Why NOT the marathon

MrCreosote

As the other thread is sadly back on topic, I thought it might be good to have one to discuss all the negative aspects of the marathon.

For the record, I'm not one to denigrate anyone's marathon efforts. I've already said (proved) that smoking out a good marathon is tougher than climbing Everest. But let's face it, some people just hate the marathon, so why?

My own reasons:
-The training is boring and time-consuming.
-It dominates all other athletics events for 'fun-runners' like me
-There's a feeling that it's somehow a natural progression from 5k to marathon, rather than say shorter distances or faster runs
-It gives old-timers a chance to rabbit on about how everybody was faster back in the day.

And my biggest bugbear:
-It gives people a chance to talk about distances in miles and pace in mins/mile. Impossible to understand. Get metric!

Anyway, what do you think?

Feel free to go way off topic!

menoscemo

Because running a marathon takes years off your life. Christ, look at Dave Brady, he has ran over 200 marathons and is -500 years old. Phact.

nerraw1111

It's just do hard to fit in between Everest season.

The training is very time consuming. The idea of starting now and working through a schedule for the rest of summer at expense of other events.

The miles. Use kms. The bleeding life stories that go with the coverage. The war stories of hitting the wall. The pacers looking all relaxed at mile 26. The way greedy organisers don't allow people with no numbers to finish the course.

The total mislabeling of speed bumps as hills.

MrCreosote

menoscemo wrote: »

Because running a marathon takes years off your life. Christ, look at Dave Brady, he has ran over 200 marathons and is -500 years old. Phact.

Ye Gods! I hadn't even thought of that.

Is there any way of undoing the damage? Say by running a 400m race? Or staying in for a year watching TV and drinking Dutch Gold?

Or is the damage inevitable, like a 26.2mile strand of asbestos? Scary thought for all the marathoners out there.

MrCreosote

nerraw1111 wrote: »

The total mislabeling of speed bumps as hills.

Like that "hill" out by UCD towards the end of the DCM. Eh...it's a flyover.

The way people go on you'd think it was Carrauntoohil. It's not, and I know because I've climbed Carrauntoohil.

Twice.

gerard65

20 mile training runs aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh:( shoot me:pac:

thirstywork2

While there is a running boom in the last few years,there are too many people attempting the marathon without sufficent training or even doing the simple thing like getting a check up with their doctor before they attempt one.

I ask people doing a half marathon ''what is your longest run'' and their reply is 8miles and the half marathon will be the longest run.People using the events as their long run because they can't get motivated to run the distance in training and then wonder why they hot the wall at 15miles :rolleyes:

My advise is build up the distance slowly and enjoy the shorter distances while you are new to running.Then after a period of two years attempt the marathon if you have a good base.You will get exceptions to the rul with people who have played other sports and have a descent fitness level.

event

I don't have the time for the training at the minute, so stick with 10ks.
ill do it some day though

Mint Sauce

7 weeks on, and I'm still slightly suffering from my first.



Although I'm now likely to find this pro marathon thread to post in that.

RayCun

nerraw1111 wrote: »

The idea of starting now and working through a schedule for the rest of summer at expense of other events.

Yeah,
"Oh, that race looks good, I wonder ... <checks schedule>, damn, no, 18 mile LSR that day"
"Hey we're going to be in Ballyarse next weekend, and they've a 10k ra... no, **** it, 18 w/14 PMP, where the hell am I going to fit those in?"
"Would it be too much trouble for SOMEBODY to organise a GOD-DAMNED 10k race on the 15th? It's in P&D!"

Hanley

MrCreosote wrote: »

Ye Gods! I hadn't even thought of that.

Is there any way of undoing the damage? Say by running a 400m race? Or staying in for a year watching TV and drinking Dutch Gold?

Or is the damage inevitable, like a 26.2mile strand of asbestos? Scary thought for all the marathoners out there.

Run your next marathon backwards. Obviously.

BobMac104

all these things are what makes doing a marathon such an achievement, no?

pconn062

I decided not to run one this year as after my third one I decided I am just crap at running them, they just don't suit me! I just don't get a buzz from "racing" at 8-9 minute mile pace, much prefer a quick 5k on the roads! When I get my shorter times down to somewhere a bit more respectable I might go back to it in a few years.

MrCreosote

BobMac104 wrote: »

all these things are what makes doing a marathon such an achievement, no?

I don't know- it's a fine line between a noble sacrifice and pure masochism

spurscormac

Why not?

Simply cos I've more interest in improving my times shorter distances, 5/8/10k, and only just ran my first HM this year after starting back running, albeit intermittently, in 2007.

5 years in, a more regular training regime, and I still have no interest in one yet.
Once I get to a level that I'm happy with times for everything up to & including HM, then I might consider it.

MrCreosote

The other problem is the whole six months of training eggs in one basket.

Get a cold and miss a 5k? So what- you can catch another one in a few weeks.

Get a cold or twist an ankle before a marathon? Oh dear...I suppose there's always next year...you just better hope the same thing doesn't happen again when that comes around...

TFBubendorfer

I think you should rename the thread into "really lame excuses".

rainbow kirby

Not racing one this year because given that I'm so injury prone I think setting a half as a goal (Great North Run in September) is a slightly safer option - don't really have to go beyond 15-16 mile LSRs in training even if I get the mileage up to a decent level. I'd also like to get faster in general, and don't want to race another marathon until I can be reasonably confident of breaking 3:50 (London GFA time).

MrCreosote

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I think you should rename the thread into "really lame excuses".

That's the attitude that pisses people off. Like you somehow HAVE to do a marathon simply because you run. Or make "lame excuses" when you might
find a different distance more rewarding.

Brianderunner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I think you should rename the thread into "really lame excuses".

Not everyone is able for high mileage training which is needed to run a marathon properly. Everyone has their personal limit.

My training for London broke down in march and it got me to a stage where i couldnt stand up for more than 10 mins at a time and would have to stop going up stairs. 3 months later i'm still not right. It was quite a slow "by the book" buildup too, no sudden ramping up of mileage.

I may have done 10 marathons previously but they were low mileage (40 mpw) efforts and i never hit my potential as a result.

tunguska

MrCreosote wrote: »

The other problem is the whole six months of training eggs in one basket.

Get a cold and miss a 5k? So what- you can catch another one in a few weeks.

Get a cold or twist an ankle before a marathon? Oh dear...I suppose there's always next year...you just better hope the same thing doesn't happen again when that comes around...

How many marathons have you run? If you've run a few and its not your thing, fair enough. But if you haven't actually run one then why not give it a bash, no better way to find out what the appeal is(or isnt).

dna_leri

Because I don't enjoy running longer, I prefer running faster.

pconn062

dna_leri wrote: »

Because I don't enjoy running longer, I prefer running faster.

Yep same for me, I have absolutely nothing against the marathon and I understand why people run them (I've run 3), it's just I prefer running shorter distances. Different horses for different courses. That's not a "lame excuse" I don't think.

TFBubendorfer

MrCreosote wrote: »

That's the attitude that pisses people off. Like you somehow HAVE to do a marathon simply because you run. Or make "lame excuses" when you might
find a different distance more rewarding.

touchy

Pisco Sour

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I think you should rename the thread into "really lame excuses".

Nonsense. There's lots of athletes in the world. Not everybody runs marathons. I personally prefer to have my evenings work done in less than a minute than to be slogging it out for hours, with white foam rolling down my face. By the time I finish, Patrick Makau is already in the pub!

myflipflops

It interests me that many people will say they don't want to commit to the training and they wnat to focus/improve in shorter distances.

90% of people around the forum would see much bigger improvements over 5k and 10k if they adopted more of a marathon plan.

At the stage of fitness that most of us around here are at, going farther will equal getting faster.

snailsong

BobMac104 wrote: »

all these things are what makes doing a marathon such an achievement, no?

I think it's 'doing' the marathon that gives it a bad name. 'Isn't Johnny great?, he lost two stone and did the marathon'. So what if he went from 22 to 20 stone and walked 26 miles in 8 hours. In the words of the poet, 'that don't impress me much'.

They should stick to doing mini marathons.

woodchopper

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I think you should rename the thread into "really lame excuses".

Have you ever RACED a marathon sunshine.

Pisco Sour

snailsong wrote: »

In the words of the poet, 'that don't impress me much'.

She may be a lot of things, but Shania Twain is no poet! :eek:

TFBubendorfer

*sigh* I shouldn't take the bait, I guess. But hey, since I haven't got anything better to do than arguing pointless stuff on the internet ...

MrCreosote wrote: »

Or make "lame excuses" when you might find a different distance more rewarding.

Thinking about it, saying that to someone whose favourite distance isn't the marathon either is actually funny, even if only inadvertently.

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Nonsense. There's lots of athletes in the world. Not everybody runs marathons.

There are plenty of good reasons not to run a marathon. It's just that most of the ones mentioned in this thread aren't very good (dna_leri's being the notable exception).

woodchopper wrote: »

Have you ever RACED a marathon sunshine.

Not by your standards I suppose, judging from your tone. What's your point?

ecoli

Main reason I have not done a marathon?

Havent built up the mileage to a consistently high enough level to do myself justice. Like any distance I wanna attempted it when I am prepared

Agree with myflipflops sentiment think if you are running 100m or Marathon training commitment levels should be the same the difference being the emphasis/ type of training

I know sprinter friends who spend as long as me training despite doing maybe a 10th of the weekly mileage

BobMac104

snailsong wrote: »

BobMac104 wrote: »

all these things are what makes doing a marathon such an achievement, no?

I think it's 'doing' the marathon that gives it a bad name. 'Isn't Johnny great?, he lost two stone and did the marathon'. So what if he went from 22 to 20 stone and walked 26 miles in 8 hours. In the words of the poet, 'that don't impress me much'.

They should stick to doing mini marathons.

You're right he should have stayed 22 stone and not risk dragging the name of the marathon through the mud. Who does he think he is just doing the marathon when he knew very well he wasn't gonna be able to compete.

MrCreosote

myflipflops wrote: »

It interests me that many people will say they don't want to commit to the training and they wnat to focus/improve in shorter distances.

90% of people around the forum would see much bigger improvements over 5k and 10k if they adopted more of a marathon plan.

At the stage of fitness that most of us around here are at, going farther will equal getting faster.

They could probably get results just as good or better on a less time consuming or less boring training plan

The Master of Disaster

The I'm reason I'm shying away from doing a marathon at the moment is that I'm training to join the army and their main test of cardiovascular fitness is the 1.5 mile run. It's a completely different type of race to a marathon requiring much more anaerobic fitness and speed sessions to boot as I'm sure most other runners would realise.

My goal generally is to be as fit and have as good endurance as possible but specifically it's to have as low a 1.5 mile time as possible and to that end I'm using one of Jack Daniels' 3000m plans. The reality is that I'm probably not that far off the weekly mileage for a basic marathon plan (I'm doing about 35 this week) but it's only because I run everyday. Most of my runs are about 4/5 miles, including speed sessions, and my long run tops out at somewhere between 8-12 miles. I'll probably do some 5/10K's or a HM if I can fit them into my training schedule but I think switching to a full marathon training plan would be detrimental to optimising my 1.5 time.

Enduro

Why not the Marathon? .... sprints aren't really my thing. Prefer the longer stuff.

Pisco Sour

Enduro wrote: »

Why not the Marathon? .... sprints aren't really my thing. Prefer the longer stuff.

Wrong thread mate

myflipflops

MrCreosote wrote: »

They could probably get results just as good or better on a less time consuming or less boring training plan

Not sure why a marathon plan should be more 'boring' than a 5k plan. Both should have substantial mileage mixed with sessions. Considering most people are following set plans that throw out sessions of 400's when not really aerobically fit, most people could do with setting the base that a marathon type plan will give you.

The rejuvenation in American distance running over the last 5 years has mainly been put down to the realisation that high mileage training is pretty much the be all and end all for distance runners. You have to get the work done, there is no shortcut.

It says a lot when someone like Dathaan Ritzenheim goes being a 13.20ish 5k in 2007 to being a 2.10 marathoner in 08/09 and then cracks out a 12.56 2009. Galen Rupp was set to run the US marathon trials until a week before it started. A world class 5k/10k guy, he was confident his training would have him set for the marathon.

The idea that there is huge gap between proper 5k training and marathon training is not right.

MrCreosote

myflipflops wrote: »

Not sure why a marathon plan should be more 'boring' than a 5k plan. Both should have substantial mileage mixed with sessions. Considering most people are following set plans that throw out sessions of 400's when not really aerobically fit, most people could do with setting the base that a marathon type plan will give you.

The rejuvenation in American distance running over the last 5 years has mainly been put down to the realisation that high mileage training is pretty much the be all and end all for distance runners. You have to get the work done, there is no shortcut.

It says a lot when someone like Dathaan Ritzenheim goes being a 13.20ish 5k in 2007 to being a 2.10 marathoner in 08/09 and then cracks out a 12.56 2009. Galen Rupp was set to run the US marathon trials until a week before it started. A world class 5k/10k guy, he was confident his training would have him set for the marathon.

The idea that there is huge gap between proper 5k training and marathon training is not right.

You're talking about elite athletes there. I'm talking about run of the mill joe soaps. Totally different groups.

I'm not saying that a marathon running plan isn't going to help most people, it's just that they could get similar benefits from a less time-intensive one.

As for boring- I think plodding 20-mile weekly runs are the definition of that.

Krusty_Clown

MrCreosote wrote: »

myflipflops wrote: »

Not sure why a marathon plan should be more 'boring' than a 5k plan. Both should have substantial mileage mixed with sessions. Considering most people are following set plans that throw out sessions of 400's when not really aerobically fit, most people could do with setting the base that a marathon type plan will give you.

The rejuvenation in American distance running over the last 5 years has mainly been put down to the realisation that high mileage training is pretty much the be all and end all for distance runners. You have to get the work done, there is no shortcut.

It says a lot when someone like Dathaan Ritzenheim goes being a 13.20ish 5k in 2007 to being a 2.10 marathoner in 08/09 and then cracks out a 12.56 2009. Galen Rupp was set to run the US marathon trials until a week before it started. A world class 5k/10k guy, he was confident his training would have him set for the marathon.

The idea that there is huge gap between proper 5k training and marathon training is not right.

You're talking about elite athletes there. I'm talking about run of the mill joe soaps. Totally different groups.

I'm not saying that a marathon running plan isn't going to help most people, it's just that they could get similar benefits from a less time-intensive one.

As for boring- I think plodding 20-mile weekly runs are the definition of that.

Has this worked for you? Give us an idea of your running history and how your philosophy has improved your times, before we all commit to the Creosote training plan.

tHE vAGGABOND

As for boring- I think plodding 20-mile weekly runs are the definition of that.

If only someone invented a way you could do those runs with other people for company, instead of on you own...

that would be amazing :eek:

MrCreosote

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Has this worked for you? Give us an idea of your running history and how your philosophy has improved your times, before we all commit to the Creosote training plan.

Why the hostility?! I never said it was my training plan.

My own times are irrelevant. I'm as middle of the road as it gets with running, but my times for 5k to half marathon have all improved on less than half the weekly mileage as I did for a marathon.

Like I said I'm not trying to do down people's marathon achievements. It's an awesome distance and race, but there are plenty of reasons for some people not to like it.

ecoli

MrCreosote wrote: »

My own times are irrelevant. I'm as middle of the road as it gets with running, but my times for 5k to half marathon have all improved on less than half the weekly mileage as I did for a marathon.

But thats coming from a higher mileage base as a result of prior marathon training;)

I think people are just trying to get away from the previous assumption that shorter distance = less miles in order to achieve the same level of improvement.

Many people attribute this mentality to the decline in distance running standards among Europe and US throughout the 90s and early 00s

MrCreosote

ecoli wrote: »

But thats coming from a higher mileage base as a result of prior marathon training;)

I think people are just trying to get away from the previous assumption that shorter distance = less miles in order to achieve the same level of improvement.

Many people attribute this mentality to the decline in distance running standards among Europe and US throughout the 90s and early 00s

It would want to be a pretty big base to be having an effect 3 years later.

I just think there's more efficient ways of improving for shorter distances, up to a certain point.

ecoli

MrCreosote wrote: »

It would want to be a pretty big base to be having an effect 3 years later.

A proper aerobic base is built up over years of consistent training. This is why you see improvement year in year out with many athletes who train consistently

Most coaches advocate this to (Lydiard and Hadley are two who spring to mind in talking of long term development)

Anything from 1500m up is predominantly aerobically based races and as such aerobic work is gonna yield some of the biggest gains (not slow easy running but simply aerobic based work like steady running/tempo s as well as mileage)

Cartman78

Have 5 marathons under my belt and can't say for sure when or if I'll be doing another one to be honest.

I've enjoyed them all for various different reasons - my debut in 2003 as an extreme novice with a chest infection in 5hrs 40mins (:eek:) was in hindsight a life-changing event; and this year's London marathon is something that I will never forget (the crowds, the NOISE, seeing the Kenyans at full speed only about 50 yards away*).

BUT, and similiarily to Brianderunner, after putting in a huge effort & training hard (but sensibly and planned) over the winter months, it all went rather t1ts up (plantar faciitis) in the spring in the final few weeks. Having trained for something close to 3hrs, the day itself turned into a real struggle and in the end I was grateful to hobble over the line in 3hrs 26mins.

Having said all that, it was still a rewarding experience on many levels but was pretty gutted on another level after all the weekend LSR's, late evenings etc. and being very much overdrawn on my brownie-points account with Mrs.Cartman.

Also, as per earlier post from dna_leri, on a purely running level, I think I get more pleasure from shorter distances (<=10 miles) and these may be more in line with whatever athletic ability or talent I have.

(* and about 10 miles ahead of me coming down the other side of the road)

Krusty_Clown

MrCreosote wrote: »

Why the hostility?! I never said it was my training plan.

My own times are irrelevant. I'm as middle of the road as it gets with running, but my times for 5k to half marathon have all improved on less than half the weekly mileage as I did for a marathon.

Like I said I'm not trying to do down people's marathon achievements. It's an awesome distance and race, but there are plenty of reasons for some people not to like it.

No hostility whatsoever and not sure how you inferred any from my reply. The question is: if you are advocating that people can make significant improvements by running lower mileage (less time), it would help if we understood the basis for that hypothesis, with some examples of how these improvements have improved your (or someone else's) performance. If your comments were just idle banter in line with the tone of the thread (arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than providing a constructive alternative approach) then what's the point? If you propose an alternative training philosophy, you should be prepared to discuss and illustrate the point.

From my own perspective, all of my significant gains (in 5k, 10k, 10 mile, 1/2 marathon) have come from either:
a) Following a structured marathon plan, on each occasion increasing the mileage/commitment.
b) Maintaining a high (relative term) level of mileage and consistent running 7 days a week, all year round.
During times of lower mileage my times have suffered and my aerobic fitness has decreased.

Cartman78

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

From my own perspective, all of my significant gains (in 5k, 10k, 10 mile, 1/2 marathon) have come from either:
a) Following a structured marathon plan, on each occasion increasing the mileage/commitment.
b) Maintaining a high (relative term) level of mileage and consistent running 7 days a week, all year round.
During times of lower mileage my times have suffered and my aerobic fitness has decreased.

With you on this one Krusty - should have mentioned in my previous post that despite being cheesed off at not getting my perceived deserved reward on the day in London, I've seen fairly significant improvements in my PB's for 10m and 10k.

On a break at the moment (both achilles gave up on me 2 wks ago) but hoping to shave a bit more off 10k and a chunk off half-marathon before the summer is out.

So, in summary, I guess what I'm saying is - marathon training is good for your running performance in general but the marathon itself can be a cruel, cruel animal

pconn062

Not everyone on here said I do 5k's because of the lower mileage. Some people just specialise in the shorter distances and their training matches that. I have been focusing on distances up to 10k recently and my weekly mileage is ranging from 40-50 mile, not huge but probably more than some people reach during their marathon training and the effort required to do the sessions is the same effort I put in during my marathon training.

MrCreosote

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

No hostility whatsoever and not sure how you inferred any from my reply. The question is: if you are advocating that people can make significant improvements by running lower mileage (less time), it would help if we understood the basis for that hypothesis, with some examples of how these improvements have improved your (or someone else's) performance. If your comments were just idle banter in line with the tone of the thread (arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than providing a constructive alternative approach) then what's the point? If you propose an alternative training philosophy, you should be prepared to discuss and illustrate the point.

From my own perspective, all of my significant gains (in 5k, 10k, 10 mile, 1/2 marathon) have come from either:
a) Following a structured marathon plan, on each occasion increasing the mileage/commitment.
b) Maintaining a high (relative term) level of mileage and consistent running 7 days a week, all year round.
During times of lower mileage my times have suffered and my aerobic fitness has decreased.

I took you up wrong on your initial post-apologies.
This whole thread is idle banter btw. In fact arguing for the sake of arguing is what it's all about.

I think we're talking about different things though. What I have in mind is someone who has say just done a 10k and wants to improve their time. Of course if they crank the weekly distance up to 100-120k they'll almost certainly improve. But they'll also be more likely to get injured/overtrain/piss off the wife and kids. For most people the same gains could be made with a less time consuming plan.

Certainly for me they have.

Cartman78

MrCreosote wrote: »

I took you up wrong on your initial post-apologies.
This whole thread is idle banter btw. In fact arguing for the sake of arguing is what it's all about.

I think we're talking about different things though. What I have in mind is someone who has say just done a 10k and wants to improve their time. Of course if they crank the weekly distance up to 100-120k they'll almost certainly improve. But they'll also be more likely to get injured/overtrain/piss off the wife and kids. For most people the same gains could be made with a less time consuming plan.

Certainly for me they have.

I would have to disagree strongly with you there based on my own experience.

Low mileage + intervals + speed sessions will get you so far, but ultimately if you really want to push on in terms of time, high mileage is a critical ingredient in your training.

Last year I was permanently stuck on c. 40mins 30secs for 10k. Was doing plenty of short stuff etc. and was coming off a very low mileage base following broken toes early last year.

Following my marathon training over the winter/spring this year I am now comfortably running sub 39mins and would hope to go sub 38mins in the autumn (that mightn't sound like a lot but it was a huge leap for me).

But obviously it all depends on your personal goals and situation; as I alluded to earlier, the missus wasn't overly impressed with me being gone for lots of evenings, weekend afternoons etc. and tbh i got a bit bored with it myself at the end.

nerraw1111

Just to take up Krusty’s point.
Is it the case that by putting in a marathon training cycle, it will help you increase your times in shorter distances? i.e. you’ll have quite a solid base?