At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?

Most healthy 30 year olds would not even run under 3 hours.

Talent/genetics is a lot of things, one of them is to survive the training injury free.

Your question is strange.

Your title is "At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?"

But then you want to train a 30-year-old for 5 years.

I've met quite a few natural slow-twitch (male) runners who can bash out a time of around 3hrs (2hr55-3hr10) without doing any decent training. Just build the long run up to twenty miles over a few months, run some speed session in the week then go race. I think that's one reason it's considered so vaunted because they're so close off natural talent.

But once you do some proper training to build aerobically, it's easily broken - just most people don't train properly. Even worse these days with everybody trying to do "Race Pace" sessions and using gels rather than building up the fat-burning and aerobic systems from the lowest levels.

Q: At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?

A: Probably from the first step off the starting line, and definitely within the first mile. Running one 5:30 mile is a struggle for many fit 30 year olds.

crackjack ballsack wrote:

Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'? 2:30? 2:25? I was originally thinking 2:20 but then I remembered Sage Canaday who was a full-time pro runner for many many years and could barely break 2:20. Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?

At the upper levels, like those runners that shoot for a OT qualifying time. Below that level, most runners could improve with more training.

Frank Shorter here wrote:

Most healthy 30 year olds would not even run under 3 hours.

Talent/genetics is a lot of things, one of them is to survive the training injury free.

second this. the average healthy man would struggle to break 2:50-3 hrs with any amount of training

The genetic wall is OP's lifetime PB.

Anyone faster than OP is genetically gifted.

Anyone slower than OP has not worked hard enough.

crackjack ballsack wrote:

Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'? 2:30? 2:25? I was originally thinking 2:20 but then I remembered Sage Canaday who was a full-time pro runner for many many years and could barely break 2:20. Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?

A typical healthy 30 year old male can't break 3 hours with any amount of training.

2:05 is a safe bet.

compared to all track events as well as cross-country the marathon takes the least amount of talent when compared to these other distances. now read carefully what I wrote, I did not say that you do not need talent to succeed in the marathon simply that compared to all other racing distances Marathon requires the least amount of talent.

Brian pan wrote:

compared to all track events as well as cross-country the marathon takes the least amount of talent when compared to these other distances. now read carefully what I wrote, I did not say that you do not need talent to succeed in the marathon simply that compared to all other racing distances Marathon requires the least amount of talent.

That's not true at all. To be be an elite marathoner one needs to be elite at 10000 as well.

Right from the beginning

Lol what a dumb thread.

Everyone knows you can pull someone off the street and they'd run 2:19:28 within 5 years. Anyone slower just isn't trying.

Below 2:17:49 though you need good jeans. Butt huggers but with good flexibility.

In Ron Daws book on training he outlines some times that the average man could probably hit. 230 is given for the marathon as a time most will reach with serious Lydiard based training.

To go further, 225 would be very good - a local stud. 220 would be exceptional - you're among the best runners. To get past that takes masses of talent. You're not going to train your way to this territory if you were born without any athletic genes whatsoever.

Kvothe wrote:

In Ron Daws book on training he outlines some times that the average man could probably hit. 230 is given for the marathon as a time most will reach with serious Lydiard based training.

To go further, 225 would be very good - a local stud. 220 would be exceptional - you're among the best runners. To get past that takes masses of talent. You're not going to train your way to this territory if you were born without any athletic genes whatsoever.

Thanks for that! So somewhere in the 2:20-2:30 range, as I had expected. I'll check out that book as well

A man with absolutely 0 genetic talent for running could probably coax a 4 hour marathon if they trained diligently for 5 years. You need better than average "talent" to run 3 hours, and you can interpolate the rest.

The following men are all under 30, and presumably healthy. How fast can they become if they trained for marathon for five years?

Ryan Crouser.

Darrell Hill.

Payton Otterdahl.

Daniel Stohl.

Neeraj Chopra.

Don't forget about doping. Doping is a key factor in elites milking an extra few minutes off their PR..

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Don't forget about doping. Doping is a key factor in elites milking an extra few minutes off their PR..

Kipchoge isn't doping. There is no great cover up to protect him. He really is that much faster than you.

I'm not a very talented runner. With some training I ran close to 38 minutes for the 10k. In the slightly larger local races I would always finish in the top 30 or so, but never anywhere near the front. My first marathon took 3:40-ish, got it down to 2:59 with decent training. Couldn't break 3:10 for a few years. At this point I was a runner for maybe 10 years and figured I'd reached my natural plateau.

I then discovered high mileage (read Pfitzinger). I ran 33 minutes in a 10k time trial and a 2:36 solo marathon time trial this spring, after a few years of very dedicated training, slowly building up the mileage and then just putting in lots of 90-100mi weeks with 2-3 quality sessions each week. Not sure where my limits are, but I think I'm getting pretty close. I believe I can break 2:30, but only if everything aligns just well. I doubt 2:25 is realistic.

I raced a HM a few weeks ago (won it), and talked to the guys who finished behind me. They ran 1:18-1:19, and did it off of low mileage (50k a week). I couldn't even break 1:22 off of 80k a week. So I consider myself someone with little talent, I only got to my current level because of all the hard work.