I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a true marathon is 42k. I couldn't believe it. I once ran what thought was a marathon, so it was called. It was only 10k or 6 miles. I trained for a month doing 5 miles a day and did it in 43 minutes at a very brisk running pace, no stoppage. There were people on both sides of us sponging us down and cheering us on. It was incredible, but I was done after 10k. How do you train for a 42k marathon? My hats off to anyone who does this.
R R <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a true marathon is 42k. I couldn't believe it. I once ran what thought was a marathon, so it was called. It was only 10k or 6 miles. I trained for a month doing 5 miles a day and did it in 43
minutes
Quoted message said:
at a very brisk running pace, no stoppage. There were people on both sides of us sponging us down and cheering us on. It was incredible, but I was
done
Quoted message said:
after 10k. How do you train for a 42k marathon? My hats off to anyone who does this.
I have run several full 42K marathons with a best time of 3 hrs 10 mins. The training is similar to what you did but a bit better thought out to avoid injury. It consists mainly of progressive distances, with a weekly (once you're up to it) 20 miler. Many people have completed marathons on little training. I have to confess to being a bit of a marathon snob. I consider those who have to stop for a walk have not completed a marathon. A marathon is a running race not a run/walk. Having said that I also admire the totally unprepared and unfit who trundle round the course in fancy dress getting money for charity, but they have a different agenda to the marathon runners.
It was running that destroyed my first marriage. Every spare minute training, running, swimming and cycling, coupled with aerobics and judo training as well, my wife decided she wanted to be with someone she saw occasionally. I'm not making that mistake again.
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a true marathon is 42k.
What's that in miles? If it's 26 then your friend is correct.
Quoted message said:
I couldn't believe it. I once ran what thought was a marathon, so it was called. It was only 10k or 6 miles. I trained for a month doing 5 miles a day and did it in 43 minutes at a very brisk running pace, no stoppage.
Well done - it's 5.5 miles more than I could run, however without wanting to take away from your exellent achievement, 6 miles is known as a "fun run". Not much fun if you ask me though!
Quoted message said:
There were people on both sides of us sponging us down and cheering us on. It was incredible, but I was done after 10k. How do you train for a 42k marathon?
repeatedly for a long time. A colleague did last years London marathon, he was training for months. Running, gym'ing, playing golf - whatever he could do.
yep 26.2 miles after that ultras. Bill is right . i was talking to a friend of mine and he said it was a good idea that i was not dating , No female in right mind would put up with running 2-4 hours a day / sleepn 10 hours and the work with school . ihave done 32 miles and will do a 40 miler the 25th or the 1st , It is hot in texas right now plodzilla cowboyup
R R said:
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a true marathon is 42k. I couldn't believe it. I once ran what thought was a marathon, so it was called. It was only 10k or 6 miles. I trained for a month doing 5 miles a day and did it in 43 minutes at a very brisk running pace, no stoppage. There were people on both sides of us sponging us down and cheering us on. It was incredible, but I was done after 10k. How do you train for a 42k marathon? My hats off to anyone who does this.
"R R" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a true marathon is 42k.
classic Marathon: 26 miles 385 yards, 26.2 miles, 42.2km.
When the modern Olympics were reinstated in 1896 the marathon was 24.85 miles (40k), from Marathon Bridge to the olympic stadium in Athens. For the London olympics of 1908 it was changed to 26 miles (Windsor Castle to White City stadium) plus 385 yards added on so the race could finish in front of the Royal Box. It was standardised at this distance from the time of the Paris games in 1924.
So, tedious spam but I found it interesting looking up the data.
So, tedious spam but I found it interesting looking up the data.
Another thing that's quite interesting (to me anyway) is the way the gap between the men's and women's world record is narrowing.
In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male competitors.
People have speculated that for endurance sports like marathon running women should, in theory, be able to perform as well as as men... maybe this will actually happen in the not to distance future.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Just zis Guy said:
So, tedious spam but I found it interesting looking up the data.
Another thing that's quite interesting (to me anyway) is the way the gap between the men's and women's world record is narrowing.
In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male competitors.
People have speculated that for endurance sports like marathon running women should, in theory, be able to perform as well as as men... maybe this will actually happen in the not to distance future.
This is certainly getting close to happening in mountain marathons and long distance fell/hill running. There are a couple of prominent women runners who consistently place highly in mixed fields, sometimes as high as second place with just a minute between them and the first place men.
Incidentally, are there any competitive cycling events which have mixed fields?
People have speculated that for endurance sports like marathon running women should, in theory, be able to perform as well as as men... maybe this will actually happen in the not to distance future.
Beryl Burton's performance in the National "12" in 1967? 'tis rumoured that, on passing the leading male competitor, she leaned across and said "Eh up, lad! Want a Dolly Mixture?" before continuing, to set a record which still stands...
In message <[email hidden]>, W K <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male competitors.
But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must surely hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)
He did say for a 10k.
Anyone that can do 10k in 43 mins should not be particularly daunted by a marathon, and with a little extra training could easily do it in a rather respectable time. ie a lot better than a 4hr20 that I'd want to do (if I wanted to do one at all).
A man with a 43min 10k time should do a marathon in 3:22:50, a woman in 3:19:47. (Seconds are approx.) -- Michael MacClancy
In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male competitors.
But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must surely hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)
"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male competitors.
But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must surely hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)
He did say for a 10k.
Anyone that can do 10k in 43 mins should not be particularly daunted by a marathon, and with a little extra training could easily do it in a rather respectable time. ie a lot better than a 4hr20 that I'd want to do (if I wanted to do one at all).
> In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes, which still sounds like a > lot - but there are not very many men capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. > Whereas in most sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top male > competitors.
But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must surely hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)
He did say for a 10k.
Anyone that can do 10k in 43 mins should not be particularly daunted by a marathon, and with a little extra training could easily do it in a rather respectable time. ie a lot better than a 4hr20 that I'd want to do (if I wanted to do one at all).
A man with a 43min 10k time should do a marathon in 3:22:50, a woman in 3:19:47. (Seconds are approx.)
A quick calculation of my own indicates this is not a linear extrapolation of the initial data point, can you explain how you arrived at these figures?
Ian.
(An interested marathon runner who has only run half marathons who understand linear extrapolations are flawed in this context, and would like to know the fudge factor to calculate a full marathon time)...
This is certainly getting close to happening in mountain marathons and long distance fell/hill running. There are a couple of prominent women runners who consistently place highly in mixed fields, sometimes as high as second place with just a minute between them and the first place men.
Incidentally, are there any competitive cycling events which have mixed fields?
Loads. It's quite common in road racing in Britain for the women to join the 3rd or 4th cat male fields. Time trials also commonly have mixed fields. Women also compete in ultra-distance events such as the Race Across America where theoretically they should perform best against men.
Give me your times (by email if you prefer) and I'll give you the predictions. Bear in mind that you have to do the training programme for the event to stand a chance of meeting the prediction.
