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

oxygen

Hey

I dont know much about marathon times, other than the Average is over 4 hours and the fastest was just over 2 hours.

How fit would you need to be to complete a marathon in less than 2 hours 45 minutes? Thats the automatic qualification time to allow you to be entered in for a second NYC marathon in a row. Im automatically qualified for this year, since I have been refused 3 times in a row from the lottery.

RayCun

If you don't already know the answer, you are not fit enough to make that qualification time.

tunney

If you've played a bit of GAA or the like you'll probably be fine for 2:45

MrThrifty

RayCun wrote: »

If you don't already know the answer, you are not fit enough to make that qualification time.

Brilliant answer!!!

An alternative is that you'd ideally want to have a good annual milleage of 2k+, be training at a decent pace, be joined a running club, not be too old (say under 55 but take this with a pinch of salt), have run a marathon before etc. etc. Very scary that someone would ask this question!

oxygen

Thanks Tunny. I wasnt sure if it was an athletic pace or not.

In your opinion, is it achievable for a 32 year old male in average health to get to less than this time by next Nevember 6th?

Im only toying with the idea, I have qualified for 2012 NYC marathon anyway, its just I can qualify for 2013's marathon with a time less than that.

Their making it more difficult to obtain automatic qualification, you wont qualify if you've been refused 3 times anymore, or if you have cancelled more than once you lose your qualificaion as well.

oxygen

MrThrifty wrote: »

Brilliant answer!!!

An alternative is that you'd ideally want to have a good annual milleage of 2k+, be training at a decent pace, be joined a running club, not be too old (say under 55 but take this with a pinch of salt), have run a marathon before etc. etc. Very scary that someone would ask this question!

Yea, I did kindof think it would not be something an average runner should be aiming for. Like I said, I was just toying with the idea, I qualify for next years marathon, so Im happy enough with that.

RacoonQueen

Have you run a marathon before? If so, what was your time?

It's different for everyone - some people would do feck all training to run 2:45 and some would work their backside off.

oxygen

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Have you run a marathon before? If so, what was your time?

It's different for everyone - some people would do feck all training to run 2:45 and some would work their backside off.

No, I havent run a marathon before. I generally just run 5 miles at a fairly leasurly pace. I had 3 years ago, seen the automatic qualification for the NYC marathon thing, so started sending in an application each year since.

I would say I wouldnt be a naturally fast runner. When Im starting to train for it, I will keep an eye on my time, see how I go, but I would say I probably would be one of the people that need to work there backside off to get to that time

RayCun

About 70 men ran under 2.45 in Dublin last month, around 1% of the field?

Burgman

This is how I would put it: Where are you starting from? Are you in reasonably good shape already and not carrying too much weight? I would suggest that you should be under 11 stone/70 kg if you are not over 6ft.

As a more short term measure: How soon do you think you could do 10 miles in under 60 minutes? If you could do that, you might have a chance of 2.45. Have a look at the numbers who finished under the hour in Ballycotton last March (around 120) or the race series in the Phoenix Park in August (around 90). Can you see yourself being in that company?

It can be done, depending on your starting point and on your application - and also on a good bit of luck (staying healthy and injury-free). Good luck.

MrThrifty

Interesting 'test' for the OP - run say 4 or 5 miles at 6.5 mins/mile pace. Afterwards, consider the fact that a marathon is 5 to 6 times longer at this same pace, in order to achieve a finish time of 2hrs 45. If you find running the 4 or 5 miles at this pace difficult, then assume that running a marathon at the same pace would probably 'feel' 50 to 60 times longer!!!

RacoonQueen

oxygen_temp wrote: »

No, I havent run a marathon before. I generally just run 5 miles at a fairly leasurly pace. I had 3 years ago, seen the automatic qualification for the NYC marathon thing, so started sending in an application each year since.

I would say I wouldnt be a naturally fast runner. When Im starting to train for it, I will keep an eye on my time, see how I go, but I would say I probably would be one of the people that need to work there backside off to get to that time

Well unless you're a complete natural the chances are you will not qualify for 2013. You'd really need a very good base of fitness and endurance to go to 2:45 in a marathon. Train your backside off for then next year and see how it goes. You only know if you can do it if you try...

Why do you want to do NY twice anyway? Why not try for a time in a different marathon?

oxygen

Thanks allot for the feedback guys, I have a good bit to go on there.
I'll start a few of those test, see how I get on... I would be hesitant enough about it.

I am 65kg, so not carrying alot of extra weight, but havent really been training with times or such so far. Still, at least I will get to run the marathon at least once

True RacoonQueen, there is the London or other marathons to consider. Once doing the NYC marathon is enough of an experience

oxygen

to be fair, it probably makes more sense to aim for completing my first marathon in a more realistic pace of just under or maybe over 4 hours. There are no major benefit to get from running the same marathon two years running.

Thanks for all the feedback……
NYC Nov 2012!!! Wohooo

PaulieYifter

Just for some perspective - 2:45 would have put you around place 80 out of approx. 12,000 in Dublin or around place 250 out of 26,000 males in Berlin viz. easily in the top 1%.

EC1000

Should be easy enough. Sure there's a thread on here today about some woman called Chrissie Wellington who seems to be able to do it after swimming a few kilometres and cycling for 5 hours. Cant be that hard....

Gringo78

oxygen_temp wrote: »

Hey

I dont know much about marathon times, other than the Average is over 4 hours and the fastest was just over 2 hours.

How fit would you need to be to complete a marathon in less than 2 hours 45 minutes? Thats the automatic qualification time to allow you to be entered in for a second NYC marathon in a row. Im automatically qualified for this year, since I have been refused 3 times in a row from the lottery.

A 1:19 half marathon would also get you qualification for NY2013. I think that time would be more easily acheived - still difficult, but certainly for most people would be an easier proposition. 89 of 700 people broke this time recently in the national half marathon champs in waterford which was one of the most competitive races over that distance of the last few years.

robinph

Gringo78 wrote: »

A 1:19 half marathon would also get you qualification for NY2013. I think that time would be more easily acheived - still difficult, but certainly for most people would be an easier proposition. 89 of 700 people broke this time recently in the national half marathon champs in waterford which was one of the most competitive races over that distance of the last few years.

Was about to say the same. It's mostly easier because you have have more attempts at the time. I've currently got a NY qualification time based on a half time, but only by 30 seconds. Once the rules change for 2013 onwards it's a while different story.

Not sure that I'd want to pay $300 for a race entry though.

brutes1

oxygen_temp wrote: »

Thanks Tunny. I wasnt sure if it was an athletic pace or not.

In your opinion, is it achievable for a 32 year old male in average health to get to less than this time by next Nevember 6th?


It probably is acheivable in my view. I have done it from a background of being a complete pisshead and chainsmoker, and years of no exercise

But it took me about 4 years of hard miles and solid training to get to a 245...that was down from a 326 first marathon following no running in over ten yrs . Difficult to see it happening in november for you.

If you are serious about it and i mean deadly serious about doing some big miles and the right type of training then it can be done. obviously if you have previous form in athletics at a younger age it will help.

Rantan

Put it this way - I know one of the guys who ran 2:44 DCm this year - this guy is in his forties and has run countless marathons, ultras, desert marathons(MDS, the Atacama, China Etc etc) my point is , he has essentially been training for a large part of his adult life to be able to achieve his times, I dont think its realistic to aim for it in a year or two - ubnless you have either A. far above average athletic ability or B. far above average focus/detemination/commitment. Not meaning to be rude but the fact that you are here asking these questions makes me question if you have either. If its somethnig you decide to do - good luck, if you get anywhere close it would be an amazing achievement.

tunney

Rantan wrote: »

Put it this way - I know one of the guys who ran 2:44 DCm this year - this guy is in his forties and has run countless marathons, ultras, desert marathons(MDS, the Atacama, China Etc etc) my point is , he has essentially been training for a large part of his adult life to be able to achieve his times, I dont think its realistic to aim for it in a year or two - ubnless you have either A. far above average athletic ability or B. far above average focus/detemination/commitment. Not meaning to be rude but the fact that you are here asking these questions makes me question if you have either. If its somethnig you decide to do - good luck, if you get anywhere close it would be an amazing achievement.

Completely disagree. I know very average athletes who train hard but not stupidly and ran 2:45 in DCM - main thing was smart

I know superior athletes who trained much harder but more stupidly and only ran a 2:3x.

With discipline and work and an intelligent I don't see why its impossible. I'm surprised more people don't do it to be honest.

MrThrifty

tunney wrote: »

Completely disagree. I know very average athletes who train hard but not stupidly and ran 2:45 in DCM - main thing was smart

I know superior athletes who trained much harder but more stupidly and only ran a 2:3x.

With discipline and work and an intelligent I don't see why its impossible. I'm surprised more people don't do it to be honest.

See bold quotes... Note also that there's a big difference between 2:45 and 2:3x time for a marathon! I wouldn't mind training stupidly myself if it got me that time!!!

RayCun

If you devoted 10 hours a week to memorizing Ulysses, within a few years you would be able to recite it from memory.
If you devoted 10 hours a week to learning how to play a musical instrument, within a few years you'd be pretty good at it.
If you devoted 10 hours a week to (the right kind of) charity work, within a few years you might have saved several lives.
We do these things because we enjoy them. I suppose a lot of people find that more than 6 or 8 hours a week, or making the other lifestyle changes that goes with that, mean it is no longer enjoyable.

ecoli

MrThrifty wrote: »

See bold quotes... Note also that there's a big difference between 2:45 and 2:3x time for a marathon! I wouldn't mind training stupidly myself if it got me that time!!!

I would if I I knew if I trained smarter I would come home in 2.2x

ecoli

Have to agree with Tunney. This is possible if you train smart

From Novice to Sub 2.45 would require

- Commitment
- sacrafice
- Dedication
- Motivation

and most of all

-Carefully laid out training

With people coming from a Novice background aiming for this time there is little room for error in training. Every mile ran would have to be run with purpose. Many runners who have built up a solid aerobic base can get away with hitting that time off a little more ineffective training but for someone with a running background simply can't get away with ineffective training if they are looking to hit that kinda time

Having said that I believe it can be done in a year

Rantan

......With discipline and work and an intelligent I don't see why its impossible. I'm surprised more people don't do it to be honest.[/QUOTE]

not trying to be a smart arse tunney but I think you have just answered your own question...more people dont do it because its out of the range of abilities (physical and mental) and aspirations of most average people..I never said it was impossible, - but I believe the level of committment required is beyond most people...simply because they dont want to/cant afford to, not that they are unable to.

robinph

Rantan wrote: »

not trying to be a smart arse tunney but I think you have just answered your own question...more people dont do it because its out of the range of abilities (physical and mental) and aspirations of most average people..I never said it was impossible, - but I believe the level of committment required is beyond most people...simply because they dont want to/cant afford to, not that they are unable to.

+1

I'm now starting to come around to the idea that I could be getting close to those kind of times. But I won't.

I can't be arsed to put in that much effort as it will stop being "fun" any more. I do expect to get close to, or just under, 2:55 next year. But to put any more effort in just isn't worth it for me. And where ever each person reaches the "it's not worth it" threshold they will go that far and no further.

run_Forrest_run

robinph wrote: »

+1

I'm now starting to come around to the idea that I could be getting close to those kind of times. But I won't.

I can't be arsed to put in that much effort as it will stop being "fun" any more. I do expect to get close to, or just under, 2:55 next year. But to put any more effort in just isn't worth it for me. And where ever each person reaches the "it's not worth it" threshold they will go that far and no further.

that's the spirit Robin

Krusty_Clown

The answer is: very fit. You'd have to be very fit to run 2:45.

YFlyer

OP do you have any times for shorter races?

ThePiedPiper

The OP said he was 32 I think? And is capable of running 5 miles or so at the moment? Theoretically, he could be capable of running sub 2.45 in New York next year. But what are the chances? He's saying that maybe he'd be happy enough to run over four hours but wouldn't mind trying to go sub 2.45. I'd give him a 1/1000 chance.

I don't mean to be harsh OP, but there's runners with some degree of talent, years of experience, and by the sounds of things way more motivation than you, that can just about dip under 3 hours. And there is a world of a difference between running 2.59 and 2.44. You don't know if you've really got any talent as you've never timed yourself, you don't have any experience and your only motivation seems to be to run the NYC marathon twice. That isn't motivation enough.

Also, you're 32. Do you have over 10 hours of your week to dedicate solely to running until November next year? Do you have a demanding job/partner/kids or any other committments that would get in the way of this dedication?

Before you get this idea any more into your head, I would suggest you go run 400 metres as fast as you can. That's 1/4 of a mile. If you can't run that in 94 seconds, the speed you will need to maintain for 26.2 miles, I think you may give up. If on the other hand, you can do it in 70 seconds, it would suggest that you have basic speed and can therefore work on endurance.

The very best of luck to you if you do decide that you are going to give this a go.