Sub 3:20 marathon runners
Replies
-
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 -
This discussion has been closed.