Bare minimum training

21 to 39 of 39 messages
19/03/2013 at 18:37
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

So all I have to do is 8 miles a day ric and then Im good to go??

For 12 weeks yes. Its just an average though. That's why you can get around a 5k run on only 10 miles per week training.

seren nos    pirate
19/03/2013 at 18:50

majority of people who do sport cqan do a 5k without any training Ric f...

 My teenage son who plays hockey .. went out on a run one day just to prove he could do a half marathon faster than me........which he did.....

19/03/2013 at 19:48

Sn, I should have said get round a 5k on nothing.

I was being generous to people who actually run a bit.

Physical sport lets you do all sorts. I saw a guy run 2:01 for an 800m, and he was a triple jumper!

19/03/2013 at 20:15
I never trained when I used to do long distance challenge walks. I used to do marathon distances over hills and rough terrain with a few 10 minute stops for cake, tea and chat. Typically about 7 hours tops and that's walking.
Also did 40 mile charity walk with a little bit of run/walk in the last half. That took sub 9 hours. It was all without training. It is easily possible to do a marathon in 8 hours or less walking without training by running serious distances. Also I know many people who are very fit just by walking. I know a few of them could run most of a marathon without training 4/5 days a week. Two of them did take up running and ended up doing the bgr in the time on second attempt. They were both over 65
19/03/2013 at 20:24

Ric, probably, but I'm too wise for that game, as do you think i'd be able to leave it alone at just a 2.59 or something? It'd take over everything!

I like the people who claim they've done such and such a time off "No training".

Usually when you delve deeper they cycle 50miles a week, or have played a team sport for years,and conveniently count these as "No training"

20/03/2013 at 10:49

Many people find it appealing to attribute their successes in one field or another to talent, rather than hard work, which is odd I think. But it satisfies people's conceit that they are special, and somehow set apart from the masses by virtue of their talent. Conceding that one's success is due to hard work means accepting that your achievements could be matched by anyone who put in the same efforts.

I'm amused at the lengths to which people will go to appear effortless.

20/03/2013 at 11:22

AG, My experience of the 'talented' is that it tends to be outside commentators that constantly harp on about X, Y or Z's talent. Rather than the subject themselves.

Brendan Foster never tired of saying that if all the best 1500m runners in the world didn't train for 6 months, then Steve Cram would always win. He's so talented.

Well f....g woopee for him. Have a prize for being born talented.

Talented V Hard work.

Talented trains 50 miles per week. Less talented trains 100 miles per week.

Talented wins the race. That's fair isn't it!?

20/03/2013 at 11:30

Another good point AG.  I don't really have a problem with people having The Marathon on their bucket-list and training adequately (as opposed to as little as possible) in order to say they've given it a half decent crack before moving on to the next challenge.  (Especially when, like myself, the tick-the-box exercise turns into a genuine passion for a new hobby. But if not, that's cool.)

I think the kind of approach that gets a lot of people's backs up is when someone's modus operandi is the very pursuit of working off minimal training in order to "do" The Marathon and then brag about how easy it was to prepare for afterwards, as if they can then point and laugh at all the proper runners whose territory they merely had to visit in their spare time to get up to the same level.

I blame Duncan Dares! 

20/03/2013 at 11:38

Ric f
     We had a guy at our club some twenty five years ago now that was super talented.
Reckon his weekly mileage was about 40 a week,yet his hm was 1.05-5k-14-xx--10k30xx--His marathon time was slowish in comparison as he only managed 2-36-xx

We just used to chase him round 8miles every tues&thurs night,that was after he had a chat with the slower runners before he caught us up.A real nice guy as well

20/03/2013 at 12:11

Phil P, I assume that was the Duncan from 'Blue Peter' who ran 3:10 for the very first London Marathon.

Busbar, we had a guy in my club like that. Known as the Deputy.

seren nos    pirate
20/03/2013 at 12:20
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

But Phil that goes back to a point I made in another thread, where I said merely covering 26.2 miles isnt enough ....... there has to be some conditions attached to it, like having never stopped running the whole time or has to be done within 4 hours) or something like that. Because to be honest, any idiot in the world can get round 26.2 miles given enough time, so why should the person who took 6 hours to do it, say they 'ran the marathon' and be given the same credit as someone who also 'ran the marathon' but did it in 3 hours?

Personally I would keep it simple ....... youve got 4 hours ....... the person doing it in 3:59 gets a medal, the person doing it in 4:01 doesnt ....

a very dangerous statement as you are going to really pull the rabbit out of the bag to do sub 4......

i see no problem with getting the credit whatever the time.....sub 4 is a fairly easy target....even i have done that...why not sub 3 to find the proper dedicated runners........

i do the marathon for myself bnot so i can compare it with what someone else in the office gets....why should i need to invalidate their time by thinking its not fast enough

 

20/03/2013 at 12:25

If i was to try to define running "talent" I reckon it would be the ability to train hard and recover quickly to train hard again, without suffering injury, over a sustained period to enable physiological improvements. There's no real "skill" to learn with running, compared to say, tennis, or skiing. but you do still have to put the hours in.

Clearly there are going to be people at one end of the spectrum whose physiology allows them to improve at a quicker than average rate. The elites are those people who have a combination of physical attributes suited to running fast, but who also work very hard at it.

I agree with Phil that it is slightly annoying to see people dabble in an interest of yours, then be dismissive about your efforts. But then people like that just lack class, so I don't bother too much with them.

20/03/2013 at 12:45
RicF wrote (see)

Phil P, I assume that was the Duncan from 'Blue Peter' who ran 3:10 for the very first London Marathon.

 

Did he?  Ha!  Fair play, I didn't even know he'd run a marathon.  It was a slightly throw-away reference to the programme that seemed to start off the "have-a-go" type format where a celebrity (generally) is fast-tracked by a professional to be proficient enough to tackle a hard challenge after so many weeks of training.  I take my hat off to Peter Duncan cos he did seem to be a double-hard bastard.  I wonder how difficult it really is to climb the Old Man of Hoy?  Anyone remember that one?

20/03/2013 at 12:57

I didn't know you didn't know that Phil. Then again, it was over 30 years ago.

Old Man of Hoy. Four way nasty at least:

The crumbling cliff, the height of it, Fulmars (birds) that spit oil and worst of all, Tics that come crawling out of every crevice.

If Peter Duncan climbed that then 'well hard'

A shame that so many with 'talents' waste them. I guess if they don't fancy something then there's no point picking away at them about it.

20/03/2013 at 13:23

Here we go, the marathon's right at the beginning, Old Man of Hoy at 1:00.  I'd forgotten about the sumo wrestling.  Go on Peter!

20/03/2013 at 13:27

According to the Wikipedia Marathon Page ..."It is said that Phiedipiddes ran the entire distance without stopping and burst into the assembly, exclaiming we won!"

I suppose walking round in 6 1/2 hours doesn't really seem to do his legand any justice. 

20/03/2013 at 14:21
Chunkymunky wrote (see)

According to the Wikipedia Marathon Page ..."It is said that Phiedipiddes ran the entire distance without stopping and burst into the assembly, exclaiming we won!"

I suppose walking round in 6 1/2 hours doesn't really seem to do his legand any justice. 

Nowdays he'd just send a text.

20/03/2013 at 15:01
 
Stevie G . wrote (see)

Ric, probably, but I'm too wise for that game, as do you think i'd be able to leave it alone at just a 2.59 or something? It'd take over everything!

 

Truest words on the forum

20/03/2013 at 20:00
He actually ran a lot further than the marathon distance then died. I think if you check the distance out on modern maps you'll be surprised to realize what a true first marathon distance was.
BTW when I was my fittest it was probably because I was out a lot walking and other long distance but fast paced activities. Walking at a high pace is less efficient than running at that pace so you're working harder I guess.

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
21 to 39 of 39 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums