Sub 3:20 marathon runners
Options
Replies
-
CarsonRuns wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »CarsonRuns wrote: »
About the time or training? I can provide proof for the time. I know my training was unconventional but what reason do I have to lie about it?CarsonRuns wrote: »I'm still skeptical.
Both, but why shouldn't I be skeptical when someone claims a 3:18 first marathon on ~30 miles per week. It's just very unlikely. Not impossible, just rare, especially for a first. If you had said you played competitive soccer for 8 years through HS and College and then ran the marathon on that little training, it would be easier to swallow. I guess without any context, It's just hard to fathom.
Carson, I believe in the "Marathon Panic" thread in the general forums (where both of you commented), he mentioned previously running track or cross country or someother athletic pursuit
Ahh, thank you. I didn't recall that. Too many posts for this old mind to assimilate.
Lishie is correct. I ran varsity cross country and track for 3 years in high school. I should have run in college but I sat on my rump and played video games instead. Regretting that decision but I've put it back together since then and I guess that's what matters. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
The marathon was a very individual event for me, I didn't ask for help or look up training programs from more experienced runners so I'm guessing that shaped my very warped view of how to prepare for one. The more I've read here, the more I realize just how strange my own experience was. Anyways, I'd like to retract my 'ludicrous' statement from the other thread. You're clearly much more qualified to give advice on marathon preparation.
Welcome to the group. Don't let all this information spoil the magic for you.
You've got a good base and some natural talent. If you want to improve on your performance, I see fast times ahead for you.
0 -
-
0
-
. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.0 -
. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I was thinking the exact same thing! I would think sub 3:00 might be easily (or -ish) attainable for you if you were to put in an adequate amount of work.
0 -
. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
Well said!!! Grrrr!
0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
You have boobs.
/micdrop0 -
I think you're right. My goal for a second marathon is under 3 hours and I think it's obtainable. I know the last race wasn't my ceiling, especially since I had a nagging knee injury in the month leading up to the race that seriously messed with my conditioning.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
0 -
You best pump up that mileage! An 18+ minute improvement when you are already under 3:30 is like digging the Panama canal with a shovel.
I think you're right. My goal for a second marathon is under 3 hours and I think it's obtainable. I know the last race wasn't my ceiling, especially since I had a nagging knee injury in the month leading up to the race that seriously messed with my conditioning.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?. I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
You have boobs.
/micdrop
You can get your very own set Dougie...
I looked at her PBs she has listed on her profile, you best get running Dougie!
She's quick! (and I'm jealous lol)0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
You have boobs.
/micdrop
They're not large. I'm a runner.0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
I hate you because I must have been away using the bathroom or something when they were handing out those "unfair physiological advantages" I'm supposed to get and you are way faster than me.0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: ». I'm not sure what to tell you about the low volume training, it's what felt right and seemed to work.
Can I be obnoxious and say that it looks to me like you should be capable (with your background, age and skill level) of running much faster times than that?
What counts as a 'good' marathon time varies massively from person to person. For a young, fit male with a history of athleticism and some natural aptitude, 3:18 sounds like an okay debut off low-volume training, which could be hugely improved with higher mileage and a bit more structure.
For someone starting running later in life, and without a sports background, 3:18 might take loads more work. Or it might be something they'll never achieve.
I hate you because you're right all the time.
Well, I hate you because you're a man and will therefore end up faster than me one day just because of totally unfair physiological advantages. Grr.
I hate you because I must have been away using the bathroom or something when they were handing out those "unfair physiological advantages" I'm supposed to get and you are way faster than me.
I just hate everyone that can run a sub 4:00 marathon.
0 -
Is this the sort of thing all the people on the general forums mean when they talk about mfp haters? 0
-
