Considering running a full marathon...

bas0179

That's awesome that you want to run a full marathon. I just recently ran my first full and have run multiple halfs. Make sure to get in at least 5 long run of 16+ miles. Having a running buddy is great too. I never went over 20 before running the full. Eat a lot of carbs the night before and make sure to eat a similar breakfast to what you have been eating during your other long runs. Also, make sure to drink A LOT of water and/or gatorade during the marathon. I was absolutely starving around mile 20 and the gatorade helped. I also ate tootsie rolls. A lot of marathons hand out something that will help if you start getting hungry and need fuel. Another great thing to eat is a small piece of a snickers bar. In the marathon that I ran at mile 22 they were handing out very small bites of snickers and that helped me get my energy levels back up. The last 5k I would say is the hardest so make sure to prepare for that. The other miles seemed to fly by. Make sure to pick a marathon with a good route so you aren't bored while you are running. Consider doing it in a different town that you have never run in before. After you finish the marathon, your legs will most likely be completely dead. Make sure to drink lots of fluids and rest. I took off 2 days after running the marathon but most people take off more. Only 1% of people ever run a marathon. It's one of the best feelings in the world when you cross that finish line. Good luck! You can do it!

montana_girl

Thanks everyone for the wonderful advice! :flowerforyou: Will definitely use a lot of it if (when) I start training.

To answer a couple of questions that came up…

I have significant support to make the time commitment needed for training. My hubby ran a full marathon last year, and though he really has no interest in running another one (due to knee issues and he’s perfectly happy running half marathons), he knows that at this point I really want to challenge myself to see if I can finish a full.

My only goal is to finish, and finish at a point where I still feel physically okay (tired, achy, sore, but not injured).

I have two friends that are willing to run the full with me and one of the friends has completed several full marathons and was the one that pushed me to finish my first half marathon. We often run together so we’re very familiar with each other’s strengths and abilities, we know when to push each other and when to back off.

My friend who has run the full marathons has given me several suggestions on when and where to run my first full. Living in Montana, we want to train early spring/summer so we’re not contending with cold, ice, and freezing winds, so I am looking at doing a race over Labor Day weekend of 2013.

I currently run using the Galloway method (run 4 min/walk 1 min) and will continue with that method (though possibly changing the run/walk ratio) for training and running the full marathon. I have a 17 week schedule worked out and will begin training after our yearly half marathon, so I won’t be starting from “scratch.”

My current workout schedule is:
Sunday – 6 to 11 mile run (depending on where I am in my half training)
Monday – strength training
Tuesday – spin bike
Wednesday – 3 mile run
Thursday – rest
Friday – 3 to 4.5 mile run
Saturday – strength training

I think my two biggest hurdles will be the mental aspect and the learning to hydrate/fuel my body for the race. I have been experimenting with fueling (currently use Shot Bloks) on runs over 8 miles since my friend noticed I tend to start struggling around mile 9. And sure enough, once I started using the Shot Bloks, I didn’t struggle as much.

Now, to just over come that mental hurdle of running 26.2 miles…. I think that is what’s holding me back from totally committing to doing a full marathon…

ThickMcRunFast

Now, to just over come that mental hurdle of running 26.2 miles…. I think that is what’s holding me back from totally committing to doing a full marathon…

Sounds like you're well on your way! A lot of the first marathon is a mental game...you'll run up to 20 miles, then kind of have to go on faith that your training was sound to get you through the last 6.2. I found that at some point, your perspective shifts, and 14 miles seems 'short'. I now think of 6 mile runs as 'light jogs'...this wasn't always so

As far as nutrition and hydration go, i take a powergel every 6 miles (about 45 minutes), and use my ring to judge how hydrated i am (if it slides around fairly easy on my finger, I'm good; if its falling off, I'm over-hydrated, if its stuck and won't budge, I'm dehydrated)

arc918

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

My $.02 - I think 3, 5, 3 is not going to be nearly enough base mileage to "support" your long run. It will work ok at 12 or 14, but as you get toward 18 or 20+, more base mileage will really serve you well. Think 6, 8, 6 or 7, 8, 7 or something more along those lines.

CarsonRuns

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

My $.02 - I think 3, 5, 3 is not going to be nearly enough base mileage to "support" your long run. It will work ok at 12 or 14, but as you get toward 18 or 20+, more base mileage will really serve you well. Think 6, 8, 6 or 7, 8, 7 or something more along those lines.

I'm not sure 4 days really enough. 7,8,7,20 has that LSD run at like 45% of the weekly mileage. I'd say something more like 7,12,6,8,20 would be better, but still not ideal.

ETA: The long run is not the end all, be all for marathon training, but just another cog in the wheel. Total mileage over time is what develops the systems that you need to be able to complete the distance. The mid-week, mid-long run shouldn't be overlooked.

grinch031

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

My $.02 - I think 3, 5, 3 is not going to be nearly enough base mileage to "support" your long run. It will work ok at 12 or 14, but as you get toward 18 or 20+, more base mileage will really serve you well. Think 6, 8, 6 or 7, 8, 7 or something more along those lines.

I'm not sure 4 days really enough. 7,8,7,20 has that LSD run at like 45% of the weekly mileage. I'd say something more like 7,12,6,8,20 would be better, but still not ideal.

ETA: The long run is not the end all, be all for marathon training, but just another cog in the wheel. Total mileage over time is what develops the systems that you need to be able to complete the distance. The mid-week, mid-long run shouldn't be overlooked.

Yeah but this is probably not what the majority of runners are doing. Probably the most popular training program for novices and intermediates is Hal Higdon. He has novice and intermediate programs that only hit the 30-40 mpw range.

http://halhigdon.com/training/51137/Marathon-Novice-1-Training-Program
http://halhigdon.com/training/51139/Marathon-Intermediate-1-Training-Program

The novice program here peaks at 5, 10, 5, 20
The intermediate program here peaks at 5, 8, 5, 5, 20

Plus lets look at the median finish time for marathon runners in the US for 2010:

Males: 4:16:14
Females: 4:42:10

http://runningusa.org/node/76115

I agree the OP originally quoted is doing an insufficient training program and will probably end up walking the last couple miles, but I don't think we need to start going the other extreme either. The more people run, the higher the occurrence of injuries. Most people who don't have serious goals would probably be taking on less injury risk following a more modest Higdon-style training program.

brandyk77

So maybe the solution is to not train for a marathon until you can handle a decent amount of mileage?

Not trying to be snarky but it is just common sense. The fact that the average marathon time is increasing means more and more people are not only taking part but taking part undertrained. This is why people get injured. I speak from experience as I went into my first one severely undertrained and injured due to newbie stupidity. It took me a couple of years before I felt comfortable enough with my base to train for another one. And by base, I mean 50 mpw for 6 months.

and I echo the importance of a mid week higher mileage run.

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

My $.02 - I think 3, 5, 3 is not going to be nearly enough base mileage to "support" your long run. It will work ok at 12 or 14, but as you get toward 18 or 20+, more base mileage will really serve you well. Think 6, 8, 6 or 7, 8, 7 or something more along those lines.

I'm not sure 4 days really enough. 7,8,7,20 has that LSD run at like 45% of the weekly mileage. I'd say something more like 7,12,6,8,20 would be better, but still not ideal.

ETA: The long run is not the end all, be all for marathon training, but just another cog in the wheel. Total mileage over time is what develops the systems that you need to be able to complete the distance. The mid-week, mid-long run shouldn't be overlooked.

Yeah but this is probably not what the majority of runners are doing. Probably the most popular training program for novices and intermediates is Hal Higdon. He has novice and intermediate programs that only hit the 30-40 mpw range.

http://halhigdon.com/training/51137/Marathon-Novice-1-Training-Program
http://halhigdon.com/training/51139/Marathon-Intermediate-1-Training-Program

The novice program here peaks at 5, 10, 5, 20
The intermediate program here peaks at 5, 8, 5, 5, 20

Plus lets look at the median finish time for marathon runners in the US for 2010:

Males: 4:16:14
Females: 4:42:10

http://runningusa.org/node/76115

I agree the OP originally quoted is doing an insufficient training program and will probably end up walking the last couple miles, but I don't think we need to start going the other extreme either. The more people run, the higher the occurrence of injuries. Most people who don't have serious goals would probably be taking on less injury risk following a more modest Higdon-style training program.

grinch031

So maybe the solution is to not train for a marathon until you can handle a decent amount of mileage?

Not trying to be snarky but it is just common sense. The fact that the average marathon time is increasing means more and more people are not only taking part but taking part undertrained. This is why people get injured. I speak from experience as I went into my first one severely undertrained and injured due to newbie stupidity. It took me a couple of years before I felt comfortable enough with my base to train for another one. And by base, I mean 50 mpw for 6 months.

and I echo the importance of a mid week higher mileage run.

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

My $.02 - I think 3, 5, 3 is not going to be nearly enough base mileage to "support" your long run. It will work ok at 12 or 14, but as you get toward 18 or 20+, more base mileage will really serve you well. Think 6, 8, 6 or 7, 8, 7 or something more along those lines.

I'm not sure 4 days really enough. 7,8,7,20 has that LSD run at like 45% of the weekly mileage. I'd say something more like 7,12,6,8,20 would be better, but still not ideal.

ETA: The long run is not the end all, be all for marathon training, but just another cog in the wheel. Total mileage over time is what develops the systems that you need to be able to complete the distance. The mid-week, mid-long run shouldn't be overlooked.

Yeah but this is probably not what the majority of runners are doing. Probably the most popular training program for novices and intermediates is Hal Higdon. He has novice and intermediate programs that only hit the 30-40 mpw range.

http://halhigdon.com/training/51137/Marathon-Novice-1-Training-Program
http://halhigdon.com/training/51139/Marathon-Intermediate-1-Training-Program

The novice program here peaks at 5, 10, 5, 20
The intermediate program here peaks at 5, 8, 5, 5, 20

Plus lets look at the median finish time for marathon runners in the US for 2010:

Males: 4:16:14
Females: 4:42:10

http://runningusa.org/node/76115

I agree the OP originally quoted is doing an insufficient training program and will probably end up walking the last couple miles, but I don't think we need to start going the other extreme either. The more people run, the higher the occurrence of injuries. Most people who don't have serious goals would probably be taking on less injury risk following a more modest Higdon-style training program.

Its true that median marathon times are increasing, but only because running is growing. There are more novice runners doing marathons than ever before. I haven't seen any evidence that people get injured because they don't run enough miles to support their long runs or the marathon race. The only evidence I've seen is that increasing either intensity or volume too quickly can lead to overuse injuries. But plenty of people get injured in both the novice and more experienced categories.

So if everyone needs to run 60 mpw in order to run their first marathon, what percentage of those runners will ever hit that weekly volume without getting injured? Probably very few.

So what happens when you discourage people from running marathons because you tell them they aren't running enough, registration drops and marathon races start disappearing because they need runners to cover the cost of having them. I think having more races is good for all of us.

FitForeverAgain

From an experienced marathoner, watch out stringing 20's together weekly. You'll want to increase your mileage gradually, and peak 3-4 weeks pre-marathon with a 22-25 miler. (I never go over 22.) Continuing that volume without resting with weeks in between with lighter volume (i.e. 14-17's) is a recipe for injury. And I'll bet you'll get better performance with the dropback weeks. Beyond that, I would also vary your mid-weeks. Do an EZ, Speed, RacePace with the race pace increasing in volume. Just my ideas.

Also, those that say you need a base mileage of 50 for 6 months are either highly accomplished runners, or freaks of nature. Most bodies can't do that volume that long and stay injury free, and most people are running a marathon for an accomplishment rather than a lifestyle. I train to a base mileage of approximately 25 miles for 2-3 months for my pre-training base - (3-4 runs per week, long run of an EZ 6-10).

You're going to get advice all over the board. You need to lay out your goals of WHY you want to do this, if it's something that a once and done, or a lifestyle you're adopting. And don't overcomplicate it. Find a good program that you trust, listen to your body for injuries, stay hydrated, eat cleanly - and kick it's *kitten*. Crossing the finish line of a marathon will be a defining moment in your life. Congratulations for taking the challenge.

I guess people train a little differently. I know some marathoners, and I'm going to do one later this year. I am planning on training exactly the same as I do for the Half. 3, 5, 3, Long. The only difference is instead of 12 miles, I'll start extending those to 14, 16, 18, and 20. I'll probably just do the rest of my training running 20 on Saturday until race day. That's it. It's not really rocket science. Although, maybe there's more to it than that. The guys I know that run marathons, they do exactly as I said. 3, 5, 3, and then long on Saturday, week after week.

It's funny, as someone else mentioned, that my idea of a long run has changed significantly. I used to think 5 miles was a huge run. Now, that's a warm up. Ha! I find 10 mile runs kind of easy.

FitForeverAgain

I've now read all these posts. Run for the hills! Not that any of it's bad advice (well, most of it isn't). But, you're hearing 17 opinions based on people's bodies / fitness / aptitude for running. Again, all good people - but based on their views. Go buy a book on marathon training, especially one for a first timer. Galloway, Higdon, etc. Then stick to it. AFTER that, if you love running and are addicted, start modifying based on your results, and like minded and like bodied people.

Best of luck.

grinch031

I've now read all these posts. Run for the hills! Not that any of it's bad advice (well, most of it isn't). But, you're hearing 17 opinions based on people's bodies / fitness / aptitude for running. Again, all good people - but based on their views. Go buy a book on marathon training, especially one for a first timer. Galloway, Higdon, etc. Then stick to it. AFTER that, if you love running and are addicted, start modifying based on your results, and like minded and like bodied people.

Best of luck.

This is really a pet peeve of mine when elite runners jump in saying that novices should be doing the same thing as them. 99% of these novices would get too discouraged and quit altogether. I am shooting for a 3:35 marathon this weekend and I wouldn't recommend my own training program to a novice, because mine is rather high intensity although moderate in volume (40-45mpw). I do lots of hill and speed work to compensate for lower volume. I could do higher volume but would have to lower the intensity to sustain it, which I find boring as hell, plus I'd have to sacrifice even more time from my family to do so.

brandyk77

Its true that median marathon times are increasing, but only because running is growing. There are more novice runners doing marathons than ever before. I haven't seen any evidence that people get injured because they don't run enough miles to support their long runs or the marathon race. The only evidence I've seen is that increasing either intensity or volume too quickly can lead to overuse injuries. But plenty of people get injured in both the novice and more experienced categories.

So if everyone needs to run 60 mpw in order to run their first marathon, what percentage of those runners will ever hit that weekly volume without getting injured? Probably very few.

So what happens when you discourage people from running marathons because you tell them they aren't running enough, registration drops and marathon races start disappearing because they need runners to cover the cost of having them. I think having more races is good for all of us.

Hmmm..my experience has been that most people who try to train for a marathon w/o an adequate base do get injured. Most often it is ITB, bursistis, PF, overuse and muscle imbalance type of stuff.

There is nothing wrong with wanting people to have a good base so they actually enjoy the process and the race. If you have to walk at mile 18 because you are in good enough shape, you aren't having a good time.

And the 50 mpw base was what I felt comfortable with based on my past BAD experiences with being undertrained. (I am hardly a freak of nature or an elite runner - 50 mpw is really not all that much if you are running something everyday, have 1 quality speed workout, 1 mid week long run and a weekend long run).

I would caution any runner who doesn't have at least 25 mpw for a year against training for a marathon. There is no rush. They will continue to have marathons. Do it smart.

CarsonRuns

So maybe the solution is to not train for a marathon until you can handle a decent amount of mileage?

Not trying to be snarky but it is just common sense. The fact that the average marathon time is increasing means more and more people are not only taking part but taking part undertrained. This is why people get injured. I speak from experience as I went into my first one severely undertrained and injured due to newbie stupidity. It took me a couple of years before I felt comfortable enough with my base to train for another one. And by base, I mean 50 mpw for 6 months.

and I echo the importance of a mid week higher mileage run.

Bingo!

I think that there is a public perception that you aren't a "real runner" until you have done a marathon. So not true. You can put in the same number of miles for 5K training as you do for marathon training. You don't have to run a marathon and you shouldn't until you body is able to handle it. I was running for 6 years before I even thought about it and then I still had a lot of work to do. I think that some of the running stores are to blame for this too, along with Team in Training and similar organizations. They get people to buy into the hype (and the merchandise!) of the marathon, completely ignoring the fact that they are "training" people for a marathon that just aren't physically ready to take that on. They usually end up hurt or hating the experience. It's a shame.

That and there is the bucket list mentality too. So many people just want to check it off their list and that's fine, but at least get yourself properly prepared so it doesn't suck (as much).

grinch031

Its true that median marathon times are increasing, but only because running is growing. There are more novice runners doing marathons than ever before. I haven't seen any evidence that people get injured because they don't run enough miles to support their long runs or the marathon race. The only evidence I've seen is that increasing either intensity or volume too quickly can lead to overuse injuries. But plenty of people get injured in both the novice and more experienced categories.

So if everyone needs to run 60 mpw in order to run their first marathon, what percentage of those runners will ever hit that weekly volume without getting injured? Probably very few.

So what happens when you discourage people from running marathons because you tell them they aren't running enough, registration drops and marathon races start disappearing because they need runners to cover the cost of having them. I think having more races is good for all of us.

Hmmm..my experience has been that most people who try to train for a marathon w/o an adequate base do get injured. Most often it is ITB, bursistis, PF, overuse and muscle imbalance type of stuff.

There is nothing wrong with wanting people to have a good base so they actually enjoy the process and the race. If you have to walk at mile 18 because you are in good enough shape, you aren't having a good time.

And the 50 mpw base was what I felt comfortable with based on my past BAD experiences with being undertrained. (I am hardly a freak of nature or an elite runner - 50 mpw is really not all that much if you are running something everyday, have 1 quality speed workout, 1 mid week long run and a weekend long run).

I would caution any runner who doesn't have at least 25 mpw for a year against training for a marathon. There is no rush. They will continue to have marathons. Do it smart.

I would bet the majority of runners don't like running enough or could even sustain 50 mpw without getting injured. The build-up process is the problem. It would take way too long to properly build up the distance and they would probably lose interest. If Higdon's programs were so ineffective, they would probably be adjusted. The truth is they are sufficient for most novice runners who have modest goals. My wife ran a Higdon novice program and ran the entire 26.2 miles without issue. Sure she could improve her time with more miles, but for that race her goal was to finish.

According to that link I posted earlier, the average runner only runs 4 days a week between 20-27 miles. Of course this doesn't apply to a marathon runner, but I'm just showing the majority of runners aren't *that* serious about running.

CarsonRuns

Its true that median marathon times are increasing, but only because running is growing. There are more novice runners doing marathons than ever before. I haven't seen any evidence that people get injured because they don't run enough miles to support their long runs or the marathon race. The only evidence I've seen is that increasing either intensity or volume too quickly can lead to overuse injuries. But plenty of people get injured in both the novice and more experienced categories.

I have.

So if everyone needs to run 60 mpw in order to run their first marathon, what percentage of those runners will ever hit that weekly volume without getting injured? Probably very few.

Many, if they build their base in a smart and consistent manner over time.

So what happens when you discourage people from running marathons because you tell them they aren't running enough, registration drops and marathon races start disappearing because they need runners to cover the cost of having them. I think having more races is good for all of us.

I think we could do without quite a few races (Rock and Roll, for instance) and there are many races that don't need to have 30K participants. It would be nice to not have to sign up for a marathon 9 months in advance because it sells out in a week. How am I supposed to know where I will be in my training 9 months from now? Road running has become too much of a business. These companies are filling their coffers full in the first week of registration and not always providing the best running experience.

grinch031

Its true that median marathon times are increasing, but only because running is growing. There are more novice runners doing marathons than ever before. I haven't seen any evidence that people get injured because they don't run enough miles to support their long runs or the marathon race. The only evidence I've seen is that increasing either intensity or volume too quickly can lead to overuse injuries. But plenty of people get injured in both the novice and more experienced categories.

I have.

So if everyone needs to run 60 mpw in order to run their first marathon, what percentage of those runners will ever hit that weekly volume without getting injured? Probably very few.

Many, if they build their base in a smart and consistent manner over time.

So what happens when you discourage people from running marathons because you tell them they aren't running enough, registration drops and marathon races start disappearing because they need runners to cover the cost of having them. I think having more races is good for all of us.

I think we could do without quite a few races (Rock and Roll, for instance) and there are many races that don't need to have 30K participants. It would be nice to not have to sign up for a marathon 9 months in advance because it sells out in a week. How am I supposed to know where I will be in my training 9 months from now? Road running has become too much of a business. These companies are filling their coffers full in the first week of registration and not always providing the best running experience.

So really your stance from the last two posts is that most people really have no business running marathons, because let's face it most people would not be able to follow the path you've taken to get where you are in running. I happen to disagree because I don't think you need to be in supreme physical condition to take on the distance. You think it sucks to not have an easy time getting a respectable finish time because maybe you get so tired at the end, but I think it sucks training the way you did in your training log, running 10 miles a day at 9 minute pace. That would drive me crazy.

CarsonRuns

So really your stance from the last two posts is that most people really have no business running marathons, because let's face it most people would not be able to follow the path you've taken to get where you are in running. I happen to disagree because I don't think you need to be in supreme physical condition to take on the distance. You think it sucks to not have an easy time getting a respectable finish time because maybe you get so tired at the end, but I think it sucks training the way you did in your training log, running 10 miles a day at 9 minute pace. That would drive me crazy.

Don't put words in my mouth. My stance is that there are a lot of different race distances and all of them are worthy goals. I think that a slow build up over time to get to the marathon distance is the right thing to do. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run for 5 hours and be miserable for a lot of it. It is a RACE, after all, isn't it? Train for a HM instead. Set a goal of 2 hours and work hard to get there. Enjoy the process. Become a lifelong runner. I've seen so many instances of bucket list runners that get through the marathon and never want to run again. That's just not healthy, especially if you are trying to grow the sport.

As for my training plan, I actually enjoy running, so 10 miles at 9 minutes per is something that I like to do. Maybe you just don't like running?

grinch031

So really your stance from the last two posts is that most people really have no business running marathons, because let's face it most people would not be able to follow the path you've taken to get where you are in running. I happen to disagree because I don't think you need to be in supreme physical condition to take on the distance. You think it sucks to not have an easy time getting a respectable finish time because maybe you get so tired at the end, but I think it sucks training the way you did in your training log, running 10 miles a day at 9 minute pace. That would drive me crazy.

Don't put words in my mouth. My stance is that there are a lot of different race distances and all of them are worthy goals. I think that a slow build up over time to get to the marathon distance is the right thing to do. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run for 5 hours and be miserable for a lot of it. It is a RACE, after all, isn't it? Train for a HM instead. Set a goal of 2 hours and work hard to get there. Enjoy the process. Become a lifelong runner. I've seen so many instances of bucket list runners that get through the marathon and never want to run again. That's just not healthy, especially if you are trying to grow the sport.

As for my training plan, I actually enjoy running, so 10 miles at 9 minutes per is something that I like to do. Maybe you just don't like running?

Because most people running marathons have already run half marathons. That is the next logical step right?

I like running, but I obviously don't like it as much as you. Doesn't mean I'm not ready to run a marathon because my running isn't on par with yours.

I don't see how someone is going to hate running that 5 hour marathon more than they would hate running 10 miles a day over the course of a year or more just to get to where they can attempt that marathon so that its only 3 1/2 or 4 hours. If they want a good finish time, then your advice is reasonable. But I just don't think it applies to most of the people here with goals of just finishing.

Unless you can show me studies that marathon runners following modest training programs are getting injured at an alarming rate, what you are saying sounds like elitist snobbery to me.

FitForeverAgain

Seriously, you sound like an elitist running snob in your posts. Not saying you are, but that's how it comes across. Just because you can't imagine a 5 hour miserable run being worth it, to MANY people it is. And no, to most people it is not a RACE as you see it. It's a competition with one's self, with no intention of racing anyone. I, like many people, don't care for running. But, I put in 32 miles last week. I like the results it gives me, and the challenge to accomplish something that is difficult. I have no desire to run multiple marathons, and become a lifetime hard core runner (i.e. 50+ mile weekly base - which is alot of mileage). But, just because I don't want to be a running junkie, doesn't exclude me from paying my money, entering the same race you do, and finishing it.

Best of luck in your races, I bet we won't be sharing a beer at the end...I'll leave that for us competitors, and leave your racers to your own vices. (More base mileage after the marathon?)

So really your stance from the last two posts is that most people really have no business running marathons, because let's face it most people would not be able to follow the path you've taken to get where you are in running. I happen to disagree because I don't think you need to be in supreme physical condition to take on the distance. You think it sucks to not have an easy time getting a respectable finish time because maybe you get so tired at the end, but I think it sucks training the way you did in your training log, running 10 miles a day at 9 minute pace. That would drive me crazy.

Don't put words in my mouth. My stance is that there are a lot of different race distances and all of them are worthy goals. I think that a slow build up over time to get to the marathon distance is the right thing to do. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run for 5 hours and be miserable for a lot of it. It is a RACE, after all, isn't it? Train for a HM instead. Set a goal of 2 hours and work hard to get there. Enjoy the process. Become a lifelong runner. I've seen so many instances of bucket list runners that get through the marathon and never want to run again. That's just not healthy, especially if you are trying to grow the sport.

As for my training plan, I actually enjoy running, so 10 miles at 9 minutes per is something that I like to do. Maybe you just don't like running?

FitForeverAgain

FYI, the "elitist snobbery" line from the above post wasn't up as I was typing mine. Funny how such a word choice came from two separate people after reading the posts... Hmmm, maybe some truth to it.

Seriously, you sound like an elitist running snob in your posts. Not saying you are, but that's how it comes across. Just because you can't imagine a 5 hour miserable run being worth it, to MANY people it is. And no, to most people it is not a RACE as you see it. It's a competition with one's self, with no intention of racing anyone. I, like many people, don't care for running. But, I put in 32 miles last week. I like the results it gives me, and the challenge to accomplish something that is difficult. I have no desire to run multiple marathons, and become a lifetime hard core runner (i.e. 50+ mile weekly base - which is alot of mileage). But, just because I don't want to be a running junkie, doesn't exclude me from paying my money, entering the same race you do, and finishing it.

Best of luck in your races, I bet we won't be sharing a beer at the end...I'll leave that for us competitors, and leave your racers to your own vices. (More base mileage after the marathon?)

So really your stance from the last two posts is that most people really have no business running marathons, because let's face it most people would not be able to follow the path you've taken to get where you are in running. I happen to disagree because I don't think you need to be in supreme physical condition to take on the distance. You think it sucks to not have an easy time getting a respectable finish time because maybe you get so tired at the end, but I think it sucks training the way you did in your training log, running 10 miles a day at 9 minute pace. That would drive me crazy.

Don't put words in my mouth. My stance is that there are a lot of different race distances and all of them are worthy goals. I think that a slow build up over time to get to the marathon distance is the right thing to do. I can't imagine why anyone would want to run for 5 hours and be miserable for a lot of it. It is a RACE, after all, isn't it? Train for a HM instead. Set a goal of 2 hours and work hard to get there. Enjoy the process. Become a lifelong runner. I've seen so many instances of bucket list runners that get through the marathon and never want to run again. That's just not healthy, especially if you are trying to grow the sport.

As for my training plan, I actually enjoy running, so 10 miles at 9 minutes per is something that I like to do. Maybe you just don't like running?