Bare minimum training

I liked the comment  (might have been from oirisheyes, maybe not) asking DF3 which marathon he was doing. So he could stand at the 15 mile mark to watch him finish.

I've never done a marathon, but I did once cover 26.2miles over 4hours as part of a club event.

That was in the blazing heat, with drinks breaks, and wasn't raced, but even then on finishing, the overriding feeling was how empty of any energy I was. Just a shell. And I'd done a stack of halfs without falling apart before then.

So to conclude, good luck David you'll need it!

SG,

You could run a sub 3 hour marathon tomorrow if you had to. As a training run.

What's the full race distance formula?

Three times your average daily mileage. You must be close. 

Do just one marathon, its the only way to get your office colleagues TSTFU!

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

Impeccable maths skills there, David.

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.

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.....

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!

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"

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.

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!?

But thats where genetics plays a part. Im sure there is probably some Kenyan farmer out there who has never done running in his life and in probably a couple of weeks of training would already beat me ...... but what can I do? Some people luck out, but like you say why should you get credit for being lucky to have been born with a certain set of genes?

Its a bit like being good looking, people say how great they look, but its not like they did anything to achieve that ..... still its a cross I have to bear!

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! 

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 ....

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

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.

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

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.

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?