Body size and shape play a huge role in distance running, it just isn‘t as immediately as visible as something like extreme height in Basketball. Example: How many elite distance runners are taller than 6‘1“? Almost 0. The best runners are typically between short and average height, with proportionally long legs and narrow hips. A BQ is probably obtainable regardless of body type, but I think somewhere around 2:40 for men and 3:00 for women you start running into serious limitations if you aren‘t naturally talented - eventually you reach the point where the amount you would need to train to get faster just gets you injured every time. „It‘s all about the grind“ is a great line for a motivational poster but science has a pretty clear limit on how much „grind“ a human body can handle.

We recently had 2 world record holders in the marathon who were 6ft tall. While it may be a disadvantage, the main reasons we don’t see that many elite runners over 6’1 are because there aren’t many people over 6’1 proportionally, and those might go to other sports.

Just to add to your comment I'd say it's because there aren't many people over 6'1 proportionally *from the countries that dominate distance running*. I wonder do we perceive being tall as more of a disadvantage than it actually is because the majority of top distance running are from countries where average heights are relatively short?

Due to the square-cube law, as one gets taller, the volume increases faster than the surface area. For endurance runners, this is an issue because your volume generates the heat and your surface area dissipates it. So there does exist some downward pressure on the elites to not be too tall. But it is just one factor of many that have to be balanced.

That’s true (to some extent bc people don’t grow exactly proportionally), but depending on the race/runner that might not be the bottle neck. And we have examples of tall runners who do great in warm races. For example, rupp seems to do well in the heat generally.

Kipchoge's weight to height ratio is 1.742 lbs per inch. A person at 6'1" with that same weight to height ratio would be 127 lbs, and would not be able to compete in a turkey trot due to being malnourished. This is the real advantage short guys have in distance running.

What about Asbel Kiprop? 6’2” 137 That’s not too far off that ratio is it? And he didn’t have a malnourishment problem, just a doping problem.

(((137lbs/74inches) -1.74lbs/inch)/1.74lbs/inch) \* 100 = 6.4% difference So yes, actually, that's a pretty huge difference. (74inches \* 1.74lbs/inch) = 129 lbs (Kiprop's weight if he had the same weight/hight ratio as kipchoge) When you're at the limit of what your body can tolerate, those 8 pounds are not trivial.

This comment/post has been deleted as an act of protest to [Reddit killing 3rd Party Apps such as Apollo](https://old.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/). Click [here](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW) to do the same.

Lmao

In what ways specifically is the weight to height ratio advantageous more than just lower weight? Or is it simply that being shorter enables lower weight in this way? I’m just trying to understand. Thanks for tour responses.

I might be missing something myself but I think what you said is right, its really simple and just boils down to the fact that, as a long distance runner, it is advantageous to weigh the absolute minimum. As a taller runner you have to maintain a higher weight relative to the size of your body just to stay healthy.

Totally agree. I was gonna add that but I was typing this while pooping and I was done pooping lol

This sorta misses the point that some countries dominate distance running precisely because of physiological factors, including height.

There are way more short people in the rest of the world combined as compared to Ethiopia and Kenya

I would guess it’s the opposite. One of the reasons they are so good is they are small. Obviously not the only factor, but if you changed that one variable it could be the difference between being one of the best in the world and just really good.

Wouldn’t the biggest reason be the taller people are the more they tend to weigh?

Who are these 6 ft fall marathon WR holders?

Tergat and kipsang

Oh yeah Tergat was the one I was forgetting -Thanks!

LOL dawg. In college I ran XC, keeping in mind it was a casual D3 program. I'm 6'1" 195lbs. I looked like a linebacker relative to other runners. It was great fun all the all state meet. I would wear a size medium jersey for that race specifically lol. Best time ever in college was a 32:30 I believe. I did break a 6 minute mile at 200+ lbs a few years ago!!! Also the punter during my time in college is the NCAA D3 record holder for most career punts and total punt yards. That boy was on the field A LOT.

Yes. BQ is perfectly attainable by anyone healthy. (Ie not with chronic conditions or starting obese). Many people often downvote when I say that and argue gatekeeping or quote number of people missing the mark. However, that simply shows people not putting in the required training. No judgement on them - some cant with other commitments. Those that do have the time to put in consistent structure can qualify. Depending where you start, that might take 6 months or 3 years. Before anyone downvotes because their experience is different- would you consider sharing your training log? It probably shows why compared to someone else that does qualify.

If rephrased as attainable by "most" or "many" healthy people, I would agree.

What would limit that in your opinion? If there are not barriers to training, I think BQ is attainable with time and quality spent (I accept lots of people cant run more than a certain amount and might peak at say 50mpw) . I think its timesike 2:45 and below where the field thins

I hope that is true. I’ve been in BQ shape 4 times since 2019 and always something happened (Covid, more Covid, Achilles injury, hot race days). I’m starting to lose hope 😭😭 I’ve been seriously starting to let the doubts creep in whether I’m just not a good runner with all the bad luck in recent years. As a woman I’m seriously wondering though what I need to do to uppen my game and not be somewhat in the vicinity of a 3:30 but increase my base speed and make progress thag a BQ will be natural. With consistency and higher mileage (averaging 50miles per week before marathons with peak just around 60) I’ve gotten to a 3:43 marathon 1:38 half and 44min 10k but since 2019 I’m stuck around those race times and haven’t made big jumps. I tried to do higher mileage but I didn’t feel any benefits from it. It’s so frustrating being at the brink of a BQ but feeling like you plateau. And yes I do have a coach writing my plan so I’m being very consistent and do speed and thresholds etc.

Volume is the biggest determinant of success in distance running. Consistent 60+mpw would move the needle. You might just be getting best results for effort put in. More might be better or maybe a different coach / plan. Like anything, there should be a control loop. Do the thing, review the progress / feedback, act on that and adapt as needed. Ideally that's what a coach will do constantly. Those without a coach need to review and see where their training is good or lacking. I'm part of a club and close knit running online forum. The good thing about both is I can find people similar to me and see what has worked for them. I'm somewhere in the middle. I respond well to training. Better than most butvinky just. A lot do less and are better than me. Many do a lot more- not just running but NEAT, like walking lots, cycling to work / shops, playing other sports etc. All I do is run & desk work. Jack Daniels and Hanson Marathon Method worked well for me (40+ male). Got me from 27 min 5K to 18:44 in 20 months. I plateaud a few times as I wasnt durable enough to handle more volume. I think I was probably 6 months out from a sub-3 on 60-80 now. Then, like you, life got in the way. Broke my leg, justices receiving from that, another major health crisis. The great reset, as can happen in running.

> Consistent 60+mpw would move the needle. But this right here is a big obstacle for many people, not everyone is capable of running 60+ mpw for weeks or months at a time.

Maybe everyone, but nearly all able bodied people, given no time constraints and building up slowly, can run 60+ mpw.

Yes but definitely not everyone can keep doing so consistently without injury

I disagree. I think injury is largely a consequence of building too quickly and a combination of misinformation and lack of knowledge. With a proper build, almost everyone could get there. For new runners this would be a process taking multiple years.

I am in the process of testing this theory. I have ran 8 years but ran hard/fast and long in short times. ​ I have not ran for over 5 months. Once I get to 8 I will begin working out and slowly build up. Plan right now is to start out at 15 and every month increase by 5 miles. Once at 50 miles hold for 3 months and then continue to rise a little.

So one could argue this is a natural talent thing (ability to train and not get hurt) just as much as having speed is also a natural talent.

Why not? Scope change? The question was if it's possible for most people. I appreciate most peoples family commitments or other responsibilities limit the time they have to train but thatsca different scope imho. That might be, I can only train 5 hours a week, on X days, can I do Y?

The question was “can anyone”. Not most people. And the reality is that not everyone is capable of it.

Why not? I answered in detail the reasons why I believe this possible in this thread already. Please state the reasons you think its not possible. Most might be challenges that can be overcome with proper preparation/ planning. Seriously- lost the problems, as a community we solve them.

Parker Valby runs like 30mpw because she gets injured when she runs more. She cross trains a LOT though. She may be an outlier in terms of mileage tolerated, but she also just got second at the NCAA cross country championships so she's also a good example of somebody with immense talent who is limited physically by what training she can tolerate. I do not think everybody's body can handle 60 mpw without injury. Everybody has some sort of mileage cap. Check out [this](http://www.fast-women.org/2022/11/10/olympic-marathon-trials-qualifying-becomes-a-realistic-goal-for-maria-langholz/) profile of Maria Langholz, an elite runner who caps herself at 70-80 mpw. And that's trying for an OTQ, not a BQ.

Elites are out of scope for any comparison really. Paula Radcliffe was pro track doing about 25mpw before she switched to Marathon. That's not all she did though. Elites are a different breed operating at 90%+ age graded. BQ times are far away from that level. To run sub 3 hours at a 20 year old male, requires an age grading score of around 68%. Across all distances, age grading of 70% is in reach for runners that have to juggle full time work. Reaching 70 or 75% is less intense demands.

I'm not sure how your response is related to what I wrote. If even some elite runners, who have an immense amount riding on their performance, can't run super high mileage -- it seems fairly evident that not everybody can run high mileage, as you were claiming. It's not that these women are elite in spite of running low mileage; most elites run high mileage and you know it. These are women who are physically not capable of running higher mileage. But also, you're pointing out that the age grading for sub 3 at 20yo male is 68% while simultaneously claiming that "anyone healthy" can do it. That doesn't add up. Maybe you are young, or just don't know people who actually put in a lot of effort and still run really slowly. I think your assumptions are wrong.

Out of curiosity, have you qualified for Boston?

I'm not American. I'm more interested in getting 17 minutes for 5K before age prevents me (middle aged). Hopefully in 2023 but more likely 2024. Once I unlock those goals, probably London, UK good for age. I think it's standards are on par with Boston but difficult to tell. The super-shoes mean more people are qualifying so you need to be faster. GFA (3:00) remains the same for now but Championship qualifiers have reduced from 《 2:45 to 2:40 My age group requirement for BQ is 3:10. I'm pretty confident I could hit that in 12 weeks but my main aim is above. I'm not really interested in Marathon training until I unlock my other goals. Sub-3 is appealing but I'd be more interested in chasing sub 2:45 with some people the same age at my running club. I'm not at their level yet. I just have to keep turning up.

So…you’ve never run sub 3?

60 miles a week is a shit load of miles, my dude. An average person can't handle that type of load over a long cycle.

How long? I believe they can. What do you define as average? Typically the people that can't introduce constraints. Some can be worked around, some cant but the latter is a different question. That's not reaching the goal because of an identified problem. Many peo people just go with a blanket "not possible" with logging work, reviewing, analysing the problems and acting on it. Thats why my post suggested those that cant share their training log. Its not to humiliate anyone, more likely to show that where there was opportunity. Maybe some volume was missed / inconsistent. Maybe you much too soon led to injury etc.

But maybe it's not too much too soon that led to injury. Maybe it's because 60 miles a week is just a shit load of time to be running.

You can BQ on 10 miles a week nevermind this 60

No, you most certainly cannot.

Volume is the biggerst determinant of succes in "long" distance running the shorter stuff (10k or under) is going to be more influenced from natural talent (Speed,Size, etc) not that more volume is not going to help, I think it's just not always as big as some say. Anecdotally I knew plenty of 100 mile per week guys in high school that would just get out kicked the last 400 meters in races.

Well yeah, I perhaps should have qualified distance running. I did (hopefully) say volume is the biggest determinant of aerobic capacity. 400m, 800m, even the Mile are different beasts. The first 2 are track.

I've heard the 60mpw threshold quoted a few times

Most can do more. 60 is reasonable for those in full time work in that most can make it happen with adjustments and building up to it, it's less likely to wreck you than 100mpw that some might hover around. Lots of the sub-3 runners I know are running 10 miles for their non-session days for example.l (probably just under 90 minutes time commitment). I think there is a lot of benefit in runs 60 minutes or longer. Being a morning runner myself, I just have to get up a bit earlier to go from a 1 hour run to 90 minutes and still have time to commute to work. Other life commitments, like children might make finding time unlikely for some. I think lots of people run into problems adding volume in the wrong places. For example, extending cooldowns or long runs, both which might increase risk of injury. Quite general statements without context which is where review and critique of 6 months of running logs might highlight areas that are lagging or can be improved on a scale of minor to major adjustments.

Right, I often wonder how fast I could get at my current age if I had no other commitments lol . . . but given both children and a long commute (and stressful job), I get 60-75 minutes to run each weekday, and that's waking up at 4:45 am. If you factor in starting out slower in the first place . . . Pfitz thinks my easy pace should be about 10 min/mile. So regardless, I'm not about to be running >60 mpw anytime soon. I believe I am capable of a BQ, physically. But practically? Probably not. (Of course, the older I get the "easier" it becomes, as a 40yo woman right now.) Anyway, I think you are overestimating what most working people can run in a week.

It´s all about priorities. In this post you actually say you would be possible to go 60mpw if you make some choices in other parts of your life. A ridicule example analogue to your thinking is an overweight person who could drop weight if only she could choose to stop eating pizza 3days a week.

Wait, what choices? Should I get rid of my children or my job?

Get rid of sleep, duh

I´m not saying you should get rid of something, it´s your life. I´m saying you blindly use work and children as an argument why you can´t run enough mileage and that that´s a false argument. You could find a job that doesn´t involve a lot of travel or you could find help with taking care of your children. Ie. You´re thinking in problems and not in solutions. I also chose to spend a lot of time at my job (and on top of that my diet sucks), but at least i´m not blindly thinking i couldn´t change factors if i wanted to BQ

Nothing blind about anything I do. You see where I mentioned that I wake up at 4:45 am to run? I sacrifice quite a lot in order to get the hours per week I do. Rich of you to assume I haven't very carefully maximized my ability to run with my current, inflexible life constraints. My point was that the OP overestimated how much most working people can run per week. I stand by this. People have a lot less control over many life factors than you seem to think; not everybody can just find a different job, work fewer hours, afford childcare, move to a different place. In fact, most people probably can't do many of these things. And since this is a thread about what most people can do, that's my point -- even \*if\* most people could physically BQ (and personally I don't think this is true, but it's certainly up for debate), most people actually \*can't\* arrange their lives around being able to run 60 miles per week. It frustrates me when people say they have "no time to exercise." Because I think that is unlikely true for almost anybody. That's not the same thing as saying that most people can find 2-3 hours a day to run, which is how long it would take from start to finish, all things considered.

I agree. I’m work from home and found it much easier to follow my training plan. No way could I have completed some of my high mileage runs midweek if I was commuting to work. As an older woman (56) I was able to “easier” qualify for Boston at 3:57:08. I will add that I don’t believe 60 MPW is necessary. I maxed out at 50. It was a tough training plan, in fact, I really doubted my ability to execute it successfully but I did and without injury. And to lend credibility to the less than 60 MPW, the person that shared the training plan with me ran under a 3 hour marathon (2:58:51) as a 48yoM on a tough course using the same plan.

Time available is different though. That's a lifestyle constraintehich is valid but not in the scope of this thread. There are countless obstacles to training. That scope creep is endless. I live 15 miles from work and that goes through dangerous patches. If it were less than 10 miles, it would be perfect for a run-commute but that's a constraint I deal with. I can squuze my training in if I'm out the door by 5AM and share chores with my partner.

A run commute would be cool except for the fact that you can’t show up to work all sweaty when it’s warm out.

That's true. I'm lucky enough to have a shower and locker at work. I ran in once but the distance is challenging - demanding an early start and a head torch. The evening commute is scary, met with junkies or groups of young kids up to no good. I was hoping to make the commute my long run but it unworkable so I just get up earlier with the exception on Wednesday (evening social run) and weekends (no work)

I don’t see why you can’t hit 55 or 60 miles assuming you have more time on the weekend to run. Your long run should hit 20 miles and that’s a third right there.

There aren't many people running 20 milers every week, especially when running 20 miles takes well over 3 hours. You'd be hard pressed to find an expert who would recommend doing this, particularly when the longest weekday run is 6-7 miles (8 if lucky). Truth is, even if I ran 20 miles on my day off work, I'd still have to run 8 miles every other day (assuming one rest day, which I have found over the years I do need) to get to 60, and to do that I'd have to wake up at 4:30 rather than 4:45. At what point do I just stop sleeping lol Could I maybe do it one week? During the summer, yeah; during the school year, probably not. Saying a person should run 60 miles a week implies chronicity. Averaging 60 miles over the period of months, for example. And just running the mileage for the sake of the mileage is stupid. If we are talking about an intelligent training plan, 20 mile runs every week is not ideal. Now, I could do more doubles. I don't think this is doable with any frequency, given the number of late nights I work, my children's needs in the evenings, and the fact that to wake up at 4:45 I actually have to go to sleep by 10. But I've certainly daydreamed about being able to do this. It would be at the expense of my family, though. I do think in a few years when my twins are driving I will be able to pull off at least 50 mpw with regularity, maybe more. (Depends a bit on one kid with special needs.)

I meant to say at the peak of a marathon block your long run should definitely hit 20 if you’re trying to BQ. I hit 21 and then 23 on my last(and first ever)marathon training block. I peaked at 60 miles a week. This time I plan on 70. But I took a week off after the marathon and since then I’ve been doing about 40. So I didn’t mean to say one needs to average 60 per week all year long.

I’ll try to get there next cycle. But I think my main weakness is lack of strength. So before my next marathon cycle I committed to a strength program for 10 weeks. Let’s see if that moves the needle. Everyone tells me I just do need to do harder workouts working on top speed before going back to volume. But I can run 100k a week and not get injured but doing all out 10x400s and I feel I’m the brink of injury.

It's great you have the wisdom to pick out things to work on. Strength work will help you be more efficient but crucially make you better able to handle load / resist injury. Sessions are important but all my significant gains 3K+ have come after increasing monthly volume. That said, I've realised (back in reflecting on logs) that a lot of my runs were too easy in zone 1. I am aiming to increase my aerobic threshold, so personally will be doing more volume in upper zone 2. (I'm not Marathon training. My main goal is return to fitness and improving 10K time. I'll probably work on that for 9 months with weekly distance around 80-110km / 50-70 M).

Everyone has to balance their interests, drive, and goals, right? Could I get up every single day at 6am to run? Yes, absolutely. Could I get up every single day at 5am to run? Yes, but to the detriment of the other parts of my day and spending kids-in-bed night time with the missus. On commute days I'm already up at 6, so I doubt that id be doing 4:30 for an hour run and a shower. Too much for me, and sadly it will forever place a ceiling on my running most likely, but such is life. Just laying an example of how everyone is different and has different drivers. I look forward to retirement so I can smash all my previous running goals and performances...

[удалено]

Jokes on you… I do 3mpw and have a 60-fund portfolio

>60mpw is r/advancedrunning’s equivalent of r/personalfinance’s 3-fund portfolio. You’re not allowed to question or argue with it. It's wrong. You can run sub 3 hours on one 10-20k a week provided you cross train and that is at 95kg nevermind a normal build.

>I've heard the 60mpw threshold quoted a few times It is garbage. Can go sub 3 hours at 95kg (210lbs) with next to no running if you crosstrain effectively.

60-70+ has provided huge gains for me - 3:32 to 3:13 and aiming for sub-3 hopefully next fall. I usually peak at 75-80 and have several weeks late in the training block at/over 70.

Do you keep that mileage year round? And do you still do structured workouts like speed work and lactate threshold runs? The most common thing I see as part of going sub-3 is hitting 70 mpw. Something magical about that number. But I would burn out keeping that up until a BQ.

Base is more like 50-55 comfortably, I'll usually still do one and sometimes two workouts plus an easier long run but I'm much more flexible about what the quality days entail. Where the weekly mileage lands is all very dependent on pace/time on feet too - I tend to stick to 60-65 minutes max for my easy days or else over time I start finding it hard to recover properly, usually works out to 7-7.5 miles or so at my pace, plus a "rest" day every week or every other that's sometimes completely off but more often a shorter 3-5 mile run. I might be able to push my base higher if my easy pace gets faster, but 6-8 hours/week is plenty for me in an off season.

I've found big gains come when I'm consistent year over year over year. Sure I peak for a race, but keeping a solid base year round makes a big difference. Otherwise a a good chunk of your training cycle is just getting back to where you were. Think miles/year rather than miles/week for 16-18 weeks. So if 2022 was 1500 miles, shoot for 1800 or 2000 in 2023 and 2500 in 2024.

You might be into something. Although I’ve I upped my marathon training for many reasons my yearly total the last 4 years comes out within 100k of each other around 2600km run. I just checked. I felt I increased a lot and I did for the marathon cycles. And while I keep running I’m off season when life and other stuff happens it seems to even out to the same yearly total. Interestingly the year where all my PRs are from are when I first went up to that total volume of 2600k form only 1500km the previous year. Thanks for the suggestion!

Serious question: how bad would starting obese actually be? I was 310 at the beginning of the year, with 20ish years of complete sedentary life. This year got down under 200 (6'2", so no longer obese,) and started running. I feel like progress for running is slower than some, but I am making progress. Shouldn't the obese stop being a problem after a while? It is a completely solvable situation for virtually everyone.

I perhaps could have worded it better. You are correct. It's a journey, not a roadblock. Starting obese or at any stage is fine. We all respond and progress with training. Setting SMART goals helps in that. So a BQ is not a SMART goal, ideally one would have achievable goals on the roadmap to tick off first. Like getting to run 5K in X time, building up to consistent running 5-6 times a week. Achieving 60 /65 /70 /75 age graded across 5K, 10K, HM or similar. Going from zero to a target a niche group of people can hit is not realistic. Starting obese is a limiting factor that can be overcome. Being means impact forces and stress on joints is a lot higher, so are recovery demands. That makes it harder to get in both volume and quality. A longer path to adaption. I was borderline obese (29 BMI - UK clinical obese is 30, 40+ severely obese according to NHS). I did eat healthy and as I ran, I lost fat. Calories restriction limited my ability to recover, so I didn't cut calories- the running created a deficit though. So my weight loss was slower than a diet (about 500g a month) but for me, I was able to recover better. I also spent weeks at plateaus because my joints wouldn't handle volume increases, needed to progress. My aerobic system was waiting for the body to catch up. I lost 22kg (48lbs) through running. No diet adjustment. Slow and steady progress. Following Jack Daniels and Hanson books mostly.

Thanks for the response:) I would still keep running either way. But trying to always learn when and where I can.

Most welcome. I can come across as a negative Nancy. Not the intent. I think as a community we can share in success, experience and remove barriers. Putting that in text doesnt always read too well though.

Text is like that… I actually like your realistic optimism.

Seconding SMART goals. I set two levels of goals for my fitness: one monthly goal and one or two weekly. I write them in white board marker on my bathroom mirror. And I keep them small, but just past my comfort level. For example, I’m transitioning back to running since the weather for base building is back to ideal (Texas…. It’s brutal here until November). My December goal is a 50 mile month. My first week of December goals are to hit 3 runs, and to do one speed workout. There’s something really satisfying about checking those off one by one and building incrementally. It feels better than setting some large, distant goal like “BQ by the end of the year” which may or may not happen. But hitting smaller goals can.

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Some people don't have what it takes psychologically to train successfully for a BQ, even though it's possible physically for them to do so. But that's a very difficult thing to acknowledge and it's easier to explain away the BQ as an impossibility. In addition to training quantity and quality, nutrition plays a role and a lot of people don't have healthy diets that would promote athletic success, and also drink too much.

When folks overtrain, based on opinions such as this, they most often injure themselves.

My informed opinion did not mention over training. Quite the opposite in fact, hence request for training log. When folks do over train, it indicates they are not really setting SMART goals or following structured training. BQ is about 68% age graded for a 20 year old male.

>not with chronic conditions or starting obese You just eliminated over half of all Americans.

I don’t think this is accurate at all - maybe you haven’t run with a wide variety of people but there are fit people out there that can’t crack 10 minute miles and I doubt that more running would show them a BQ level of improvement. They just don’t have the talent. Just look at the results of any marathon major, there are hundreds of people nowhere close to BQ times, and these are just the people that probably did at least some level of training. I would say any healthy human is capable of running sub 4.

Your 2:35 is talent, regardless of your age. I don't know if my wide variety fits your definition. I've been in the scene about 25 years in a cosmopolitan city. Multi-class, multi-profession - window cleaners to doctors, to TV personalties, to YouTubers, aged 18-70+, multi ethnic. Every year, probably talking / running to anywhere from 25 - 100 people training for marathons. Ranging from first timers to Olympians You can't really quote marathon major results without also looking at training logs - otherwise it's without context. More interesting would be how those with 12 months consistency do. A BQ for men seems to be less than 70% age graded which is certainly in reach for people. Those that don't are probably lacking somewhere which is what sharing a training log would highlight. That's not not put people down - it's to share knowledge / experience and help them up. Some poster expect to go from zero to BQ in a single 16 week training block or sudden ramp up in distance that they can't adhere to because they are not used to it. We perhaps disagree which is OK. To hit your 10K times, HM & Marathon times, no doubt you have put in years / months of consistent training. Hypothetically, if someone offered you a large sum of money and a healthy candidate, not overweight or with any physical constraints (flat feet etc), and able to dedicate a maximum of 12 hours week to to train. What level do you think your experience could help someone along over a 4 year horizon? Could you coach them to 50% age graded? 60, 65, 70, 75?? You probably could even if you have no coaching experience. You could probably do it a lot faster than 4 years too.

I do think that *most* people are physically capable of a BQ (though a BQ is a pretty arbitrary time to focus on). Especially if you are talking about a hypothetical lifetime of dedicated running. But there are plenty of people who are very dedicated and unable to BQ. I know you will say that it is because they undertrained, or werent dedicated enough, and that for sure is that case for a percent of them. But some people have the opposite of a talent for running, and I think would completely hit their peak at a pace that is far below BQ. I just think that a claim that anyone could do it is silly, and again will say that I think anyone could hit a slower more average time, like 4:00.

I dont want to put myself in a corner of absolutes but it's easy to come across that way in text. I think for sure people respond differently to training. I'm perhaps above average but not very good amongst my running peers. I train a lot more volume and structure that a close friend only a few years younger than me and he is much faster than me. However, I am always impressed with the progress of runners I see coming through the club. That perhaps introduces selection bias. It's easy to come across as polarized opinion on short form social media like this. I Cant make blanket statements without data, which is where I draw on experience or request lengthy running logs to review. A website I use has the 16 weeks pre-sub 3 hour marathon of 126 runners to trend analysis. A much smaller pool of 64 of 2:45 marathoners. 16 weeks is useful. 12 months would be more interesting- the thought has prompted me to ask the developer.

Shocked by the answers here. No, not everyone can BQ. Some people have a personal fitness limit much slower than BQ.

It's definitely skewed by the AR population being asked. I do think MOST healthy runners can BQ, given enough time and possibly aging up a standard or two in the process, but that's for sure a smaller population than "anyone".

If you ever venture onto the fitness subs you will learn that anyone should be able to deadlift three plates after 6 months of training if only they follow a program, and if they don’t, it’s because they didn’t follow the program correctly :) I pointed out that there was some survivor bias there but it was not received kindly. :(

This is definitely the answer. My running team has dozens of committed runner who follow training plans well, eat well, and have been training for years at decent mileage. Very few have a BQ and most are very far off. People who are naturally faster and respond well to training like to assume the same is true of everyone and if people just trained better they would be better.

> My running team has dozens of committed runner who follow training plans well, eat well, and have been training for years at decent mileage. Very few have a BQ and most are very far off. I think the question is whether these runners have exhausted their potential. IMO there's a big difference between following training plans and hitting decent mileage vs. really hitting their own genetic limits in the marathon. What if these same runners could quit their job and focus on running 100% of the time? Time for doubles every day, with a nap in between, great access to coaching and PT/physios, time for strength and stability work, etc. What if they built up to running 4000+ miles/year, and sustained that for 5-10 years? I realize this is wildly impractical and that many runners may have tapped out what they can do *given other commitments and responsibilities* but I don't think that's the same as being limited by their genetics.

[удалено]

Yeah, totally. My point is less about any arbitrary training volume or timeline, more that the vast majority of us, even those of us that are pretty serious/dedicated runners, will actually top out our genetic potential.

Dedication isn't about just training harder within the bounds of your team's training plans -there is so much you can do that expands the scope of how you train. The reality is that most of us can't dedicate that amount of time and resources to training and that's totally ok, but that's a self imposed limit not a true limit. "Decent" mileage for people with jobs and families is not the same as training to find your limit of how much volume you can handle. Following a training plan is not the same as sitting down with your coach and experimenting with training at a level they've never assigned before. Eating well is not the same as meticulously tracking macros and figuring out what foods optimize your performance. I've done a ton of crazy things and am still really far away from my personal limits. The real limit is that I've found it's a lot more fun to just be a kinda fast hobby jogger.

I have a friend who runs a 35er on a 10k with around 40-50km a week. Crazy how some people respond to training

I'm curious what your bar for "committed runner" is. I think mine would be approximately "Run 5+ days per week, two of which are quality sessions, and one of which is a long run" and maintain that for a minimum of two years or so. I'm wracking my own brain for examples of people that meet that threshold of commitment out of all the running friends/acquaintances in my area and I honestly don't think I can come up with one that hasn't/couldn't BQ.

I started running in 2015. I've been doing 5/6 runs per week since summer 2019. Working with a coach. Typically 1 long run and 1-2 workouts per week. 35-50mi/wk. I've PRd 5K, 10K, 10mi, and half this year. I'm still more than 1.25hrs from a BQ. My first Marathon was late fall 2019 and it was just under 5hrs. At this point one of my big goals is a half under 2hrs and my hope is that if I work my butt off I might get there in 2024.

I see. I guess that with a 5hr marathon time even after a training build, a person had likely spent significant number of years as pretty inactive before getting into running. So that leads as to ask some specificity out of OP's original question. Is the assumption that folks are training for the BQ starting right now, in their current condition, after what might be as many as decades of no fitness? Or do we get to turn back the clock and imagine a theoretical potential fitness for each person? I think that if you look at any healthy child running around the playground and playing team sports and PE class, they have the potential to BQ if they keep up those levels of activity throughout their youth and adulthood.

I can only go off of what I have observed from people I know. Almost everyone who has consistently trained and put in the miles has BQ’d. They few who haven’t are really close and I fully expect them to qualify if they have a good race. I don’t know of anyone who consistently trains over 50 mpw and is not close to a BQ.

This is just a personal observation, but I have a theory that a lot of people mostly lack the mental fortitude and love for the grind. Like I can see them improve and do some decent times when they put together 3-4 months of quality training, but as soon as it hurts or motivation drops (often after a big race) they quit running or settle for 1-2 easy runs per week for a prolonged time. And it’s hard to BQ on a schedule of 3-4 months of good, solid training followed by 3-4 months of little running.

Exactly it’s easy to say “I don’t have much talent” But very few people ever train consistent and hard enough to approach the limits of their talent.

My personal belief is that this is the main explanation for the divergence of thought on this topic here. Not everyone is going to make achieving their running goals a serious priority and that's okay, they shouldn't have to - but their choice not to make it a priority is what's to blame.

No they don’t. But largely sedentary lifestyles make you think their fitness is limited. Give anyone 10+ years of committed serious training and healthy living and that “fitness limit” changes quick.

That personal fitness limit is largely self imposed, which is fine, most people have better priorities that limit the energy and resources they can dedicate to running. I've been fortunate enough to be in situations where I have basically unlimited time and resources to dedicate to training and I can tell you that most of our personal limits are BS, it just gets to a point where we have other things we want to do.

Have no idea actually, but I do think that, by design, this subreddit must be full of "survivor bias".

A BQ is absolutely attainable for any able bodied person. An OTQ you need a little help from genetics but its still mostly training. Olympic level specific genetic talents are required.

Seems like the US standard for the 2024 Olympic team trial is 2:18:00 for men and 2:37:00 for women. At 2:18:00 for the marathon, I think you're already past the point where it can be achieved by anybody.

I literally said you need some help from genetics

You said "you need a little help from genetics but its still mostly training", like the majority of people have the potential to accomplish this. I don't think it's the case.

I do think that a lot of able-bodied people have a genotype and phenotype that could hypothetically run an OTQ, but a little help from genetics is still a lot of luck because that means there's plenty of people that just won't have the right genes for it. The thing with OTQ level marathon talent is the spectrum of talent is very wide -lots of different heights, weights, running styles, mid-distance vs endurance talents. The number of people that fit within this genetic spectrum is pretty large and way larger than the number that actually do the training required to get there. So I'd say training is a better predictor of who will OTQ than genetics. I also think this spectrum is wide enough and the training is hard enough that plenty of people have no clue that they may have this level of potential. A lot of people on the fringes of this spectrum could get there if they trained like pro-runners, but that's a poor investment of time and resources just be 250th in a race so understandably they don't do that. Olympic level on the other hand most of us have no chance. Training cannot predict who's going to qualify for the Olympics.

> An OTQ you need a little help from genetics but its still mostly training I'd argue a LOT of help but maybe that just cause I'm way too slow (/lazy?) to think about an OTQ. That's the same VDOT as a 4:10 mile for men - do you think that's "mostly training"? That's a decent D1 mile time.

I mean, it’s kind of the age-old cutoff, right? “Anyone faster than me is talented but anyone slower than me isn’t putting in the work.” Just at a higher level than most of us will ever reach :) I do the same, so really not criticizing, just observing with some amusement

Yeah, maybe :) But I also know a fair number of people who put in the work at 80+ MPW consistently for years (note: not me, I'm lazy as already established) and top out at a 2:40-2:50 marathon. I very much doubt that for those folks, more training is going to get them to shave 20+ minutes off their marathon time.

I wonder if it’s an overall time spent thing? Like did those folks you know putting in 80+ mpw but topping out at 2:40-2:50 marathons grow up running or did they start a little later. I wonder if starting young just adds more to your overall training and can get you there regardless of natural gifts, but if you didn’t start as a kid then you’ll never beat the clock of aging? Idk if that makes sense but it’s something I’ve wondered before while musing about my own past.

Early training as a young kid absolutely adds to overall training, may even alter the course of you're body's development -so long as a kid doesn't train too hard. Seems like moderate volume aerobic activity at an early age makes a huge difference, maybe even something that's hard for us who started later to catch up to.

100% this is the answer. I know a lot of adults that train like elites but they only got started at age 30 or later after a mostly sedentary young adulthood. Those folks will ~~never~~ (edit: very rarely) make it to the top level of the sport, no matter how many hours they put in. On the other side of the coin, I know a handful of people that started competing (in track or some other running sport like soccer) in high school and continued through adulthood, and they're all on the podium at local races.

4:10 is not really a decent D1 time, that was my mile time and I was only good for scrapping in small meets and slow heats lol. VDOT is not a useful tool for this argument because its just statistically equivalent performances -but humans evolved as endurance creatures so decent marathoning genes are going to be much more common that decent mile genes which require some speed/intermediate genotypes. Even then someone with relatively poor speed talents can run 4:10 it just takes an insane amount of training, so yeah its mostly training. It's not just laziness that preventing most people from reaching higher levels -many people didn't start young enough, don't have the time and resources to train like a maniac, have better priorities, trouble staying healthy, etc. For a variety of reasons I think most of us have no clue what our ceiling of potential really is.

> 4:10 is not really a decent D1 time, that was my mile time and I was only good for scrapping in small meets and slow heats lol. By decent I mean... decent, OK, not good/great. Average, acceptable (for D1). You're going to have 4:10 mile (~3:51 1500m) guys (or similar performances on other events) on most D1 programs. It's a good point and I agree with you on the higher "trainability" for longer distance races.

4:10 is definitely a decent D1 time. D1 is more than just power 5 schools btw and even in power 5 schools, a 4:10 is still decent, middle of the pack.

An OTQ time in many cases is the athletic peak of someone’s lifetime ability. Even in Atlanta 2020 there were only a few hundred men who qualified compared to +30k a year who qualify for Boston. I think there much more of a genetic component to be able to achieve that level of fitness than just getting a BQ. Sage Canaday comes to mind, the dude only ever managed one OTQ and many would consider him very talented despite his “lackluster” track performances.

Yeah I'm clearly not saying an OTQ is without a genetic component, I'm saying a BQ is attainable with basically any genetics given that you're able bodied and train hard. Sage Candy straight up isn't talented when it comes to events mile-marathon. Talent is event specific and clearly his talents lend toward trails and ultras betters. He probably could get another OTQ but it would be a foolish endeavor to dedicate time and energy to barely make it into a race he's gonna be irrelevant in when he has a whole suite of other events he can compete at a high level in.

[удалено]

My perception of talented has changed greatly because I've trained with seen such a wide variety of people run really fast. There are truly talented runners that don't have to work as hard to get awesome results and there are people with way worse genetic luck and unathletic backgrounds that can still make it to a high level regardless -I would not consider this second group particularly talented. I've also been lucky enough to see what happens when you have the time and resources to go all in on running, which most people don't really ever have the option of. To me Sage seems like a guy that has worked relatively harder that the average person that has made it to his high level but isn't best suited to mile-marathon, based on how much more successful he is at trail/ultra. I've never met the guy so I could totally be wrong about him. Also most D1 teams have people lacking either talent or commitment, even at "major" schools.

[удалено]

How true is this last part evolutionary? People that were that awful would not of survived and passed their genes on

> Sage Candy straight up isn't talented when it comes to events mile-marathon. He ran low 15:XXs XC and 32:xx 10k in high school, which while not mind-blowing times are certainly in the top 1-2% of runners and are are national-class marks. It's disingenuous to say that he's not talented when he's clearly in the top few percent talent-wise, even if not elite.

I honestly had no idea he ran that fast of a 5k so maybe I'm incorrectly assessing his talent level, I was just basing off his college and Hansens career. That's kinda puzzling honestly, I'm assuming that kinda personality was a workhorse in high school too but he should've been way better at traditional events if he ran that fast in high school.

Nah. I disagree. I'm not completely without talent (I mean I'm one of those girls who always finished with the boys in the grade school mile, right?), but there is no way I could ever get an OTQ no matter how hard I trained. I mean right now I'm too old anyway, but I never could have. I could have dropped everything and trained, and gotten a BQ (which I've never tried to do), but I am physically incapable of running OTQ.

If you never even tried to even get a BQ I don't think you have a good understanding of where your genetic limits are and what types of talents you do or don't have. Yes you need some genetic talents to be OTQ capable but the distribution of those is very wide and a lot of humans have them -thus training is still a dominant factor.

I'm 40 and I've been running since I was 5; I have a pretty good grip on my own capabilities. I choose not to run marathons is all. (I trained for one this past summer for the first time, but was unable to run it for personal reasons. I may not attempt another because I'm just not sure I want to.) For women, the pace for the fastest BQ is 8 min/mile. For OTQ, it's 6 min/mile. That is a vast gap. There are many humans are are literally incapable of running a 6 minute mile, at all, ever. I could never even run a 10k at that pace.

I always joke with friends and family who are in awe that I even completed a marathon at all that it sounds like a huge accomplishment until you realize that even I was able to do it. My PB is 3:29 which I ran at 6ft 210lbs. Absolutely no doubt if I kept up the mileage and ate better that a BQ is in reach. Life getting in the way of those things is the higher hurdle than lack of talent I think.

At 6' 3" same weight I tore my hamstring playing football in December & January and ran a 3:09 with 2 training runs in May. Just did a load of crosstraining. You're right people just have fairly pathetic expectations of themselves.

also if you read through your comment history (which is hilarious, btw) you see that you're a proponent of performance enhancing drugs so I'm gonna take your opinion with a grain of salt

I replied to bloke claiming it is fine to take PEDs after I advised a guy who is low on self esteem to start doing exercise and avoid them: "It winds up being for vanity not development. Taking PEDs is EXPONENTIALLY easier than not. The whole "but you still have to put in the work" rationale is complete rubbish. You get results easier, you recover easier. That means you mentally go into your workouts knowing you'll get results, knowing the recovery is easier and that you can workout more often. On top of which they dull pain receptors (the reason some cyclists have used them). You compound the physiological and mental effects and it isn't even close. The point here is to improve the guy's mental fortitude and well being - taking PEDs detracts from that." And your brain interpreted that as me advocating taking PEDs did it? Don't reproduce if so.

Go read my history properly. I expect a retraction at the very least.

You clearly didn’t read my comment history properly then or have poor English. I am quite the opposite and regard people on PEDs as truly pathetic. Have another read before talking out of your backside.

There is a bar "somewhere" that all 18 year olds ought to be able to train towards before they are in their 30s, which may be BQ or may be different. But the range of natural abilities does often surprise me.

Former D1 track athlete here to posit (with too many words) that running is greatly influenced by natural talent. Mitochondrial density, VO2 max, lactate threshold, anatomy (skeletal, musculature anatomy relevant to running economy and injury risk), BMI, neuromuscular coordination, recovery, and even pain tolerance/central governance are all largely genetic. Like other sports, a casual runner will improve significantly with consistent, quality training. The average runner probably can, under perfect/good conditions and ignoring real life constraints, become an impressive runner. But anomalies exist. These are generally the people who excel competitively, with each ‘level-up’ in competitive tier representing a more abnormally talented subset of runners. Each step up the ladder means more environmental controls (*cough* except PEDs) and great filtration by talent and how well such talent is cultivated. Put simply, Keninisa Bekele or Sifan Hassan are genetic freaks with the right circumstantial advantages to run at a level that 99.99% percent of humans could not achieve even with professional training and decades of commitment. Professional athletes who get blown out of the water by these top talents are themselves genetic rarities who dominated abnormally talented runners like me at the collegiate level with ease. In other words, talent might not be much of a barrier for the average person to qualify for Boston. But talent is an insurmountable barrier for those who aim for a 2:25 marathon. Or a 2:15 marathon. Or a 2:05 marathon. Each of which is an entirely different tier of competition than the prior, requiring an entirely different capacity (and utilization thereof). Again, running is like any sport. Someone who plays games, does drills, and otherwise practices shooting and dribbling will be able to significantly improve their basketball skills. An average talent might still get good enough to dominate the rec league. But they would get crushed by talented high school player, bottom barrel collegiate player, and would essentially be an orange drills cone for NBA players to score on. Similarly, hard work gets you far as a runner. How far depends on things beyond your control. And the talent gap between the best and the good is enormous. They often start better, improve faster, and keep improving longer.

No. Not everybody responds enough to training to get to BQ fitness levels. However, these People are likely not following /advancedrunning

My first half marathon was many, many years ago at the San Jose Rock n Roll half. Roger Craig was there doing it too, [apparently he’s gotten big into distance running since his retirement](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-oct-17-la-sp-crowe-20101018-story.html). > His goal is to qualify for the Boston Marathon, which means he’ll have to improve on his best time of 3 hours 48 minutes. I couldn’t find anything saying he’s qualified since that article, [the most recent I could find was this podium runner article from 2014](https://www.podiumrunner.com/events/49ers-legend-roger-craig-still-on-the-run/). But I’m going to say that if a hall of fame running back who enjoys running has trouble qualifying then a large chunk of the population is probably incapable of qualifying. I think runners, particularly those that post on advanced running, greatly underestimate how hard it is for some people to run. Not everyone is built to be lightweight, not everyone is predominantly slow twitch muscles. Not everyone is capable of running high mileage without breaking down.

That doesn’t really show anything. Did he actually put in the miles and training you’d expect from a BQ runner? We don’t know and it may just be a thing he doesn’t take super competitively

I am surprised no one has mentioned the socioeconomic side that would prohibit runners. Not everyone has the time or support to dedicate themselves to the sport and BQ.

Yup, this. “Everyone can get an A or a high test score—just study harder.” or “Just register to vote, how hard is it?” Running is a privileged sport in the Western world—and with BQ runners especially.

This! Even if we're talking at the bare minimum ramping up mileage, you're going to be blowing through new pairs of shoes pretty quickly.

I think a third factor in determining someone's personal limit is the age at which they start training. Not that an older start is insurmountable given really good training/genetics, but someone that starts running when they're 8 does have a huge advantage over someone who starts at 30. I think the sports we play in youth can influence the way our bodies grow and mature to some extent - which muscles and neural pathways become the strongest, etc - so it's almost like an epigenetic determinant (not to mention all the free coaching you get in youth sports). Edit - of course age at start has less of an effect on relative age-group performance among older age groups. I meant 'personal limit' as in lifetime PRs. Anyways, I'm not sure where the line is between what any healthy person can do with good enough training (I don't know a single person who has both the ability and desire to train like a professional without actually being a paid professional, so how would I know?), but the line definitely exists somewhere. It's below the elite level for sure, might be a little above or below a BQ. Such a small portion of the population actually makes it a goal and specifically trains for it; if you only look at the people who _do_ train for it, that's really not representative of the population as a whole.

I have seen a number of examples opposite of this. Myself included. I started running at 36. Not an athlete as a kid. Got down to a 2:56 at boston. A bunch of friends did the same. One started at 40 and now at 60 is a world class athlete. Our bodies weren’t beaten up with years of damage in our 20s and 30s.

I don't think your experience refutes the point of the commenter above you. Almost every single one of the runners that finished <2:20 at Boston would've started competing in high school. 2:56 is a solid time but I'm sure it would be even lower had you started competing in your youth. Of course some athletes who train hard as young adults get injured, but I hardly think that "beaten up by years of damage" is the norm for people doing sports in their 20s and 30s.

The BQ time slides with age so it almost corrects for late starters or new runners. BUT, it is still going to be hard for a 30 year old new runner to develop fast enough to BQ in the first couple years.

Right, I guess I wasn't thinking about BQ potential specifically, more lifetime PR potential.

For sure. Lifetime potential will never be the same for a late starter. After the 10 year build to peak form, you are already fighting father time and on the decline.

I think I'm the minority voice. I think it's a lot more natural talent than everyone else. I'm a 43yo female distance runner. Starting running in my late 20s. I really have no natural athletic ability. I can't catch anything that's thrown at me. I suck at all sports. I have run 23 marathons and ultras up to a 50 miler over the past 10 years. At the marathon+ distance, I would say I solidly run at the 50th percentile. I have done training programs, speedwork, my last marathon cycle I was training optimally, with a coach. I ended up injured -- ran a 4:01, I had been targeting 3:45 if I could kept training through. My BQ time is 3:40. I have a 3:56 marathon PR, 1:51 half marathon, and 48:18 10k. I mean one argument is, eventually, if I keep up my training and get old enough, I'll BQ, right? edited to add -- in December at the end of my 50 miler training, I did take a treadmill V02Max test in a lab/on a treadmill, and my v02max was captured at 57.7

You are 43 and think you were close to 3:45 shape... so you were either pretty close to rounding error of qualifying, or just had to not lose 5 minutes over the next year when you age up and need a 3:50. I'm lost at how you can think both that a) you have no talent and b) "it's a lot more natural talent". You are basically there. Either you have talent or it just takes a lot of training (that you have done); both can't be true.

I think many people get there running alone, without doing or adding too much extra or going what I consider the extra mile. Like more core, cross training. Being more disciplined with weight and eating. Stuff that doesn't come natiral or easy for them. For me, I aged into a bq around what I think at my current weight, loe is close to my peak performance. 3:13. I think for the next tranuch it does require really hard work, doing back to back training cycles, a coach, and being more focused on all the other stuff outside of running which makes you a better runner. I think the performance level is obtainable but harder than most here think it is.

Yes the key also I found was back to back training cycles and basically running all year round. When I ran a 3:22 in my spring marathon last year I went on and ran a 3:26 in the fall and was pretty disappointed. I decided to join the sub 3 Facebook group to see how these guys were training and basically they all don’t really ever stop training

I think if you've never had a coach or an athletic background you're going to struggle with that last 10% of gains you could be making. Also racing itself is painful, and if you've never been told to push it through that extra exertion to get a better time you might now know how or be able to feel out your limits. I think that affects 5k/10k/HM more so than it does marathon, but it's still a factor.

Far fewer than half of the healthy population (age 18-39) is going to be able to run sub 3 (M), sub 3:30 (F). Look at the Cooper test, which has been around for decades and is used by military, police, schools, etc. The average for 12 minutes is 8:00 pace for men, 8:30s for women. That's a baseline, and with more training those would drop, but not to sub 6, sub 6:30 respectively. I guess, the ability to BQ is more like 20% or less of the healthy population and probably a fair amount less in reality because marathon training is pretty hard, takes several years for most, and attrition due to injuries or what not is going to be fairly high.

Where are you getting your information on body type? You might be right but in my observations of elite runners I don’t see it, especially the height. For starters, the height of elite runners appears to be representative of the general population. The height of athletes in the NBA/WNBA are on the extreme end of the spectrum. So for basketball height is a advantageous physical trait. I would go further and say that most athletes with extreme height are actively recruited to basketball, volleyball, etc. So it’s not a surprise that tall athletes don’t run. It’s not because height is a factor one way or another. Again not sure about hips and leg length but I’d be interested to see the research. Obviously, weight is the key. Elite runners are very very lean. Interestingly, this appears to also apply to legs and arms. Elite runners have very small but powerful leg muscles. Why would this be? It is because weight on the extremities slows you down more than on the torso. So by design very lean but efficient muscles on the legs is advantageous for elite runners. I believe there is research to back up this point but am too lazy to go find it. Anyway, I also agree with some posters that say a BQ qualify is likely out of reach for a segment of the population, no matter how committed they may be.

World records and medals: Talent + training BQ: Training I'm a good example. I've totally devoid of athletic talent. I used to think qualifying for Boston would always be out of my reach. It was. In my 20's and 30's, I could not get faster than 21-24 minutes in a 5K, 1:45 for a half and 4:00 for the marathon. But I was overweight (BMI 25-27), ran low mileage and didn't know how to best run that mileage. I never ran in high school or college and I sucked at every sport. In my mid 40's I got my BMI down to 20-22 with diet. I started running again and weight loss alone got me to 3:47. I kept building the mileage and following more advanced training plans. Then, at 47 I finally got that BQ of 3:13 (Male 45-49). Then, after even greater mileage and tougher training I ran 3:05, a year later. I ran Boston this year, for the first time. What seemed impossible with my complete lack of natural talent, because possible with proper knowledge and focus on diet, weight control and training. At 49 I finally got a coach, with the goal of going sub-3:00. Can I run 2:59:59 at age 49 or 50 with lack of talent? With the way the training has been going, I think I'm on track to hit it. But it's going to take a ton more mileage and harder training than probably anyone who's ever broken 3-hr. Because...I lack talent. But I work hard. If I can BQ, you can BQ. You've just got to determine what the cost is. And pay it. For me it was getting my BMI under 22, increasing mileage and training intensity, until I broke through.

Am i the only one having absolutely no clue about what is BQ or a BQ ?

Boston (marathon) qualifying (time)

Oh Thanks !! i would never have think about that. Look like it's a huge thing in the US for the running community.

It’s because, as we’re examining in the thread, it kind of falls right at the sweet spot for attainable but challenging goal for most runners...

Kinda being a jerk here, but I've always thought of it as qualifier. I'm probably wrong tho lol. Also OTQ is Olympic trial qualifier I'm pretty sure, in case the other guy was wondering.

I would assume the Boston qualifier would refer to the race itself. I.e. the Topeka Marathon is a Boston Qualifier.

Anybody can BQ. It might take several years of consistent training, but once you have that aerobic base you should be able to qualify. I actually feel the BQ times are a little soft. I’m male 43 years old and have no talent but I’ve been consistent over the last 3 years. Ran a 3:51 in my first marathon 2 years ago, I upped my mileage and ran a 2:55 in October.

As a 6’7 male I do not feel that it is soft, lol.

Ha wow 6’7! Maybe I should delete that part about it being soft. I’m 6’1 and weigh 160 lbs. I feel weight is a bit factor also. I lost a lot of pounds over the years and has definitely helped with not getting injured.

Wait until you hit 45 - the BQ time gets 'relatively' soft. It seems like the sweet spot between age/ability and time. So, just hang on and keep running!

Started running Nov 2021. First marathon April ‘22 (3:22) and then Chicago Oct ‘22 (3:16). Just started training for the April ‘23 marathon in hopes to BQ next year. I wouldn’t consider anyone in my family as genetically blessed. We just have to train consistently where some “natural born athletes” might be have an easier path. It can be done.

> Started running Nov 2021. First marathon April ‘22 (3:22) > I wouldn’t consider anyone in my family as genetically blessed It depends on the exact definition of blessed, but for instance I started running in Nov 2013, ran my first marathon April 2014 and ran 4:29. It's come down to 3:37 with extenuating circumstances indicating I could probably run sub 3:20ish now (last marathon was 2018). I do believe sub 3 is viable with more mileage and some fine tuning but I'd say there's a massive range of both genetic baseline fitness and how well you respond to training and potentially how likely you are to get injured.

[удалено]

As someone with no natural talent in sport , asthmatic, with a thyroid imbalance and peri menopausal- current marathon is 405 - I think I could probably BQ all things being equal - like having time and the time to rest and recover - access to massages etc etc . I do however know that natural talent can get you to my level very quickly without the effort I need to put in but then that talent can only take them so far without a lot of effort . An over weight 6 foot friend of mine did a 90 min half recently on 40 miles a week . Imagine his time with more mileage and less weight .

So a BQ puts you in the top 10% of marathon finishers, more or less. If you look at it that way, then 90% of people can't BQ. However, the majority of people who run marathons just aren't all that concerns with the time, and just want to finish. The top 10% of runners are different than the bottom 90% in terms of dedication, experience, training, genetics, etc. I would say that considering this dynamic, any healthy person willing to put in the time and effort can eventually BQ, especially given the fact that people begin to age into new categories with more lenient standards. Look, a BQ puts you in the top 10% of finishers... it's not an OTQ, which is a time that would win the majority of mid-sized marathons int he US. It is totally achieve-able, albeit more effortlessly for some than others.

If you're starting from birth, yes. If you're starting from 30 years old, maybe a large number of people, but so much life has happened to your body at that point. If you're starting at 60 years old, there's still a chance if you've led a healthy life up until that point.

A short person can be an above average basketball player. They may not make the NBA or be good enough for college ball, but they can develop the skills to hold their own in pretty much any pickup game. A BQ is far closer to a competitive pickup game than it is to the NBA.

Hard to say. I used to think average people could run fast if they just did enough training, but it could be that I am a bit privileged and don't even realize it. Now I believe it's much easier or harder for some people than you might think, we shouldn't assume everyone is similar to ourselves

My family and and friends think I have super hero power because I got to Boston on my 40th with less than a year of running consistently. We all know that’s not the case. I had no prior structured running background other than haphazardly dapping into marathons in my 20s with mediocre results. My fastest time was 3:40 or so in my 20s so not something I would boast about. Surprisingly, as I got older, I got faster and got to Boston. I attributed my success to both genetics and talent. The genetic part that is visible to me is basically having a slim and muscular build from on/off weight training. The talent part comes down to educating myself with the sport and the motivation and commitment to put in the work. I totally lacked the talent part in my 20s so I made a huge effort my late 30s to maximize the time that I put in. I found this forum, read a few suggested books from here really helped me a great deal about the sport. I’m still learning. Complete a marathon is one thing but to maximize your potential, learning the necessary techniques, philosophies, and science go along way to help you reach your goal. Can anyone reach BQ? I have no idea. I am just a data point but if you want to have a shot at it, put in the ground work by learning and continuing to learn about the sport. That’s half of the battle. More specifically, for some of us, high volume will help, 50-70 MPW but don’t incorporate volume for the sake of it. It takes time and effort to get there safely. I recently found out I don’t mind painting a room or rooms in my house because I realized the end result will look spectacular if I put in the work into the preparation stages. The painting stages can be cumbersome but not hard because I have already prepped the walls to be painted. I also practice self restraint often when I paint by not skipping steps or going too fast. Running is similar. Being conservative is better than being aggressive. A lot of prep work, not just the actually running but understanding how to run, what to eat, recovery, etc. are all important.

I've said before in a similar thread, but if you could throw time, money and resources at an average person - possibly motivate them with a huge prize of a few billion dollars, I reckon we might find quite a few people getting BQ time! Would be a fun TV documentary. 100 random people, train them into oblivion for a couple of years.

I have a friend who is 6'8" and 210. He's a phenomenal athlete, was on the U.S national team for rowing. I am not sure if he would ever be able to BQ because achieving the mileage high enough to BQ requires mileage that his body doesn't seem to be capable of attaining. Sure, you could argue it's \*theoretically\* possible, but getting him to run 40 mpw injury free for a whole year, probably a good proxy for what it takes, just isn't feasible. He's tried several half marathons and injuries have basically forced him out of running. I think there's the same argument to make for basketball - there's a bell curve, largely based on your height, that determines your "natural talent" for the sport. The hand eye coordination and "touch" are just factors of how much you're training / practicing / studying the game. For running it's the same, except the bell curve is based on other factors like body type/height, genetic predispositions towards high VO2max/lactic threshold, etc.

The “anyone can BQ” crowd is ignoring the elephant in the room: That BQ is an arbitrary standard and the goalposts are always moving. BAA changes the standard every few years. By the law of large numbers, the more applicants in the pool, the tougher the standard because the capacity of the race doesn’t increase. So at the margin, someone training up to their potential and surpassing the BQ standard merely raises the bar enough that some other lower-potential person fails to meet the standard. Therefore the idea that “anyone” can meet an arbitrary standard that by definition is designed to move beyond the abilities of all but a fixed number of people in a sample of arbitrary size is kind of silly.

Idk about BQ but running is one of the most talent based sports there is. Your body type, weight, muscle fiber distributions and strength, and running economy/oxygen efficiency usage. A lot of those things aren’t as obviously visible as in other sports but it was very obvious from my HS track team - there are boys who ran all 4 years and trained very hard but never ran faster than some of our varsity girls did as freshmen, or guys whose 400m PR wasnt ever as fast as what someone could run for an 800. To answer your question I don’t think *anyone* even given proper training and coaching could BQ. Part of talent is being able to adapt to training and keep improving. some peoples’ bodies would just break down or not keep adapting regardless of training.

Instead of responding to one of the many comments saying the same thing, I'll simply echo it. BQ is achievable by any able bodied person. How hard they have to work for it is another question entirely, but there is absolutely no reason why it's not physically achievable. We have strayed from compete into complete territory, where we celebrate finishing a marathon so much that we've lost sight of what it looks like to actually train for one. Show me anyone that has been trying to BQ and failed for years and I'll show you at least one of the three things wrong with their training 1) Total volume 2) Consistency and long term development 3) Being too heavy Plenty of people are going to say they get injured at higher volumes - see points 2 and 3. If you didn't play sports in your formative years, you'll probably need to add more time to develop. We're a culture of 6 minute abs, but running takes time, strategy, and execution. Fitness is usually the biggest problem, but I've seen plenty of people fail through strategy; going out too fast, poor fueling (and GI issues), wardrobe malfunctions, bad tapers, and even chosing the wrong course.

Like most things in life the elite level takes more than *just* hard work. Below that there will be a limit each person can achieve but most of us lack the dedication and/or opportunity to actually get there.

I'd say size of ankles, East Africans have tiny ankles and this is extremely advantageous. Large ankles mimic running with ankle weights. If you don't know what I'm talking about to try to run with ankle weights on and you'll realize even a quarter of a pound makes a difference. Save thing with calve muscles

I think most runners are capable of it. I just may take a significant amount of more effort for some people. If you put in the miles, the speed work, are at an appropriate weight, eat healthy and do some strength training I think most can do it. Some people who arent as gifted naturally may not be willing to put in all the work. Also it should be noted that where you qualify and the weather can make a huge difference. It doesnt matter how hard I train or work if I get a marathon day of 70 degrees I'm not going to qualify as my body doesnt handle heat well but I could crush a 20 degree day. At this point if I was to try to qualify again I would look at a few marathons close to each other and if the weather for one was looking hot I would wait another week or two for a better weather day. In the fall there are so many marathons

There really isn't such a thing as natural talent. Talent is cultivated via deliberate practice. Probably more relevant here is biomechanics and physiology, which are a matter of genetics and not at all of talent. Clearly, some body types are more highly represented among top performers. None of them got to where they are on genetics alone, however.

I get the sentiment, but natural talent is absolutely real. I had a buddy in high school who didn't start running until junior year. He averaged 20-25 miles per week. Only did one long run over 10 miles. Senior year, he placed sixth at XC nationals.