Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by patentatt 1142 days ago
I'm closing in on 40 and trying to run my first sub 4 hour marathon before then. I figure you don't really start running that fast after 40, so this is my last chance to ever be a 4 hour marathoner.
5 comments

FWIW - I started running distance seriously only when I was 38. Ran my first half at 39 and ran my fastest half yet ( 1:39) at 44. Ran my first marathon at 45 - (3:56). I've gotten faster since then (per my 5K speed), but haven't run another marathon since - it is a significant time commitment.
You have more time than you think, especially at the marathon distance. If you were looking for sub-3, then yeah, you’d better hurry, but 40s isn’t at all old for a sub-4 marathon, especially if you’re willing to put in the miles during training.

Males have to get to 65 years old before a 4-hour marathon will even qualify them for Boston.

I didn't realize it was even that relaxed.

I'd wanted to qualify for Boston in my 20s, which at the time required a 3:10 marathon. It was just barely at the limit of possibility, if I had a perfect day, which I never did.

Then they dropped that limit to 3:05, and that might as well be on the far side of the moon. So, I never run Boston. Ah, well. That was a very stretchy stretch goal.

Don't sell yourself short. I only started running when I turned 38. I ran my first marathon in 3:53 when I was 42, and my second one in 3:41 when I was 44. I'm now nearly 48 and am planning on doing another one later this year and am training for a sub 3:30 time.
Always remember Ed Whitlock, he didn't start running till he was passed 40 and he was still running sub-3 hour marathons at 69 years old.

You have plenty of time, I've trained with lots of people that started late and were still running impressive times.

If you look at the ultra runners finishing races by age you'll see a lot more in their 40s than their 20s.