Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Walking a Marathon.

2

Comments

  • #52
    Smartguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Smartguy


    I don't see any real difference in achievement in running a marathon in 3.5 hours and walking one in 6.5 hours.

    Both individuals if they put more work in could do a lot better. I don't see why the 3.5 hour runner should feel any way superior to the walker.


  • #53
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Smartguy wrote: »
    I don't see any real difference in achievement in running a marathon in 3.5 hours and walking one in 6.5 hours.

    Both individuals if they put more work in could do a lot better. I don't see why the 3.5 hour runner should feel any way superior to the walker.

    That's a pretty silly argument, do you see no difference between a 3.30 marathon runner and a 2.30 marathon runner? Or a 2.15 runner and a 2.05 runner? Running is a sport, we measure achievements in terms of time taken to complete events. The person who competes the event the quickest (or jump/throws the furthest) wins and that is the better achievement. Taking away the feeling of superiority for the faster athlete takes away the element of competition from a competitive sport.


  • #54
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Smartguy wrote: »
    I don't see any real difference in achievement in running a marathon in 3.5 hours and walking one in 6.5 hours.

    Both individuals if they put more work in could do a lot better. I don't see why the 3.5 hour runner should feel any way superior to the walker.

    Seriously?
    When I was fat(ter) smoked and did no exercise I could have walked a 6.5 hour Marathon with no training. God knows why I bothered training my ass off to get better, fitter, slimmer and run faster :rolleyes:

    Your statement is an insult to the hundreds of runners on here who are currently busting their asses off in order to be able to run a sub 3:30 marathon (or whatever their target is for that matter).


  • #55
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Smartguy wrote: »
    I don't see any real difference in achievement in running a marathon in 3.5 hours and walking one in 6.5 hours.

    Both individuals if they put more work in could do a lot better. I don't see why the 3.5 hour runner should feel any way superior to the walker.

    Because the 6.5 hour walker can do WAYYYY better, while the 3.5 hour runner can simply do better. One is nearly twice as fast as the other. The same reason why a 75 second 400 is better than 2 mins 30. Both can do better but the clock doesn't lie. No points for inspiration in this sport. That's the beauty of athletics, the clock tells the story.


  • #56
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,707 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Did the poster not mean to imply that 3.5 hrs running is nothing great or special? It's quite an ordinary time if the person ran. Had the same person, or similar walked it he may have had a 6.5 hrs time. That's what I took form the post.


  • #57
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    walshb wrote: »
    Did the poster not mean to imply that 3.5 hrs running is nothing great or special? It's quite an ordinary time if the person ran. Had the same person walked it he may have had a 6.5 hrs time.

    3.5 hours is very ordinary. But to suggest it's the same as 6.5 hours is ridiculous.


  • #58
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,707 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    3.5 hours is very ordinary. But to suggest it's the same as 6.5 hours is ridiculous.

    I know that, but maybe he wasn't meaning that exactly. Just how it was worded, that both aren't great achievements. Anyway, maybe he can spell out what he exactly meant.


  • #59
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    3.5 hours is very ordinary. But to suggest it's the same as 6.5 hours is ridiculous.

    Exactly, and it's not something I am being persoanlly sensitive about as it's not a target I have myself. But there are loads of runners on here who put loads of effort in and have yet to run a 3, 3;30, 4hr or 4:30 (etc) Marathon. To tell them their achievement in doing so would be meaningless has no place in an Athletics/Running forum IMO.


  • #60
    chinguetti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭chinguetti


    From reading this thread, it started out as dissing people who want to walk marathons to now dissing people who run a marathon under 3 and a half hours.

    I work my guts out for 6 months training to do Dublin, battling injury and spending a fortune to keep my legs in decent nick while changing career and now I read what I worked for, achieved, collapsed for later on and got dangerous ill was to be classed as 'ordinary'.

    Jeez lads, if I posted what I think of some of the posts on this thread, I'ld be banned forever.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,707 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    chinguetti wrote: »
    From reading this thread, it started out as dissing people who want to walk marathons to now dissing people who run a marathon under 3 and a half hours.

    I work my guts out for 6 months training to do Dublin, battling injury and spending a fortune to keep my legs in decent nick while changing career and now I read what I worked for, achieved, collapsed for later on and got dangerous ill was to be classed as 'ordinary'.

    Jeez lads, if I posted what I think of some of the posts on this thread, I'ld be banned forever.

    3.5 hrs is ordinary as regards pace and time. I would commend any non competitive runner, or non elite runner with 3-3.5 hrs. Fantastic!


  • #62
    RoyMcC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭RoyMcC


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Running is a sport, we measure achievements in terms of time taken to complete events.

    One definition would have running as a sport and that definition implies that one strives to achieve a maximum performance. One is therefore entitled to race and test one's personal ability.

    It's also a pastime, fitness tool or even social activity. Under these definitions I don't believe taking part in a marathon (or any other race) is acceptable. IMO of course.


  • #63
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,707 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    RoyMcC wrote: »

    It's also a pastime, fitness tool or even social activity. Under these definitions I don't believe taking part in a marathon (or any other race) is acceptable. IMO of course.

    Am I reading this right? Social runners or people running for fitness or pastime should not be entering marathons?


  • #64
    ultrapercy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,606 ✭✭✭ultrapercy


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    One of my big things on my bucket list is to run a Marathon. If I never get to that level through running, for what ever reason, is it frowned upon to walk one? Or walk 75% of it?

    I'm just talking about the Irish ones now so I'd imagine there's no time limit on them but if you hobble home after 6ish hours do people reckon you had no business being there? Or is it accepted that maybe people like walking really long distances too?

    Back to your original question. As you can now see, people think lots of things from the practical to the bizzare. Some get very exercised about topics that other people see as mundane or even downright daft.The important thing is what you think yourself not the thoughts of a random sample of posters on a niche forum on the internet. Within the parameters of law and morality, do whatever you damn well please.
    A lady who works with me walked this years Dublin Marathon. In the interest of civility friendship and keeping my nose on the front of my head, I will not inform her of the opinion of this thread.


  • #65
    Smartguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Smartguy


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Seriously?
    When I was fat(ter) smoked and did no exercise I could have walked a 6.5 hour Marathon with no training. God knows why I bothered training my ass off to get better, fitter, slimmer and run faster :rolleyes:

    Your statement is an insult to the hundreds of runners on here who are currently busting their asses off in order to be able to run a sub 3:30 marathon (or whatever their target is for that matter).

    And plenty of people on here are insulting those for whom walking a marathon in 6.5 hours is an achievement.

    It is laughable that those who run a marathon in 3.5 hours are having a pop at walkers.


  • #66
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Smartguy wrote: »
    And plenty of people on here are insulting those for whom walking a marathon in 6.5 hours is an achievement.

    It is laughable that those who run a marathon in 3.5 hours are having a pop at walkers.

    But walking a Marathon in 6.5 hrs would not be an achievement for the OP. He can already run 5k in 22.40.
    I don't see any 3:30 marathoners having a pop at walkers, can you point them out to me?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Smartguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Smartguy


    chinguetti wrote: »
    From reading this thread, it started out as dissing people who want to walk marathons to now dissing people who run a marathon under 3 and a half hours.

    I work my guts out for 6 months training to do Dublin, battling injury and spending a fortune to keep my legs in decent nick while changing career and now I read what I worked for, achieved, collapsed for later on and got dangerous ill was to be classed as 'ordinary'.

    Jeez lads, if I posted what I think of some of the posts on this thread, I'ld be banned forever.

    It is ordinary but that makes it no less of a great achievement for you.

    For others that same achievement could be walking a marathon in 6 hours or running it 2.5 hours.

    Btw I ran a 3.28 marathon


  • #68
    Smartguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Smartguy


    menoscemo wrote: »
    But walking a Marathon in 6.5 hrs would not be an achievement for the OP. He can already run k in 22.40.
    I don't see any 3:30 marathoners having a pop at walkers, can you point them out to me?

    I have no idea of people's times but chivito seems pretty dismissive of walkers


  • #69
    Itziger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,019 ✭✭✭Itziger


    Would it be asking too much of the Mods to actually stop these threads in their tracks in future? As someone said right at the start, "Here we go again". These Marathon Walking threads are never fruitful or positive and I'd hazard a guess that a fairly big percentage of the people who post here are runners, in one way or another.

    Runners who train, plan, share, suffer and enjoy the whole process.


  • #70
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Smartguy wrote: »
    I have no idea of people's times but chivito seems pretty dismissive of walkers

    4:07 I believe ;) But he is a 400m runner


  • #71
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Itziger wrote: »
    Would it be asking too much of the Mods to actually stop these threads in their tracks in future? As someone said right at the start, "Here we go again". These Marathon Walking threads are never fruitful or positive and I'd hazard a guess that a fairly big percentage of the people who post here are runners, in one way or another.

    Runners who train, plan, share, suffer and enjoy the whole process.

    Agree, I think there was some clash over walkers vs runners in the Art O'Neill Ultra thread a few years ago. AFAIK walkers have since been directed to the outdoor pursuits forum
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=430


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Itziger wrote: »
    Would it be asking too much of the Mods to actually stop these threads in their tracks in future? As someone said right at the start, "Here we go again". These Marathon Walking threads are never fruitful or positive and I'd hazard a guess that a fairly big percentage of the people who post here are runners, in one way or another.

    Runners who train, plan, share, suffer and enjoy the whole process.

    In fairness, if it's a genuine question then we have no reason to close it. People are going to have different opinions on these things and some heated debate/discussion is all par for the course. If people just don't take things personally threads like this are fine.


  • #73
    chinguetti
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭chinguetti


    Smartguy wrote: »
    It is ordinary but that makes it no less of a great achievement for you.

    For others that same achievement could be walking a marathon in 6 hours or running it 2.5 hours.

    Btw I ran a 3.28 marathon

    That's the point I was trying to make but got too angry. Everyone's circumstances are different so one person's 'ordinary' might be someone's else pb by a good few minutes or personal achievement that they can run/walk/crawl any distance at all.

    Well done on your time, savage going.


  • #74
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    I make no apologies by saying that for 99% of people, walking 42.2km is not an achievement. Spend a day sightseeing in Rome and you would clock up 15-20km without even thinking about it!


  • #75
    happybob
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭happybob


    chinguetti wrote: »
    That's the point I was trying to make but got too angry. Everyone's circumstances are different so one person's 'ordinary' might be someone's else pb by a good few minutes or personal achievement that they can run/walk/crawl any distance at all.

    Well done on your time, savage going.

    Precisely! Everyone is different. There are many people who for various reasons such as age, health, condition will not be able to run a marathon, no matter how much training they do. There are also some people who might try it, and again because of health and condition, probably should not.

    It is commendable that anyone who doesn't have the fitness or able bodiedness to run a marathon should still contemplate walking one, and should be afforded the equal opportunity to participate, enjoy the athmosphere, raise money for charity, etc, as running participants do.

    Of course, there are endurance walking events available too. Some of those suffer the opposite problem, in that the objective for some of the 'walkers' is still to complete the distance in the shortest time possible and you will have hill-runners and similar turning up with minimal kit for 'walks'.

    I would expect all genuine sportsmen (or women) to support such a view but it appears there are some about who are simply narrow-minded or just enjoy adopting the role of troll.

    Finally, the one thing I would say to walkers, and slow runners, in any large event is please keep out of the way of faster runners. I ran DCM in 2011 and said never again; many of the participants are clueless about basic courtesy and event etiquette.


  • #76
    rom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭rom


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    I make no apologies by saying that for 99% of people, walking 42.2km is not an achievement. Spend a day sightseeing in Rome and you would clock up 15-20km without even thinking about it!

    I don't understand the point of these threads.

    OP: Can I go for a walk.
    Reply: Sure.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    For me it's not so much the walking or the running or the times.

    It's just that, with some great long distance walks out there, free, the Kerry Way, the Wicklow Way etc., don't get why a person would pay the bones of €100 to stroll around lots and lots of streets in Dublin. You can't even say "I ran a marathon" after it all.

    Still though, that's entirely subjective, maybe people prefer cityscapes. But even at that I'd plan my own route, maybe take in a few sights, and do it free. Maybe I'm just mean...


  • #78
    happybob
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭happybob


    Is it because it is participation in an event with company usually with a charitable purpose?


  • #79
    ger664
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,402 ✭✭✭ger664


    I really thought we had seen the last of these threads now that DCM was over. Most on here would have absolutely no issue with people who walk a marathon if that's because they can only walk due to their current physical health/fitness at the time.

    When a runner who can do 5K in 22 and should with proper training and commitment be somewhere south of 4 hours fire's up a "I want to complete a Marathon/tick a box with the least amount of effort thread" you will get these sorts of replies from runners.


  • #80
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    If I didn't make it clear, or people didn't read before answering...... Yes I can run 5k in 22:40 (not exactly impressive) when fit but I'm struggling to stay injury free. I love taking part in events but having been running for just 8 months I've already missed over 2 months through injury and now I'm out for a least another month.

    My training was unstructured at the start and that probably caused the initial problems, I came up with a plan then, started to mix it up a bit but the damage was already done, if I tried crossing 5k even on a slow run, if I tried doing any kind of speed or if I ran twice a week I'd be out for a few weeks again.

    The idea is that if that pattern of injuries were to continue and I physically couldn't run long distances without doing damage, I was wondering if it would be acceptable to walk. I'm not looking to tick boxes or take shortcuts, I'm just looking to take part in events I had planned on running.


  • #81
    groovyg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    If I didn't make it clear, or people didn't read before answering...... Yes I can run 5k in 22:40 (not exactly impressive) when fit but I'm struggling to stay injury free. I love taking part in events but having been running for just 8 months I've already missed over 2 months through injury and now I'm out for a least another month.

    My training was unstructured at the start and that probably caused the initial problems, I came up with a plan then, started to mix it up a bit but the damage was already done, if I tried crossing 5k even on a slow run, if I tried doing any kind of speed or if I ran twice a week I'd be out for a few weeks again.

    What kind of injuries are you getting? I presume you are going to a physio to get the issues sorted. If you are getting injured when you push the distance beyond 5k this could also happen with walking.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    happybob wrote: »
    Is it because it is participation in an event with company usually with a charitable purpose?

    Again, each to their own and cannot prescribe what someone else might like, but there are specific challenge walks that would tick those boxes...

    http://www.walkersassociation.ie/challenge/walk/calendar

    Along with the numerous walks organised at local level or by walking clubs. And you could also do the charity thing, instead of saying "would you sponsor me to run a marathon but I won't be running".


  • #83
    rom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭rom


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    If I didn't make it clear, or people didn't read before answering...... Yes I can run 5k in 22:40 (not exactly impressive) when fit but I'm struggling to stay injury free. I love taking part in events but having been running for just 8 months I've already missed over 2 months through injury and now I'm out for a least another month.

    My training was unstructured at the start and that probably caused the initial problems, I came up with a plan then, started to mix it up a bit but the damage was already done, if I tried crossing 5k even on a slow run, if I tried doing any kind of speed or if I ran twice a week I'd be out for a few weeks again.

    The idea is that if that pattern of injuries were to continue and I physically couldn't run long distances without doing damage, I was wondering if it would be acceptable to walk. I'm not looking to tick boxes or take shortcuts, I'm just looking to take part in events I had planned on running.

    Did DCM in under 4:30 the first time with a 5k of 23:10 at the time. Get a foam roller and do this once a day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJLxruO3su0 also if you have an injury then go to a physio that is involved in athletics. I suspect that your issues were probably IT band like 99% of people starting off.

    If the issue is how can you run a marathon without getting injuries then list your injuries and people will be able to suggest maintenance exercises to prevent them causing issues if possible.


  • #84
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    groovyg wrote: »
    What kind of injuries are you getting? I presume you are going to a physio to get the issues sorted.

    I have ankle ligament damage as well as a torn calf muscle and slight damage to the lower part of both calves. All these injuries keep popping up even after a solid month of rest. I'm seeing a physio now, just started this week. She told me there'd be no running for a while, no walking longer than 5k for the minute either.

    She gave me ankle strengthening exercises to do and went through stretches for various muscles as well as the foam roller.


  • #85
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    green123 wrote: »
    being able to walk for 6 hours is a non achievement for most people.

    most people would be able to walk for 6 hours.

    so what is the point ?

    you want to brag about having done a marathon ?

    i would say most of these kind of people were terrible at all sports when they were younger and now they want to do a marathon to try to prove something

    That's a bit of a generalisation. Do you think everyone that runs a marathon to prove something? Surely people want to do one to be part of the buzz and atmosphere involved in such an event, that's certainly why I'd want to do one.

    I was poor at some sports and pretty good at others, same as the average person I suppose.


  • #86
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    That's a bit of a generalisation. Do you think everyone that runs a marathon to prove something? Surely people want to do one to be part of the buzz and atmosphere involved in such an event, that's certainly why I'd want to do one.

    I was poor at some sports and pretty good at others, same as the average person I suppose.

    I doubt there'd be much of a buzz at the back to be honest.
    If you check this years DCM results for example, Just 542 people finished over 6hrs and just 200 odd over 6:30,
    Compare that to the 5408 who finished between 4 and 5 hours.

    Heading back home this year down the N11 I saw the backmarkers and walkers on about mile 23-24 and they were coming in 1s and 2s and most of the spectators appeared to have gone home. Looked like a lonely place to be honest. I guess that's why walkers often head off 2hrs early although that's against the rules and will get you DQ'ed.


  • #87
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    I hadn't thought about it like that. Hopefully I'll get the all clear to run again in the new year anyway and build up my distances slowly to eventually run one. The walking or run/walk is a fall back plan. If I were to do that, I'd be starting behind all the runners, no point in holding up anyone faster than you. Even when I'm running at events I start with the walkers so I don't get in anyones way.


  • #88
    Pacing Mule
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,059 ✭✭✭Pacing Mule


    menoscemo wrote: »
    I doubt there'd be much of a buzz at the back to be honest.
    If you check this years DCM results for example, Just 542 people finished over 6hrs and just 200 odd over 6:30,
    Compare that to the 5408 who finished between 4 and 5 hours.

    Heading back home this year down the N11 I saw the backmarkers and walkers on about mile 23-24 and they were coming in 1s and 2s and most of the spectators appeared to have gone home. Looked like a lonely place to be honest. I guess that's why walkers often head off 2hrs early although that's against the rules and will get you DQ'ed.

    Probably would still get a buzz in the first couple of miles but it wouldn't be worth the lonely last 20+

    I've been in both categories mentioned above. The over 5 hour support wise starts tailing off just after half way. By the time you hit mile 23 it's a sad and lonely slog to the end. Even the finishing straight that year hadn't that many people there.

    Coming in under the 5 hour was very different. Still a huge amount of support out there at the later stages and the finishing straight was a fantastic experience.


  • #89
    rom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,142 ✭✭✭rom


    Have u done a half yet? Do u run any bit on grass? Does your physio run?


  • #90
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    rom wrote: »
    Have u done a half yet? Do u run any bit on grass? Does your physio run?

    The furthest I've run so far is 12km, 99% of my training is done on forest trails, gravel, mud and a little grass. The only time I'm on the road is for events like 5k, 10k or duathlons. I've done the Mide mud run and Hell & Back which would've on grass for the most part.

    My physio does a little running and some duathlons, she's a pilates instructor too. She said she's not a running expert.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    PVincent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭PVincent


    Just as an aside, to walk 26 miles , you do need a pretty reasonable degree of fitness. If you have any sort of an injury a walk of that distance will expose it ruthlessly. To walk 26 miles and get some sort of pleasure from it , you still have to train to do it. Different issues come into play , so the body has to be prepared and trained for staying moving for that length of time. And I don't agree that anyone can do it. My wife who is a fit woman walked it in 2010 in just over 5.30' she prepared properly for it by putting in long walks of over 18/20 miles. It made a difference and she sailed around quicker than some of the joggers. And she did enjoy it.


  • #92
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    If it is a thing that I'm not running any more I intend walking a few evenings a week instead as well as swimming and cycling. I absolutely love running but I'll keep my fitness levels up anyway even if/when I can't run.


  • #93
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    ^ Tri forum!

    Not joking btw, I am ridiculously injury prone and I've found that mixing up my training has been great this year. Almost a year with no injuries which required time off running, when I'm generally running 3 times a week with swimming and cycling included too.

    Also, on the 5k time to marathon comparison, my 5km PB is 23:40 but I've run a sub-4 marathon. When I did my first, my 5km PB was 24:30 ish and I ran 4:24. Someone in the 22s probably should be around 4-ish for their first *if* they train properly.


  • #94
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    I kind of don't get why anyone would have "do a marathon" on their bucket list?

    The way I see it, a Marathon or a 10k or whatever is a race. You should be going out there to do the best you can on the day. I don't really understand the mentality of showing up on the day with "I just want to finish" as your goal?

    Surely if you can run but can't run 26.2 miles then it would be much better to enter yourself into 5k or 10k races?

    I mean if you like running then wouldn't get more out of running a 5k to the best of your ability than you would out of slogging round a 26.2 mile course just because it's on some "bucket list"?

    Nothing against anyone who walks a marathon I just question the reasons for doing it.


  • #95
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    Run a marathon is on my bucket list, the whole point is that I get a lot of injuries and that were to continue I could still walk it. I'd love to run it in under 4 hrs, as much under it as I could.

    Walking that far is no easy task, it's still a challenge. I'd walk it in my best time instead of running it in my best time.


  • #96
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    Run a marathon is on my bucket list, the whole point is that I get a lot of injuries and that were to continue I could still walk it. I'd love to run it in under 4 hrs, as much under it as I could.

    Walking that far is no easy task, it's still a challenge. I'd walk it in my best time instead of running it in my best time.

    Get the thoughts of walking a marathon out of your head asap. Ask yourself why are you getting all these injuries? You shouldn't be if you are doing things properly. Learn how to train properly, get yourself to an appropriate race weight (from your log title this appears to be a goal). Do the small things right and the big things will come.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    Run a marathon is on my bucket list, the whole point is that I get a lot of injuries and that were to continue I could still walk it. I'd love to run it in under 4 hrs, as much under it as I could.

    Walking that far is no easy task, it's still a challenge. I'd walk it in my best time instead of running it in my best time.

    Unless you're getting on in years then you can still have it on your bucket list. Plenty of people do their marathons in their later years and nothing wrong with that. I think you are jumping the gun a bit, sort out your injury issues and then work on building up your distance.


  • #98
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    I dropped 2 stone so I'm at my target weight. I'm 5' 6" and 11 stone. I managed it within about 8 weeks of starting.

    I'm at the physio, I've been given strengthening exercises for my ankle, learned how to do correct stretches and use the foam roller. I have a training plan drawn up and I'm joining the athletics club as soon as I can run again.

    This is all based on if that all doesn't work out for me. The hope is that it will and that I can slowly work my way to a half next year and a full another year or two down the line.

    If it does come to it, meaning that I'm advised not to run any more at all, I've decided I'll definitely walk it. I'd set it as a yearly event and keep trying to best my time.


  • #99
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    I dropped 2 stone so I'm at my target weight. I'm 5' 6" and 11 stone. I managed it within about 8 weeks of starting.

    Don't take this the wrong way, and it is meant as constructive advice to help improve your running, but 11 stone (or 70kg) is too heavy for somebody who is 5'6''. It's 25 on the BMI which is on the borderline of normal and overweight, but if you want to be a runner, and get the best out of yourself, and reduce injury risk, you need to get that weight down further. At least a full stone should be coming off that IMO.

    If you want to walk long distances in the future, save yourself the money and go hiking the Wicklow Mountains. Beautiful out that direction.


  • #100
    RonanP77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭RonanP77


    I've always been fairly broad across the chest and shoulders and didn't want to go too light or I'd look desperate. I suppose I could drop another half stone if I wanted but certainly wouldn't like to go below that. My initial target was 2 stone and friends/family have said I shouldn't go below it.

    I'm setting targets for myself, realistic ones. Cut 2 mins off my 5k, 7 mins off my 10k, the 6 min mile has me interested now that it was mentioned and obviously push for longer distances. I'd hope I can do all of that at my current weight. I'll put in 3 days running a week + swimming/cycling but wouldn't do any more. I love running, it's for fun and fitness, I don't want to push it to a level that it's leaving very little time for anything else or I'll stop enjoying it.

    I will mention it to the physio though and get her opinion, if she says a little extra weight off will help prevent injuries then I'd do it. I do appreciate any constructive advice like that from people.


  • #101
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RonanP77 wrote: »
    I've always been fairly broad across the chest and shoulders and didn't want to go too light or I'd look desperate. I suppose I could drop another half stone if I wanted but certainly wouldn't like to go below that. My initial target was 2 stone and friends/family have said I shouldn't go below it.

    I'm setting targets for myself, realistic ones. Cut 2 mins off my 5k, 7 mins off my 10k, the 6 min mile has me interested now that it was mentioned and obviously push for longer distances. I'd hope I can do all of that at my current weight. I'll put in 3 days running a week + swimming/cycling but wouldn't do any more. I love running, it's for fun and fitness, I don't want to push it to a level that it's leaving very little time for anything else or I'll stop enjoying it.

    I will mention it to the physio though and get her opinion, if she says a little extra weight off will help prevent injuries then I'd do it. I do appreciate any constructive advice like that from people.

    You get out what you put in in the end of the day. I wouldn't listen to the advice of non active/fit people when it comes to what weight you should be. I've seen it time and time again where people think somebody who loses weight is now "too skinny". This is their view because they are used to seeing you look a different way. The average in this day and age is overweight and people confuse average with normal. Normal is no longer average in today's sedentary lifestyles. The logic to it all is twisted. Forget about elite runners and have a look at the guys running sub 3 or thereabouts for the marathon. You won't find any with a 25 BMI, except the odd exception.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement