how long would it take a beginner to get into marathon shape?
yogaveg
Posts: 68 Member
just started running (again) last month and i fell back in love with it. as i'm creating my 2015 goals i'm wondering if a marathon towards the end of 2015 would be too ambitious. i tend to aim was to high so i was looking for other's input.
the jump between 1/2 marathon which i'm certain i could do in a year and full marathon seems huge! anyways, opinions on this??
the jump between 1/2 marathon which i'm certain i could do in a year and full marathon seems huge! anyways, opinions on this??
0
Replies
-
I wouldnt do it.
If youve just started running again, its too big of a task in my opinion. Ive been run for 3 years and a full isnt on the docket for 2015 (largely due to injury). But thats my point, you could very easily injure yourself doing this in your first year.
But im not as knowledgeable as Doug, Carson, et al.0 -
I'm with the above poster, october 2013 I posted here about doing a full the following spring Carson quite rightly said not to do it, to get the miles in and aim for a half.
I did and really enjoyed it and several more, I did the marathon in October, looking back I still don't think I had enough miles done but its done and I enjoyed it. Aim for next year is get the miles in and aim for the same marathon again this time aiming for a better time.
As Louis armstrong says ' we have all the time in the world'
why risk injury and being off when you are so enjoying being back.
Keep us posted on how you are getting on
valentine0 -
Personally I took about 18 months to half marathon and I'm contemplating a marathon in the early summer, so about 26/27 months after starting running.
A year gives you no tolerance for injury or delay in your training, and if you look at most marathon plans they're a big time commitment.
fwiw a friend did couch to marathon (London) in a year and about 8 months in was hating the training, because of the time commitment and intensity. In that year she hadn't had an opportunity to enjoy running for the sake of running.0 -
thank you all! i want to keep running enjoyable so i will just see where my running takes me this year0
-
I'm going to be the contrarian here.
I was 60 years old when I took up running again in 2013. The last time I ran as a matter of routine (for a number of reasons) was 1986. The last race I trained for prior to 2013 was the Great Raleigh Road Race (10K) in 1985. I was running at 6:30-6:45/mile pace.
Fast forward to 2013 and my "accidental" run in the Cooper River Bridge Run. Actually, I intended to walk the 10K just so I could get pictures on the bridge. Instead, I ran the first two miles, walked the next one so I could take about 100 pictures up on the bridge and then ran from mile 3 to the end...without training to run the distance. The only thing I had done was lost a lot of weight and walked nearly every day. At the end of the 10K, I wasn't exhausted. Yes, my muscles told me I had done something that I was unaccustomed to. But I felt I could run twice that far, nearly the half-marathon distance (of course, I couldn't really. But it felt that way).
That was April 2013 and I began training for a marathon in late October or early November, knowing that I could always drop back to the half-marathon distance. I ran my first marathon in November 2013. Since that 10K in Charleston, I've run four marathons, 6 half-marathons, and three 5K's.
I trained on a 26-week plan and I ran my first marathon in 5:10. My fastest marathon was my last one, a repeat of my first one and completed at 4:41. So, it can be done. I was committed to a three day per week training cycle, the gradual build up in distance, etc. And I was 60 years old when I did that first training cycle. Granted, I had about 3-years of daily walking of nearly 10 miles everyday under my belt before I shifted to running and training.0 -
I don't really believe in rushing things. I went from just being able to piece together 5k without walk breaks in June of 2012 (in about 40 minutes) to running a half marathon in October 2012 in 2:20. After that I slowed my progress down on purpose and worked on running more miles. Ran 3 HMs in 2013 including my standing PR, then in 2014 I ran 3 HMs but mostly concentrated on running as many miles as possible (averaged 47 a week for 6 months, peaked at 59 mpw) before my first full in November 2014. The full was fun and easy and I was so glad I waited until I was ready to really spend the time concentrating on the one race.0
-
My experience is like STrooper's. I started at age 60 and ran a marathon in 5+hours after six months training with the L.A. Leggers. It was a run-walk program and worked for me. I'm trying to to do the same things in 2015. We shall see.0
-
The question I'd ask is, what are your marathon goals/expectations? There are plenty of complete beginners out there that have finished a marathon after 6 months training or less, and injury free. There probably aren't too many that have done this with a sub-4 hour goal though, for example. I'd say if you want to motivate yourself and book that marathon six months or a year from now, do it. But train steadily and take your time to build the miles at a pace that won't injure you rather than setting any unrealistic time goals. 26.2 miles is the same distance whether you make it in 3 hours or 8 hours and if registering for it gives you something to work towards, go for it. Just keep realistic expectations.0
-
This.Rachel_ElephantRunner wrote: »The question I'd ask is, what are your marathon goals/expectations? There are plenty of complete beginners out there that have finished a marathon after 6 months training or less, and injury free. There probably aren't too many that have done this with a sub-4 hour goal though, for example. I'd say if you want to motivate yourself and book that marathon six months or a year from now, do it. But train steadily and take your time to build the miles at a pace that won't injure you rather than setting any unrealistic time goals. 26.2 miles is the same distance whether you make it in 3 hours or 8 hours and if registering for it gives you something to work towards, go for it. Just keep realistic expectations.
0 -
My standard answer is that you shouldn't even start thinking about a marathon until you have 18 to 24 months of consistent 25 mile average weeks. Why rush it? Make sure you are mentally and physically ready for it so you can enjoy the experience.0
-
You can do it. Aim for a spring half and a fall full 0
-
When I first started running it was to train for a marathon. This decision was made when I couldn't even run a block without getting winded. I trained for a year and finished my first marathon in 5 1/2 hours. It could have been a lot shorter, but I mentally psyched myself out at mile 18 and it was all downhill from there. I was 34 years old, literally had just stopped smoking two packs a day the day I started training. Unless you have a preexisting injury or true medical issue there is no reason you can't commit yourself to a full marathon, just be sure you have at least 6 months to train if you are starting from scratch. Be sure you invest in good gear, read up on proper nutrition, and stay committed. In the five years since I started running I've completed 5 marathons, at least 8 half marathons, and a smattering of smaller races. Nearly anyone can do it physically, it's the mental commitment that takes the most work.0
-
ArchyRunner wrote: »When I first started running it was to train for a marathon. This decision was made when I couldn't even run a block without getting winded. I trained for a year and finished my first marathon in 5 1/2 hours. It could have been a lot shorter, but I mentally psyched myself out at mile 18 and it was all downhill from there. I was 34 years old, literally had just stopped smoking two packs a day the day I started training. Unless you have a preexisting injury or true medical issue there is no reason you can't commit yourself to a full marathon, just be sure you have at least 6 months to train if you are starting from scratch. Be sure you invest in good gear, read up on proper nutrition, and stay committed. In the five years since I started running I've completed 5 marathons, at least 8 half marathons, and a smattering of smaller races. Nearly anyone can do it physically, it's the mental commitment that takes the most work.
You are one of the lucky ones. For ever runner that ran a marathon after only one year of training, there are 100 sitting on the sideline with injuries or that just quit running.
It takes time for the body to be properly acclimated to the rigors of running. Not just muscle, but tendons and ligaments too. It's not about having the will to do the training, it's about your body being able to handle the work. Additionally, I don't understand why anyone would want to train for a 5+ hour marathon. There are plenty of intermediate goals that would be more appropriate for a beginning runner, like a sub 2 hour half or a sub 25 minute 5K. Both of these can be attained without putting the body through the pounding of marathon training.
I firmly believe that proper marathon training requires 60 mile weeks, minimum. This means that your 20 mile long run is 1/3 of your total weekly mileage, a percentage that is recommended by most distance coaches in the know (1/4 or less is even better). That being said, it's highly unlikely that any beginning runner is going to be ready for 60 miles weeks in a year or less.
Running a marathon is not the end all, be all of running even though that perception seems to be prevalent in the community. There are many things that are harder than running a marathon. A sub 20 minute 5K, sub 1:30 HM, these are far more difficult than completing a marathon. I suggest that you set smaller intermediate goals for the first 18 months and then take a look at whether you still want to run 26.2. It's a long damn way.0 -
As others noted, you have to slowly build up your strength and endurance. I've been running almost a year now. I ran a few half marathons in 2014 (along with a 5K and couple of 10K). The first half was a struggle to complete but the second one a few months later went much better. Likely will run a few more of these types of races in spring/summer 2015 and finally plan for my first full marathon in October.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »ArchyRunner wrote: »When I first started running it was to train for a marathon. This decision was made when I couldn't even run a block without getting winded. I trained for a year and finished my first marathon in 5 1/2 hours. It could have been a lot shorter, but I mentally psyched myself out at mile 18 and it was all downhill from there. I was 34 years old, literally had just stopped smoking two packs a day the day I started training. Unless you have a preexisting injury or true medical issue there is no reason you can't commit yourself to a full marathon, just be sure you have at least 6 months to train if you are starting from scratch. Be sure you invest in good gear, read up on proper nutrition, and stay committed. In the five years since I started running I've completed 5 marathons, at least 8 half marathons, and a smattering of smaller races. Nearly anyone can do it physically, it's the mental commitment that takes the most work.
You are one of the lucky ones. For ever runner that ran a marathon after only one year of training, there are 100 sitting on the sideline with injuries or that just quit running.
It takes time for the body to be properly acclimated to the rigors of running. Not just muscle, but tendons and ligaments too. It's not about having the will to do the training, it's about your body being able to handle the work. Additionally, I don't understand why anyone would want to train for a 5+ hour marathon. There are plenty of intermediate goals that would be more appropriate for a beginning runner, like a sub 2 hour half or a sub 25 minute 5K. Both of these can be attained without putting the body through the pounding of marathon training.
I firmly believe that proper marathon training requires 60 mile weeks, minimum. This means that your 20 mile long run is 1/3 of your total weekly mileage, a percentage that is recommended by most distance coaches in the know (1/4 or less is even better). That being said, it's highly unlikely that any beginning runner is going to be ready for 60 miles weeks in a year or less.
Running a marathon is not the end all, be all of running even though that perception seems to be prevalent in the community. There are many things that are harder than running a marathon. A sub 20 minute 5K, sub 1:30 HM, these are far more difficult than completing a marathon. I suggest that you set smaller intermediate goals for the first 18 months and then take a look at whether you still want to run 26.2. It's a long damn way.
60 mile weeks? To me that sounds like perfect injury conditions. No need for 60 mile weeks, I think my max falls somewhere around 45, and that's right at the peak. Everyone isn't built for every type of race, for some (such as myself) it takes a good 3-4 miles just to settle in and find your groove. And I don't think most set out to finish in 5+ hours...the following year I finished in 4:30, then 4:15, then 4:01 (one minute, argh!). Regardless of the distance you choose eating well, being geared properly and cross training is paramount to injury prevention.
0 -
You are getting a mixed bag of advice here because there is a big difference between running a marathon and racing a marathon. If you plan to race, you are training hard with the intention of giving it your best effort on race day to achieve the fastest time you can. Much of the advice you get here comes from experienced runners that see no other reason to run a marathon. In this case, yes, you need a strong foundation built from high mileage over a long period of time.
On the other hand, you can finish 26.2 miles with less of a foundation if you are willing to take a bit out of the tank and walk if you need to. If your goal is to finish and you do not care if it takes 5+ hours, it's definitely doable. However, don't underestimate how difficult this may be. A faster marathon may be more physically demanding of your body. But running a marathon at any pace takes a lot of mental strength too.0 -
Here's my one runner's opinion: I ran my first marathon after only one year of running. I had run before that, on and off, up to about 5k distance. I trained to half distance in the spring, and full distance in the fall, peaking at 40 mpw. I'll be honest. My first marathon sucked. I finished in 5:20 and it was the most grueling, painful last 2 hours of my life. I hit a major wall around mile 18 and had to drag myself across the finish line on pure grit. I had to take a full month off of running to recover. My whole body suffered for it.
This past year I ran my second marathon, after 2 years of running. I finished in 4:45 and hit no wall, had even splits and a great experience. That was RUNNING a marathon, not RACING a marathon. I ran at long run pace and didn't push it. Now I'm going into year 3 of running and am up to 35-40 mile weeks in the down season, plan to peak at 60 miles in the fall for a full marathon. My goal is 4:15 this time around. That (for me) will be racing.
If I had to do it all over again, I would have stuck to the half distance for the first year, and gradually increased to an easier just finish marathon in year two, and then continued on with my current plan to race a marathon for a time goal in year three. But then again, that's just me.
Best of luck with whatever you decide! 0 -
It takes time for the body to be properly acclimated to the rigors of running. Not just muscle, but tendons and ligaments too. It's not about having the will to do the training, it's about your body being able to handle the work. Additionally, I don't understand why anyone would want to train for a 5+ hour marathon. There are plenty of intermediate goals that would be more appropriate for a beginning runner, like a sub 2 hour half or a sub 25 minute 5K. Both of these can be attained without putting the body through the pounding of marathon training.
Carson points out an important consideration and if you look at some the physiology it makes sense. One of the reasons why people get injured is that they get beyond the capacity of the weakest part of their system. And you really have to read pretty deeply to get this:
The cardio-vascular system (heart, lungs and brain) responds very quickly to the stress of training/running. And that is the way the training is structured, as stress and then recovery and then progression to the next stress level. Many people can see quick response at a cardio level where the heart and lungs feel more capable of delivering what the body is asking for when you start off. Why? Well, those are the fundamental blood flow body structures. You can take only a few weeks to a couple of months to see some dramatic gains.
One small problem...the muscle development (i.e., the major and secondary running and walking muscles) take months to build. Greater blood demand helps to build the muscle (but less inherent blood flow), but it takes more time to build the muscle "infrastructure." You have to think more like months to about half a year.
The slowest part of the system to respond is skeletal components and specifically the ligaments and tendons. With the lowest blood flow of all the running infrastructure, adequate conditioning takes between half a year to a year.
The problem is the cardio system tells the brain "I'm ready to run!" The rest of the body, maybe not as fast and not ready to keep up with a galloping cardio system. You get frustrated, you get hurt, you quit (maybe).
However, in that same paragraph I think Carson misses a point though others have alluded to it. What are your goals? To say you've run a marathon? To be able to keep running them and other races? And how important is time to you; both the time to train and the time on the clock when you cross the finish line?
Carson is racing, to be sure. Someone running a 5+ hour marathon may be racing in their own way or they may just be running for the medal and the t-shirt.
So, the comment on people training for a 5+ hour marathon and not understanding it might be because he would never be back there with people who feel thrilled to complete the race between 5 and 6 hours. I do know people who train and appear to have the capability to run a marathon in much less than 4 hours, but they boink at mile 16-18 and then are merely surviving to the end to finish before the course closes or end up as a DNF. That sense of failure that they talk about can be a real challenge. And maybe that is the perspective that Carson is sharing.
Remember, you have a choice in what your goals are and what you take away from running any race including a marathon. Good luck to you!0 -
What do you have to lose and, second, if this is important to you, are you actually going to let the good folks here talk you out of it?
When I was doing long distance motorcycle rides (back when I was obese), my motto was "Plan the ride, ride the plan, enjoy the ride." Apply that simple expression to your endeavor and see where it takes you.
You're not going to tumble out of bed in 12 months and amble through 26.2 without significant learning, planning, pain, and sweat. But I have little doubt that, assuming that you are medically cleared now//not physically restricted in some way, you could complete 26.2 in a year.
Soon after I stared losing weight, I wanted to do something that no one had ever done before. After losing 95 pounds in 7 months, I started running and 10 weeks later I did my thing (https://spotwalla.com/tripViewer.php?id=367c4e4e87ed45c19).
Yup, after a Half Mary in 2:20 (±), I got on the bike and rode 1000 miles through the California and Arizona desert (in the August heat) because it was a goal that I decided I wanted to accomplish. I planned it, trained for it, and executed the plan and I accomplished it.
Granted, that task was not for the faint of heart but if I could do that at age 55, after not exercising for a quarter of a century, it's quite reasonable that a well motivated, physically able whippersnapper could finish a marathon with 12 full months of training.
It comes down to this - do you have the time and discipline to train, the will to succeed, and the physical strength to move your body 26.2 miles?
"Who dares wins."0 -
ArchyRunner wrote: »CarsonRuns wrote: »ArchyRunner wrote: »When I first started running it was to train for a marathon. This decision was made when I couldn't even run a block without getting winded. I trained for a year and finished my first marathon in 5 1/2 hours. It could have been a lot shorter, but I mentally psyched myself out at mile 18 and it was all downhill from there. I was 34 years old, literally had just stopped smoking two packs a day the day I started training. Unless you have a preexisting injury or true medical issue there is no reason you can't commit yourself to a full marathon, just be sure you have at least 6 months to train if you are starting from scratch. Be sure you invest in good gear, read up on proper nutrition, and stay committed. In the five years since I started running I've completed 5 marathons, at least 8 half marathons, and a smattering of smaller races. Nearly anyone can do it physically, it's the mental commitment that takes the most work.
You are one of the lucky ones. For ever runner that ran a marathon after only one year of training, there are 100 sitting on the sideline with injuries or that just quit running.
It takes time for the body to be properly acclimated to the rigors of running. Not just muscle, but tendons and ligaments too. It's not about having the will to do the training, it's about your body being able to handle the work. Additionally, I don't understand why anyone would want to train for a 5+ hour marathon. There are plenty of intermediate goals that would be more appropriate for a beginning runner, like a sub 2 hour half or a sub 25 minute 5K. Both of these can be attained without putting the body through the pounding of marathon training.
I firmly believe that proper marathon training requires 60 mile weeks, minimum. This means that your 20 mile long run is 1/3 of your total weekly mileage, a percentage that is recommended by most distance coaches in the know (1/4 or less is even better). That being said, it's highly unlikely that any beginning runner is going to be ready for 60 miles weeks in a year or less.
Running a marathon is not the end all, be all of running even though that perception seems to be prevalent in the community. There are many things that are harder than running a marathon. A sub 20 minute 5K, sub 1:30 HM, these are far more difficult than completing a marathon. I suggest that you set smaller intermediate goals for the first 18 months and then take a look at whether you still want to run 26.2. It's a long damn way.
60 mile weeks? To me that sounds like perfect injury conditions. No need for 60 mile weeks, I think my max falls somewhere around 45, and that's right at the peak. Everyone isn't built for every type of race, for some (such as myself) it takes a good 3-4 miles just to settle in and find your groove. And I don't think most set out to finish in 5+ hours...the following year I finished in 4:30, then 4:15, then 4:01 (one minute, argh!). Regardless of the distance you choose eating well, being geared properly and cross training is paramount to injury prevention.
I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.0 -
just started running (again) last month and i fell back in love with it. as i'm creating my 2015 goals i'm wondering if a marathon towards the end of 2015 would be too ambitious. i tend to aim was to high so i was looking for other's input.
the jump between 1/2 marathon which i'm certain i could do in a year and full marathon seems huge! anyways, opinions on this??
This all depends on what your goal is. If you only want to finish, then yes -- you could speed walk the 26.2. If you want to race it, then it depends on your body and its' ability to heal.
If you are looking to *race* the marathon, then listen to Carson. It will require time on your feet, 50+ mile weeks, and time for your body to adapt.
I would definitely recommend *racing* shorter distance events. Like others have said, it is harder to *race* shorter events faster than it is to target a 5-6 hour marathon.0 -
2015 will be my third year of running. I'm considering running my first marathon late 2015 or early 2016. For the first six months of 2015, I'll be running 3 HM's (two are a 2-in-one-weekend challenge) and a 25km (15.8 miles) trail race in late April.
For me, running has been about training for a reasonable goal and enjoying what I accomplish. I have been injury free in running, but having injured myself in other sports, I've had brief reminders that injury can really sideline you and makes me miserable.
I've enjoyed all the PR's I hit in 2014, including placing in my age group twice in the 5K distance.
I'm personally glad I wasn't in a rush to go for the marathon distance. Looking forward to my first 25km distance and gaining speed improvements just by running more miles.
Good luck in whatever you do.0 -
I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.
I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
0 -
I'll throw this out there too. My physiology professor gave an interesting lecture on the filtration membrane of the kidneys. Towards the end, he talked about damage to this membrane from hypoxia and a lot of the data we looked at compared endurance athletes over years of training. In that data, we saw that weight bearing endurance sports like running caused excessive damage in many recreational runners - common among these? First and second year runners new to the sport training for marathons, most with far less than 60 miles in a week. Those running 90+ miles had little to no damage seen but they were also more experienced runners.
I think there is an interesting thesis to be written here!
And I think it speaks to the biology of slowly working your way into the trainjng.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.
I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
I agree! My first marathon I had been running ~2 years. My "peak" mileage was 40-45. The marathon was a disaster [4:10] walked, cried, hated myself. I upped my miles over time to the 70-80 peak range. Within 2 years I was able to "race" more marathons taking over 45 min off my time. I gradually got faster & able to recover quickly because of increased mileage.
Bottom line, rushing into things you aren't properly trained for will:
A- cause injury
And/or
B- not allow you to reach your full potential as a runner
:-)0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »...
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
An interesting read. I'm doing my first - London in April (and second - Snowdon in Oct) marathons this year having started running at 300lbs Apr-13. I did my 1st 5k in Aug-13 and took 50mins. I did my first HM in Jun-14 in 2:40. I'm still around 25lbs overweight. However, my current 5k PB is 24:34 and HM 1:55. I haven't yet run 20 miles (longest is 15 miles) so don't know my time (but am averaging 30-35miles a week for the last couple of months). So on the one hand I really only have about 12-18 months 'proper' running experience but I'm also hitting the times that should make a 4-4:30 marathon possible if my training goes to plan.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.
I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
I agree! My first marathon I had been running ~2 years. My "peak" mileage was 40-45. The marathon was a disaster [4:10] walked, cried, hated myself. I upped my miles over time to the 70-80 peak range. Within 2 years I was able to "race" more marathons taking over 45 min off my time. I gradually got faster & able to recover quickly because of increased mileage.
Bottom line, rushing into things you aren't properly trained for will:
A- cause injury
And/or
B- not allow you to reach your full potential as a runner
:-)
4:10 is a disaster? Ummm. To each their own. I call a race successful if I gave it my all, ran smart and didn't give into the mental naysayers kicking around in my brain.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.
I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
I think you've misunderstood the theory behind "no long runs more than 3:30" mantra. The idea isn't that your marathon needs to fit within that pace, it's that your not going to see any physical benefits pushing beyond that point in training. Thus many plans that support this theory do longish runs day before the big long run as cumulatively it gives you the mental training needed to run tired without overtaxing the body.0 -
I don't want to hijack the thread, but vcphil, how do you run so much in Minnesota? I use to live in Bemidji and brrrrrrr; so cold it's dangerous some days.0
-
ArchyRunner wrote: »CarsonRuns wrote: »I can't help but wonder about this as well. I was doing around 50 miles per week on my peak weeks. I thought I was properly trained for the distance but then I did take a few walk breaks those last few miles. Still got it in 4:32 and this was my first one. My error was not doing enough hill work. My quads were shot around mile 18 from the hills on the course. Then again I was cautious about hill repeats due to an occasional achilles issue so that was by choice.
How long should you wait? I don't know that you need to do a 2:00 half before trying out for a full but you'll enjoy a full a lot more if you can enjoy a half a lot more. That's true for sure.
I'd argue that lack of hill work wasn't why your quads were trashed, but rather just a lack of cumulative mileage. Besides, hill repeats are designed to build strength, not to help you with muscle fitness for hills over distance. Running easy run routes with hills, especially your long run, goes a lot further to the type of conditioning required than repeats will.
I guess that there has to be a distinction made about what constitutes a successful marathon. The definition will be different depending on your goals. So, this is my opinion, based on my definition of a successful marathon, which I believe to be one that is run in around 4:10 or less. Again, my opinion, I don't see the value in running a marathon if it's going to take you longer than that, and even then it's pushing it. Modern coaches, almost unanimously, state that any long run over 3:30 is counter productive. They also agree that anything more than about 20 miles is counterproductive as well. So, 3:30 to do 20 miles is a 10:30 pace. That translates to a 4:35 marathon if you run the race at your long run pace. Hopefully your MP will be faster, resulting in that 4:10-4:15 range. So, I believe that if you can't do 20 miles in 3:30, then you shouldn't consider training for a marathon. I think the HM of under 2:00 is a good indicator of one's ability to hit those other numbers with proper training.
So, call me a running snob or whatever, but that's the way I feel. As I stated earlier in this thread, there are many other running goals that are far more difficult to attain than surviving a marathon. Working toward those goals and putting in the mileage required to attain them will prepare the runner for the rigors of marathon training.
I think you've misunderstood the theory behind "no long runs more than 3:30" mantra. The idea isn't that your marathon needs to fit within that pace, it's that your not going to see any physical benefits pushing beyond that point in training. Thus many plans that support this theory do longish runs day before the big long run as cumulatively it gives you the mental training needed to run tired without overtaxing the body.
I completely understand the theory behind the mantra. I simply extrapolated it into times and paces to show what it translates to in marathon training. If your easy run pace is 12:00 minute miles and you stick to the mantra, your 3:30 run isn't going to be anywhere close to 20 miles for your long run and will leave you woefully unprepared for a marathon. So I say, keep running, but train for other distances, ALL of which require that you increase your mileage, but don't require that you do a long run of over 3:30 just to get the mileage in that you need to for marathon training.
0
This discussion has been closed.