Woman "runs" marathon when 39 weeks pregnant - General running

Johnny Blaze

11/10/2011 at 12:20

39 weeks

A Good Idea or just Very Silly?

micknphil-marathonlads.com

11/10/2011 at 12:22

Imagine the fuss had it gone wrong

Johnny Blaze

11/10/2011 at 12:23

Good point - hadn't thought of that.

Johnny Blaze

11/10/2011 at 12:24

Pre-existing medical conditions?

"39 weeks gone and it could blow any minute"

Craig Waite

11/10/2011 at 12:25

I'd say a really, really stupid idea. Run/walk it may have been, but it still means running 13 miles of it. If anything bad had happened to the baby she would have been villified, but because nothing did she's made out to be some kind of hero.

Sorry for the rant - I've had three people I'm close to lose babies in the last year through no fault of their own, and 'success' stories of people taking risks and getting away with it like this really get my goat...

micknphil-marathonlads.com

11/10/2011 at 12:26

no win situation really

some women have asy pregnancies and some not

some are never the same after and some dont survive

micknphil-marathonlads.com

11/10/2011 at 12:26

Craig

dont be sorry for your rant

your are spot on mate

Iain Graves

11/10/2011 at 12:31

"I am crazy about running."

Not just about running....

GymAddict

11/10/2011 at 12:32

I think she was absolutely off her head - but she got away with it.

I exercised all the way through my second pregnancy although by week 39 a high intensity workout meant a 10 minute walk. These sorts of stories blow my mind. All I cared about was a healthy baby - being nuts about exercise quite simply was not as important. I think people these days, in the developed world, forget just how dangerous pregnancy/childbirth is.

Johnny Blaze

11/10/2011 at 12:36

I would have thought it wasn't worth the risk. Couldn't "proper running" lead to the baby being shaken? And if said nipper came out tout suite by the side of the road that wouldn't have been that great either.

A healthy baby is more important than a 6 hr 25 marathon - it seems obvious to me but some people don't seem to understand the concept of erring on the side of caution.

GymAddict

11/10/2011 at 12:38

I agree - obviously she and the baby were fine - but seriously - not worth the risk.

Nam

11/10/2011 at 12:42

I have no idea why this gets celebrated by some people. Seems pretty irresponsible to me. Not even Paula Radcliffe would have done 26.2 at 39 weeks...

Emmy H

11/10/2011 at 12:44

It's good to hear that both her and the baby are fine... I dont think it was worth the risk (as Gym addict said) but if it was such a big issue - shouldnt the organisers/marshals pulled her off the course?

GymAddict

11/10/2011 at 12:50

Presumably she didn't look 39 weeks. She must have had a pretty neat bump to run at all.

Kathy H

11/10/2011 at 12:54

Sky News reports:

' Before the world-famous marathon, doctors had given her the all-clear to run half the race.

'Her time was six hours, 25 minutes and 50 seconds, which is much slower than her usual marathon time.

But she was happy with the experience and still managed to beat her husband Joe by 19 minutes.

Some people think that runners are nuts

I expect her next challenge will be an ultra, if that wasn't 'ultra' enough!

Edited: 11/10/2011 at 12:56

Little Ninja

11/10/2011 at 14:20

I just tried to find her splits but the results aren't showing.

Why take the gamble that something could have gone wrong? Med staff were there to help people with blisters, strains etc not give birth. If the lady had needed to get to hospital in an ambulance, I bet the surrounding roads would have been very congested. And of course, they'd also had to have tried to find her husband in the race. The husband and wife didn't even stay together FFS.

Edited: 11/10/2011 at 14:27

Iain Graves

11/10/2011 at 14:26

The more I think about this, the more angry I get... Seems (to me) to be incredibly selfish and also just plain stupid. Obviously I don't know the woman, and I hope I'm not getting all Daily Mail here, but it just seems like she hasn't thought about anything properly. Getting more angry...

Screamapillar

11/10/2011 at 15:17

Not that I agree with what she did but just to offer an alternative view:

Labouring women throughout history pretty much worked until the day baby was due - they couldn't afford not to. Physical exertion immediately prior to (and not that long after) the birth would not have been looked on as anything unusual in the past.

Emmy H

11/10/2011 at 15:22

That's a good point Screamapillar - I think that's one thing that we forget; previously things were a lot different.

Little Ninja

11/10/2011 at 15:28

Screamy - Those woman would have been using 'similar' rates of exertion day in day out (though probably lessening). This marathon had to be a massive increase in exertion compared to the lady's day to day activities and the fact she gave birth so soon after the end really speaks volumes.

Edited: 11/10/2011 at 15:28