Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
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'm also looking for a sub 3:15 in next years FLM when I'll be 40, so I'm slowly picking up the miles just hope my hip problems don't come back.
as for can anyone do it, yes but they have to want to not just want to run but want to run fast/faster.
KKD good call.
FSquirrel: My weight normalises at 12 stone. At age 19 I was 11st 9lb. At my beery heaviest it was more of a 13+stone. Now I'm 11stone 4 to 11stone 7lb. That's the running. All since age 40. It's a commitment question, if you want it, you'll get it. There's ups and downs. Without blowing my trumpet, my times have dropped from a 2 hour HM and nothing else, to now having a sub 3 marathon. GFA? Yes, getting the 3:15 involved two of the hardest races in my portfolio. Missing by 90 seconds was hard. Achieving by 30 seconds was fantastic. Knocking another 15 minutes off was almost easy by comparison. If you have the drive and desire, then you'll do it, despite the knock backs.
Like BR says, it is a consistent year or two or training that delivers the performance, not a 12 week plan.
My own question is whether I have the desire to step up to the plate for the next challenge.
has anyone had a look at the road to beijing project? Alex Vero had very similar targets check it out makes interesting reading
www.theroadtobeijing.co.uk (i think)
Hmm. In this year's FLM, James Cracknell finished 1018 out of 23612 male finishers, so maybe the Beeb exaggerated a bit. Still sounds pretty good, thoughbut.
1103 men finished in 3 hours or less, that is 4.67%.
The median male finishing time was 4:11:32, so the average man would have to go more than 28% faster to make the cut.
942 women out of 10522 finishers finished in 3:45 hours or less, that is 8.95 %.
The median female finishing time was 4:41:27, so the average woman would have to cut about 20% off her time to make the cut.
So yes, it seems considerably more attainable for a woman.
Good one Yersinia, I like your research.
Can you tell me the time needed to break into the top 1000 finishers? (Median and range)
I acheived a 2:58 debute in poor weather conditions.
You will need to aim for at least 50 miles per week and this will require that running is towards the top of your priorities. Training would need to start around October (ideally) for an April marathon. Bear in mind that you would need to acheive the time by end September the year before you want to run FLM.
An alternative - which in some ways is easier, is to run sub 1:15 for the half. This will get you a UK Championship place (probably).
Also remember - despite the Beeb - sub 3 is not elite. Payment stops at 2:20 and UK Championship status only happens when you beat 2:45.
Yersinia,
I do agree that it is easier for a woman, but your calculation is not accurate because it does not take into account the fact that male finishers aged 41-49 has to finish in 3.15 or less, whilest for women the 3.45 time applies between the age 19-49. There were 524 male finishers aged 41-49 who achieved 3.15 or under but more than 3 hours. So that is 1627 male with GFA result, which is 6.9%. It is still not 8.95, but looks a bit better.
I 'm a notorious numbers junkie, but I only just had a quick look-see.
I'm sure there are lots of ways that ease of attainment may alter between genders and ages. Probably also ease of training, likelihood of being a regular runner, entering a race etc.
These are FLM results from the past three years. I don't have other data to hand:
1000th runner (both genders):
2008: 2:58:59
2007 3:01:54
2006: 2:57:39
1000th male runner:
2008: 2:59:03
2007: 3:03:27
2006: 2:58:26
1000th female runner:
2008: 3:46:22
2007: 3:49:24
2006: 3:41:37
So the prime age GFA criteria approximate to the top 1000 runners of each gender, it would seem. I haven't looked deeper into GFA criteria.
Edith
It is worse than that - male finishers up to 59 (not 49!) have to get under 3:15 for GFA!!
Therefore, to answer the thread question, "No, not everyone can attain GFA".
You'd have to be a fairly talented and healthy 59 year old man to go sub 3:15. This is all down to the lunatic unfairness of the FLM GFA times - if they were in line with typical achievements of (say) the top 20% in each age/sex band that would be fair enough, but they are not.
At a personal level I'm in that unfortunate 40-59 male age group, but having just done 3:17 I'm in with a chance next year!
Hilly - I am sorry but yes you are something special doing those kind of times. At the moment i train for approx 8 hours a week. I have a much faster friend who also trains for roughly 8 hours a week and that gives her 70 miles as opposed to my 45 ish. She also has a bmi of 19ish and mine (after losing a considerable amount of weight) is 24 and not likely to go down anytime soon despite lots and lots of trying. I have seen many women overtake me on a fraction of the training I put in. Some things are not JUST down to hard work.
HOWEVER- I bl**dy intend to get a GFA one day.
Some fantastically impressive tales here, particularly from KeithL. Well done all of you.
HOWEVER..... I think it's too much of a generalisation to say that anyone can do it. Technically, that may be true (within reason) but it's a bit like saying that anyone can get a degree, given enough hard work and determination. Mmmm, maybe but I know that it would be much easier for me to get another degree than many people out there -- and it's not because I'm 'clever' but just because my head works in that sort of way that makes the task relatively straightforward whereas others would panic and worry and keep putting off the reading, and not make the right notes etc. Some things come naturally to us, and some don't.
In other words, horses for courses. I just couldn't do Hilly's 80 miles a week. I'm not singlemided enough to work up to that, and my physiology would collapse under the stress -- not to mention my mental state. This doesn't make me a failure. Far from it, in my view. And just because I have an understanding of my limitations shouldn't prevent me from setting personal goals and taking them seriously, but I think it very unlkely that I could get a GFA without very serious changes to my life, and I feel no shame in saying that I don't want to make those changes as they amount to too much sacrifice in areas I value.
All that said, I think that the overall point is a very interesting one, that far more people could get a GFA than probably realise it.
We can all work smarter not harder. Some people at my club run 70--90 miles a week, and some arnt in GFA. They run easy junk miles. And some of them never do the speed work, hill reps or intervals, they see it as too eliteist. Is there a connection?
Another guy who ran 2.32 at this years FLM can only manage 55mpw max, usually 45 due to work & family.
James Cracknell, did very well with his sub 3, dont know his weight, but being a good rower does not make you a good runner, ask Sir Steven Redgrave, previous in FLM in circa 5hours?
YPI, Good luck at Edinbrough, you have that mindest someone mentioned, your glass is always half full ;0)
"We can all work smarter not harder. Some people at my club run 70--90 miles a week, and some arnt in GFA. They run easy junk miles. And some of them never do the speed work, hill reps or intervals, they see it as too eliteist. Is there a connection?"
Different people run for different reasons. If someone is running 90 miles a week they are clearly obsessional about aerobic fitness but may well not have a strong competitive instinct. If they were obsessively competitive I'm sure they would happily do speed work etc.
I'm a plodder, and am happy in that skin. Twice I've embarked on a determined course of improving my speed through the usual means, and twice I've ended up with an injury that stopped me running completely for a while.
I think it's fair to say that unless one tries to get the time for GFA they'll never know if they can or can't. My philosophy with my own training is how much training can I put in not how little can Iget away with to achieve this.
As for having a life yup I have one of those too - 3 children (grown) 3 step children (small), a job, doing an OU degree, regular nights out and weekends away. I live life to the full
It's a case of who do you ask to do something? A busy person as they take things on and get them done
I'm 22 so would need to get in between 3:15 and 3:45. Don't know if I would have the motivation and drive though
But if I really really wanted to and didn't go out running with this "I cant do it" mentality then actually, maybe I could. It would certainly be something useful to aim towards
anybody can get a GFA. for men, slowly build up to running 100 miles a week, keep that up for 2 years, and not only would you get a GFA, you'd smash it. some people can do it much easier.
for a woman it's even easier. 3:00 for a man would translate to something like 3:20 for a woman, rather than the 3:45 they are allowed.
I don't know if I agree that anyone could get a GFA. Most people can do a lot better than they think if they have the right attitude.
Anyway, enough of this talk. I'm off out to do some proper training. I currently qualify for a GFA for a lady in the 55 - 59 age category. Pity I'm a 45 year old bloke.
Quite right FF - GFA is a purely abitrary benchmark anyway - as evidenced by the comments on this thread.
The best tactic is just to try and improve, - well AFAIC it is.
Some people are genetically not up to being in the top 2% and never will be, so I personally think this "anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it" malarkey is a little fanciful.
I once went on a personal motivational course at work where the guy insisted on telling everyone in the room that "Yes, you can win a Gold in the Olympic Marathon if only you believe enough".
Erm no you can't.
Muppet.
I remember talking to a colleague who ran in the mid-80s, when a 2:35 marathon made him a pretty mediocre club runner. I was gearing up for my first sub-3 and he found it hard not to make fun of me.
I think it takes two years rather than one for some, but yes, it's achievable for most with a decent amount of training (by which I mean 50 - 60 miles a week at peak). I've never managed to average even 50 mpw in a build-up but have been well inside GFA cutoff.
There are some runners who are unusually well suited to it and some who aren't; I regularly get whupped at marathons by people whom I beat easily in cross-country races, so I've largely given up on them except for the annual FLM. But still, pretty much all of my regular cross-country team (and we are not a serious club) have managed a GFA time at some point.
It also depends on the age group; for example, a 3:15 isn't a particularly demanding target for someone in their early 40s but very much is for a 59 year old.
but "the top 2%", if everybody trained to a reasonable (read: obsessive) level, would be more like 2:30 than 3:00
but people don't want to do 100+ miles a week of hard training (including lots of speedwork etc). they don't want to spend the 1-2 years of gradual build up that it takes even to start the training. even if they reached that point,. they would rather go to the pub, spend time with families, watch the chavbox, sleep, take the second job they need to make ends meet, etc etc etc. but that doesn't mean that - physically - GFA isn't well within the reach of 95%+ of the population.
some people actually do do all the above. you will find them, surprise surprise, on the sub 3 thread!!
saying "can't" is much easier than saying "not prepared to"!
Not that being not prepared to isn't a bad thing. It's only running. Just if people wanted a GFA they could.
Disagree.
Two years of "obsessive" (your word) training isn't an option for most people, because there's a mindset that goes along with that commitment and I don't believe that mindset is just an optional accessory that you can pick up and put down when you want.
If we're making the general point that most people could improve with some planning and application, then fair enough but GFA is exactly what is says -- good for age i.e. above the norm.
GFA is exactly what is says -- good for age i.e. above the norm
Well, yes, but above a "norm" which includes people who text their mates while running and stop for drinks every mile.
Well - I've been on the "can't" side of this argument for many years. I'm just a slow runner, naturally slow, no natural talent, etc etc. Its not for the likes of me..... Well now I'm exercising female prerogative and swapping sides.
I wouldn't like to comment on the mens GFA time as it seems so much harder than the womens one. But I'm starting to believe the womens one might be doable for me. Of course then I'm going to have to apologise to BR for the number of times I've laughed at him in this very conversation when he's suggested that I could run GFA - and that any healthy woman could. Oh dear....