Whats the one thing you wish you'd known before your first marathon...

Even pace, even pace, even pace, even pace - for as long as you can manage it, whatever time you're aiming for.

Make sure that your even pace is based on a reasonable marathon time prediction - from shorter race PBs or your long run training runs.

I walked a bit in my first (4:31), but I really mean a bit (in the tunnel so no one could see me)...

However, I agree about rushing into marathons. I did and havent been back to the big one since - I've tried, but I just cant get over the trauma of the whole thing. The run and the recovery. 

So I've stuck to shorter distances. 

Would I be a better runner if I hadnt done the marathon (which seems to be your implication)? No.

I learnt a lot about myself, I learnt a mental toughness I didnt know I had. Most importantly, it gave me the desire to be better. I've never failed at something in such a spectacular manner before.

Do I advise people not to do a marathon first? No. I think if they are itching then they should do it. If only to learn the lessons I did.

My best adivce to newbie marathon runners is - you will more than likely suck, you will hurt, but like hangovers you will forget and you will be back (someday).

"to run a marathon you have to break the 4hr barrier otherwise you will have walked some part of the race" - is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this forum PJL. It may mean they haven't run at a speed fast enough to satisfy your elitist attitude, but to claim they couldn't possibly have run the whole way if they take that long is just obviously an attempt to belittle people who aren't as good at running as you.  I think comments like that could potentially put people who are getting into the sport off and have no place on here. I also suggest you should look up the dictionary definition of running - I don't think it puts a speed limit on it.

Thanks to everyone else on this thread for some great tips by the way!

Daren F wrote (see)

"to run a marathon you have to break the 4hr barrier otherwise you will have walked some part of the race" - is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this forum PJL. It may mean they haven't run at a speed fast enough to satisfy your elitist attitude, but to claim they couldn't possibly have run the whole way if they take that long is just obviously an attempt to belittle people who aren't as good at running as you.  I think comments like that could potentially put people who are getting into the sport off and have no place on here. I also suggest you should look up the dictionary definition of running - I don't think it puts a speed limit on it.

Thanks to everyone else on this thread for some great tips by the way!

A little bit of an over reaction perhaps, Daren?

My first marathon was over 4 hours but I cant see how I would have been surprised/offended if someone thought that was slow - it was slow, I'd have been more surprised if they thought otherwise.

Whats an 'elitist attitude' in your book? Is it thinking that 4hrs 30mins is better than 5hrs or that 3hrs 30mins is better than 4 hours? Well, the fact is that it is. So in basic terms you've got to be either elitist or a bit dim tbh. Or is 'elitist' just a term you use as a form of insult?

And why would someone be 'put off getting into the sport' because some random person thought that 4hrs was a benchmark for a decent marathon?

I agree that it was a daft comment but your response was probably equally daft! Imho of course....

At times you'll feel fantastic, on top of the world, running smoothly - it doesn't last.  At times you'll feel leaden, dreadful and clumsy - that doesn't last either !

Tower Bridge - a big highlight, and somewhere that I've always found to be quite an emotional part of the course (I think that it's because with the crowds it's the closest feeling you get to being a 'proper' sportsperson)  But don't get carried away and speed up  - it's not quite the half way point and there's a long way to go.

Big Ben never appears to get any bigger as you run along the Embankment.

Enjoy the bands and activities going on along the course if you can.  In 2006 they laid on some Japanese drums under one of the underpasses that were hammering out a terrific noise - I wanted to stop but ego had got the better of me as I'd just been overtaken by a man carrying a stepladder on his shoulders.

Speed is relative is it not? My fast pace will be someone else's slow... doesn't mean that I am not working just as hard as the speedy person when running.

Tip: don't read forums that tell you that your too slow to be classed as a runner.

I found the tone and content hugely insulting and I'm what would be classed as a quicker runner apparently.

Why should you only run a marathon to beat some arbitrary  time? My first marathon was more about the challenge of conquering 26.2 miles not will I run as fast as my body can possibly go. It was a perfectly valid  experience then as it is now that I  am trying to conquer times instead.

Many runners I train with will struggle to get under 4 hours but will run every step of the way and put in just as much effort as I will - just slower. They are racing.

Non of what PJL said was based on facts just opinions contrary to the  "So before you make any comments on what is considered running or so called running the marathon please check your facts"

Parkrunfan, firstly I'm aiming for a 3:30 first marathon so I wasn't personally offended by PJL's 4-hour comment if you think that's what made me bite, but I just thought that John66 had every right to be angered by the condescending, arrogant and aggressive tone of PJL's posts. I just didn't think there was any need for it on a thread that was supposed to be about giving first timers tips and encouragement, that's all.

And to be honest, for London the average time is around 4:20-4:30, so I believe 4 hours would be classed as 'better than average' for the event, not 'slow'.

Dicky M wrote (see)

Tower Bridge - a big highlight, and somewhere that I've always found to be quite an emotional part of the course...

Big Ben never appears to get any bigger as you run along the Embankment.

Daren F wrote (see)

Oh, and just to add, of course I don't think someone is 'elitist' simply because they think 3:30 is better than 4 or whatever - but if they use their superior abilities as a platform to put down others, then yes I do think they're being 'elitist'. Hope that clears that up, as I thought your response was pretty patronising tbh.

 Ah well, I dare say I'll get over it!

Wobbled wrote (see)

Dicky M wrote (see)

Tower Bridge - a big highlight, and somewhere that I've always found to be quite an emotional part of the course...

Big Ben never appears to get any bigger as you run along the Embankment.

And another tip for first timers, don't get too thrown if you don't pass any of these landmarks on your first marathon, you haven't taken a wrong turn.

John66 wrote (see)

Peter John Lewis wrote (see)

The whole point of running a marathon (which most first timers will not do because to run a marathon you have to break the 4hr barrier otherwise you will have walked some part of the race is) is to do it to the best of your ability and however talented at running you are you will not do this in your first year of running.

What a load of complete garbage!!  The 4 hour bit.

LOL at the have to break the 4hour bit. The official VLM" Good for age" time for me is 4.15.    Its too wrong on all levels to be offended at.

If any member would care to read any of Hal Higdons or any other respected writer on athletics its a recognised fact that those runners who finish the 26.2mile course in any marathon in over four hours have not run the entire distance.

A persons pace for a 4 hour marathon indicates that someware during the race they have had to walk usually due to fatigue.

I wrote the article having read several books as well as other internet forums regarding correct pace judgement for running a marathon.

Ive run a fair number of marathons and have been running for 32yrs so i have some knowledge of what running a 26.2mile race involves.

If my comments appear to be arrogance to some then its not intended but its scientific fact that the pace of a four hour marathon runner is not considered running the entire distance.

  What a shame that this very useful and motivating thread that I was enjoying reading very much has taken this turn.

I remember you from the Great North Run thread a year or so ago.  You got people's backs up there too, as I recall.

twaddle. 

Oxford dictionary definition of "run":

move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time:

I am not intending to  walk and i will be around 4 hours 45  . I may run slow than some others, but i am still going to run the whole thing,  you are talking absolute twaddle to say you must have walked to get over 4 hours.

I cant really see what point you're trying to make with this one.

For a start, I could go and run a marathon in over 4hours and run every step so this 'scientific fact' is a wee bit ropey.

Also, a 'scientific fact' cannot be defined by something that is 'not considered'. Proof man?? Stats? Evidence?

Running a fair few marathons over 32 years doesnt exactly help in developing a reasoned argument by the looks of it........

Wobbled wrote (see)

Dicky M wrote (see)

Tower Bridge - a big highlight, and somewhere that I've always found to be quite an emotional part of the course...

Big Ben never appears to get any bigger as you run along the Embankment.

And another tip for first timers, don't get too thrown if you don't pass any of these landmarks on your first marathon, you haven't taken a wrong turn.

Peter, I just don't understand why you keep trying to defend a completely indefensible and illogical argument.

I am genuinely confused about exactly what it is you're trying to say... for instance, if a runner takes more than four hours to complete a marathon but runs even pace throughout (say 9.5 minute miles) are you saying they have, according to your 'scientific' facts, actually 'walked' the whole way because they weren't going fast enough to be classed as 'running'? Or are you just saying you don't believe that they actually ran even pace and they must have walked at some point to take that long? Please enlighten us...

Daren F wrote (see)

Peter, I just don't understand why you keep trying to defend a completely indefensible and illogical argument.

I just don't understand how this person's input could be considered a tip to newbie marathoners, which is essentially what this (up-till-now) very helpful thread was for  .

They did the same thing on the Great North Run thread a year or so ago ... popped up out of nowhere, slagged off every aspect of the event, and then once he'd irked everyone, disappeared. 

Understandable if the thread had been along the lines of 'over-rated races' or whatever - they're allowed their opinion of course ... but it was just a very jarring couple of posts, since the rest of the posts were people talking about their training, giving advice to those new to the event, etc.