wow thanks for the thread OP
I'm just a casual try-er and am even slower/older/put up less time commitment than you but I thought one factor might bear consideration you aren't looking at [or aren't, because it doesnt apply to you]
namely the run. Anyone really can do the swim/bike. What matters is the run. I barely can put the work in to complete a marathon standalone and as is I can baarely sneak under 4H anyways. I figure I'd be pushing 6 in an ironman if not worse.
Anyways I'm around 5:30 in a 70.3 so that should translate to a 12-13 hour finish except for that one teeny little detail. I'm undertrained on the run. A marathon is hard for me, and I tend to get injured when I ramp up running [I barely scratch 30 mpw in any event so this isnt significant and still counts as undertrained I'm fairly certain]
so the extent of my rambling is to say as much as I want to wholeheartedly agree with you and just jump out there and nab a 1st timer 12-13 hr full based on my supposed current fitness I don't think its in the cards for me. The run would have to be some kind of gallowalking compromise I guess and then if I re-oriented my thinking around accepting that I suppose I could go around 13-14. But I'm not interested in gallowalking the run so I'm not going to sign up until I'm in such condition that a marathon is something I can do more regularly.
Just my theory anyways. Open to other opinions. I completed the SF marathon last year, and am signed up for CIM this year but will have to cancel because [you guessed it] I was injured for much of the year with a foot/achilles thing and missed training block after training block and simply havent put in the work to permit finishing a marathon un-injured. [My recovery from the SF marathon last year on a different injury almost took me out of running completely I had thought].
I'm not super obese or anything [6'1, 187#, bf is 14.n%], but sure could lose a couple but man it seems like marathons just arent my thing so for that reason I think a full will be forever out of my reach unless I get to the point where I'm marathon-capable I guess. You know, a nice 12-18 week block of 35-55 mpw and long runs out to 18 or so and remaining un-injured throughout. I've just never been able to do that. Something miraculous will have to change for that to happen because every time I try I get injured and have to back off. I'm 44 so probably age is part of it, also being an adult onset runner [40+] is working against me. Anyways sorry to rant on your thread. Kudos for your success I just wanted to offer a different perspective. On paper it feels like I could perform similarly but I know I just can't and its because the run will injure me either in the event itself or in the training prior
//Noob triathlete//bike commuter//ex-swimmer//slower than you
I'm just a casual try-er and am even slower/older/put up less time commitment than you but I thought one factor might bear consideration you aren't looking at [or aren't, because it doesnt apply to you]
namely the run. Anyone really can do the swim/bike. What matters is the run. I barely can put the work in to complete a marathon standalone and as is I can baarely sneak under 4H anyways. I figure I'd be pushing 6 in an ironman if not worse.
Anyways I'm around 5:30 in a 70.3 so that should translate to a 12-13 hour finish except for that one teeny little detail. I'm undertrained on the run. A marathon is hard for me, and I tend to get injured when I ramp up running [I barely scratch 30 mpw in any event so this isnt significant and still counts as undertrained I'm fairly certain]
so the extent of my rambling is to say as much as I want to wholeheartedly agree with you and just jump out there and nab a 1st timer 12-13 hr full based on my supposed current fitness I don't think its in the cards for me. The run would have to be some kind of gallowalking compromise I guess and then if I re-oriented my thinking around accepting that I suppose I could go around 13-14. But I'm not interested in gallowalking the run so I'm not going to sign up until I'm in such condition that a marathon is something I can do more regularly.
Just my theory anyways. Open to other opinions. I completed the SF marathon last year, and am signed up for CIM this year but will have to cancel because [you guessed it] I was injured for much of the year with a foot/achilles thing and missed training block after training block and simply havent put in the work to permit finishing a marathon un-injured. [My recovery from the SF marathon last year on a different injury almost took me out of running completely I had thought].
I'm not super obese or anything [6'1, 187#, bf is 14.n%], but sure could lose a couple but man it seems like marathons just arent my thing so for that reason I think a full will be forever out of my reach unless I get to the point where I'm marathon-capable I guess. You know, a nice 12-18 week block of 35-55 mpw and long runs out to 18 or so and remaining un-injured throughout. I've just never been able to do that. Something miraculous will have to change for that to happen because every time I try I get injured and have to back off. I'm 44 so probably age is part of it, also being an adult onset runner [40+] is working against me. Anyways sorry to rant on your thread. Kudos for your success I just wanted to offer a different perspective. On paper it feels like I could perform similarly but I know I just can't and its because the run will injure me either in the event itself or in the training prior
//Noob triathlete//bike commuter//ex-swimmer//slower than you