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

Running Bing · 12-05-2009 09:02PM #1

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 · 12-05-2009 09:05PM

Not without no longer being average they are not.

ecoli · 12-05-2009 09:26PM

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 · 13-05-2009 01:54AM

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 · 13-05-2009 07:23AM

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 · 13-05-2009 08:11AM

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 · 13-05-2009 09:31AM

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 · 13-05-2009 09:37AM

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 · 13-05-2009 09:51AM

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 · 13-05-2009 09:51AM

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-- · 13-05-2009 09:56AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:05AM

--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 · 13-05-2009 10:06AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:18AM

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-- · 13-05-2009 10:22AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:25AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:26AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:26AM

--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 · 13-05-2009 10:28AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:30AM

--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 · 13-05-2009 10:31AM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Yes there are. Would be interesting to hear their perspective

+1 to that.

--amadeus-- · 13-05-2009 10:33AM

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 · 13-05-2009 10:38AM

estariol wrote: »

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

Ah but an average runner would.

TheRoadRunner · 13-05-2009 10:40AM

--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 · 13-05-2009 11:03AM

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 · 13-05-2009 11:09AM

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

MCOS · 13-05-2009 11:22AM

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

Running Bing · 13-05-2009 11:30AM

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 · 13-05-2009 11:56AM

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 · 13-05-2009 12:10PM

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 · 13-05-2009 12:18PM

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

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

Comments