Running a marathon with only four months training

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

A person can do a marathon in four months. I did it, and I was never athletic. It opened a whole new world for me. Rather than recommending people not to do it, I believe that they should inform themselves (e.g. buy a copy of 'The Non-Runner's Marathon Trainer' (http://www.amazon.com/Non-Runners-Marathon-Trainer-David-Whitsett/dp/1570281823) and then make up their mind for themselves. I coached three people on their first marathons (one a complete beginner) and they both did very well.

I think this could do as seperate post actually...

Yes it can be done. That doesnt mean it is recommended. Going from nothing to marathon in such a short time brings with it a load of risks such as dramatic increase in injury and illness. It can also affect your mood as well as decrease in motivation which can cause you to get fed up with the sport.

You are right people should be informed about it but rather than just is it possible the should be aware of the risks as well.

Again the previous poster is just giving advice based on their experience and as a coach I personally agree. Normally I would not reccomend a marathon until a runner had atleast 2-3 years constant running under their belt. Again that i just me but I like my athletes to have the distance as an after thought. If an athlete is worried about being able to make it to the finish line i personally dont think you can enjoy it (as much as is possible to enjoy a marathon:D) again this is my personal opinion but there is no greater feeling than hitting your paces feeling controlled and feeling fast

PatientBear

I thought this might make an interesting post after reading about the couch to 5k plan (http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml). Whereas I think anything that gets people active is excellent, I also want to display that the human body can actually achieve a LOT in a relatively short period of time.

There's a marathon training plan which brings you from the couch to marathon finish line in four months (or five months if you have major obesity or a similar hurdle to overcome). The only target of the plan is to get the person across the finish line. It is not aimed at fast times or personal bests or anything of that nature - just enough to train for a single marathon that you can finish within the regular time limit. For a non-runner, that alone is a serious achievement.

The training plan is here (http://www.nyceats.net/running/2004/06/_nonrunners_mar.html) and I can say that it is totally doable. I trained on this schedule myself for my first marathon and I found it excellent, if tough going at times. However, I would recommend that people who would like to attempt this plan purchase the book written by the academic who actually developed the program (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Non-Runners-Marathon-Trainer-David-Whitsett/dp/1570281823/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1309124355&sr=8-1 on UK Amazon). There's a lot of very good advice in it, particularly on the psychological aspects of running. The book is a bit 'American' in it's style, but that's minor.

Also, I don't know if anyone remembers the BBC series that was on about three or four years ago? I think that was also a four month plan, and although a few people dropped out, one of the guys who completed the marathon at the end was seriously obese. If anyone can remember that series please post here as it was quite interesting.

I would be interested in reading responses to this post. Overall I want to get the message out there that long-distance racing can be enjoyed by the vast majority of people within a relatively short space of time if they are willing to committ to a challenge.

ecoli

I merged my response from the 5k thread to this one (sorry comes up before yours bit if i delete it the thread goes with it as counts as first post my bad:D)

PatientBear

ecoli wrote: »

Yes it can be done. That doesnt mean it is recommended. Going from nothing to marathon in such a short time brings with it a load of risks such as dramatic increase in injury and illness. It can also affect your mood as well as decrease in motivation which can cause you to get fed up with the sport.

You are right people should be informed about it but rather than just is it possible the should be aware of the risks as well.

Again the previous poster is just giving advice based on their experience and as a coach I personally agree. Normally I would not reccomend a marathon until a runner had atleast 2-3 years constant running under their belt. Again that i just me but I like my athletes to have the distance as an after thought. If an athlete is worried about being able to make it to the finish line i personally dont think you can enjoy it (as much as is possible to enjoy a marathon:D) again this is my personal opinion but there is no greater feeling than hitting your paces feeling controlled and feeling fast

Those are good points. The risks of injury I would agree with, and that's why I'd recommend purchasing a good book or getting professional advice. I knew one guy who actually was a regular runner and 'gave a marathon a go' and he ended up with a hip injury in the last two miles or so. His mistake was not following a training plan and he approached the race casually - which is a definite no and a foolish thing to do.

That leads on to the next point, regarding the motivation. You really have to 'hunger' for that medal from the outset, or you just won't do the training. I have to say that for my first race, I honestly did not want to do 70% of my training runs (I was doing them in the evening after work. I now do them early morning instead), but I did want to complete the race. So, yes, I'd agree with you that there is a risk of demotivation. However, I would counter that this is a sign that the person hadn't fully understood the committment required.

One the flip side, a successful finish really is a peak experience and well, well worth the pain of training. I personally would recommend a person taking the challenge 'with their eyes open'. Once you research the challenge, you'll soon get a gut feeling whether it's something you want to take on or not. The first marathon is very much a personal challenge, and the motivations can be quite deep rooted.

p.s. no worries on combining the posts! It adds to the context.

RayCun

PatientBear wrote: »

Those are good points. The risks of injury I would agree with, and that's why I'd recommend purchasing a good book or getting professional advice. I knew one guy who actually was a regular runner and 'gave a marathon a go' and he ended up with a hip injury in the last two miles or so. His mistake was not following a training plan and he approached the race casually - which is a definite no and a foolish thing to do.

The implication is that 'following a training plan' will ensure you avoid injury, and it won't. Marathon running places enormous stress on your body. If you have a good level of running fitness then your body is prepared for that stress, if you're coming from the couch then it isn't. A training plan will tell you the best way to load that stress gradually, but too much is still too much.

Sure, some people can do it. But the risk of injury is much higher.

PatientBear

RayCun wrote: »

The implication is that 'following a training plan' will ensure you avoid injury, and it won't. Marathon running places enormous stress on your body. If you have a good level of running fitness then your body is prepared for that stress, if you're coming from the couch then it isn't. A training plan will tell you the best way to load that stress gradually, but too much is still too much.

Sure, some people can do it. But the risk of injury is much higher.

I wouldn't agree with these assertions, being a) that the plan claims to be risk free training and b) that it is only for a select few.

a) The risk of injury is not necessarily higher on the four-month plan, but at the same time it is not risk-free either. The four month plan is a gradual load and is specifically designed for novice runners. Hence it is geared purely on distance, without zero emphasis on speed. For those who are extremely unfit, an additional month is offered.

There is no assertion that you will avoid injury, the plan merely states that if you commit to the overall plan (and by this I mean everything outlined in the book) you should be able to complete your first marathon. That's all. My reference to the guy who injured himself was to demonstrate that danger of approaching a marathon casually. You can only build the required endurance by training accordingly.

b) The training plan is not for just some people, it is designed for a broad segment of the population. The creator of the schedule offers an academic course in the US in which completing a marathon is the project. If you do it, you get an A. If you fail, you get an F. There is no other grade. Only one person had failed the course at the time of publication, and hundreds have completed it. The only condition for entry to the course is that you have NOT been engaged in regular running prior to the course.

As a quantitative backup, I recommend viewing the reviews of the book on Amazon. Only two people have given detailed critiques based on personal experience (which I respect), while the remainder grading at three stars of less offer a great deal of opinion. It has only 16 reviews at three stars or less and over 200 at four and five stars (the majority being five star). Positive feedback on the schedule is overwhelming.

So to sum up, I would say that most people can do this plan, and the injury factor is not necessarily higher due to the plan being tailored for novice runners.

RayCun

PatientBear wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with these assertions, being a) that the plan claims to be risk free training

That's in response to your

I knew one guy who actually was a regular runner and 'gave a marathon a go' and he ended up with a hip injury in the last two miles or so. His mistake was not following a training plan

which suggests that if he had followed a training plan, he wouldn't have been injured.

PatientBear wrote: »

and b) that it is only for a select few.

I didn't say anything like that.

My position is this.

• Training for a marathon puts a lot of stress on your body, so there is an inherent risk of injury.
• If you are an experienced runner, who has built up endurance, you reduce (though not eliminate) that injury risk.
• If you follow a good training plan, that builds the stress gradually, you reduce (though not eliminate) that injury risk.
• Some people are lucky enough to complete a marathon without following a proper plan and/or without having a good base.
• But I wouldn't advise anybody to sign up for a marathon without either.

yosser hughes

I did my first marathon after only 4 months training. A bit less tha 4 actually. No injuries and I found that the target of the marathon motivated me.
Of course, I think it is preferable to do a lot more training, but I'm just throwing my tuppence worth in. I'd say a year training is plenty. Not sure about 2 or 3 years! Seems a bit over the top.

plodder

yosser hughes wrote: »

I did my first marathon after only 4 months training. A bit less tha 4 actually. No injuries and I found that the target of the marathon motivated me.
Of course, I think it is preferable to do a lot more training, but I'm just throwing my tuppence worth in. I'd say a year training is plenty. Not sure about 2 or 3 years! Seems a bit over the top.

I did as well. If you're not aiming for a time, and you're not too much out of shape (weight wise) I think it's do-able. Also, it gives you an easy target for improvement in subsequent years.

milosh

I did my first marathon last year with 4 months training. My fitness levels were pretty poor heading into it but the fact that I had a specific plan to follow and a long term tangible goal at the end of the plan made it easy. It also helps that you reach milestones along the route e.g. first time running 10 miles, first half marathon etc. I would have thought that the vast majority of people who followed the novice mentored threads here over the past few years were very new to running and most people completed the run without too much difficulty. I sometimes think there can be an over inflation of how difficult the marathon is to complete from those who have one behind them.

I would encourage anyone with a reasonable level of fitness to give it a go.

RayCun

milosh wrote: »

I would have thought that the vast majority of people who followed the novice mentored threads here over the past few years were very new to running and most people completed the run without too much difficulty.

I had a look back over previous years before starting this year's thread. I think everyone who got to the start line finished the marathon - but quite a lot of people didn't make it to the start line, and a few finished in more pain than they'd expected.

wurzlitzer

Hi Guys
New around here was in gear and equipment and a came acroos this thread.
A friend of mine convinced me to sign up for the DCM, sort of regretting it now.

Have no planning plan as such.
I run 5k Mon, Wed, and Fri
8k every tues & thurs, 1K of which is up the Kyber in the park.

I run 10K at the weekend either 5k on sat followed by 5K on sunday, or i run 10K in the park one of the weekend days.

I have been running between 20K and 30K a week for 3 months now.

Other excercise
16K five days a week on a road bike.
1-3 hours of yoga per week
Starting swimming lessons in july and August.

Total novice, Am I mad? Do I need to do some running on a track?

Four months seems like very little time now.
Maybe I could be an experiment of this thread?

menoscemo

wurzlitzer wrote: »

Total novice, Am I mad? Do I need to do some running on a track?

Four months seems like very little time now.
Maybe I could be an experiment of this thread?

I'd recommend you follow the DCMnovice mentored thread. You'll get more support over there.

PatientBear

milosh wrote: »

I did my first marathon last year with 4 months training. My fitness levels were pretty poor heading into it but the fact that I had a specific plan to follow and a long term tangible goal at the end of the plan made it easy. It also helps that you reach milestones along the route e.g. first time running 10 miles, first half marathon etc. I would have thought that the vast majority of people who followed the novice mentored threads here over the past few years were very new to running and most people completed the run without too much difficulty. I sometimes think there can be an over inflation of how difficult the marathon is to complete from those who have one behind them.

I would encourage anyone with a reasonable level of fitness to give it a go.

That's precisely what I think too. I think it's good to have the marathon demystified and not have it held up there as some kind of sacred cow. If people realise that long-distance races such as marathons can be prepared for and successfully done within relatively short spaces of time, then it may motivate them to try more and do more in sports in general. It certainly did for me.

I think the marathon should be seen as an accessible and positive challenge to undertake, and not something daunting and intimidating.

PatientBear

wurzlitzer wrote: »

Hi Guys

Total novice, Am I mad? Do I need to do some running on a track?

Four months seems like very little time now.
Maybe I could be an experiment of this thread?

By DCM you mean Dublin City Marathon? If you genuinely do not want to do it, just drop out. You should want to do it for your own reasons, and not because of peer pressure.

However, if you're borderline on the issue either way, I say give it a go and I'd strongly recommend you purchase the book I referred to above or at least view the actual schedule which I have linked above. If the DCM is in October, then you should have enough time as you are already at the standard of the first month of training. However, you'll have to introduce one consistently longer run each week, peaking with an 18 mile run three weeks before the marathon.

I would also say definitely do not attempt to complete a full marathon unless you are willing to build up your distance runs and make use of tried training program. You'll be courting an injury otherwise and potentially a big blow to your self-esteem if you have to drop out of the race...

thirstywork2

if you just want to get around schedule then 4 months shoul dbe no probelm if you walk/run
If you are aiming for a time then 4months isn't enough.
I had debated doing the marathon this year but after speaking to a few people who are ''experienced'' I realised its not going to happen.

I havn't run a marathon so maybe people with ''experience'' might know better

gerard65

wurzlitzer wrote: »

A friend of mine convinced me to sign up for the DCM, sort of regretting it now.

Forget it. Unless your 100% commited to that race it screw you, chew you up and spit you out. The marathon is a killer, there is no half measures.

ecoli

wurzlitzer wrote: »

Hi Guys
New around here was in gear and equipment and a came acroos this thread.
A friend of mine convinced me to sign up for the DCM, sort of regretting it now.

Have no planning plan as such.
I run 5k Mon, Wed, and Fri
8k every tues & thurs, 1K of which is up the Kyber in the park.

I run 10K at the weekend either 5k on sat followed by 5K on sunday, or i run 10K in the park one of the weekend days.

I have been running between 20K and 30K a week for 3 months now.

Other excercise
16K five days a week on a road bike.
1-3 hours of yoga per week
Starting swimming lessons in july and August.

Total novice, Am I mad? Do I need to do some running on a track?

Four months seems like very little time now.
Maybe I could be an experiment of this thread?

I would say you are better off than this thread is suggesting (nothing to marathon in four months). You have built up a solid base over the last 3 months of constant running topped with alot of cross training.

This is alot more sensible that the approach suggested and If you are just looking to get around as TW says i think you would have no problem getting around. I would suggest looking at the training logs section at the Novice runner there are some safe progression programs there which will get you to complete it.

Again if it is something you want to do go for it, if the only reason you are regretting it is because you are not sure if you will finish as I said I think you are in alot better situation than most who attempt it. Again personally I think people should try not to get obsessed with the marathon distance at first and can get great achievement out of training for 5k/10k. Have been running 14 year myself and have still yet to attempt a marathon and get great satisfaction out of racing the shorter distances but again that is not for everyone.

Best of luck what ever you decide

PatientBear

ecoli wrote: »

I would say you are better off than this thread is suggesting (nothing to marathon in four months). You have built up a solid base over the last 3 months of constant running topped with alot of cross training.

This is alot more sensible that the approach suggested and If you are just looking to get around as TW says i think you would have no problem getting around. I would suggest looking at the training logs section at the Novice runner there are some safe progression programs there which will get you to complete it.

Again if it is something you want to do go for it, if the only reason you are regretting it is because you are not sure if you will finish as I said I think you are in alot better situation than most who attempt it. Again personally I think people should try not to get obsessed with the marathon distance at first and can get great achievement out of training for 5k/10k. Have been running 14 year myself and have still yet to attempt a marathon and get great satisfaction out of racing the shorter distances but again that is not for everyone.

Best of luck what ever you decide

I'd agree that Wurlitzer's fitness level is obviously good, but the big issue here is the lack of long training runs. You must do them to compete in a marathon because the long runs actually build up bone thickness and strength. There's a big difference between having the cardio fitness to get around the course, and the actually physical endurance required to take the punishment.

Without doing the long runs consistently, you should not do a marathon. Frequent short runs are not a substitute. However the good news is that Wurlitzer can move directly into a novice marathoner's training schedule right now if he wishes.

anymore

wurzlitzer wrote: »

Hi Guys
New around here was in gear and equipment and a came acroos this thread.
A friend of mine convinced me to sign up for the DCM, sort of regretting it now.

Have no planning plan as such.
I run 5k Mon, Wed, and Fri
8k every tues & thurs, 1K of which is up the Kyber in the park.

I run 10K at the weekend either 5k on sat followed by 5K on sunday, or i run 10K in the park one of the weekend days.

I have been running between 20K and 30K a week for 3 months now.

Other excercise
16K five days a week on a road bike.
1-3 hours of yoga per week
Starting swimming lessons in july and August.

Total novice, Am I mad? Do I need to do some running on a track?

Four months seems like very little time now.
Maybe I could be an experiment of this thread?

Google HH Marathon schedules and follow one.

anymore

ecoli wrote: »

I would say you are better off than this thread is suggesting (nothing to marathon in four months). You have built up a solid base over the last 3 months of constant running topped with alot of cross training.

This is alot more sensible that the approach suggested and If you are just looking to get around as TW says i think you would have no problem getting around. I would suggest looking at the training logs section at the Novice runner there are some safe progression programs there which will get you to complete it.

Again if it is something you want to do go for it, if the only reason you are regretting it is because you are not sure if you will finish as I said I think you are in alot better situation than most who attempt it. Again personally I think people should try not to get obsessed with the marathon distance at first and can get great achievement out of training for 5k/10k. Have been running 14 year myself and have still yet to attempt a marathon and get great satisfaction out of racing the shorter distances but again that is not for everyone.

Best of luck what ever you decide

Agree with what you say. I was an occassional/slighly regualr runner and went from training for marathon in June last to running Dingle marathon in five hours in sept and then running Dublin in Oct in 4 hours. I hadnt trained enough for Dingle but was fine for Dublin.

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

I'd agree that Wurlitzer's fitness level is obviously good, but the big issue here is the lack of long training runs. You must do them to compete in a marathon because the long runs actually build up bone thickness and strength. There's a big difference between having the cardio fitness to get around the course, and the actually physical endurance required to take the punishment.

Without doing the long runs consistently, you should not do a marathon. Frequent short runs are not a substitute. However the good news is that Wurlitzer can move directly into a novice marathoner's training schedule right now if he wishes.

My point was through boosting their cardio system through cross training as well as building slow twitch fibers, mithochondria,blood volume, capillary density and increase impact resistance (i presume this is what you meant by bone thickness and strength) the poster is in alot better and safer position to build up their mileage both in long runs and their supplementary weekly mileage than that of someone starting from scratch on your 4 month plan.By focusing on the long run for someone who has a very small base you are overloading the stress on the body and ultimately the body cant repair sufficiently to become stronger and ultimately breaks down

Yes long runs are a vital component to any marathon training plan but they are only one of a number of vital ingredients to a plan. The poster has made a very sensible approach to their training that alot of people would do well to emulate

PatientBear

ecoli wrote: »

My point was through boosting their cardio system through cross training as well as building slow twitch fibers, mithochondria,blood volume, capillary density and increase impact resistance (i presume this is what you meant by bone thickness and strength) the poster is in alot better and safer position to build up their mileage both in long runs and their supplementary weekly mileage than that of someone starting from scratch on your 4 month plan.By focusing on the long run for someone who has a very small base you are overloading the stress on the body and ultimately the body cant repair sufficiently to become stronger and ultimately breaks down

Yes long runs are a vital component to any marathon training plan but they are only one of a number of vital ingredients to a plan. The poster has made a very sensible approach to their training that alot of people would do well to emulate

Actually when I say bone thickness I mean bone density, which is more precise, but you get the drift.

I'd agree with you that a person who has run and cross-trained frequently is much better off than a person off the couch - that's certainly clear - but the long runs are the be all and end all of marathon training. There's no other way around it and nothing will compensate for a lack of long training runs. The key is to build them gradually so that there is sufficient time for repair and this is already accounted for in the training plan I recommend.

Wurlitzer has a great base to move from, but it's a distance race and you have to build distance to do it. That will mean moving out of the existing limits and comfort zone and into a standalone marathon training schedule, and that schedule will place a heavy emphasis on long training runs. If you are not prepared to do those runs, don't bother with the marathon.

Sorry if I'm coming across as bit of a fundamentalist here, but the effort required to build long-distance capability in a short timespan - such as the four month plan being discussed - means that you have to become focused on distance. Three times a week you will do training runs of a maximum of 8 miles, which is not so bad, but once in the week you will do a training run of up 18 miles. This is without doubt the most important training session.

Also, this does not leave much time or stamina left for cross-training, and you may be forced to jettison or substitue some of those other activities in order to reach your goal or you run the risk of becoming fatigued.

For a marathon we must train the way that we have to, not the way that we want to or which is convenient for us...

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

Actually when I say bone thickness I mean bone density, which is more precise, but you get the drift.

I'd agree with you that a person who has run and cross-trained frequently is much better off than a person off the couch - that's certainly clear - but the long runs are the be all and end all of marathon training. There's no other way around it and nothing will compensate for a lack of long training runs. The key is to build them gradually so that there is sufficient time for repair and this is already accounted for in the training plan I recommend.

Wurlitzer has a great base to move from, but it's a distance race and you have to build distance to do it. That will mean moving out of the existing limits and comfort zone and into a standalone marathon training schedule, and that schedule will place a heavy emphasis on long training runs. If you are not prepared to do those runs, don't bother with the marathon.

Sorry if I'm coming across as bit of a fundamentalist here, but the effort required to build long-distance capability in a short timespan - such as the four month plan being discussed - means that you have to become focused on distance. Three times a week you will do training runs of a maximum of 8 miles, which is not so bad, but once in the week you will do a training run of up 18 miles. This is without doubt the most important training session.

Also, this does not leave much time or stamina left for cross-training, and you may be forced to jettison or substitue some of those other activities in order to reach your goal or you run the risk of becoming fatigued.

For a marathon we must train the way that we have to, not the way that we want to or which is convenient for us...

You are missing the point completely here. You have interpreted one important aspect of marathon training and blindly focused on that to the detriment of all other aspects. Yes the long run is one of the most crucial parts of the marathon program but you need to build up the body to allow it to cope with a long run. Your LSR needs to be proportionate to your weekly mileage.

The plan you have mentioned has half of your weekly mileage run in one run this is far too much and creates huge injury risks. Because a beginner athlete has not developed the muscular strength to allow the body to sufficiently cope with such a dramatic increase in mileage it ultimately breaks down.

The idea is to stress the body and adapt by overloading and overcompensation within the body. If over done the body cannot adapt and get the benefits. Most coaches recommend no more that 20% - 25% of your overall weekly mileage should account for your Long Run.

Among the most common injuries in running are overuse injuries such as shin splints,runners knee etc. These are also among the most common complaints that beginners have and the reason for this is that they have not developed the muscular and skeletal strength and stability to cope with the training load which is why this needs to be gradually introduced.

Going from nothing to an 18 mile run in 10 weeks is just asking for trouble. Again you may get around but you are increasing the risk of putting your body through significant damage as a result and people need to be aware of this.

wurzlitzer

Hi
Thanks a million guys for all the info

I am going to do it, my mind is made up, I think I have enough strong will.

I have no technical knowledge, but think I am going to wing it and follow the Novice thread also.

The plan for July will be to increase
my runs from 5k to 6k on Mon, Wed, Fri

8k to 10K every tues and thurs
16k in one run at the weekend

Cut out two days cycling, therefore only cycle 3/5 days that I am currently cycling
Two more yoga classes on the days I do not cycle.

I will do this for the month of July and see how I get on,
I will up the distance in August, if I feel comfortable.

Might start keeping a weekly log to keep me motivated.

Cheers guys

Later

RayCun

Why not take a look at the Novices thread?

wurzlitzer

RayCun wrote: »

Why not take a look at the Novices thread?

I will, intended doing this, but thanks for pointing me in the right direction:)

Gringo78

PatientBear wrote: »

Three times a week you will do training runs of a maximum of 8 miles, which is not so bad, but once in the week you will do a training run of up 18 miles. This is without doubt the most important training session.

Is it really neccessary for a beginner aiming for >4hrs in the marathon to do 18 miles? I mean, they should be only running it at 10min miles so a 15mile run is already 2.5hrs which is a fair long run. To be honest, I can't see how anyone should be out on the road for longer than 3hrs during training for a marathon, and at that only a couple of times during training cycle.

In fact, I imagine 2 x 1.5hr runs easy at the weekend might be more beneficial than a 3hr run and you'd be a lot less likely to be injured. When I look at a Hal Higdon novice plan and see a 20 mile run for a 4:30 marathoner - you're talking 4.5 hours out on the road for a training run? For a complete beginner? What elite does that it training?

plodder

It might be better to work off a standard plan as well, rather than a home-made one. You'd get the benefit of all the science behind training methods and influences without having to know much about them (initially anyway). For instance, most plans will be progressive in the sense that the mileage is increased gradually. And there's a lot of other very important factors that wouldn't be obvious from just looking at them as well.

eg http://www.halhigdon.com/marathon/Mar00index.htm

You don't have to pick the easiest one. Just pick one that starts roughly at the level of effort you are doing currently.

heffsarmy

It depends on alot of things the person age, weight, health etc. If your grossly over weight forget about it and loose the weight before you attempt a marathon program. If your an average person aged 20 - 40, without no medical conditions, carrying a stone or two above your normal weight you could easily run a marathon within 4 months. I never ran before my first marathon programme, I used halhigdons program a combintaion of novice and intermediate and finished in 3hrs 14mins. For your first program just stick to whatever schedule you decide and keep it consistent, you don't need to get caught up in tempo runs, marathon pace runs etc. I would recommend halhigdon as they will get you over the line. After that if you decide you want to take things more serious, I would recommend joining a club.

PatientBear

ecoli wrote: »

You are missing the point completely here. You have interpreted one important aspect of marathon training and blindly focused on that to the detriment of all other aspects. Yes the long run is one of the most crucial parts of the marathon program but you need to build up the body to allow it to cope with a long run. Your LSR needs to be proportionate to your weekly mileage.

The plan you have mentioned has half of your weekly mileage run in one run this is far too much and creates huge injury risks. Because a beginner athlete has not developed the muscular strength to allow the body to sufficiently cope with such a dramatic increase in mileage it ultimately breaks down.

The idea is to stress the body and adapt by overloading and overcompensation within the body. If over done the body cannot adapt and get the benefits. Most coaches recommend no more that 20% - 25% of your overall weekly mileage should account for your Long Run.

Among the most common injuries in running are overuse injuries such as shin splints,runners knee etc. These are also among the most common complaints that beginners have and the reason for this is that they have not developed the muscular and skeletal strength and stability to cope with the training load which is why this needs to be gradually introduced.

Going from nothing to an 18 mile run in 10 weeks is just asking for trouble. Again you may get around but you are increasing the risk of putting your body through significant damage as a result and people need to be aware of this.

No Man, I'm not missing the point completely here. You can only train for distance by doing distance, that's something that must be respected for the get go. What I'm trying to get across here is that distance must be respected. You're stating that building to an 18 mile run in 10 weeks is asking for trouble. But if you can't do that, how will you introduce a taper before the race? And if you can cover more than two/thirds of the distance in training, how will you do it on the day?

The stresses of this program are accounted for by the incremental increases in distance over time AND a rejection of time objectives. There is zero emphasis on speed. This is very much a walk/run program and this also subtracts a great amount of unnecessary stress.

Also, remember that my comments are in the context of a four month program, which is what this thread is about. I'm sure you could devise a much richer marathon training program, but not in a four month limit. I recommend cutting out cross training in a four month period so that the athelete is spared additional stress. This is a short program, and hence is very focused on a single objective - building capability to do distance.

I appreciate your comments, and consider them valuable, but it is wrong for you to state that this plan is asking for trouble. This is a well regarded and well respected plan. If it's not to your taste that's fine, but it works and works very well. If you want to reject it as a concept, you'll have to find quantitative evidence which can counter the existing supporting data in its favour.

My concern with the content of some of your posts is that - although you clearly know your subject matter well - you may lead novice runners to believe that in a four month program they will be able to cross train and do other sports etc. For the short duration involved, it's not worth the risk and the benefits would be suspect.

This is a narrow program, a focused program, but also a highly successful program.

PatientBear

wurzlitzer wrote: »

Hi
Thanks a million guys for all the info

I am going to do it, my mind is made up, I think I have enough strong will.

I have no technical knowledge, but think I am going to wing it and follow the Novice thread also.

The plan for July will be to increase
my runs from 5k to 6k on Mon, Wed, Fri

8k to 10K every tues and thurs
16k in one run at the weekend

Cut out two days cycling, therefore only cycle 3/5 days that I am currently cycling
Two more yoga classes on the days I do not cycle.

I will do this for the month of July and see how I get on,
I will up the distance in August, if I feel comfortable.

Might start keeping a weekly log to keep me motivated.

Cheers guys

Later

Good man - determination is half the battle.

Do invest in some good books though - €30 to €50 euros for a couple of volumes is a minimal investment considering the time and effort you'll put in over the next few months.

I hope you do well.

PatientBear

heffsarmy wrote: »

...It depends on alot of things the person age, weight, health etc. If your grossly over weight forget about it and loose the weight before you attempt a marathon program....

Obesity is not necessarily a complete barrier. Fat people (of which I was and am one) have a one major advantage - a bloody strong pair of legs from carting all that flab around!

But seriously, I agree, you do have to be willing to lose weight as part of the program and an extra month would definitely be recommended. However, if the athelete does lose weight, they really do have a great advantage because they would should loose fat and keep the muscle mass (assuming of course that their obesity has not prevented them from walking or led to atrophy).

One of the guys on the bbc program was a serious bloater, but he managed it.

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

This is a narrow program, a focused program

I will agree that with the last line of your post. It is very narrow and focused. Again I am not disputing the fact that this plan may get you too the line but the point I am trying to make is that the plan does not take into account the general well being of a person regarding health risks, and injury risk.

PatientBear wrote: »

No Man, I'm not missing the point completely here. You can only train for distance by doing distance, that's something that must be respected for the get go. What I'm trying to get across here is that distance must be respected. You're stating that building to an 18 mile run in 10 weeks is asking for trouble. But if you can't do that, how will you introduce a taper before the race? And if you can cover more than two/thirds of the distance in training, how will you do it on the day?

Yes I certainly agree that the distance should be respected. to the point you need to train your body to be able to handle a marathon plan. This is not an attack on the plan you are suggesting it is the general well being of person taking on this endeavour. I am not debating whether or not it can be done but rather whether it should be done and the answer that alot of coaches,researchers etc would come up with is that you should focus atleast 6 months of a base of easy miles just to allow your body to adapt to the stresses of training. This should be a slow steady build up. Again not everyone has the patience for this but ideally this is the safest approach in terms of health wise

I suggest you look into the training theory of Tim Noakes, Jack Daniels, Renato Canova, Pete Magill, Arthur Lydiard or many other and will give you better scope

PatientBear wrote: »

Also, remember that my comments are in the context of a four month program, which is what this thread is about. I'm sure you could devise a much richer marathon training program, but not in a four month limit. I recommend cutting out cross training in a four month period so that the athelete is spared additional stress. This is a short program, and hence is very focused on a single objective - building capability to do distance.

I think this focus istoo much on the fact of this 4 month plan getting you there as opposed to the general wellbeing of the person in general. As heff pointed out age, weight and training history are a factor and they cannot be ignored. Yes you will find anecdotal evidence that it can be done (as the BBC point proves) but my main aim here is to disclose all the information so that while it can be done many would strongly advise against this approach. People should be aware of the risks as well as the possibilties of completion

PatientBear wrote: »

I appreciate your comments, and consider them valuable, but it is wrong for you to state that this plan is asking for trouble. This is a well regarded and well respected plan. If it's not to your taste that's fine, but it works and works very well. If you want to reject it as a concept, you'll have to find quantitative evidence which can counter the existing supporting data in its favour.

The "quantitative evidence" which you produce (Amazon reviews of the book) is highly distorted. Given the fact that the the people who loved this programme are the generally the ones that make the effort to go back and comment is the reason for the lack of bad reviews. Also these reviews have are stand alone as opposed to being compared to similar programs etc

PatientBear wrote: »

My concern with the content of some of your posts is that - although you clearly know your subject matter well - you may lead novice runners to believe that in a four month program they will be able to cross train and do other sports etc. For the short duration involved, it's not worth the risk and the benefits would be suspect.

I was never reccomending cross training at the expense of marathon training in a plan. My point was that the poster had made a sensible build up doing easy miles and progressing to the point where the body is better equiped to cope with the training neuromuscularly, skeletally and cardiovascularly (where the cross training had an impact)

PatientBear

Fair enough. However, regarding the quantitative research, while the Amazon reviews are a superficial and accessible source of feedback for us, the authors published academically as well. Of 200 people attempting a marathon, only one person failed to reach the finish line before cut-off, and that was due to dehydration. I'm afraid I don't have access to the academic paper, if I can find a link I'll post here at some stage.

Also, similar to those who write letters to newspapers, people are much more likely to respond critically to issues - so for a book to receive a hugely positive feedback means it was more than just adequate. In fact, I think it says a lot that so few negative reviews are there. So I wouldn't consider the Amazon reviews to be hugely distorted but more a realistic display of genuine end-user satisfaction.

However, I can certainly see how the four month plan would be controversial to those who would advocate a more gradual build up and richer exercise program.

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

, the authors published academically as well. Of 200 people attempting a marathon, only one person failed to reach the finish line before cut-off, and that was due to dehydration. I'm afraid I don't have access to the academic paper, if I can find a link I'll post here at some stage.

Here is an interesting study which deals with affects of running and immune function of people who made a long term build up to those of a short term/ sedentary:

http://www.presidentschallenge.org/informed/digest/docs/200106digest.pdf

David C. Nieman, DrPH, FACSM, Does Exercise Alter Immune Function and Respiratory Infections? President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, June 2001, Series 3, No. 13.

By far, the most important finding that has emerged
from exercise immunology studies is that positive
immune changes take place during each bout of
moderate physical activity. Over time, this translates to
fewer days of sickness with the common cold and other
upper respiratory tract infections

Many components of the immune system exhibit
adverse change after prolonged, heavy exertion lasting
longer than 90 minutes. These immune changes occur
in several compartments of the immune system and
body (e.g., the skin, upper respiratory tract mucosal
tissue, lung, blood, and muscle). During this “open
window” of impaired immunity (which may last
between three and 72 hours, depending on the immune
measure), viruses and bacteria may gain a foothold,
increasing the risk of subclinical and clinical infection.
Thus risk of upper respiratory tract infections can
increase when athletes push beyond normal limits.

Basically this is why we build up slowly to allow the body to be able to handle these long runs

PatientBear

Yep, definitely agree with those (except for a previous posted point stating that four-month marathons have anecdotal evidence of success - the evidence is proven), although any committed athelete runs these risks as a 90 minute plus work out is pretty common for most of us no matter what sports we do. Though clearly, when you are engaged in long-distance sports it's going to be a greater feature of the landscape, which is why there is a heavy focus on sleep and recuperation, and a recommended two-day gap immediately after the long-run.

Also, you made a point above regarding the general well-being of the athelete. I think this is a very important issue regarding marathon training, because I would see it being linked directly with the personal motivations for doing a marathon, or any other long course.

I would see the athelete's personal objective(s) as being crucial to their decision - and ultimate success - in grappling with the burden of training and associated risks. While I would maintain that the risks in the four-month plan are fairly low (or at the very least, manageable) compared to the challenge itself, the training itself certainly demands mental toughness because it is certainly painful. Without the actual desire to realise the accomplishment of crossing the line, people simply won't put up with the schedule.

However, the attraction of the marathon for many people I think (certainly for me regarding all long-course) is to push that boundary and overcome the physical barriers.

When a person has that attitude, they are simply less interested in general well-being (which will be founded in a long-term, overall regime), and more interested in personal achievement.

What I'm promoting here, with reference to the four month plan, is that you can achieve a marathon finish with very little physical aptitude or conditioning at the beginning of the program.

This is a powerful concept, and one which is extremely liberating to the individual.

PatientBear

Gringo78 wrote: »

Is it really neccessary for a beginner aiming for >4hrs in the marathon to do 18 miles? I mean, they should be only running it at 10min miles so a 15mile run is already 2.5hrs which is a fair long run. To be honest, I can't see how anyone should be out on the road for longer than 3hrs during training for a marathon, and at that only a couple of times during training cycle.

In fact, I imagine 2 x 1.5hr runs easy at the weekend might be more beneficial than a 3hr run and you'd be a lot less likely to be injured. When I look at a Hal Higdon novice plan and see a 20 mile run for a 4:30 marathoner - you're talking 4.5 hours out on the road for a training run? For a complete beginner? What elite does that it training?

For a four month program it's better if you do a good part of the distance in training Gringo, because if you can't face it in training, how will you do it on the day? There's a strong mental preparation involved too, as well as the actual physical build-up.

A lot of people should and would be out on the road for around three hours or more if they are using a walk/run strategy. Introducing a speed context can be quite negative for novice runners and it's not a good starting point if you just want to complete the course.

Personally I think that guys who want to preserve themselves in training are building up a major risk on race day as they just won't have a clue what it takes to get around the course. And besides, if the idea of a 3 hour plus run is overwhelming, why would you do a marathon to begin with?

2 x 1.5 hour runs on the weekend (I'm assuming you are talking about one run per day) would definitely NOT be better than a single 3 hour session, and may introduce the idea that there's 'an easier way' to train. There isn't. You must do the mileage.

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

although any committed athelete runs these risks as a 90 minute plus work out is pretty common for most of us no matter what sports we do.

Yes there is a risk to everyone with 90 min plus work. My point being that the slow progressive build up allows the immune system to build up to cope with the detrimental affects of the Long runs

PatientBear wrote: »

Also, you made a point above regarding the general well-being of the athelete. I think this is a very important issue regarding marathon training, because I would see it being linked directly with the personal motivations for doing a marathon, or any other long course.

I would see the athelete's personal objective(s) as being crucial to their decision - and ultimate success - in grappling with the burden of training and associated risks. While I would maintain that the risks in the four-month plan are fairly low (or at the very least, manageable) compared to the challenge itself, the training itself certainly demands mental toughness because it is certainly painful. Without the actual desire to realise the accomplishment of crossing the line, people simply won't put up with the schedule.

However, the attraction of the marathon for many people I think (certainly for me regarding all long-course) is to push that boundary and overcome the physical barriers.

When a person has that attitude, they are simply less interested in general well-being (which will be founded in a long-term, overall regime), and more interested in personal achievement.

What I'm promoting here, with reference to the four month plan, is that you can achieve a marathon finish with very little physical aptitude or conditioning at the beginning of the program.

This is a powerful concept, and one which is extremely liberating to the individual.

I can see where you are trying to come with your point here (though don't agree with the quick fix mentality which its based on and has crept into modern day mentality but that is a different matter) but your assertion here is based in the idea of no alternative. You seem to be of the impression that you will get there or you wont on this plan regarding motivation to stick to this plan. This does not account for the credibility of this plan as the most optimum plan.

Simply put yes it about the achievement but given the option of a low risk v high risk approach the majority of people would opt for the prior if they got a person to the same end goal

ecoli

PatientBear wrote: »

2 x 1.5 hour runs on the weekend (I'm assuming you are talking about one run per day) would definitely NOT be better than a single 3 hour session, and may introduce the idea that there's 'an easier way' to train. There isn't. You must do the mileage.

You can't look at it from one aspect though. Yes you would recieve slightly more benefit from stand alone physiological stand point but at what cost? The risk of getting injured dramatically increases after the 3 hour threshold so your are talking of spending 1.5-2 hours at an extremely high injury risk state. you aren't gaining any additional fitness that couldn't be achieved in shorter runs with better technique. In other words that costs of running longer significantly outweigh any potential benefits.

Again this is not just my opinion but general consensus amongst coaches and researchers alike

http://www.active.com/running/Articles/Should-You-Split-Your-Long-Run.htm

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=17270&PageNum=3

shels4ever

ecoli wrote: »

You can't look at it from one aspect though. Yes you would recieve slightly more benefit from stand alone physiological stand point but at what cost? The risk of getting injured dramatically increases after the 3 hour threshold so your are talking of spending 1.5-2 hours at an extremely high injury risk state. you aren't gaining any additional fitness that couldn't be achieved in shorter runs with better technique. In other words that costs of running longer significantly outweigh any potential benefits.

Again this is not just my opinion but general consensus amongst coaches and researchers alike

http://www.active.com/running/Articles/Should-You-Split-Your-Long-Run.htm

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=17270&PageNum=3

+1
In 2009 I ran a marathon that I prob had no business in running, the idea was that the mileage would help later in the year. It was a 4 month plan and I found that the demands of 3 hour runs really did stress the body, after 2 hours my form went to pot and it became more of a slog fest then a run.
The program worked in one aspect that weight dropped and I was able to get around the marathon, but spend the next 6 week not been able to run and just found the demands on the body to great for the reward of completing a marathon.

Anyone can write about book with paln to get you around the marathon , as the people who read\buy the book are usually planning on completing the marathon no matter what. I could prob stick some plan together on "how to finsih a marathon with 6 weeks training" doesnt mean its right but the people who buy it would finish,. Not because of the content but because of the fact that most people could finish a marathon with little or no training under the cut of point.

Gringo78

PatientBear wrote: »

For a four month program it's better if you do a good part of the distance in training Gringo, because if you can't face it in training, how will you do it on the day? There's a strong mental preparation involved too, as well as the actual physical build-up.

A lot of people should and would be out on the road for around three hours or more if they are using a walk/run strategy. Introducing a speed context can be quite negative for novice runners and it's not a good starting point if you just want to complete the course.

Personally I think that guys who want to preserve themselves in training are building up a major risk on race day as they just won't have a clue what it takes to get around the course. And besides, if the idea of a 3 hour plus run is overwhelming, why would you do a marathon to begin with?

2 x 1.5 hour runs on the weekend (I'm assuming you are talking about one run per day) would definitely NOT be better than a single 3 hour session, and may introduce the idea that there's 'an easier way' to train. There isn't. You must do the mileage.

If I was to train for a 39mile ultra, I would not cover the distance in training, would more likely do 18 miles on Saturday, 24 miles on Sunday, longest run circa 3 hours. Why then do novice programs ask for 4.5hrs out on road?? If the idea (as it is for many) is to go from zero to hero in 4 months better surely to get injured on the day rather than during training.

RayCun

Gringo78 wrote: »

If I was to train for a 39mile ultra, I would not cover the distance in training, would more likely do 18 miles on Saturday, 24 miles on Sunday, longest run circa 3 hours. Why then do novice programs ask for 4.5hrs out on road?? If the idea (as it is for many) is to go from zero to hero in 4 months better surely to get injured on the day rather than during training.

A lot of novices are scared of the 26.2 distance, and want to have as much of it covered in training as possible. They don't feel comfortable without at least a 20 miler in training. Not many people are going to take more than 4 hours to do that.

Gringo78

RayCun wrote: »

A lot of novices are scared of the 26.2 distance, and want to have as much of it covered in training as possible. They don't feel comfortable without at least a 20 miler in training. Not many people are going to take more than 4 hours to do that.

agreed. 50% of people crossing the finish line of a marathon will do so in or around 4hrs or better. So their 20mile Hal Higdon LSR should be complete in max 3.5hrs.

Why do most beginners feel that a 20 miler will give them a degree of comfort for finishing? I would say it is because conventional generic training programs for the masses all culminate in a 20mile run so that becomes the magic figure - do a 20 mile run in training and the 26.2 will be no hassle on the day.

The fact is (as Shels said earlier), the average beginner is stumbling along all form gone probably for the last hour of their long runs - what use is that? Even Hal Higdon says that at the start of a long run the pace is easy and you should be able to hold a conversation but by the end you will just be concentrating on putting one foot in front of the other but to plow on and get it done.

I'm sure the beginner doing say 2hrs on a saturday & 1.5hrs on a Sunday will build up just as much endurance and have much better running form than the beginner stumbling along for the last 1 hour of a 3.5hr run. Now I know there's an argument for the mental stamina that the 3.5hr run builds up but if you've belief in your training methods, that shouldn't be an issue with a 3.5hr run broken up

RayCun

I agree its a psychological thing, but not that it's built up by the training programmes. If you look at the posts on here by people about to do their first half, or their first 10k, if they haven't done the distance before in training they're nervous about finishing. The marathon is more intimidating, so there's a lot of psychological benefit to knowing that you've run 20 miles already, or knowing that you've run for 3 1/2 hours in training.

Gringo78

RayCun wrote: »

I agree its a psychological thing, but not that it's built up by the training programmes. If you look at the posts on here by people about to do their first half, or their first 10k, if they haven't done the distance before in training they're nervous about finishing. The marathon is more intimidating, so there's a lot of psychological benefit to knowing that you've run 20 miles already, or knowing that you've run for 3 1/2 hours in training.

So would it not be a safer bet to call a limit to the long run in a beginner program i.e 20 miles or 3 hours, whichever is the shorter? a 4:45 target marathon would require a >4hr run in training. For a 4:45 marathoner, the 'non-runners' training program patientbear linked would have you running >2hrs within your first 5 weeks and from weeks 8-13 would have you running min 2.5hrs up to >3.5hrs. If you get through that in training, fair enough you'll be well prepared to finish the marathon, but you're more likely to not get through it unscathed if you're a beginner.

RayCun

Gringo78 wrote: »

So would it not be a safer bet to call a limit to the long run in a beginner program i.e 20 miles or 3 hours, whichever is the shorter? a 4:45 target marathon would require a >4hr run in training. For a 4:45 marathoner, the 'non-runners' training program patientbear linked would have you running >2hrs within your first 5 weeks and from weeks 8-13 would have you running min 2.5hrs up to >3.5hrs. If you get through that in training, fair enough you'll be well prepared to finish the marathon, but you're more likely to not get through it unscathed if you're a beginner.

(can't open patientbear's link)
In the Novices thread we're using the Hal Higdon programme. The longest runs are 15 - 16 - 12 - 18 - 14 - 20 miles, and then taper. A 4.45 marathoner will only go over 3 1/2 hours twice in that programme, and both of those very long runs are surrounded by easier weeks.
Yes, it is a long time to be out, but so is 4.45!

PatientBear

Bingo!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/4764104.stm

Here's the BBC programme I mentioned before - this was a six month training program. Have a look at the profiles of the people who tried it - a few dropped out but most completed. Some seriously unfit people were in that group.

Have been reading the comments on distance with interest, but can only maintain based on what I have learned and have heard from distance and ultra distance atheletes. You will simply not get the same benefits out of shorter distances. The best sentiment I ever heard expressed on this subject was 'there is no easy way'.

Whether or not a person wants to do this on a four month, six month, 1 year or 3 year plan is entirely the atheletes choice. I simply maintain that you can do it in four months if you choose.

PatientBear

Gringo78 wrote: »

For a 4:45 marathoner, the 'non-runners' training program patientbear linked would have you running >2hrs within your first 5 weeks and from weeks 8-13 would have you running min 2.5hrs up to >3.5hrs. If you get through that in training, fair enough you'll be well prepared to finish the marathon, but you're more likely to not get through it unscathed if you're a beginner.

Sorry Gringo, but that training program is well regarded and does not carry high risks of injury. The reason for the longer times is that the beginners are not put under any pressure to do it within a time limit (other than cut-off).

It's kind of funny but in this thread I've noticed, on the one hand, people talking about high risks of injury on a four month program, and on the other hand the suggestion that taking over a certain length of time is not respectable.

Any time on a successful marathon completion is respectable because you're in the minority of people who will ever do one.

PatientBear

Gringo78 wrote: »

If I was to train for a 39mile ultra, I would not cover the distance in training, would more likely do 18 miles on Saturday, 24 miles on Sunday, longest run circa 3 hours. Why then do novice programs ask for 4.5hrs out on road?? If the idea (as it is for many) is to go from zero to hero in 4 months better surely to get injured on the day rather than during training.

Have you trained for a 39mile ultra?

PatientBear

shels4ever wrote: »

+1
In 2009 I ran a marathon that I prob had no business in running, the idea was that the mileage would help later in the year. It was a 4 month plan and I found that the demands of 3 hour runs really did stress the body, after 2 hours my form went to pot and it became more of a slog fest then a run.

So what? Did you expect to breeze around the course? Long course IS tough. Or did you think you were going to maintain short course times on a 40km race?

shels4ever wrote: »

The program worked in one aspect that weight dropped and I was able to get around the marathon, but spend the next 6 week not been able to run and just found the demands on the body to great for the reward of completing a marathon.

You said above 'you had no business in running it'. So why did you do it? You can't 'wing' long course races, and the posters above who have also complete marathons have made that clear. My feeling is that you either went in with unrealistic training, or you went in with unrealistic goals. As for the six weeks recovery you needed, and the demands on the body, what's you're overall point? That a marathon takes away more than it gives? You only get out what YOU put in. It's not the fault of the marathon.

I did my first full distance Ironman ten months after my first marathon, and the marathon was key part of building that endurance and mental toughness. But that's only my experience.

shels4ever wrote: »

Anyone can write about book with paln to get you around the marathon , as the people who read\buy the book are usually planning on completing the marathon no matter what. I could prob stick some plan together on "how to finsih a marathon with 6 weeks training" doesnt mean its right but the people who buy it would finish,. Not because of the content but because of the fact that most people could finish a marathon with little or no training under the cut of point.

You could 'stick some plan together'? This is the most bull**** point of all. No-one has ever come up with a credible sub-four month programme that has worked for beginners. Four months is the MINIMUM training duration for marathon training, and then it is only to complete the course. I'm receiving flak on this thread for advocating a fairly ambitious program for beginners, but I RESPECT whats involved and I advise a controlled and tested schedule that I can stand over, and I RESPECT those who want to do the race.

The absolute worst sentiments I can think of on this subject are:
a) You don't need to do much to get around the course and,
b) Even if you do get round the risk is too great and it's not worth it

Both are in your post.