Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
GFA? is it possible for the average person?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I am MILES off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I only just did sub five
what do you mean "just sub five"
You are getting there
sub 4.30 i thought it was?
GFA 3.45 or 4.15 if you wait long enough?
erm, do you lot know how LONG it took me to even do sub 5????????
you DO, so why are you saying this
yes but i know how much faster you have got recently ..something is happening for you
3.45 is up to 49 isnt it ? is it 4.15 after 50 .?
no
stop
the 4,24 was an out of body thing
it wont happen again
I got pics of me running in that race today-i wasnt running like |i usuaslly do
i was tall and straight
I had a reason to run, iu didnt think about it at the time, but it made a massive differece
this marathin wasnt agony-all the ones before have been
Fluke
it happened, and i am grateful, but it isnt --the norm
ok hilly
will consider
not used to the new me yet
No offence caused at all
x
Good, that's what I like to hear
x
You are both very talented in the marathon, you just don't seem to have realised it yet.
Two examples from my club include one bloke who I sometimes do my long Sunday runs with. His father ran 2.38 when he was 40. He can run a comfortable sub 60 for 10m, and runs sub 17 for 5k. He regularly runs long at weekends yet his best marathon is 3.05.
The other guy now runs ultra. He generally finishes next to me in x/c yet has only produced a 3.28 best in the marathon. Both are in their mid thirties.
FYI I ran my first GFA off 40mpw (3.06). These blokes are doing considerably more than I was doing to get that.
Dull
Dull - I would ask if they have done consistent 80mpw over 2 years, as I still don't think any man under 40 could do that and fail to get sub 3 if short term preparation went well. In fact I would expect someone running sub 17 for 5k to be running about 57 mins for 10m, so maybe an issue with aerobic endurance.
I know a guy from Doncaster who is my standard over 5k / 5m who managed a 3.33 FLM this year. Not that he can't run sub 3, but lack of appopriate training and a completely numpty race strategy (76 first half when that is his pb).
Quite scarily interested in this idea, I've pondered for a while how much faster I could get if I really worked hard and put the mileage in (as someone who came late to running and still remembers the shame of having to do the 'silly walking' race cos she wasn't deemed good enough to run at school) especially when I saw what the GFA for women was as I thought do you know, if I worked I think I could do that. But I really don't have the time. Hmmm bit mad really as I've not done a sub 2 hour half yet, but have seen how much I have improved when I've trained.
*mutters to self - don't set youself any more daft challenges*
Was just thinking about the question again. What does GFA mean and what does average mean? If average means average person with average training then the answer is no because by definition GFA is above average? Otherwise we would be talking about AFA times. A bit reminiscent of Bush wanting everyone to be above average intelligence or marks or something....
Am I right in assuming that GFA places only count for half marathon and above distances that are chip timed and AAA (?) affiliated?
Once I get my next marathon out of the way, I'm going to try a reduce my times by doing more speed work and incorporating the results into slightly longer runs. If I want a 1h23 or less half marathon time, I'm ideally going to either lie through my teeth about what time I can do to get to the start of a field, or find a really small one where they're aren't too many people to try and run around / get held up by.
I still need to knock about 1 minute a mile off my times at present to achieve a GFA which is probably quite a lot, but I am able to sometimes maintain a decent enough pace for shorter distances - something to expand upon there.
To get a GFA place you have to have a marathon qualifying time. The only way a HM time will get you in is on the Championship start, where you will need sub 75 mins (or sub 90 for the fairer sex).
Because there's a whole 6 minute difference between the men's and women's WR HM time, so let's give the women a 15 min gap when it comes to FLM AAAs places...
No it doesn't get to me. There is a standard for me to achieve or not to achieve as the case may be. What the female standard is is of no direct concern to me. I was posting a running point on a running forum.
As a matter of fact I think that far more women can run a sub 90 min HM than men a 75 min. It's just that there's fewer doing so, therefore the qualifying standard is very slack.
My early marathons (in my 30's) were in the 3:30-3:45 zone. A couple of the chaps at my club assured me that I could get closer towards 3hrs as long as I pulled my finger out and put some more miles in. Hard hitting but well meant advice, I also discovered this forum which was a 'road to Damascus' experience. My 'Dream Team' section covers my subsequent exploits sufficiently, suffice to say I have just run a 3:03 PB at the age of 50.
If like me you don't have much talent, you simply have to put the work in. The difference between a marathon campaign of 35mpw and 50mpw is massive, the times come tumbling down. In my experience you are very unlikely to achieve a GFA off 3 runs a week.
A girl in my club ran marathons of 4:10, then 3:42 by listening to good advice from grizzly old campaigners like me and upping her mileage. She then wanted to break 3:30. We took her on our long runs occasionally, she would curse us for pushing her outside of her 'comfort zone'. She wasn't cursing us when she ran her next FLM 3:24 however!
It isn't easy, nor is it meant to be. But it gives the runner a fabulous sense of achievement when they get that qualifying time. It is also much more rewarding than contributing to threads on the FLM section bemoaning the injustice of the entry system!
(note to self, do not come in here after gin-got my come uppance today--4.39.25)
Think the GFA is safe form me
good luck to the rest of you
xx
Br: Well another interesting running point.: why is it that fewer women do achieve sub 90 than should? Do you have any views on why that is the case? There seems to be alot of women running but is it just part of the overall deteriation in standard which greater participation does nothing to avail?
(Please dont take offence these are genuine quesitons and I am interetsed in youtr views; I am not trying to provoke you)
PH, Well done on all your recent marathons. I was telling my BF about you and we agreed that all your achievements runnign wise have been fantastic. ALL off your marathons are amazing. If I were you I wouldn want the other 10s of marathons overshaddowed by the later fast ones.
Far too simplistic to say extra training will pay dividends for all. An extra 50mpw to buy 5 mins, isn't exactly getting back what you put in.
Sometimes wish I'd never started, but hooked on the training now.
Dull
I think the key point about "soft" Championship standards for women is that they have an earlier start time to fill up. This creates more spaces at the mass starts for the rest of us, so everyone wins.
My main complaint about the men's GFA time is the age groups. Expecting a 59 year old to perform as well as a 40 year old is just silly. That said, 3:15 is a sensible target for me now, so as a Vet51 I'm not that bothered. I may be in 8 years' time...
Going back to the thread question - is GFA possible for the average person? - probably not for the average 59 year old man!