how long would it take a beginner to get into marathon shape?
Replies
-
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 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.
I think the disaster part is more the "walked, cried, hated myself" part than the time. If one is properly trained for the marathon, that shouldn't happen...unless of course you go out WAY too fast.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 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.
Perhaps I did not explain fully. My goal for the first marathon was to run sub 3:40. I thought that was a very realistic goal for me at the time. In training leading up to the marathon I ran a 34:50 5 mile race & a sub 21 5k. When I ran these through a calculator, I was told around 3:20-3:24 as a "prediction", so I added 15-20 min on it because it was my "first time". I started with the 3:50 pace group and said I would ditch them around mile 6. I never left the pace group, they left me.
Bottom line, by mile 10 I knew it wasn't going to end well. Yes, I "trained". Yes, I did the long runs. But 40-45 miles for a peak week was not cutting it. It was a "disaster" because my body was not prepared for "racing" a marathon. I was not in shape to even come close to my "potential". I ran like 1:53/2:07.
At the time after the marathon, I didn't know what happened. In retrospect, 2 years later, after several more marathons/ultras I know exactly what happened.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.
Brr is right! Generally I do treadmill 50% of the time in the winter. But I have a dog who I run outside. She keeps me motivated! It's not too bad if you bundle up. It was -17f windchill on Tuesday which was a bit cold but threw a face mask and 4 layers on. It really only hurts your eyes/face.
Also- it's much colder in bemiji than down in the cities
0 -
Part of me wants to vehemently disagree with Carson, but no matter what I do, I just can't discount his opinion on when to train for a marathon.
I say this from the perspective of making 2014 all about running my first full marathon as a relative newcomer to running (I started running in January 2012 and by the end of 2013 had completed five half marathons.)
Here's my story for illustration:
I ramped up the mileage to average 25 - 30 mpw for the first 7 months of 2014 - very successfully... I felt strong, I felt better than ever about my running. I then plowed into Hanson's beginner plan en route to my first full in Philly at the end of November.
I had good success all along the way with the plan - hitting my mileage, workout and pace targets... adjusting and tweaking my pace target as my training was paying off. I even came very close to a HM PR in the middle of training - even though I didn't give an all-out effort because of being in the midst of training for the full.
Race day came and I felt prepared and ready to take on the challenge, but it did not turn out the way I expected. It was a beautiful run, and I had a wonderful day, but it was not in the time I had expected or hoped for. It was "one of those days" where I was not able to control my heart rate and I had to slow down - a LOT. Fortunately, I was not wedded to the idea of finishing in a certain time - the distance was the goal for me so I let go of the goal time I had in mind and I walked a good bit of miles 20 - 25... it wasn't a death march for me - more of a victory lap.
Here's the thing - I am SLOW... very slow. My INITIAL target time was 5:45... that was if everything were to break perfectly for me. I was mentally prepared to be ecstatic with anything sub 6:00 as a solid effort given where I am on my running journey. As it turned out by letting go of time, I came in at 6:51... REALLY slow and a big miss.
Was it a "disaster"? Nope, not as far as I am concerned. It was a choice - one that I was very happy with at the time and I am still happy with today. I could probably have toughed it out and come in somewhere between 6:15 and 6:30 if I had really been concerned with the clock on that race day, but I would have run the very real risk of blowing up and DNFing the race.
Now, having said all of that, I obviously disagree with Carson's opinion of what constitutes a "successful" marathon... my initial GOAL time was over an hour and a half slower than his upper limit. Does that make him a snob? Maybe a little, but I don't even think so. Everyone has to take what they need/want from running and do with it what you can. I'm not concerned with what Carson believes is a successful marathon - all I'm concerned with is what I believe. That's what matters to me.
BUT... and here's the big thing...
In a way, a part of me DOES wish I had followed Carson's recommendations for myself (not that I was really aware of them at the time). I started 2014 with a two-year running history having average 15 - 18 mpw in those first two years... a great accomplishment from nothing before 2012 - and enough for me to be pretty successful in 5Ks, 10Ks and half marathons (based on my own definition of success, of course).
But... in retrospect, it really wasn't enough of a base - enough basic mileage - to allow me to perform my best at the full marathon. I did average over 30 mpw for 2014 up to race date in late November... ended with an easy month in December to drop my yearly average back to 28. I hit all of my training runs on the Hanson plan... most right on the prescribed pace for my planned for marathon pace... but in the aftermath of my race day experience I have come to realize that I had overtrained for this race. Going from a high week EVER of 32 miles before January 2014 to having ten 40+ mile weeks in a row leading up to my taper (with peak weeks of 55, 56 and 57 miles) was too much of a stretch. I was, by race day, burned out.
I'm not regretting the plan or the results, exactly, I did what I wanted (needed to do)... the full marathon was out there waiting for me and I was a bit impatient to get it over and done with. Now I am looking at a 2015 with a renewed love of the half marathon and I am excited to run at least 5 HMs this year. But, I do feel that if I had taken 2014 and run a similar amount of mileage (something like the 25 - 30 mpw that Caron suggests) without burning myself out, I could be standing here today with a full on the plan for 2015 and a LOT more likelihood of not burning myself out training.
Again, I disagree with Carson's opinion of what makes a successful marathon... but his opinion or mine on that subject doesn't matter - just your own. What I can't disagree with is his more fact- or evidence-based advice. More miles logged over more time will better prepare you for the rigors of marathon training. The marathon will always be out there... there's no need to rush to take on the challenge.
Ted
0 -
It will probably depend on what kind of shape you're in to start with. If you've been pretty active in other ways, swimming, hiking, that sort of thing, you might find that you can build up quickly. I did my first marathon last year. I had been running consistently for a little over a year, but had run sporadically before that. I've always been told to listen to my body and base my progress on that. Also, I really like using runkeeper training plans. There are some really good ones you can get for free, and your phone GPS can track your progress. I started with a 5k plan, which was about two months, then did a four month half marathon plan, followed by a four month beginner's marathon plan. All told, it was about a year's worth of training. I'm not setting any speed record, but I was able to finish feeling strong.0
-
Again, I disagree with Carson's opinion of what makes a successful marathon... but his opinion or mine on that subject doesn't matter - just your own. What I can't disagree with is his more fact- or evidence-based advice. More miles logged over more time will better prepare you for the rigors of marathon training. The marathon will always be out there... there's no need to rush to take on the challenge.
Ted
You have my utmost respect, Ted. Thoughtful post and respectful disagreement. The gen pop forums could take a lesson from this post.
0 -
It will probably depend on what kind of shape you're in to start with. If you've been pretty active in other ways, swimming, hiking, that sort of thing, you might find that you can build up quickly. I did my first marathon last year. I had been running consistently for a little over a year, but had run sporadically before that. I've always been told to listen to my body and base my progress on that. Also, I really like using runkeeper training plans. There are some really good ones you can get for free, and your phone GPS can track your progress. I started with a 5k plan, which was about two months, then did a four month half marathon plan, followed by a four month beginner's marathon plan. All told, it was about a year's worth of training. I'm not setting any speed record, but I was able to finish feeling strong.
I just want to point out that those apps can be really inaccurate.
I used Runtastic. And one day, I lost half a mile of tracking on a run so I dug out my Garmin again. I did a test one week. I used the app and the Garmin. First test, the app was started first and about 1.5min later, my watch was started. I had walked about a block at this point. I stopped them at the same time when my walk was over. They read the same distance. The next test, I started them at the same time and stopped at the same time. There was just over a 0.25mi difference between them. I no longer use the apps for runs - just lunch time walks in old sneakers.
PS sorry to hijack0 -
Sign up for a 5K that takes place in about 6-8 weeks; pick a training plan & stick to it up to the day of the race; finish the 5K and then check back here again for further instructions....see you in February.
0 -
I started running in January of 2010 and ran my first race (1 mile) with my 7 year old son that February. I ran a trail 50K that October as my first marathon. So yes you can do it, but you have to want to do it.0
-
I ran a 4:27 trainwreck of a marathon. And I've heard of 3:30 trainwrecks too. It's all relative to where you want to be, tempered by where you actually are, along with the conditions you can't control. I came off the heels of running a 1:45 half, "fast" by most peoples' standards, and immediately [irrationally] thought I had a sub-4 marathon in me 9 months into running. Learned a valuable lesson about respecting the marathon distance and took a year off from my next raced marathon, and built my easy base mileage up. Shaved 57 minutes off of my marathon a year later by doing so. I'd rather run a flawlessly executed 3:30 than a miserable deathmarch 3:25.0
-
Noted. 2:00 half isn't that difficult to do. My long run this weekend I did 13.1 in 2:01:44 and I didn't really push myself that hard. I could run a 2:00 half every weekend easily without even feeling that sore. That's why I finally signed up for the full I did last month. Granted I could try to bring my half time down first. My 20 mile run before I did in 3:15. It wasn't that bad and I was sure I could continue on for 6 miles at a 10:00 pace. That didn't happen on race day but I don't know that I'd tell myself to stick to running half marathons till I got better.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.
Based on your comments I guess I just lack the total cumluative miles during the week to support hitting my goal. Well, I could drop about 15 pounds too. :laugh: It doesn't help that I weigh about 224 lbs right now.
ETA: @ Start time on race day it was 64 degrees with almost 90% humidity. That didn't help one bit.0 -
I'm going to mostly agree with Carson here.
Wouldn't recommend starting from scratch and running a marathon in less than a year's time. Plenty of people "make it". But a lot end up injured by the wayside. I'd say 18 months from when you start running is a pretty safe goal, though. See where you're at in a year.
There's a lot of fun to be had at the sub-marathon distance, so you get to enjoy all of that on your way up. I'm an ultrarunner, and the most fun I had at a race over the past two years was a 2.5 mile race!0 -
I went from couch to marathon in less than 14 months. I had a great first marathon (3:49, no walking, no wall, no issues). I then had an even better second marathon. Then I got injured. Why? Probably because I wanted to do more than my body could handle.
Are you planning on running that marathon and never running again after? If that is the case, go for it.
If you are planning on running for the rest of your life, take it easy. There is no rush
0 -
^ I like this.Training2BeFast wrote: »I went from couch to marathon in less than 14 months. I had a great first marathon (3:49, no walking, no wall, no issues). I then had an even better second marathon. Then I got injured. Why? Probably because I wanted to do more than my body could handle.
Are you planning on running that marathon and never running again after? If that is the case, go for it.
If you are planning on running for the rest of your life, take it easy. There is no rush
Enjoy the ride I started back to running in March and am training for my first half this coming March. Shooting for a Spartan race in November, then my first full in March 2016. I am stoked!
Goals are great to help you stay motivated. But too big a goal may end up getting you down if you encounter injuries and a rough start, like I did. Took me a while to figure out what I was doing wrong and how to adjust... to get into a groove.
Good luck with your endeavors!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??
I started running in september 2013, and ran my first full marathon in April 2014! I'd done 5k's and 10k's but that was it, so you can do it if you put the training in! It was hard, and I did it in 5.5hours. I've done a half since which I did in 2.5hours and I have another half this March then another full in April and I'm aiming for 2 hours 15mins for the half and 5 hours for the full.
If you're already a runner, I think you can do it within a year providing you train and don't get injured! x0
This discussion has been closed.