Realistic First Marathon Target time (Read 3780 times)

Where did Dopplebock say that he did these things without putting in the miles? He just said it was his first marathon. He didn't say that he didn't train for it.

No he didn't, but I will venture to guess that if he was beginning from scratch, the amount of miles he would need to put in for a 3:30 time is less than the average.  That's what makes this mileage issue a difficult one.  Some can do it on 40 miles and less a week  with no runs longer than 16, while others (most of us) will do better if we have more miles, and longer runs over a longer period of time.  

An old friend of mine once said, "developing your running ability is like working with clay, you can mold it into many shapes and sizes, but you cannot make glass out of it."  In other words, some of us could train for ever and never break a 2 1/2 or 3 hour marathon.  Those that can have an innate pre training ability, that will lead to quicker rewards once they do begin training.  No doubt, Dopplebock has put in his time to get where he is, but I would also say he was a gifted runner in the 1st place.   

I think the comments here relate to your current lack of aerobic strength for anything close to 3:30 marathon when your most recent race is a 54 minute 10k. Not your weight.

Exactly.

You said that your 43 minute 10k was when you were just seven pounds lighter. This means that almost all that 11 minute difference in time is due to your lower current aerobic fitness, and not carrying extra pounds.

Again, using my example... About seven lbs is what I lost between my 10K example above and my first marathon. I wasn't that much faster. In fact, it took loosing another 25 lbs (30+ total) and running another 8 months (11+ total) to cut, perhaps, 5 minutes off my 10K. I thought that was really good progress. Taking the weight of helped. Building aerobic strength over time helped much more.

I suggest that you take a peek at Dopplebock's log.

 I did, and that is what I am saying.  It is incredible that he has gotten to the point where he can do 500+ miles* in a month, and over 150 miles in a 24 hour race.  I just don't think most of us could do that.  That is a combination of intense dedication, motivation, and innate ability.   By no means am I saying it was easy for him, just that he does have some ability, as well as putting in incredible amounts of training.   

All I'm saying is that some people may be able to run a 3:30 marathon, and have, with running 40 miles a week and no runs longer than 16 miles.  For MK, whose times do not reflect this ability, I think he needs to be more realistic. 

And yes, I agree that MK should do a 1/2 the last month and see what he can do.  That will give him the best idea of a goal time. 

*****Oh, not to diminish his achievement, but 500 miles a month was a rough average, he once did over 900!  There is a whole forum full of us trying to do 1000 miles in a year! 

 I did, and that is what I am saying.  It is incredible that he has gotten to the point where he can do 500+ miles in a month, and over 150 miles in a 24 hour race.  I just don't think most of us could do that.  That is a combination of intense dedication, motivation, and innate ability.   By no means am I saying it was easy for him, just that he does have some ability, as well as putting in incredible amounts of training.   

I would disagree with that statement. I don't think genetics , aka innate ability,  played much of a role at all with Dopplebocks accomplishment...unless genetics accounts for his dedication, motivation and training investment.

Given innate ability I'd say I'm average. In most races I can secure a spot in the top 25% but I'm out-training 75% of the people there. If you lined 100 guys up in my AG with the same training volume I suspect I'd be lucky to come in 50th place.

I think we are agreeing, but don't realize it.  I don't know Dopplebock personally, but I don't know too many people who can run that many miles.  He may not be a "great" marathoner, as if we were to use today's standard, you would have to run a sub 2:12.   He looks to be a pretty good endurance athlete - maybe better at ultras. 

Do you not agree that there is some innate ability that some people have, or do you think all people could run a sub 2:45 marathon giving enough training? 

BTW:  looks like he is aiming for a sub 3 at Grandmas, and I am looking to finish that marathon (again).  Have no problem with the fact that I never put the time in to maximize my potential, and doubt I could ever find the time to do that.  But it is fun just to get out there. 

Also, nothing to take away from your accomplishments.  A 2:35 marathon is great, and there was a lot of training leading up to that. 

 He looks to be a pretty good endurance athlete - maybe better at ultras. 

 

 Yeah, maybe

Hey it is better than the charity marathon schedule I had for my first marathon.  I believe we ramped from a 2 mile long run to a 20 mile long run in 12 weeks, ran 4 days a week and 2 of the non long run days were some sort of speedwork

 

I

I guess the schedule did exactly what its purpose is for me.  I finished the marathon and was injury free throughout the training.  Was I happy with my time?  Not exactly, but happy to finish.  In any case, it has motivated me to run another because I know I can get that sub-4.  And I learned alot about myself and what my body can handle during this training.  I've only been running/racing for 3 years and it seems I'm learning something new after every race.  Mostly learning what not to do the next time, but still learning.

Disagree.

I think there's a point on a beginner thread where the OP has to just take her/his money and run.