wen a 10k is not a 10 k

ultraman1

could of been worse ,mite of only been 4.8 miles,and even d marshall gets blamed again......
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-32283985

kit3

ultraman1 wrote: »

could of been worse ,mite of only been 4.8 miles,and even d marshall gets blamed again......
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-32283985

Who'd be a Marshall !

PaulieC

It's hardly a news item, even though some people were in tears.

Trampas

ultraman1 wrote: »

could of been worse ,mite of only been 4.8 miles,and even d marshall gets blamed again......
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-32283985

Did you measure it?

Clearlier

ultraman1 wrote: »

could of been worse ,mite of only been 4.8 miles,and even d marshall gets blamed again......
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-32283985

I've run that race a few times and marshalled at it too. It was a fairly big screw up. There's a turning point where runners have to go down a cliff via a zigzag. Instead they kept going to the next zigzag. I suspect that their failure to put up a sign marking the 10k turnaround point and/or to use different signs for the two races allied to a communications mix up with the marshall finally caught up with them. I'm surprised that there was only one marshall - the year that I marshalled most were in pairs and this was obviously a very important marshalling point - I'd be surprised if they were short as our club has in the past received last minute requests to marshall and AFAIK we didn't get one this year.

There are mixed reports as to what happened to the marshall with the daily wail reporting a toilet break, an onlooker who knew the route saying that the marshall was unaware that they were at the turning point and others saying that the marshall went awol. Any way that you look at it though it's a screw up!

walshb

"Hayley James, who is four months pregnant and from Poole, said: "To have a race of that scale with only one marshal on a point is inexcusable."

So is running a 10 K race when you are 4 months pregnant!

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

"Hayley James, who is four months pregnant and from Poole, said: "To have a race of that scale with only one marshal on a point is inexcusable."

So is running a 10 K race when you are 4 months pregnant!

No it's not, if your doctor clears you it's fine once you take care of yourself.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

No it's not, if your doctor clears you it's fine once you take care of yourself.

Ah, doctors. They know it all!

And, she ran 13-14 k. Idiot!

ThisRegard

At 4 months you'd hardly notice the bump on a lot of women. 10k for a fit person at 4 months is not going to take too much out of them.

robinph

eviltwin wrote: »

No it's not, if your doctor clears you it's fine once you take care of yourself.

+1

Although am sceptical of her actually being in the top end of the field whilst 4 months pregnant, unless it was a Jo Pavey/ Paula Radcliffe/ etc level runner just out for a jog and still winning by miles.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Ah, doctors. The know it all!

And, she ran 13-14 k. Idiot!

Why is she an idiot? Exercise in pregnancy is great and if you already do runs there is no reason why you shouldn't continue. It's not an illness, women all over the world do heavy work while pregnant. The baby is well protected, a bit of running won't harm it.

DubOnHoliday

walshb wrote: »

Ah, doctors. They know it all!

And, she ran 13-14 k. Idiot!

so to add to your black list... +9 min mile runners and pregnant women.

might be easier to define the lucky few who should run in your view

walshb

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

so to add to your black list... +9 min mile runners and pregnant women.

might be easier to define the lucky few who should run in your view

I wouldn't call sub 9 minute milers lucky. I'd call them your average humans.

In relation to being 17 weeks pregnant then maybe 10 k running, or in this case, 14 k running is just about 10 k too far!

rainbow kirby

walshb wrote: »

So is running a 10 K race when you are 4 months pregnant!

Radcliffe ran in the low 40s for a 10k when she was 7 months pregnant.

Do you really think pregnant women should just sit around and do nothing for 9 months? Doing a 10km race at a controlled pace while pregnant is not a big deal at all for an experienced runner in general if she feels up to it.

walshb

Yes, I do really think that pregnant women should sit around as much as possible. That doesn't mean zero exercise. They may well be able to run, but why risk a fall whilst pregnant? It's not just as simple as "Doctor said I am ok" to run. Running whilst pregnant and carrying extra weight is not worth the risk of falling and possibly losing the pregnancy. So, walk and do other exercise. Or run very slowly.

BTW, Radcliffe was very irresponsible at that stage of pregnancy!

ThisRegard

How often do women randomly fall over when not pregnant?

Tom Joad

walshb wrote: »

Ah, doctors. They know it all!

And, she ran 13-14 k. Idiot!

Mr Pot have you met Mr Kettle :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Clearlier

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I do really think that pregnant women should sit around as much as possible. That doesn't mean zero exercise. They may well be able to run, but why risk a fall whilst pregnant? It's not just as simple as "Doctor said I am ok" to run. Running whilst pregnant and carrying extra weight is not worth the risk of falling and possibly losing the pregnancy. So, walk and do other exercise. Or run very slowly.

BTW, Radcliffe was very irresponsible at that stage of pregnancy!

Difficult to think of worse advice regarding physical activity to give to anyone who has a routine pregnancy. That's setting them up for a difficult pregnancy with possible ill health and poor emotional health.

There's no balance, no understanding of the risk/reward ratio and no insight into just how damaging such an approach is.

If you're pregnant there are a couple of changes recommended - if you play rugby (or any other sport where a hit to the stomach is fairly common) it's probably time to put it on hold and there's an argument that you should probably not push yourself to extremes.

If you haven't been doing any exercise for 10 years then walking is probably a better option than running but if you are an experienced runner there's no reason why you should give it up (and lots of reasons why you should keep it up) especially in the first two trimesters before weight gain is very significant.

P.S. I appreciate the ridiculousness of two men arguing about pregnancy :eek:

P.P.S. This has wandered so far OT it perhaps merits a thread of its own?

walshb

Tom Joad wrote: »

Mr Pot have you met Mr Kettle :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'd respond to that seriously had you not included those ridiculous roll eyes!

walshb

Clearlier wrote: »

Difficult to think of worse advice regarding physical activity to give to anyone who has a routine pregnancy. That's setting them up for a difficult pregnancy with possible ill health and poor emotional health.

There's no balance, no understanding of the risk/reward ratio and no insight into just how damaging such an approach is.

If you're pregnant there are a couple of changes recommended - if you play rugby (or any other sport where a hit to the stomach is fairly common) it's probably time to put it on hold and there's an argument that you should probably not push yourself to extremes.

If you haven't been doing any exercise for 10 years then walking is probably a better option than running but if you are an experienced runner there's no reason why you should give it up (and lots of reasons why you should keep it up) especially in the first two trimesters before weight gain is very significant.

P.S. I appreciate the ridiculousness of two men arguing about pregnancy :eek:

P.P.S. This has wandered so far OT it perhaps merits a thread of its own?

Well, I just saw the lady's comment on the article and commented on it. It went from there.

I would not recommend no exercise. I was clear on this.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I do really think that pregnant women should sit around as much as possible. That doesn't mean zero exercise. They may well be able to run, but why risk a fall whilst pregnant? It's not just as simple as "Doctor said I am ok" to run. Running whilst pregnant and carrying extra weight is not worth the risk of falling and possibly losing the pregnancy. So, walk and do other exercise. Or run very slowly.

BTW, Radcliffe was very irresponsible at that stage of pregnancy!

Then your opinion is 100% the opposite to the medical profession, all of them. Unless there is some separate complication with the pregnancy there is absolutely no reason for pregnant women to stop running. They will all be advised to keep up doing previous levels of exercise for as long as is comfortable to do so, and will most certainly not be advised to sit around doing nothing.

The woman in question looks to be a regular parkrunner, and has done a few other races up to 10miles within the last year. Whilst I doubt she was in the top 300 of the event with even her previous 10km PB form, she was not doing anything risky by taking part in a mass participation 10km event. Would be more risky to be going running along the footpath solo where there is far more chance of tripping up on a kerb. Running along amongst a crowd of people on closed roads with minimal trip hazards amongst a group of people all going in the same direction as you and with medical support on hand at a moments notice on the side of the route is not a dangerous activity for a pregnant woman to be doing.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

How often do women randomly fall over when not pregnant?

It doesn't matter. It's an individual thing. Why run the risk?

pconn062

Clearlier wrote: »

P.S. I appreciate the ridiculousness of two men arguing about pregnancy :eek:

P.P.S. This has wandered so far OT it perhaps merits a thread of its own?

Oh please God, no.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

she was not doing anything risky by taking part in a mass participation

I'd argue the opposite on that. Even more reason to avoid it. She is increasing the risk of injury.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

I'd argue the opposite on that. Even more reason to avoid it. She is increasing the risk of injury.

What are the greater risks when taking part in a mass participation race when compared with going for a 10km run around the streets on your own?

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

It doesn't matter. It's an individual thing. Why run the risk?

But it's not an adverse risk any more than walking to the toilet.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Well, I just saw the lady's comment on the article and commented on it. It went from there.

I would not recommend no exercise. I was clear on this.

I wouldn't stop running if I was pregnant. I'd listen to my body but I'd still go out. I think the days of pregnant women being treated like they are made of glass is long gone. In a normal pregnancy exercise is encouraged, it's beneficial and that doesn't mean soft exercise like yoga or swimming. You're encouraged to do what you normally do with some obvious exceptions. A baby is well protected and insulated, even if a runner were to fall chances are everything would be fine. The woman herself would be more likely to be injured than the child. Women aren't stupid, if they are exercising during pregnancy it's probably safe to say they got medical clearance to do so. Eta it's probably more risky to wear heels during pregnancy than go running

walshb

robinph wrote: »

What are the greater risks when taking part in a mass participation race when compared with going for a 10km run around the streets on your own?

Mass participation. Runners moving at speed. Accidental runner collision surely would be a lot more likely than running on your own. I have raced a few times myself. Those large races at the start are all hustle and bustle, particularly at the start where everyone is jostling for position.

Anyway, I just think that a woman should think hard before committing to actual running when 17 weeks pregnant.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

But it's not an adverse risk any more than walking to the toilet.

I agree, no matter what a pregnant woman does she could do herself an injury. But why go looking for it in a mass participation running event?

rainbow kirby

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, I just think that a woman should think hard before committing to actual running when 17 weeks pregnant.

Maybe you should listen to the actual women (and men who have fit, active partners/wives) on this thread. Your attitudes towards pregnant women and physical activity are like something out of the 50s and do not reflect the medical advice that is currently given.

Ososlo

walshb wrote: »

Mass participation. Runners moving at speed. Accidental runner collision surely would be a lot more likely than running on your own. I have raced a few times myself. Those large races at the start are all hustle and bustle, particularly at the start where everyone is jostling for position.

Anyway, I just think that a woman should think hard before committing to actual running when 17 weeks pregnant.

I've fallen twice in 3 years of running. Both times I was running on my own at a low level effort.
I've never seen anyone fall at a race.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Mass participation. Runners moving at speed. Accidental runner collision surely would be a lot more likely than running on your own. I have raced a few times myself. Those large races at the start are all hustle and bustle, particularly at the start where everyone is jostling for position.

Anyway, I just think that a woman should think hard before committing to actual running when 17 weeks pregnant.

There is more jostling at gigs and on public transport than there is at the start of a race

walshb

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Maybe you should listen to the actual women (and men who have fit, active partners/wives) on this thread. Your attitudes towards pregnant women and physical activity are like something out of the 50s and do not reflect the medical advice that is currently given.

Nonsense. People do silly things all the time. Just because they defend and argue their decisions doesn't make them any less stupid!

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Nonsense. People do silly things all the time. Just because they defend and argue their decisions doesn't make them any less stupid!

So you know better than the pregnant woman and her doctor, right.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

There is more jostling at gigs and on public transport than there is at the start of a race

Fair enough. Leave the gigs alone then.

Way off topic. We could list many many examples similar to the risk of committed running whilst pregnant or heavily pregnant. People do a lot of risky things when they should know better.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

So you know better than the pregnant woman and her doctor, right.

I never said I know better.

As regards doctors. Some are useless. They'd be more a danger than a help.

Tom Joad

walshb wrote: »

I'd respond to that seriously had you not included those ridiculous roll eyes!

Aww shucks I was sitting here waiting for your response :rolleyes: - here have another roll eye.

As usual you come into a fairly innocent thread with some ridiculous position from a position of complete ignorance, cause an argument and generally end up arguing with youself.

This is the main reason the main forum has turned to crap and most people avoid it like the plague.

I'm out of here.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Fair enough. Leave the gigs alone then.

Way off topic. We could list many many examples similar to the risk of committed running whilst pregnant or heavily pregnant. People do a lot of risky things when they should know better.

So gigs are off limits now too? You're gas. What about rush hour transport, crowded shops, sports events etc.

rainbow kirby

eviltwin wrote: »

So gigs are off limits now too? You're gas. What about rush hour transport, crowded shops, sports events etc.

Tube at 5:30pm is worse than any race for pointy elbows and jostling tbh! :pac:

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

So gigs are off limits now too? You're gas. What about rush hour transport, crowded shops, sports events etc.

You brought up all these other events and situations, not me.

walshb

Tom Joad wrote: »

I'm out of here.

At least something good has come from the thread!

walshb

Tom Joad wrote: »

As usual you come into a fairly innocent thread with some ridiculous position from a position of complete ignorance, cause an argument and generally end up arguing with youself.

Therein lies the problem. Some see debate as debate and some want to see confrontation and argument. I tend to choose the former

robinph

17 weeks is not heavily pregnant.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

17 weeks is not heavily pregnant.

Did I say it was? It's pregnant enough!

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. Some see debate as debate and some want to see confrontation and argument. I tend to choose the latter!

Don't you meant the former?

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Don't you meant the former?

Apologies. Typo!

vanderlyle

robinph wrote: »

Don't you meant the former?

I don't think so :pac:

NetwerkErrer

walshb wrote: »

Apologies. Typo!

Freudian slip I'd say:D

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

You brought up all these other events and situations, not me.

Because all those things are just as 'dangerous', if not more so, than the jostling at the start line.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

Because all those things are just as 'dangerous', if not more so, than the jostling at the start line.

Grand. No issue there. My point still stands. Pregnant women should exercise and IMO avoid rigorous kinds of exercise. Running is very strenuous. It also involves moving at speed. Moving at speed is more dangerous should something happen than other activities. Mass participation running events where people all are running and scrambling and jostling for position is no place for pregnant women. It's not all that comparable to a busy day's shopping where as far as I know people casually walk and stroll around.

razorblunt

Something similar happened it my first 5k, keen to point out I was running not racing, I had been online and ran the route the week before so I knew where to go. Instead of turning right for home I ran straight, had some shouts but eventually most followed. When we got to the next turn they said that they were aware of the missing marshal but didn't have spare numbers to put someone else down there.

It was a fun run so folk weren't that annoyed, apparently one of the fast finishers doubled back and marshalled himself.