Running a marathon with only four months training

PatientBear · 02-07-2011 12:55PM

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 · 02-07-2011 01:05PM

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 · 02-07-2011 06:42PM

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 · 02-07-2011 08:35PM

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 · 02-07-2011 09:00PM

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 · 03-07-2011 11:08AM

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 · 03-07-2011 11:38AM

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 · 03-07-2011 05:00PM

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 · 03-07-2011 05:25PM

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 · 03-07-2011 05:38PM

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 · 04-07-2011 07:38AM

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 · 04-07-2011 08:59AM

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 · 04-07-2011 10:27AM

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 · 04-07-2011 10:39AM

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 · 04-07-2011 11:36AM

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 · 04-07-2011 11:50AM

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 · 17-07-2011 03:18PM

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 · 17-07-2011 03:27PM

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 · 17-07-2011 03:33PM

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 · 17-07-2011 04:06PM

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.

ecoli · 17-07-2011 08:22PM

PatientBear wrote: »

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.

Similarly the most repeated advice I have got from coaches and training theory alike is "To get better train smarter not harder"

No one here Is denying the second point yes it can be done. The point people have been advocating from the start is that in the interests of the general public is not whether it can but whether it should

ecoli · 17-07-2011 08:29PM

PatientBear wrote: »

Sorry Gringo, but that training program is well regarded and does not carry high risks of injury.

At the start of the thread I raiseed points regarding the increase of injury risk to which you replied:

PatientBear wrote: »

Those are good points. The risks of injury I would agree with,

I then went on to deal with the increase in injury risks dealing with the following aspects:

Recovery
Skeletal strength and stability
Muscular strength
Affects on the immune system
Disregard of Weight and training history

So I dont think you can simply ignore all these aspects to make such a statement

ecoli · 17-07-2011 08:40PM

PatientBear wrote: »

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 think the "no business in running it'" point he is trying to make is that even though he had running experience he had not properly trained his body to deal with the stresses of marathon training sufficiently (the 3 hour runs being one reference he made).
He is saying that if you dont respect the marathon it can have serious tolls on your body (especially if you have not developed your body to cope with a marathon training plan regardless of length) and that applies to someone starting from scratch

PatientBear wrote: »

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 reason no one has come up with a plan is for the reasons many of us have being trying to make. It is not advised to try and rush marathon training. All your talk of respect does not take into account the respect you must give to the distance and prepare your body accordingly and safely

PatientBear wrote: »

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,

You can develop your aerobic capacity enough to be able to cope with the distance? YES
You can prepare you body to safely conduct the event and the training? NO

PatientBear wrote: »

b) Even if you do get round the risk is too great and it's not worth it

Why put your health and body through unnecessary damage and risk when their are safer alternatives which have less injury risk

ultrapercy · 18-07-2011 12:02AM

a friend of mine ran 3.35 off 3 hours training. 2 10k races and a half marathon. The year after he ran 3.29 he put the6 minute improvement down to his taper, he dropped 1 of the 10ks. Point being anybody can do nearly anything if the will is there but it dosent make it right. My friend is a very naturaly fit lad(obviously) but more importantly he is unnaturaly headstrong. He also played soccer to a fairly high level but what he did was foolish as he has never come back fully from the low grade injuries he developed from his marathons.If he had prepared properly who knows what he might have achieved,but like I said,headstrong.Moral of story: no quick fix,prepare.

anymore · 18-07-2011 11:46AM

Good post on the subject - Personally I feel adults should be free to as be reckelss as they wish so long as they dont endanger others. I came within an hour of running the Cork marathon carrying injuries but sense finally prevailed. If someone else wants to run a marthon on little training and have had plenty of good advice, then off they go say I !

Running a marathon with only four months training

Comments