Question for the Multi-Marathoners

Itziger

I was looking at Belcara's log where he did two marathons in a day recently and I couldn't get the 'why' word out of my head.

So that is the question. Why do you do that type of thing??? Do you get more of a kick out of two in 24hrs or 10 on consecutive days than going for a big new PB?

I hope the question is taken in the spirit of its asking. I'm curious, I'd like to see what people have to say. Yes, part of me thinks you're mad, but not in a bad way! The above mentioned Boardsie is the only person from here that I've met in the flesh and a very nice lad he is too!

belcarra

Itziger wrote: »

I was looking at Belcara's log where he did two marathons in a day recently and I couldn't get the 'why' word out of my head.

So that is the question. Why do you do that type of thing??? Do you get more of a kick out of two in 24hrs or 10 on consecutive days than going for a big new PB?

I hope the question is taken in the spirit of its asking. I'm curious, I'd like to see what people have to say. Yes, part of me thinks you're mad, but not in a bad way! The above mentioned Boardsie is the only person from here that I've met in the flesh and a very nice lad he is too!

Carelessness!;)

My PB attempt was the previous week and that blew up in my face. My next PB attempt will be in Chicago in October but in the meantime I am doing the 24hr race in Belfast on the 20th July. So, I guess the real question is why attempt that (The 2 marathons in 1 day was more like a training exercise for that).
My answer is that you can go fast or you can go long. I have the fast part of things already mapped out. As for the long part, I guess I see it as an adventure to find out how far (literally) I can push myself. I have no idea how many miles I will do in the 24hr so there is no real pressure from that perspective. I just hope to take it handy and enjoy the run (well as much as you could expect to enjoy it!).

I'll expect to see you there next year!

TFBubendorfer

Itziger wrote: »

So that is the question. Why do you do that type of thing??? Do you get more of a kick out of two in 24hrs or 10 on consecutive days than going for a big new PB?

Because we can (or at least we think we can ). No other reason.

Why do most people run marathons? I'm pretty sure the answer is for a challenge. Once you get fit enough that running 26 miles is no longer that much of a challenge you start looking to up the ante, be it running 2 marathons in a day, 10 in 10 days or running longer and longer ultras.

breffni blue

It's the challenge I suppose, to see how far or how long the body can keep going for? (not that I've ever ran 2 marathons in 1 day), but for the last 3 years I do the Connemara invitational marathon and the Connemara ultra back-2-back days as training for the 24hr race in Belfast.....

ThePiedPiper

Its an interesting one this. I'm a relatively mainstream marathoner, the most hardcore weekend I ever did was 20 on a Saturday and 21 on the Sunday I think. But Conn and Dingle Ultras and Comrades are all part of the medium-long term plans. I would be more interested in the times I would achieve in these events rather than how long I could potentially go in a 12 or 24 hour race. I know that mentally I'd be able to do the longer Ultras, I'm just not sure that physically, it'd be a good thing, in the long term.

I know Thomas, that you have achieved good results in all distances off your ultra training. Belcarra, do you foresee a similar type of advantage happening? Do you feel the 24 hour race will be beneficial or damaging to your Chicago race?

belcarra

RunForestRun wrote: »

Its an interesting one this. I'm a relatively mainstream marathoner, the most hardcore weekend I ever did was 20 on a Saturday and 21 on the Sunday I think. But Conn and Dingle Ultras and Comrades are all part of the medium-long term plans. I would be more interested in the times I would achieve in these events rather than how long I could potentially go in a 12 or 24 hour race. I know that mentally I'd be able to do the longer Ultras, I'm just not sure that physically, it'd be a good thing, in the long term.

I know Thomas, that you have achieved good results in all distances off your ultra training. Belcarra, do you foresee a similar type of advantage happening? Do you feel the 24 hour race will be beneficial or damaging to your Chicago race?

It could be argued both ways.

It'll toughen me up both mentally and physically (If it doesn't actually break me!) and I will have 11 weeks before Chicago after it so time for a recovery, a few weeks of tempo/MP stuff and then a 2 week taper.
However, it could instead be that I get injured from the training or the race itself. Or alternatively I might simply under-train the fast twitch fibres during this time leading me to being behind schedule for the faster training afterwards, and therefore a lag on my potential best effort in Chicago.

I have heard varying reports from Breffni Blue and Aimman about the impact the 24hr run has on you afterwards. One of them ran a marathon PB a few weeks later while the other said to be prepared for 6 months of recovery! I guess it's down to the person themselves and a large amount of luck as to how the recovery goes.

I'm quite impulsive when it comes to selecting races so that's why it ends up working out like this. Although I'm ok with this fact many others will have a more structured and planned way of attacking these things instead and may allow for months of recovery after each marathon, but in my eyes that's just wasting time!

TFBubendorfer

belcarra wrote: »

I have heard varying reports from Breffni Blue and Aimman about the impact the 24hr run has on you afterwards. One of them ran a marathon PB a few weeks later while the other said to be prepared for 6 months of recovery! I guess it's down to the person themselves and a large amount of luck as to how the recovery goes.

I had a bit of both. It took me 4 months to feel completely recovered after the 24 hrs race. Now, I didn't exactly sit on my backside for 4 months, I ran the Dingle 50-mile ultra and I paced the Dublin marathon in that time, but it wasn't until the middle of November that my legs felt right again.

But since then I have been running on a new level and set PBs at all distances that I have raced, even short ones like the 5k. I wouldn't have tried to PB in a marathon after a few weeks, but it did happen after a few months.

Enduro

Itziger wrote: »

I was looking at Belcara's log where he did two marathons in a day recently and I couldn't get the 'why' word out of my head.!

There is nothing whatsoever magical about a marathon. It's just one distance in an infinite range of distances. It's like asking Why do 2 x 100 metre races in one day. Why not!

Itziger

Enduro wrote: »

There is nothing whatsoever magical about a marathon. It's just one distance in an infinite range of distances. It's like asking Why do 2 x 100 metre races in one day. Why not!

Enduro, I know what you mean by the "mythical" bs that surrounds the marathon - it gets a bit tiresome at times. That said, the men in white coats might be looking up your address if you go around too often saying 2x42.4 = 2x0.10

A side debate here might be.... how much time would you need to leave between pb attempts at various distances??

Let's start it off by saying 100mts (I'm only going by the major championships) 6hours???

What about say 10k?? A week? I think there could be a half decent thread in this.

Enduro

Itziger wrote: »

A side debate here might be.... how much time would you need to leave between pb attempts at various distances??

Let's start it off by saying 100mts (I'm only going by the major championships) 6hours???

What about say 10k?? A week? I think there could be a half decent thread in this.

It depends on the person as much as the distance. There is no universal answer, or proportional rule based on distance.

Itziger

Enduro wrote: »

It depends on the person as much as the distance. There is no universal answer, or proportional rule based on distance.

Yeah, but I'd be interested in what posters here think. You don't think a runner would do a Half Marathon pb on Saturday and break it the following day as would be perfectly understandable and doable for a 100m run.

Let's see what people think if and when they post.

Just to give my experience. Set a kinda soft marathon pb last year of 3.14 and 5 weeks later (with Belcara, well not alongside him!!) did 3.12. To be honest I think 5 weeks is about minimum for that distance..... maybe 4 absolute minimum. Although I know of a lad based in Boston who does Ultras and ran 3 marathons in a month, two on successive weekends. I think the second or third of the three was his best time. Fairly exceptional lad now tbf. He did the hot Boston marathon of 2012 after a tough 50k trail run two days earlier.

TFBubendorfer

Itziger wrote: »

A side debate here might be.... how much time would you need to leave between pb attempts at various distances??

There's that old rule of thumb that says you should do no hard running for a day per mile raced. Obviously that doesn't work for sprinters, and usually it's understood to mean no hard training efforts rather than racing.

However, I find it reasonably accurate. It generally takes a day per mile raced for my legs to feel 100% again. That's if I race all-out obviously, if I run a race at training effort that does not apply.

And then, as Enduro already said, it depends on the person as much as the distance

Itziger

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

There's that old rule of thumb that says you should do no hard running for a day per mile raced. Obviously that doesn't work for sprinters, and usually it's understood to mean no hard training efforts rather than racing.

However, I find it reasonably accurate. It generally takes a day per mile raced for my legs to feel 100% again. That's if I race all-out obviously, if I run a race at training effort that does not apply.

And then, as Enduro already said, it depends on the person as much as the distance

I don't want to come across as obsessive here but there must be a fairly general rule - not unlike the one you mention about miles/days - that applies to most people, in fact to the vast majority I would say. Enduro began here by saying "It's like asking 'why do two 100mt races in one day'?" C'mon, let's be a bit realistic.

I'd be really interested to hear a range of people from 400 metres up to 100 miles. And the 'going for a pb' part is important.

jonny99

In my case, its just to get to 100 as soon as possible, and get the box ticked.Times dont concern me really. The other element is the social side of marathoning-As someone(Hot to trot:D) said to me recently: 'This IS my social life'

ger664

As regards PB's Gerry Duffy knocked 5 minutes of his PB on Day 29 of their 32 Day Marathon Challenge.

TFBubendorfer

Itziger wrote: »

I don't want to come across as obsessive here but there must be a fairly general rule - not unlike the one you mention about miles/days - that applies to most people, in fact to the vast majority I would say. Enduro began here by saying "It's like asking 'why do two 100mt races in one day'?" C'mon, let's be a bit realistic.

I'd be really interested to hear a range of people from 400 metres up to 100 miles. And the 'going for a pb' part is important.

You do know this is a kind of "how long is a bit of string" question, don't you?

I have no idea about anything below 5k. I'd say once you start getting into form you can race a 5k or 10k once a week and you should keep improving for about 6 weeks (give or take a few) until you have peaked. This is similar to how I set a whole string of 5k PBs in a row at the start of this year (5 5k races from 1 Jan to 23 Feb and I set 3 successive PBs). Any longer distances I'd say you shouldn't race again until the days/mile rule has passed but it gradually becomes longer as the distance grows, e.g. I normally wouldn't even attempt a new marathon PB within at least 2 or 3 months of a previous one (but even I have an example that contradicts that). As for a 100 miler, your guess is as good as mine.

These are general guidelines, and subjective ones at that, and there will be loads of examples that pick holes in that theory. That's what general guidelines are, specific example will always differ.

Enduro

Itziger wrote: »

Yeah, but I'd be interested in what posters here think. You don't think a runner would do a Half Marathon pb on Saturday and break it the following day as would be perfectly understandable and doable for a 100m run.

Let's see what people think if and when they post.

I guarantee you won't find a rule anywhere for the distances I've been racing recently:

race 1 (day0): 24 hours WC... 234km covered, 22nd in the WC (within 3km of my PB)
race 2 (day 14): Wicklow Way race, approx 130km in 12:25 (New course record)
race 3 (day 28): Mourne Way ultra, approx 84.4km in 7:39 (new course record)

along with IMRA races of between 7 and 12km before, during and after that period generally finishing in the top 5 in those races.

I would advise almost anyone never to attempt that. But then I know that some people are different and can give these kind of things a go quite effectively... Everybody is different. The important thing is to figure out your own capabilities (which will more than likely evolve over time too)

ThePiedPiper

ger664 wrote: »

As regards PB's Gerry Duffy knocked 5 minutes of his PB on Day 29 of their 32 Day Marathon Challenge.

This is true, but I think that Gerry himself would admit that his marathon PB before starting the 32 marathon challenge was ridiculously soft. I think that PB you're talking about was something like 3:22 IIRC. Two months later, he ran something like 2:55 in DCM, so the 3:22 was really nothing like a true marathon PB effort, it would've been in his comfort zone.

Regarding the general recovery times, as somebody builds a larger base over time, has higher weekly mileage of 70+ per week and races reasonably smart, recovery times come down a lot. Last year for example, I achieved what was probably my best ever cross-country result, taking a couple of really good scalps, just 6 days after a marathon PB. I'm not saying I could have attempted a marathon PB that day, but the 8k x-country result showed recovery was very fast.

Last July, I did a 10k and 5k PB within 3 days of each other. I don't think there'll be any rule of thumb. Even for the same athlete, depending on numerous factors, recovery times vary considerably.

belcarra

RunForestRun wrote: »

Regarding the general recovery times, as somebody builds a larger base over time, has higher weekly mileage of 70+ per week and races reasonably smart, recovery times come down a lot. Last year for example, I achieved what was probably my best ever cross-country result, taking a couple of really good scalps, just 6 days after a marathon PB. I'm not saying I could have attempted a marathon PB that day, but the 8k x-country result showed recovery was very fast.

This is a good point and something that I've been finding with myself this year that recovery times are much improved on last year. I would associate this with the fact that many of my weeks are between 50m and 75m.
If you don't have a good consistent mileage base then the chances are you will need longer to recover from each race imho.
Itziger - What is your weekly mileage outside of specific marathon training? Do you back-off the running or do you maintain a high amount of miles?

Itziger

belcarra wrote: »

This is a good point and something that I've been finding with myself this year that recovery times are much improved on last year. I would associate this with the fact that many of my weeks are between 50m and 75m.
If you don't have a good consistent mileage base then the chances are you will need longer to recover from each race imho.
Itziger - What is your weekly mileage outside of specific marathon training? Do you back-off the running or do you maintain a high amount of miles?

I do back off a bit yeah. But I'd agree with the idea of a growing base as the years go on. I mean for my first half about 5 years ago my longest training run was 18k. This year I'd done 26 and 27k.

In any case I'm not doing anywhere near the mileage you or Enduro are doing!!! For the most recent target race (Half pb of 1.24.5x) I was doing about 70k a week. For the full last year I wasn't doing much more. With work and family I won't manage much more either this time around. Did buy a fancy headlamp yesterday though so that knocks the "too late/dark for a run" excuse on the head.

Itziger

Enduro wrote: »

I guarantee you won't find a rule anywhere for the distances I've been racing recently:

race 1 (day0): 24 hours WC... 234km covered, 22nd in the WC (within 3km of my PB)
race 2 (day 14): Wicklow Way race, approx 130km in 12:25 (New course record)
race 3 (day 28): Mourne Way ultra, approx 84.4km in 7:39 (new course record)

along with IMRA races of between 7 and 12km before, during and after that period generally finishing in the top 5 in those races.

I would advise almost anyone never to attempt that. But then I know that some people are different and can give these kind of things a go quite effectively... Everybody is different. The important thing is to figure out your own capabilities (which will more than likely evolve over time too)

Jesus, I'm sitting here looking at those figures trying to make sense of em. Will come back later and try to digest it.

menoscemo

I think the common recovery 'rules' are a little over cautious myself.
A few years ago I set an 8 min Marathon PB the week after my first every ultra (a 50k) which I ran fairly hard ( I was near collapsing at the end ). My old Mara PB was only 5 months old at the time so it wasn't exactly very soft....I didn't even have a massive base, having only been running about a year and a half. The above 2 races were my 3rd and 4th 'official' marathons...

If I had been more recovered from the 50k I might have a run a touch faster but only by a minute or two I think.

belcarra

That brings taper into question also.
I've recently gone for a 2 week taper for marathons as opposed to the normal 3 weeks. However, I often think even two weeks is a bit much and after blowing up in Portumna I've wondered if an even shorter taper would be useful so that my momentum remains, rather than easing back with all the shorter stuff usually associated with taper time. I find taper a negative distraction and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have done any worse in the marathon!

Dermo09

Itziger wrote: »

I was looking at Belcara's log where he did two marathons in a day recently and I couldn't get the 'why' word out of my head.

So that is the question. Why do you do that type of thing??? Do you get more of a kick out of two in 24hrs or 10 on consecutive days than going for a big new PB?

I hope the question is taken in the spirit of its asking. I'm curious, I'd like to see what people have to say. Yes, part of me thinks you're mad, but not in a bad way! The above mentioned Boardsie is the only person from here that I've met in the flesh and a very nice lad he is too!

I would like to know how as well....i struggle to run 5 miles 2 days in a row !!!!

Enduro

belcarra wrote: »

That brings taper into question also.
I've recently gone for a 2 week taper for marathons as opposed to the normal 3 weeks. However, I often think even two weeks is a bit much and after blowing up in Portumna I've wondered if an even shorter taper would be useful so that my momentum remains, rather than easing back with all the shorter stuff usually associated with taper time. I find taper a negative distraction and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have done any worse in the marathon!

Good point belcarra, and I most definitely agree with your scepticism. The longest taper I ever do is about 5 days. Mostly I would do a 2 day taper, with my main tactic being to do nothing the day before the race. But taking the sequence of races described above, I ran the IMRA Scalp race (and came 2nd, so I wasn't taking it too easy ) 3 days before the 24 hour, and only tapered from there (with travel etc making a very sharp taper easy to do). But then I'm sceptical about almost every piece of conventional wisdom on race preparation out there (especially nutrition related).

belcarra

I achieved my best ever IMRA position on Sorrell Hill just a few days before I ran the 2 marathons on Saturday so something similar to yourself there Enduro, albeit at a more mid-pack level.

Dermo09

Enduro wrote: »

There is nothing whatsoever magical about a marathon. It's just one distance in an infinite range of distances. It's like asking Why do 2 x 100 metre races in one day. Why not!

I disagree, to 99.99999999% of the worlds population, covering 26.2 miles on foot is a pipe dream, and for them to complete just the one is magical... IMHO

belcarra

I'd say the percentage of people who will run a marathon in their lifetime is probably now closer to 5% rather than 0.000000001% to be honest.

Dermo09

belcarra wrote: »

I'd say the percentage of people who will run a marathon in their lifetime is probably now closer to 5% rather than 0.000000001% to be honest.

Ha ha, ok point taken, with 7bn people in the world, it is more likely that 350m may run a marathon in their lifetime rather than the 0.7 of a person I calculated

Itziger

Dermo, I'd say you might want to have a look at those figures alright!

Me, I'm halfway between your 'magical' and Enduro's '42.2 = 0.1' stance. Yes, the marathon distance is a bit special but people do overdo the adulation as well.

belcarra

Itziger wrote: »

Me, I'm halfway between your 'magical' and Enduro's '42.2 = 0.1' stance. Yes, the marathon distance is a bit special but people do overdo the adulation as well.

I reckon the thing is most people think the maximum distance to run is the marathon and that there are no longer organised runs available. Everyone's heard of it so it has gained a huge amount of awe & respect about it.

I would have been like that before but when you then see others doing 50k's and 100k's you think they are mad...until you try one and find that it is possible.
Then you hear about the likes of 24hr races (and longer) and you think those are impossible...until you try one.

Everything is relative and the marathon is mainly different because the everyday person sees it as the extreme, when in fact for someone like Enduro and his ilk it's really just another arbitrary distance.

Well, that's what I reckon anyways!:)

Enduro

Dermo09 wrote: »

I disagree, to 99.99999999% of the worlds population, covering 26.2 miles on foot is a pipe dream, and for them to complete just the one is magical... IMHO

What about 26.1 miles. Would that be a pipe dream too, or is it 26.2 miles only? (hopefully you can see where this is going, which is that 42.2km is just an arbritary distance in an infinite continuum of distances. There is nothing special or magical about it. If you think there is I'd ask you to explain what makes 42.2km more magical than 42.1km (or 42.3km))

Dermo09

Enduro wrote: »

What about 26.1 miles. Would that be a pipe dream too, or is it 26.2 miles only? (hopefully you can see where this is going, which is that 42.2km is just an arbritary distance in an infinite continuum of distances. There is nothing special or magical about it. If you think there is I'd ask you to explain what makes 42.2km more magical than 42.1km (or 42.3km))

OK. so I admit, i got my Mile decimal mixed up with my kilometers...I understand your point about why Marathon distance is no more magical technically than marathon distance +/- 1 meter. I dont agree with you though. The majority of runners are not elite runners, or ultra runners, or even seasoned runners....most can struggle to complete 10ks or HMs. A marathon is magical for them, as its the pinnacle of their running ambitions. Maybe once that line has been crossed many times, the magic diminishes. Personally, Ive completed 2 marathons back in 2007 and 2008, however I was then injured then until 2011. Im now training 2 years, trying to be able to just complete a Marathon again. Of course if I get through that, I would love to go Ultra and test how much I can suffer. But right now, with all the work Im putting in, just the idea of finishing a marathon really motivates me...im not striving to finish the "magical" Comrades, Badwater or 24hr race....im striving for the Magical Dublin of 2014....

Also, a marathon may in fact be completely arbitrary in distance terms, but its got more meaning and more history than any other running distance. To most its a magical arbitrary number due to its history. For the average Joe to turn around and say I just did XYZ Marathon with a beaming smile, thats the magic of the marathon. You dont get average Joe's turning around saying they completed ABC Ultra...(they are not average humans!!!)

I know Im speaking mostly off topic here, so apologies for that.

Cabaal

belcarra wrote: »

I would have been like that before but when you then see others doing 50k's and 100k's you think they are mad...until you try one and find that it is possible.
Then you hear about the likes of 24hr races (and longer) and you think those are impossible...until you try one.

Everything is relative and the marathon is mainly different because the everyday person sees it as the extreme, when in fact for someone like Enduro and his ilk it's really just another arbitrary distance.

Well, that's what I reckon anyways!:)

I'd actually agree with this also,

When I started running on coach to 5km, I looked at 10miles as a very big distance. Then I looked at half marathon, marathon as long distances as I went on.

After I did my first marathon I looked at 50kms and the likes of the Connemara Ultra is just for silly people, I've since done both.

Without a doubt your perception changes, to the point where the last marathon I signed up and my wife asked me about it. I said sure it'll be grand its just a marathon

I still look at 100km as a somewhat silly distance but I'll likely give it a shot at some point.

Those 24 and 48hr races are for insane people though :pac::pac::pac:

TFBubendorfer

Cabaal wrote: »

Those 24 and 48hr races are for insane people though :pac::pac::pac:

You signed up yet?

Oisin11178

Im gonna give the 10in10 a go and the 24 hour in belfast a go a week later. It will probably go pear shaped but yiu never know.

TFBubendorfer

And I'm doing the 10in10 and a marathon 2 weeks later and a 100 miler another 2 weeks later and I still think it's a great idea. :P

Cabaal

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

You signed up yet?

Gota do a 50miler and 100km first atleast, give me time

TFBubendorfer

Cabaal wrote: »

Gota do a 50miler and 100km first atleast, give me time

Last year I jumped straight from 50 miles to 126, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Seriously. No need to step up one by one.

Enduro

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Last year I jumped straight from 50 miles to 126, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Seriously. No need to step up one by one.

Absolutely correct. In the same way that you don't have to start at 100 meters and work your way through a race at each intervening distance before doing your first marathon, you don't have to work your way through ultra distances either. Just do whatever race you want to do!

Enduro

Dermo09 wrote: »

OK. so I admit, i got my Mile decimal mixed up with my kilometers...I understand your point about why Marathon distance is no more magical technically than marathon distance +/- 1 meter. I dont agree with you though. The majority of runners are not elite runners, or ultra runners, or even seasoned runners....most can struggle to complete 10ks or HMs. A marathon is magical for them, as its the pinnacle of their running ambitions. Maybe once that line has been crossed many times, the magic diminishes. Personally, Ive completed 2 marathons back in 2007 and 2008, however I was then injured then until 2011. Im now training 2 years, trying to be able to just complete a Marathon again. Of course if I get through that, I would love to go Ultra and test how much I can suffer. But right now, with all the work Im putting in, just the idea of finishing a marathon really motivates me...im not striving to finish the "magical" Comrades, Badwater or 24hr race....im striving for the Magical Dublin of 2014....

Also, a marathon may in fact be completely arbitrary in distance terms, but its got more meaning and more history than any other running distance. To most its a magical arbitrary number due to its history. For the average Joe to turn around and say I just did XYZ Marathon with a beaming smile, thats the magic of the marathon. You dont get average Joe's turning around saying they completed ABC Ultra...(they are not average humans!!!)

I know Im speaking mostly off topic here, so apologies for that.

OK, I think we're making slightly different points alright. I'm simply saying that there is nothing magical about the distance of 42.2km that makes it in any way special. You're saying that there is a big cultural significance to the marathon (I think). They're not at all contradictory points, and I think we can agree that both points of view are correct!

There absolutely is a cultural significance which people attach to the marathon. I agree with you there. But as you seem to accept, the reality is that it is no more than that, and that there is no actual technical significance to the distance at all.

It is only a bizarre sequence of decsions that resulted in the distance of 26.2km having that cultural significance. If you know the history of the Marathon then you'll know that the marathon distance varied around the 25 mile mark until the position of a royal seat resulted in the current "standard" marathon distance. If you know about ancient greek legend then you'll know that the origin of the marathon distance is not particularly certain either. The Spartathlon distance of 240km could just as easily have been picked!

You're wrong about average Joe's and ultras, by the way. The is nothing about running longer than the arbritary marathon distance that means that someone who runs it is automatically somthing beyond an average human. What makes for above average runners is running any given distance beyond the average time for that distance, whatever that distance is.

kit3

Enduro wrote: »

You're wrong about average Joe's and ultras, by the way. The is nothing about running longer than the arbritary marathon distance that means that someone who runs it is automatically somthing beyond an average human. What makes for above average runners is running any given distance beyond the average time for that distance, whatever that distance is.

Wish I hadn't read this - now I'll be getting ideas in my head ...........:rolleyes:

Oisin11178

Enduro wrote: »

OK, I think we're making slightly different points alright. I'm simply saying that there is nothing magical about the distance of 42.2km that makes it in any way special. You're saying that there is a big cultural significance to the marathon (I think). They're not at all contradictory points, and I think we can agree that both points of view are correct!

There absolutely is a cultural significance which people attach to the marathon. I agree with you there. But as you seem to accept, the reality is that it is no more than that, and that there is no actual technical significance to the distance at all.

It is only a bizarre sequence of decsions that resulted in the distance of 26.2km having that cultural significance. If you know the history of the Marathon then you'll know that the marathon distance varied around the 25 mile mark until the position of a royal seat resulted in the current "standard" marathon distance. If you know about ancient greek legend then you'll know that the origin of the marathon distance is not particularly certain either. The Spartathlon distance of 240km could just as easily have been picked!

You're wrong about average Joe's and ultras, by the way. The is nothing about running longer than the arbritary marathon distance that means that someone who runs it is automatically somthing beyond an average human. What makes for above average runners is running any given distance beyond the average time for that distance, whatever that distance is.

You see you last point there , I actually agree with you but by telling someone they are wrong smacks a bit of arrogence. It dosnt matter how many ultras you do or how fast or long you go. An opinion is just an opinion.

Enduro

Oisin11178 wrote: »

You see you last point there , I actually agree with you but by telling someone they are wrong smacks a bit of arrogence. It dosnt matter how many ultras you do or how fast or long you go. An opinion is just an opinion.

Fair enough Oisin. I thought it would be implied it's an opinion, but I see what you're saying. Please take the whole thing as IMHO!

Peterx

Enduro wrote: »

and I think we can agree that both points of view are correct!

There absolutely is a cultural significance which people attach to the marathon. I agree with you there. But as you seem to accept, the reality is that it is no more than that, and that there is no actual technical significance to the distance at all.

There is a huge mystique about the marathon and that is what sets it apart. The clue is in the name really, it's not the 25 miler pre royal box or the 42.2km event we have today. It's the marathon, named after a place and celebrating the results of a half mythical battle by a man who died to bring the mesage.
He would have tweeted the result today

Very few other distances are called anything other their distance.
The Ironman event and distance has managed it but there we possibly have some savvy marketing nous to thank as opposed to centuries of "tradition" that the marathon can call upon.

The whole concept of ultra running is defined by the marathon for fecx sake!
"any distance longer than the marathon" isn't it?

digger2d2

Itziger wrote: »

I was looking at Belcara's log where he did two marathons in a day recently and I couldn't get the 'why' word out of my head.

So he can avoid another 5k sub 20 failure

Enduro

Peterx wrote: »

There is a huge mystique about the marathon and that is what sets it apart. The clue is in the name really, it's not the 25 miler pre royal box or the 42.2km event we have today. It's the marathon, named after a place and celebrating the results of a half mythical battle by a man who died to bring the mesage.
He would have tweeted the result today

Very few other distances are called anything other their distance.
The Ironman event and distance has managed it but there we possibly have some savvy marketing nous to thank as opposed to centuries of "tradition" that the marathon can call upon.

The whole concept of ultra running is defined by the marathon for fecx sake!
"any distance longer than the marathon" isn't it?

I think we're saying the same thing, i.e. that the marathon has a cultural significance that has nothing to do with the distance itself. Indeed it's cultural meaning is so great that the term "marathon" has trancended it's original meaning and is now used to describe almost any challenge that involves a longer/larger than normal effort.

The bit I find interesting about the whole Marathon myth is that from a historical point of view it's more likely that Pheidippides ran to Sparta from Athens. So if the good Baron de Coubertin had chosen that interpretation we'd all be talking about Spartathlons and Spartan efforts! It would certainly make for a more interting definition of ultras

drquirky

Enduro wrote: »

I think we're saying the same thing, i.e. that the marathon has a cultural significance that has nothing to do with the distance itself. Indeed it's cultural meaning is so great that the term "marathon" has trancended it's original meaning and is now used to describe almost any challenge that involves a longer/larger than normal effort.

The bit I find interesting about the whole Marathon myth is that from a historical point of view it's more likely that Pheidippides ran to Sparta from Athens. So if the good Baron de Coubertin had chosen that interpretation we'd all be talking about Spartathlons and Spartan efforts! It would certainly make for a more interting definition of ultras

Distances from 100m to the marathon are important because those are the distances the best runners in the world compete against each other at. If you think about it every measurement ever used by humans is/was just a cultural construct- its only relevant to the sport because we have assigned it value and it allows us to quantify achievements.

Enduro

drquirky wrote: »

Distances from 100m to the marathon are important because those are the distances the best runners in the world compete against each other at. If you think about it every measurement ever used by humans is/was just a cultural construct- its only relevant to the sport because we have assigned it value and it allows us to quantify achievements.

Ignoring the oh so transparerent baiting...

The vast majority of distances are completely arbritary for sure. Mostly they're base on multiples of a meter, which is itself arbritary. Some are based on natural features though, so to me they are less arbritary. A local example would be Malin to Mizen. Nothing man made about that.

dna_leri

Enduro wrote: »

Ignoring the oh so transparerent baiting...

The vast majority of distances are completely arbritary for sure. Mostly they're base on multiples of a meter, which is itself arbritary. Some are based on natural features though, so to me they are less arbritary. A local example would be Malin to Mizen. Nothing man made about that.

Nothing man made, except the roads it is run on

All distances are arbitrary, we only run them because someone else does.
Some are more "magical" because many people run them, some because few people do them

Enduro

dna_leri wrote: »

Nothing man made, except the roads it is run on

Don't have to run it on road (though you might have to cross a few!)