running the marathon next year

blendervendor1

Hi guys,
i'm gonna run the marathon next year for the first time.
any tips be much appreciated

thanks

tunney

A bit more information is required:

*Age
*Sex
*Weight
*Previous athletic achievements
*Present level of physical activity
*Medical problems
*Previous injuries

Do you run? Do you know the level of commitment required to run a marathon? Are you willing to spend up to 10 hours a week training for it?

blendervendor1

*Age = 25
*Sex = as much as possibly please(male)
*Weight = between 11.5 - 12 stone
*Previous athletic achievements - none, was a decent 1500 meter runner as a teen
*Present level of physical activity - play footie & jog a bit every week(1 hour long jogs)
*Medical problems - none
*Previous injuries - ankle ligament injury, & knee problem, knee is perfect now, ankle a problem sometimes when turn quickly , not a problem when jogging etc.

Are you willing to spend up to 10 hours a week training for it? = might have a problem traing for 10 hours a week, what with work etc. but could do more some weeks , less others

know any good web sites to visit ?

tunney

First and foremost get this book "The Lore of Running" by Tim Noakes, brilliant book covers EVERYTHING about running. "The Competitive Runner" by Bob Glover is good too.

Sites to check out:

www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/
www.runnnersworld.co.uk
www.runnersworld.com

There are many many more sites but to be honest the two books cover everything you need.

Other tips:

*Make sure you have (at least) two pairs of runners that you use only for running and replace every 400-600 miles.
*Aim to do a load of shorter races to get used to competitive running, get this months Irish runner, it has a list of races for 2004.
*Take it handy and OBEY THE 10% RULE!
*Don't add speed sessions until doing 25-30 miles pw
*Make sure once you reach 25-30 miles pw that you do do speed sessions
*Join a club (I keep meaning to )
*Keep a daily log of exercise and sleep
*Invest in a heart rate monitor

One last important thing get someone who knows their running to check out your bio-mechanics. If they are off you *WILL* get injured.

Anyways I'll see ya there October 25th, entrance forms are already out!

blendervendor1

great stuff ,
thanks for that , think i'll enter it now, no backing out then, lol

, just joined a running club there alright kinda,
run at a fairly competive pace there,
did 5 miles in just under 40 minutes,
should improve hopefully,
would aiming to do the marathon in anything under 5 hours be setting too low of a target ?

was thinking of getting one of the timex gps & heart rate monitors , know anyone with these? wonder if they any good

thanks again
B

blendervendor1

10% rule ?
lol, whats that ? , thanks agian

tunney

The 10% rule is, basically: Don't increase the amount of mileage that you do in a week by more than 10%, ideally no more than 5%. The same apples to your weekly long run. This is a rule that everyone eventually starts obeying one way or another.

As for the Timex thingy, are you talking about Bodylink if so I have one, even got the data recorder recently. A wonderful device, expensive but wonderful. Another device that gets rave reviews is the Garmin ForeRunner. No HRM though, personally I prefer the Timex.

Genghis

Hi Blendervndor1,

I am sure you have had a look at this thread:

Marathon Training for the non-runner

If you haven't, there is a lot of good advice in it that will apply to you. Best of luck with the training - it is a fantastic feeling to set about and achieve a marathon.

Guv

My tip would be don't do it! :-)
I know plenty who have done it with no real training bar from being active rowers and none found it hard, it's just long and boring.

I would if you insist on doing work out your goal time and then go for a negative split as in faster second half than 1st half and make sure to save enough energy for that impressive 200m-400m dash to the line, bound to make you look good! Upon crossing the line casually take the applause and calmly walk away as if you are fine, when you are alone you may then fall on the floor and throw up! :-)

tunney

It looks like I'm gonig to have to follow yuo around the boards Guv and post replies to your ridiculous concepts related to fitness and running.

You say you know loads of people who did the marathon and found it easy. Thats great. We all really valuable 2nd and 3rd hand advice and opinions here. no really we do keep them coming.

Please confine your comments to things you actually know about and don't post stuff like this. To most people achieving a marathon is a massive personel success and comments from a marathon virgin such as yourself really aren't helpful.

Guv

Follow me all you want.
With your level of knowledge you must be in great shape. I am sure we would all love to hear of your physical prowess in the gym, pool on the road or wherever. Please feel free to give us a list of your:

athletic achievements

I'll be more than happy to divulge mine as I do actually have some.


BTW - Where did I say I had never run a marathon?

tunney

Touche, you never said you didn't do a marathon, but rather implied it from

I know plenty who have done it

If you have please do post your time

Guv

Are you compiling your list of achievements?

I did not run a marathon, merely making a point. A marathon is not hard at your level if approached correctly just long and tedious.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tunney

A marathon is not hard at your level if approached correctly

Very true, a marathon or an Ironman distance triathlon is not that hard to complete if approached correctly. But it is this approach that is difficult, once the training has been done and fitness gained the actual event, provided it is merely done and not raced, is merely a justification for the hours of training for most middle of the packers.

I did not run a marathon

This is quite obvious from your attitude and comments.

As for my achievements, I'll be the first to admit that I am devoid of natural athletic talent and I am quite happy finishing in the top 30% of any field. (Thats a lie, I'd love to win but thats never going to happen)

Genghis

Guv, it is clear from your first post that you know nothing about marathon running.

Guv

Genghis:

In what regard?
Negative splits are not impossible.
Completing a marathon is not hard.
Why make something harder than it is?
I know plenty of rowers some 210lbs who just decided to do it for a laugh and a training session having rowed the previous day. All completed the course some in very respectable times of low 3hrs and one non-runner doing it under 3hrs! Most took about 4hrs.

Tunney:

Why put yourself down? Attitude counts for a lot. Edwin Moses had talent but he was a lot less talented than guys he regularily beat and he put it down to him working harder at it. No point having a defeatist attitude before the race.

tunney

Why put yourself down?

I'm not. It simply realism. I can't do an Ironman in under 9 hours and I can't do a marathon in under 2:04:55. I never will be able to no matter how hard I train.

All completed the course some in very respectable times of low 3hrs and one non-runner doing it under 3hrs

Very good times for non-runners and runners alike - if we believed you.

tunney

By the way we are still waiting for your verifiable achievements.

Guv

Originally posted by tunney
I'm not. It simply realism. I can't do an Ironman in under 9 hours and I can't do a marathon in under 2:04:55. I never will be able to no matter how hard I train.



Very good times for non-runners and runners alike - if we believed you.

Why train with an attitude like that? Very few can be the best at anything.
How sad is it that you choose not to believe a fit non-runner can do the marathon in under 3hrs.

Guv

Originally posted by tunney
By the way we are still waiting for your verifiable achievements.

Most recent achievement was doing a raw and lifetime natural 501lb bench press as witnessed by 4 people one of whom posts here.

Ranked 2nd in the world over 30 & 60mins on the C2 for my age group in 95 or so.
Ranked high over 500m recently as well, top ten iirc.

Numerous HOR and Regatta wins.
Gym Decathlon wins.

Other **** goes back to athletics and school.

For now I am just keeping in shape and seeing if I can fit some competitive sport into my schedule.

That do you for now?

Genghis

Originally posted by Guv
I know plenty who have done it with no real training bar from being active rowers and none found it hard, it's just long and boring.

(from your posts) You don't have any experience yourself; you are only going on the experience of others.

Originally posted by Guv
My tip would be don't do it! :-)
I know plenty who have done it with no real training bar from being active rowers and none found it hard, it's just long and boring.

While I can accept that 'generally fit' people might well be able to complete a marathon without training, I cannot accept that they would not find it hard. Quite simply it is a long, repetitive and calls on the continuous use of particular muscles. The only way you could 'not fond it hard' would be if you had specifically trained to run a marathon.

Originally posted by Guv
My tip would be don't do it! :-)
I would if you insist on doing work out your goal time and then go for a negative split as in faster second half than 1st half and make sure to save enough energy for that impressive 200m-400m dash to the line, bound to make you look good!

That simple, eh? Marathon training by calculator? You don't mention how you might come about setting the goals, or what needs to be done to achieve them - oh, yeah, but sure you don't advocate specific training at all! Negative splits as you describe them are non-compatible with the goal of 'finsishing in my best possible time'.

Genghis

Originally posted by Guv
Most recent achievement was doing a raw and lifetime natural 501lb bench press as witnessed by 4 people one of whom posts here.

Ranked 2nd in the world over 30 & 60mins on the C2 for my age group in 95 or so.
Ranked high over 500m recently as well, top ten iirc.

Numerous HOR and Regatta wins.
Gym Decathlon wins.

Other **** goes back to athletics and school.

For now I am just keeping in shape and seeing if I can fit some competitive sport into my schedule.

That do you for now?

That is genuinely impressive, Guv.

What baffles me is how a man of your experience can so flippantly advise a newcomer, who is :

1. presently only moderately active,
2. has outlined some injury concerns and is
3. clearly concerned about going about it the right way.

Guv

You don't know that negative splits will be counter productive.
You can go off hard and aim to hang on or go off easy and aim to pick it up for the last few miles. You can work out a time based on your 6mile runs or so and just be sensible and aim for a relatively comfortable time the 1st time round.

The people were rowers and none found it hard, as I said they were training the day before and were training the next day as well as it happens. Rowers use their legs and do a bit of running for fitness but the most any rower would run would be 7-8miles and most would opt to do more rowing than running. In the winter running 2-3 nights a week for a total weekly mileage of say 16miles would be about it.

Guv

Originally posted by Genghis
That is genuinely impressive, Guv.

What baffles me is how a man of your experience can so flippantly advise a newcomer, who is :

1. presently only moderately active,
2. has outlined some injury concerns and is
3. clearly concerned about going about it the right way.

I gave him the best advice anyone can and that is not to do it. If you have injuries now why do 26miles on top of it and the training before hand?

Pick a cycling event instead or say a swimming event, similar duration but less damage to the joints.

Not that impressive really.

Genghis

Guv,

I am interested in the premise bhind your negative split theory. You seem to suggest that by going slower in the first 13 miles you will somehow be able to pick up the pace in the last 13 miles to the extent that you would improve your overall time?

Your logic does not take account of:

1. The fatigue (which is an accumalatory factor as you go through the race)
2. The fact that by slowing your pace in the first half you are potentilly raising fatigue in the second (by virtue of the fact it has taken you longer)
3. The way to achieve a PB is to run each mile at your fastest - foregoing the fast few miles at the start in the hope you can make the time up later is mad.

I challenge you to find me an example of any 'best' - a world record, an Irish record, in any event longer than 400m and show me how the athlete performed better in the second half of their even than in the first.

BTW: I know that 'going to fast at the start' ruins many peoples marathon aspirations, but that is not what I am advocating either. I'd say run your first ten miles at about approx 1min above your normal 10 mile pace, run the next ten at 1-1.5 min over that pace, and the final 6 at 1-1.5 min over that. Training then becomes the art of reducing your base 10-mile per minute time, and then your split differentials.

Genghis

Originally posted by Guv
I gave him the best advice anyone can and that is not to do it. If you have injuries now why do 26miles on top of it and the training before hand?

Pick a cycling event instead or say a swimming event, similar duration but less damage to the joints.

Not that impressive really.

C'mon now - you told him not to do it, then added a smilie, then went on to offer other advice; this other advice seriously understated what is required for marathon training, and suggested the experience of highly active rowers is directly transferrable to his situation. Your initial post was irresponsible.

Guv

Originally posted by Genghis
Guv,

I am interested in the premise bhind your negative split theory. You seem to suggest that by going slower in the first 13 miles you will somehow be able to pick up the pace in the last 13 miles to the extent that you would improve your overall time?

Your logic does not take account of:

1. The fatigue (which is an accumalatory factor as you go through the race)
2. The fact that by slowing your pace in the first half you are potentilly raising fatigue in the second (by virtue of the fact it has taken you longer)
3. The way to achieve a PB is to run each mile at your fastest - foregoing the fast few miles at the start in the hope you can make the time up later is mad.

I challenge you to find me an example of any 'best' - a world record, an Irish record, in any event longer than 400m and show me how the athlete performed better in the second half of their even than in the first.

BTW: I know that 'going to fast at the start' ruins many peoples marathon aspirations, but that is not what I am advocating either. I'd say run your first ten miles at about approx 1min above your normal 10 mile pace, run the next ten at 1-1.5 min over that pace, and the final 6 at 1-1.5 min over that. Training then becomes the art of reducing your base 10-mile per minute time, and then your split differentials.

Xeno Muller was famous for negative splits and was the world sculling champion and wr holder when doing negative splits. It works for some people. I am guessing that Radcliffe would be an athlete capable of doing negative splits.

blendervendor1

mm,
was just lookin 4 general advice lads,
.. i AM going to run the marathon, so kinda advising me not to was kinda pointless guv like, no offence. my injuries aren't a problem as i play football every week without problems, ,i have a weak ankle ligament , so only concern is standing on an uneven surface & going over on it.

thanks again for the suggestions guys

Genghis

Guv,

As you guessed, Radcliffe shows some evidence of negative splits in her WR time at London 2003 - though the up and down pattern might be better describes as 'a roughly consistent 32 minute 10K split' - on a per km basis, the difference in time between her fastest 10K average and her slowest is just 3.4sec.

There might be something in the negative split theory, but I think if I could personally reduce my split differentials, while also reducing my base time, then I'd be happy.


Paulas times (taken from London Marathon website):

First 10k (10) - 32:01
Next 10k (20) - 32:27
Next 10k (30) - 32:08
Next 10k (40) - 31:53

First Half - 1:08:02
2nd Half - 1:07:23
Full Time - 2:15:25

Guv

Negative splits are at world level only dealing in seconds but it does work and is a proven theory.

I always did negative splits. Over long distance it's about getting your rhytmn, being in the zone and just basically feeling it, knowing how much you've left etc.

tunney

With regard to negative splits, they are advised to most inexperienced runners as inexperienced runners will not know how to pace themselves correctly and by aiming for a negative split they can ensure that they will finish. A world class athlete like Paula will have her mile times planned for each and every mile and will not risk losing the vital few seconds that aiming for a negative split would incur.

Why train with an attitude like that?

Because it is the training that I enjoy, I enjoy getting up at 5:00 to swim, I enjoy cycling hard to work and back home in the evening. I enjoy running when I get home. I enjoy the long cycles and runs at the weekends. I enjoy the feeling your legs get after a hard brick. I enjoy training, I enjoy racing, I enjoy my sports. I'll never beat 100% of the field in a rest but I can damn well make sure that I better all my previous performances and efforts. I compete against myself, to see what exactly I can do, and then to see can I do a little better next time.

Guv

Do you read the posts made on here?
Paula's wr time was done using negative splits. How do you know how she plans her race?

You are flip flopping here, perviously you mention WR times and you can never acheive them and now you are out to just get better and set PR's.

You look as if you do a lot of training, you must be very fit and in great shape as a result of this output?

I employed negative splits last night in the pool. It worked.

tunney

Paula's wr time was done using negative splits.

Coincidence perhaps? It need not have been a result of her race plan. Perhaps it was her race plan for that race, lord knows. All I am saying is that at that level athletes should be able to pace themselves properly as that a near constant pace is maintained.

How do you know how she plans her race?

I don't. I do however read everything I can about her as I think that she is absolutely amazing.

You are flip flopping here, perviously you mention WR times and you can never acheive them and now you are out to just get better and set PR's.

I don't see any flip flopping here at all. I have accepted that I will never excel when compared to others so all I can do is excel when compared to myself. As for PBs I have my list of races for the year done up and I have plans made for setting new PBs. How are the acceptance that I will never be world class and wanted to set PBs mutally exclusive.

You look as if you do a lot of training, you must be very fit and in great shape as a result of this output?

Depends who you compare me too.
As for present fitness levels, they aren't that high and I have lost alot of fitness due to injury (ITB and torn hip flexor). They should have cleared up my the start of the new year and then hopefully with a new approach to training I will stay injury free for the year.

As for negative splits, I know I employ them for everything bar speed work.

Guv

Most world class athletes do the 1st half faster than the second half. Some aim to try and do even splits and mostly they fail. Radcliffe would always aim imo for negative splits simply because she can!

You are flip flopping and you know it. Why admit you'll never reach world level? Why not focus on getting to decent club standard. No need to be defeatist.

I'll never get to world level now, I could have done if I started early enough and trained hard enough but that's the past. I know what Thorpe can do in the pool but I don't keep his times in my head when looking at mine!

tunney

You are flip flopping and you know it. Why admit you'll never reach world level? Why not focus on getting to decent club standard. No need to be defeatist.

Why admit I'll never reach world standard? Simple enough. I took up my chosen sports way too late in life. I have only got one years experience running/cycling and even less swimming. to be honest I don't know what I am capable of and that is something that I hope to find out over the next five years. Suppose that that is the one good thing about endurance sports you have until your mid 30s before your screwed.

I know what Thorpe can do in the pool but I don't keep his times in my head when looking at mine!

The only times I ever keep in my head when training/racing are my own. Its only when I feel my hopes and ambitions are getting beyond myself I think of others.

Radcliffe would always aim imo for negative splits simply because she can!

But a constant pace is harder than a negative split.

Guv

You are missing the point, consistent splits can turn into negative splits, therefore at a high level negative splits are in fact the hardest thing you can do which is why a lot choose not to do them.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Guv

If the constant pace is quicker in the second half it is in fact a negative split and therefore no longer constant.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Guv

The thing is though that once the second half splits are lower we can no longer describe the race pace as constant and should say negative split(s) instead.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Guv

Originally posted by daveirl
True, I'm still not being clear. I'm for a negative split, but how do you achieve a negative split. You run one constant pace followed by another faster constant pace! You don't run at different random paces and hope the 2nd split is faster.

I'm not sure I agree with this. To achieve negative splits the pace does not really need to be constant. Now at world level the room to alter your split times is so small that they will always be in an event like a marathon fairly close to each other and they do look pretty constant but I suppsose 1 or 2 seconds a mile is at the sharp end a sizeable difference!

Going back to negative splits one could achieve it any number of ways - 1st 50% constant, 50-75% quicker, 75-100% a little bit slower but overall 50-100% is faster.

In rowing terms guys with negative splits will usually run the race as follows:

1st 500m - 2nd quickest - 1m41
2nd 500m - slowest - 1m44

---

1st 1000m = 3m25
3rd 500m - fastest - 1m38
4th 500m - 3rd quickest - 1m42

---

2nd 1000m = 3m20

That's just an example and can vary. 9 times out of ten it's easier to go out hard for the 1st 500m and try and hang onto your lead assumming you have one! :-)

legit2

i run every day I race regulary. I have run marathons. I have run negative splits in short road races and marathons.

I don't preach to rowers about negative splits because although it is an endurance sport. It is alot different from running. For example some courses may be very hilly and do not allow for negative splits. Ideally everybody wants to run negative splits but my advice to this initial post is clear and simple run constant splits if at all possible.

Firstly this approach conserves energy .Secondly a relatively constant speed may lead to negative splits if you are feeling good late in the race. do not get to the half way point and decide it is time to pick up the pace by ten seconds per mile this is suicide. If you can conserve as much energy as possible to the half way stage you may find yourself in a position to run the 2nd half faster but most importantly you will be able to finish and that is the goal of every marathoner.

And by the way marathons are not easy. Your can make them easier by doing the right training. People who say marathons are easy are fools. Finishing a marathon is attainale to most people with the correct preperation/fitness levels but these people even with little running training (ie rowers) will have put alot of work into their existing fitness levels.

Lets have a bit of sense here please

smiles

Originally posted by Guv
My tip would be don't do it! :-)
I know plenty who have done it with no real training bar from being active rowers and none found it hard, it's just long and boring.

Originally posted by Guv
I know plenty of rowers some 210lbs who just decided to do it for a laugh and a training session having rowed the previous day. All completed the course some in very respectable times of low 3hrs and one non-runner doing it under 3hrs! Most took about 4hrs.

Right, first of all, rowing is one of the most physically intensive sports that there is. Most rowers train daily, and that includes long distance runs and sprinting.

So saying not to bother training because you know _rowers_ who didn't have to do _specialist_ training for it is bull****, for someone who doesn't train in any way, apart from kickabouts then training is the most important thing he can do.

<< Fio >>