Marathonning and keeping size

>I just want to hit it in under 2 hours
See If you mean 3 hours, which you probably do, think again. This is not something any normie can do and, when it comes to endurance, you sound like a normie. If you were going to do sub-3, you would need to lose weight, but you won't be able to even if you do. Don't sacrifice your size/aesthetics for something you won't achieve.
If you mean 4 hours, then yeah, absolutely. Just try to run economically and low to the ground so the impact from your weight isn't too bad. And, as you say, eat carbs and protein.

Not trying to offend, and 4 hours is no mean feat, but you shouldn't waste your previous efforts on something you're not going to do.

Scoobert does Iron men, and he also runs/bikes/swims those triathlon events whatever they're called.

The run section alone is like a marathon isn't it?

BTW, I'm the opposite - a naturally good (sub-3 hour marathon) endurance runner, now trying to gain strength without putting on too much weight and ruining my endurance - so I know the feel and understand your concern.

>This is not something any normie can do
Yes it is.

>Don't want to win marathon
>just want marathon under 2h
>The IAAF world record for men is 2:02:57

Only 2% of marathons are faster than 3 hours.

It'd be like Usain Bolt 2.0: distance runner edition if a swole guy beat all those skellies.

I've seen and been in bitch sessions about how the standards have dropped in endurance over the years. It used to be sub 3 meant you'd trained (at least as a guy) going back 15 or 20 years ago. Now people are not so bothered about getting a decent time.

The 2% statistic doesn't tell the whole story, but it is indicative. Average standards have dropped because, going back 15-20 years, normies didn't attempt marathons. Now people turn up without doing training and walk most of the way and they're happy just to finish so they can tick it off their bucket list and 'brag' about it. But there are still a lot of people who do want to run a decent time, try to do a lot of training, and expect on the morning of the race that they're going to do sub-3 (I always see idiot celebrities being interviewed before city marathons saying they're going to do 2:50), and it's a lot more than the 2% who succeed.

Yeah, I meant 3, sorry, typo. And I appreciate the advice. If 4 hours is more reasonable, then that's what I'll work on as a goal, thanks for the advice!

I'm not sure when it comes to Iron Man, but I think the run is a half-marathon, the swim is 1600m and the cycling is 80km.
Scooby isn't natty though, so it's not really relevant.

Just eat more calories, if you do that you won't lose the muscle, just look at scooby

Olympic marathon runners can't do a marathon in less than two hours bro. Do you mean a half marathon? 13.1 miles?

I have no idea but I'm interested in this. I just got into hiking and I love it but I can easily spend 6-8 hours a day hiking and even though I'm eating enough I feel like I can't keep on muscle like I did before.

The kind of training you are looking for is concurrent training. I can't speak from experience because I've never run a program like that before. There are some pretty big guys who can run marathons but they're most likely not natty. Alex Viada has a book about endurance and strength trainning. If he can keep his size while roiding MAYBE you can avoid losing much muscle mass using his style of training, again I'm sorry I can't seak from experience.

Also, If you can run 10k try a half-marathon first to test your trainning aproach.

Set your goal as 3:30 - it should be achievable. But don't be disappointed if you end up doing between 3:30-4:00.

3:30 is also really easy to work out: 8 minute miles, 5 minute kilometres, 2 minute laps.