

"Average" is a very vague term. I think if you mean average in terms of raw talent I would say the answer is definitely yes. However there is nothing average about getting beneath 2:30.

To break 2:30 you'd need either above average talent and to put in a lot of work or average talent and to put in an insane amount of work. The lower your talent the more work you'd need to put in. Something about you would be far from average.

An easier thing to ask is if you can break 32 mins for 10k - this is the same question as you would need to be hitting the low 32's or 31's if you want to think about getting under 2:30. I think I am pretty average in terms of talent but am getting on and I think that I don't have the above average insanity or time or injury resilliance it would take to get under 2:30. Hate to admit it but you need to pick your battles and I don't have the time/heart to do double sessions for 6 months which is what it'd take for my level of ability.

kennyb3

mrak wrote: »

"Average" is a very vague term. I think if you mean average in terms of raw talent I would say the answer is definitely yes. However there is nothing average about getting beneath 2:30.

To break 2:30 you'd need either above average talent and to put in a lot of work or average talent and to put in an insane amount of work. The lower your talent the more work you'd need to put in. Something about you would be far from average.

An easier thing to ask is if you can break 32 mins for 10k - this is the same question as you would need to be hitting the low 32's or 31's if you want to think about getting under 2:30. I think I am pretty average in terms of talent but am getting on and I think that I don't have the above average insanity or time or injury resilliance it would take to get under 2:30. Hate to admit it but you need to pick your battles and I don't have the time/heart to do double sessions for 6 months which is what it'd take for my level of ability.

when you say your getting on, what age are you? and where you always a runner (from school etc)?

TFBubendorfer

mrak wrote: »

I think I am pretty average in terms of talent

I very much doubt that statement!

kennyb3

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I very much doubt that statement!

Might sound daft but how do you distinguish between talent and hard work?

mrak

kennyb3 wrote: »

Might sound daft but how do you distinguish between talent and hard work?

That's a really good question. My own theory is the really talented people do well in juvenille athletics where everyone is doing very little training and it's a more even playing field.

Hard Worker

I started running 30 years ago in preparation for the first Dublin Marathon. I ran 4.11. The following April I ran the first London Marathon in 3.43. I progressed the following year to 3.23 in Dublin and went out to 3.31 the year after. Very average running in any mans books at that time. However, five years later I broke 2.30. I wasn't a particularly dedicated trainer - I only averaged 50 to 55 miles per week in preparation. However, the sessions I did were 100% effort.
Lydiard is correct in saying that you can turn an average runner into a sub 2.30 runner. Not every average runner though.

Running Bing

Hard Worker wrote: »

I started running 30 years ago in preparation for the first Dublin Marathon. I ran 4.11. The following April I ran the first London Marathon in 3.43. I progressed the following year to 3.23 in Dublin and went out to 3.31 the year after. Very average running in any mans books at that time. However, five years later I broke 2.30. I wasn't a particularly dedicated trainer - I only averaged 50 to 55 miles per week in preparation. However, the sessions I did were 100% effort.
Lydiard is correct in saying that you can turn an average runner into a sub 2.30 runner. Not every average runner though.

That's tremendous progress off of pretty limited mileage and really add's credence to the theory.


Didnt know people ran 3 hour + marathons 30 years ago...I thought everybody was running 2:20's at that stage;)

hunnymonster

I didn't know any of that HW. I would imagine Dublin city marathon 30 years ago was very different to the 10000 people you get now? Have you any philosophical thoughts on the small numbers with talent versus mass participation debate?*

Great to see you involved in this sport of ours for so long. Although I'm a relatively late starter, I hope I can also hang around for 30 years.



*my take is the more the merrier but it doesn't have to be at the expense of nurturing potential talent, the wii might have to go though to keep young people interested in being the best they can.

TFBubendorfer

kennyb3 wrote: »

Might sound daft but how do you distinguish between talent and hard work?

Not daft at all, and in fact clever enough for me not to have an answer.

I doubted mrak's statement purely based on the times he is running. I can't get my head around the idea that the averagely talented runner can achieve times like that.

I take myself as a counter-example. Maybe I'm less than average in regards to talent, but I've trained a lot over the last few years (as anyone who has followed my blog can testify). My times have reached levels that I would have put into fantasy land only 2 or 3 years ago, but they're still worlds away from a 35 mins 10k or a 2:30 marathon. They are about 39 mins for 10 and 3:05 for the marathon. That's way better than I would have ever imagined, but seeing as they have stalled recently, I'll be lucky to break 3 hours.

hunnymonster

Of course age is also a factor. Having only started running in my 30's and even then I've been flaffing around with various events, I'm unlikely to ever be fast. I do regret not starting younger.

kennyb3

Hard Worker wrote: »

I started running 30 years ago in preparation for the first Dublin Marathon. I ran 4.11. The following April I ran the first London Marathon in 3.43. I progressed the following year to 3.23 in Dublin and went out to 3.31 the year after. Very average running in any mans books at that time. However, five years later I broke 2.30. I wasn't a particularly dedicated trainer - I only averaged 50 to 55 miles per week in preparation. However, the sessions I did were 100% effort.
Lydiard is correct in saying that you can turn an average runner into a sub 2.30 runner. Not every average runner though.

what would you say essentially clicked, like im sure for all the years before you thought you were giving 100% but how did you change your mind set? or would you say it was a combination of 5 years training -i.e getting fitter and faster. did you erode the marathon time year on year over the 5 years or not run one at all? sorry bout the 64 questions:D

Hard Worker

hunnymonster wrote: »

I didn't know any of that HW. I would imagine Dublin city marathon 30 years ago was very different to the 10000 people you get now? Have you any philosophical thoughts on the small numbers with talent versus mass participation debate?*

Great to see you involved in this sport of ours for so long. Although I'm a relatively late starter, I hope I can also hang around for 30 years.



*my take is the more the merrier but it doesn't have to be at the expense of nurturing potential talent, the wii might have to go though to keep young people interested in being the best they can.

30 years ago, club runners used to compete against each other on a weekly basis. Even within clubs, sessions were like races, with everyone hopping off each other. These days, people tend to run alone a lot more.
I could easily name 15 people in the 80's who could run sub 2.16 here in Ireland. You couldn't name 5 with those times in the past 10 years. In the early years of the Dublin Marathon we had Dick Hooper, John Griffin, Gerry Kiernan, Tommy Hughes, Neil Cusack who were all winners. We also had Roy Dooney running 2.14 and John Woods and Louis Kenny running 2.11. We had Eamon Tierney and Jim McGlynn winning the Glasgow marathon. Most of those specialised in road / marathon running and didn't do a lot of track.
The tide may be about to change again as it will be almost impossible for an Irishman to win a track distance medal. However, a European marathon medal is not beyond possibility. We may see a few decent athletes steering more towards marathon running again.

Hard Worker

kennyb3 wrote: »

what would you say essentially clicked, like im sure for all the years before you thought you were giving 100% but how did you change your mind set? or would you say it was a combination of 5 years training -i.e getting fitter and faster. did you erode the marathon time year on year over the 5 years or not run one at all? sorry bout the 64 questions:D

The day my first child was born in the Rotunda, I did my fatherly duty and attended the birth. However, my wife obviously needed some rest and I took off out to Clontarf for a couple of hours as there was a 10K on. I finished in 3rd place, just outsprinted by Pat Hooper for 2nd. This was my first time to be placed in a race and it gave me a huge lift. I suppose I just kicked on from there.
I started to do one particular session, which was done once a week all year round, without boredom. This particular session has remained with me over the years and is suitable for all distances from 5K to marathon. I'll have a chat with Woddle about it some day and explain how it works.
After the "failure" of going out to 3.31 I became more determined and did a 3.13 before breaking the 3 hour mark. It took me two more years to break the 2.30. As I was working a 50 hour week, I never gave myself a chance to progress further, although I consolidated with a 2.30.02 in the National Marathon in Sligo and a 2.30.56 for 6th in Belfast and a 2.32 in London when I was 41.

mrak

Hard Worker wrote: »

The day my first child was born in the Rotunda, I did my fatherly duty and attended the birth. However, my wife obviously needed some rest and I took off out to Clontarf for a couple of hours as there was a 10K on. I finished in 3rd place, just outsprinted by Pat Hooper for 2nd. This was my first time to be placed in a race and it gave me a huge lift. I suppose I just kicked on from there.
I started to do one particular session, which was done once a week all year round, without boredom. This particular session has remained with me over the years and is suitable for all distances from 5K to marathon. I'll have a chat with Woddle about it some day and explain how it works.
After the "failure" of going out to 3.31 I became more determined and did a 3.13 before breaking the 3 hour mark. It took me two more years to break the 2.30. As I was working a 50 hour week, I never gave myself a chance to progress further, although I consolidated with a 2.30.02 in the National Marathon in Sligo and a 2.30.56 for 6th in Belfast and a 2.32 in London when I was 41.

Now I know how you picked your nick - super running and super times. What a high you must have been on on that day to place in your first race on the day your first baby was born! That's a day that would stick in your head forever.

Racing Flat

Hard Worker wrote: »

I started running 30 years ago in preparation for the first Dublin Marathon. I ran 4.11. The following April I ran the first London Marathon in 3.43. I progressed the following year to 3.23 in Dublin and went out to 3.31 the year after. Very average running in any mans books at that time. However, five years later I broke 2.30. I wasn't a particularly dedicated trainer - I only averaged 50 to 55 miles per week in preparation. However, the sessions I did were 100% effort.
Lydiard is correct in saying that you can turn an average runner into a sub 2.30 runner. Not every average runner though.

A great, motivating example. However, Hardworker, you haven't mentioned a possible contributing ingredient here - genetics. Would you agree that aswell as hard work, you had the right genes? And the combination allowed you to get 2.30.

I agree that many people should be able to get to 2.30, but not all. Without the genes, all the hard work in the world won't suffice. I'm not talking crazy Bekele like genes, but a moderately above average VO2max (and all the rest of those things).

gombeen99

A 2hr 30min marathon is 5min43sec average mile pace. That's only 85 secs per 400m lap of a track which most younger reasonably fit people would be able to do, even without specific training. With a bit of training, they'd be able to string 2 of these together, then 3, 4 etc. That's a mile at the 5.43mile pace so with enough training, including injury prevention & improved diet, I reckon someone young enough would be able to do 26 of these. The big obstacle for most people would be patience (training would need to be built up over a couple of years) injury prevention & dedication / discipline - sounds easy in theory!!

dna_leri

mrak wrote: »

That's a really good question. My own theory is the really talented people do well in juvenille athletics where everyone is doing very little training and it's a more even playing field.

I think that's an interesting theory, though it does not account for late developers - the ones that come late to the sport and still achieve without the hard work, though maybe they would have achieved earlier if they started then.

Are the successful elite athlete's then the one's that have that natural talent (that enables them succeed as juveniles) and apply the hard work? The only way to distinguish between the two (hard work and talent) is not to do the hard work and see the result!

I know in my own case I did well in juvenile levels (without being exceptional) with minimal training, coaching and facilities and now (25 years later) find it easier to get back to an average level than others who are just starting running at this age.

dermCu

That's tremendous progress off of pretty limited mileage and really add's credence to the theory.

I don’t think it does add credence to the theory.

Hard Worker is obviously a class act. He can’t be classified as average.

As he mentions in a later post he was out kicked to 3rd by Pat Hooper (a sub 2:20 marathoner) in a 10k.
This was around a time when Irish running was at a peak so I'd guess that the rest of the field was well stacked with good runners.
He then 'kicked on' with this training from there. So he obviously had bags of natural talent/genetic ability (call it what you will) before he intensified his training.

It’s great to hear from these types of runners. I fully agree that we are missing a competitive edge that was there in the past. I’ve heard countless stories from guys of this era who always talk about how they ‘raced themselves fit’.

Hard Worker: If you ever have the time or inclination I'm sure lots of people on this board would be really interested in hearing about the types of 'quality' sessions that you were running at your peak.

--amadeus--

I don't buy the "if you can run 400m in 85 secs you can run 2:30 in a marathon" argument. If you believe in yasso 800s you need to be doing 800m in 2:30 to be on track and that's 75 secs a lap for a start. And there is a whole world of difference between brute forcing your way round 400m and running 26 miles. The physiological demands are totally different, you can be able for one but not the other.

Something Hard Worker said rang a bell for me - that an average runner could run 2:30 but not *every* average runner could. I think if you turn that around you've got the answer. A talented runner might start off running average times but with hard work and dedication he'll ultimatley achieve his potential (as HW did). But just as seing one brown cow doesn't mean that all cows are brown just because good runners might run average times it doesn't follow that all average speed runners are talented.

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I don't buy the "if you can run 400m in 85 secs you can run 2:30 in a marathon" argument.

I can do 400m in 48 secs so I can do a 1:24 marathon, wooohoooo!