I have 2 kids under 2 and a crazy job/life. Former D1 runner about 13 years ago and now just run for stress-relief.
I'm doing about 30 miles/week and running a marathon in a few months. I do one workout a week and a sunday long run. The rest of the days I just try to get out there. Probably in 19 min. 5k shape right now, aiming for 3.30.
On a "normal" course, you'd be well under 3 hours. At 57, I decided to run a marathon only seven weeks before the race. Bumped my mileage from 10 mpw to 30, mostly by adding a long run. Never ran on consecutive days. Still managed 3:26 with slightly negative splits. That "age grades" to 2:53.
It had been 14 years since I had raced at all. Not much latent talent, either. Never broke 34:00 for 10K as a youth. Or 16 for 5K, or 2:40 for a marathon.
At 62 now, I have a similar training plan for a marathon in seven weeks. Hit 32 miles last week, three runs (7, 4, 21). I'm much slower now, though. Will be happy with 3:45.
Enjoy your marathon. Sounds scenic and fun. My wife and I ran Big Sur 20 years ago. Gorgeous! Challenging, but your mountain course sounds more so. Good luck.
Thanks -- the marathon is @ ~9k feet (i live in colorado) so not sure what that equates to but if I can finish that's about all I care about. My youngest is 10 month old, so sort of looking at just getting to the start-line as an accomplishment. I also don't know what the future holds but I think if my kids see me running as an old man (i'm 37) maybe that will instill something in them. I have much more respect for a 57 year old guy like you running 3.27 than a college grad running 2.20, so PROPS -- 3.45 at 62 also no joke.
I get the 25 mile weeks. Lotta these ppl are mid 30’s with kids and jobs and have no time.
then they choose to “run” a marathon. It’s like clockwork: blow up at mile 18, blame something, and get injured at least twice a year.
Why? Just run a 5k?
Why not. Most people have not the talent and time to run more. I would say that 25 miles per week should be the minimum for at least 6 month to run a first Marathon. Will it be fast? No. Will it be pretty? No. But you might get the first Marathon out of the way.
And just yesterday we had a talented runner visiting our running group. Sub 65 minute HM and sub 2:20 Marathon with a top 100 finish in the OT in 2020. That's what a lot of talent and 90+ mile weeks get you.
I think some in the running world (and on here, but nobody in particular, just in general) don't realize how talented they are relative to the general public.
Like guys will say "I ran 15:10/33/1:09/2:30 and I suck" without having the self-awareness to know they are actually very good runners. Or females saying 17:35/37/1:19/2:45, etc.
Thanks -- the marathon is @ ~9k feet (i live in colorado) so not sure what that equates to but if I can finish that's about all I care about. My youngest is 10 month old, so sort of looking at just getting to the start-line as an accomplishment. I also don't know what the future holds but I think if my kids see me running as an old man (i'm 37) maybe that will instill something in them.
That's serious altitude. A 3:30 at 9K feet converts to about 3:12 at sea level.
I remember when my sons were 10 months old. I tried putting them in a playpen, and running laps in the backyard. Didn't work. I still "ran" one marathon every year, but I won't mention how slow! Now, 34 years later, one of my sons is running the marathon with me next month. 30 mpw for him, too, so we'll see how it goes (his first). BTW, on 40-50 mpw, at age 58 I did improve to 3:07 (from 3:26 at 57). Mileage makes a difference.
Lotta these ppl are mid 30’s with kids and jobs and have no time.
then they choose to “run” a marathon. It’s like clockwork: blow up at mile 18, blame something, and get injured at least twice a year.
Some people need to learn the hard way, first. I did. I went from an overweight, out of shape, busy guy with young kids who had no business running a marathon and blew up in 5:28 hrs on a flat fast course. After learning how to train and finally having some time on my hands, I've lowered that 5:28 to 3:59 > 3:47 > 3:13 and 3:05 last month, and still improving. I think that's half respectable, for a guy pushing 50.
So, be perhaps slightly more tolerant. Those weekend warriors might show up at the start line one day and surprise you. And if they don't, then be happy. That's one more person for you to beat! You really want everyone training like pro's, beating you at your next race and making you look bad?
I know a guy who started running years ago in the 4-5 hour bracket. He's now sub-3. His journey started 12-13 years ago. Good post!
Yet some how a bunch of joggers have used it as a measure of their worth.
Who told you that? The hobbyjoggers I know have a high net worth and self esteem and fulfilling lives, and use objective metrics to assess and challenge themselves including in their hobby of running.
A lot of runners are type-A people with great careers and great salaries, in my experience. It's a thing!
You have young tech-y kids out of college that are great at STEM pulling in bank at Big4 firms on the coasts, and wealthy near-retirement Boomer BQ types who shrug off Boston costs like a running back slicing through a defense, and everyone in between.
Running's like golf: It's a sport everyone can play but it generally skews upper-middle-class (of all races). A local running club will show tons of nice cars and SUVs in the parking lot.
I'd bet 25 mile weeks are better for one's health than 70-120. They're likely not trying to get to the absolute limit their body can reach or even hit qualification standards for large and popular races like Boston or Berlin marathons. Some probably do, but those're just stupid. One needs at least 40-50 mpw to get decent at a marathon, most people probably even more.
But for those who're not trying to get 'decent' running 25 mpw in 3-4 runs per week is a great healthy hobby, and it's not like they're coming into marathon completely unprepared, they're just not pacing it correctly for their ability.
As for why the distance, well here's my answer. Finishing under cutoff time is hard. Vast majority of people won't be able to finish a marathon on no training at all. Anyone who can walk can 'run-walk' finish a 5K, most people would be able to do this with a 10K as well. As for the half I might be biased because when I took up running as an adult, I entered a local one and finished it under 2 hours having ran about 30 miles over the two months before the race(other training was weight lifiting and ~40 min walking commute to office one way). Either way marathon is 'locked' from those without at least some tiny dedication.
So as the challenge made it first choice of distance for recreational runners of 30-40-50 years ago, marathons became more massive, thus attracting more runners and spectators and this is like self-supporting now. Every major city has a marathon and people often plan their holidays like 'go to new york, eat some local food, visit MOMA, run the race'. There are a few races with other distances which attract a lot of runners and spectators, too. Like Lindingoloppet in Sweden which is a trail 30K
I was happiest when I first took up running and barely ran more than 10 miles per week. It kept everything fresh and interesting. A couple of years later I have run some nice times but the enthusiasm isn't there anymore.
I'd bet 25 mile weeks are better for one's health than 70-120. They're likely not trying to get to the absolute limit their body can reach or even hit qualification standards for large and popular races like Boston or Berlin marathons. Some probably do, but those're just stupid. One needs at least 40-50 mpw to get decent at a marathon, most people probably even more.
But for those who're not trying to get 'decent' running 25 mpw in 3-4 runs per week is a great healthy hobby, and it's not like they're coming into marathon completely unprepared, they're just not pacing it correctly for their ability.
As for why the distance, well here's my answer. Finishing under cutoff time is hard. Vast majority of people won't be able to finish a marathon on no training at all. Anyone who can walk can 'run-walk' finish a 5K, most people would be able to do this with a 10K as well. As for the half I might be biased because when I took up running as an adult, I entered a local one and finished it under 2 hours having ran about 30 miles over the two months before the race(other training was weight lifiting and ~40 min walking commute to office one way). Either way marathon is 'locked' from those without at least some tiny dedication.
So as the challenge made it first choice of distance for recreational runners of 30-40-50 years ago, marathons became more massive, thus attracting more runners and spectators and this is like self-supporting now. Every major city has a marathon and people often plan their holidays like 'go to new york, eat some local food, visit MOMA, run the race'. There are a few races with other distances which attract a lot of runners and spectators, too. Like Lindingoloppet in Sweden which is a trail 30K
Similar to Boston or Cbus or even CLE. Back in the early '90s I remember even the CLE Marathon not being big, you'd get runners but then it'd be like whatever. Now, these races are huge!
BOS apparently used to be not popular either, only for diehards.
Hobby joggers like the marathon because a 5k is too fast and hard. Everyone knows what good 5k times are and hobby joggers don’t want others to know they are slow. Fewer people know what a good marathon time is. Hobby joggers are less intimidated by the distance because the pace is slower and they could even walk. They like to brag that they completed the whole distance.
That's pretty much it. Plus the marathon attracts more kudos and some travel around the world to do different ones.