A friend of mine has run for a long time. He ran multiple marathons and half marathons. He is pretty fast too. I don't know what his marathon PR is, but his half marathon PR is 1:29:something.
He told me that maybe I should consider not running a marathon. Stick to 10ks and 1/2Ms because full marathons are very hard on your body. At first I thought it sounded like good advice, and still do actually. But I have this notion that if you don't run marathons, you're not a REAL runner. That idea comes from non-runners mostly. People who have no idea if my 1:38:47 half marathon time is any good whatsoever. I've never met a runner who thinks a half-marathon is not worthy, but it seems to me like if I quit running in, say, 5 years, if I never run a marathon in my years of running, my years of running won't be fully accomplished. No matter how fast I can run a half, the full marathon is THE distance to achieve. A milestone that proves you're a real runner.
Does anyone here understand what I'm saying? Does this make sense to you? What do you think?
BTW my friend got a stress fracture in his foot in a long run while training hard for a marathon. He now runs much less and has switched to biking.
IMO, it sounds like your friend is saying this so that you don't end up hurt like him. I'm kind of like that about doing the mud runs, had a friend sprain her ankle really bad, it knocked her out of running for almost a year(could have been SFX). I will never do one just for that reason. And I tell all my friends too, but that's just me.
I'm training for my first marathon at age 52. I want to do it to say that I have, and get it off the bucket list. I'm not sure how I'll feel about it afterwards, I might never do another one, or I might want to redeem myself with a better time.
I think each person will have their own reasons and goals for doing a full. I would love to BQ, as most people do, but for me, this is too much of a stretch.
Good luck!
Well I've only been running about a year and a half, and I think I'm about a year away from my first full. Why do I want to do it? I want to know what it's like. It seems pretty clear that running a full is a world apart from running the half. To me, it will also be an accomplishment. After running a half, I kind of feel like the HM distance is not terribly difficult. Putting forth race effort, sure, but the distance itself? Not really.
After I run my first full, then I will have a better sense of where I want to go next as a runner. I'm pretty sure that I enjoy distance better than shorter races, but do I want to primarily train for marathons, or will the half be a better fit for me? I just don't know. Although I do have to say that the BQ time for my age is tantalizingly close (15 minutes) to what I think I will be able to run in my first full. So of course I have that in my mind that it might not be unrealistic to think that I could get there some day!
It sounds like your friend is at a point where he is frustrated with running and wants to help you avoid some of the frustration he has felt. And maybe he does have a point. But what really matters is what YOU want from your experience as a runner.
Hog4life and Zelanie, your thoughts are pretty similar to mine. The difference being that I have not decided officially I will run a marathon, but if all goes well and I don't get injured, I don't see myself not going for it. And then, if all is still well, why not try for a BQ! By that time I'll be in the M45-49 age group and the BQ time is 10 minutes slower than in the M40-44 group.
I'll see when I get there, if I ever get there, but training for a marathon will be very demanding both on my body, and in the time needed to run that much. When I commit to something, I'm very military about it so I know that if I commit to a marathon, I will up my mileage a lot.
Right now I think I still need two years before my carcass is ready for such heavy training and long race. A lot can happen in two years.
C99, my view, One is a runner no matter what the distance and time is. They put thier shoes on and get off the couch and do something.
As for a full vs half, that's a personal decission and all distances are personal decissions. I enjoyed the shorter distances and at one time had no desire to run a half, but the bug hit me and I jumped in.
I've wanted to do a full, but never felt I had the time to train. Then being sick for a few years and never knowing if I'd ever really run again, I have been estatic over being able to run again and am seriously thinking about it next year. We'll see how the winter months go and how I am in the spring.
So don't feel that you aren't a runner just because you haven't run a Full. Do it because you want to and it's right for you.
Larry
LPH
"Today I broke my record for most consecutive days lived!"
I have no desire at all to do a full. most of the time I like running and it has enabled me to meet some people I love but my favourite distances are actually the 10 miler/15ks. I feel at my best in them. 1/2s come a very close second. For me, right now, I feel challenged by them and grow from each one I run.
I hate 5 km races, hate hate hate
the only way I might run a full is to be sure that my heart lies in the "middle" but that's where it seems to be for me.
But it to the other point - to me, older, overweight still etc, a "runner" is one who runs. I don't think you'd think the 5k Olympic record holder wasn't a runner right?
First or last...it's the same finish line
HF #4362
an amazing likeness
If feel that if you have the desire to run a marathon, you should run a marathon. It's a goal of many runners and non-runners...because it is a challenge. For most non-runners who ask if you've "run a marathon", they ask not to judge your running, but because it is the distance that comes to their mind....
I don't agree that running a marathon proves you're a "real" runner in any manner. Runners run. Running is what makes someone a runner, not what distances they've raced or completed. Nearly any reasonably fit person can complete the marathon distance -- especially now that "..running a marathon.." means taking 5 or 6 hours+ to cover the 26.2mi.
Actually, so many people are completing marathons these days, runners are making ultras (50K and up) the "new marathon"....running long is the new "proof of your mettle". We see that here on RA where folks who are early in the running experience are running more and more 50K and 50 milers. These races are getting fuller all the time. Point being it is runners upping the ante, not non-runners.
One only needs to look back 10-15 years to a time when most runners ran 1 or 2 races in a year, and race fields were much, much faster. Running fast was the goal, rather than just completing the distance.
Let me show what I mean by the above paragraph. Some time ago, I searched for the results of a race I ran in 1987 and then again in 2011 to compare. The depth of speed through 1987's field is pretty impressive -- we don't see that level pace throughout the field these days
1987 2011
==== ====
Winner 24:34 24:20
#10 26:03 29:29
#50 29:45 34:27
#100 32:02 38:31
#200 35:07 43:21
#300 38:17 47:19
#400 41:35 1:02:50
I finished at #381 in 1987 in 40:46, same time in 2011 would have finished #143.
I finished at #81 in 2011 in 36:55, same time in 1987 would have finished #262, mid-pack at best.
I say, if you want to run a marathon, go run one. You might find you like the challenge of the distance and go on and run many more, or you may be one and done. Your call, not what others think you should do.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
These numbers surprise me milktruck. I understand what you're saying, and the numbers speak for themselves. Can't argue with that. But I would have thought that even if there are many more runners in races, there wouldn't be less of the fast ones, just more of the slow ones. But, like you say, it's because there are so many races so statistically the chances that fast runners enter a given race are less than before. Very interesting.
I'm glad you all gave your thoughts on the subject. I think that it is interesting to ask the HM training group what they think of that specific distance. I thought that maybe someone would defend the HM distance as "the best" for them because of this and that argument, but no.
Even though I was saying that I would wait two more years before entering a marathon, I was toying with the idea of entering one next fall. But I just realized yesterday that next summer I'm going to Spain on a family vacation for one month, and I don't want to impose a strict marathon trainiing program to my family. So the plan stands: HM it is for next year. It is now officially decided, hehe.
As both MT and I said, do it because you want to, not to prove to someone else you're a runner.
What is Usain Bolt's marathon PR? Most non-runners probably recognize him as a runner.
For us mortals, it's a personal choice. We all have our reasons and goals. I have no doubt that you could "complete" a marathon this weekend, if you chose to. But you have different running goals in mind. And you run to achieve those. You are a runner.
For me, the half marathon distance suits best. However, I am currently training for my first Full mostly because I'm curious about the experience. And I know that putting in the training for a marathon will help all my other race times. Maybe I'll never do another Full or maybe I'll really enjoy it and immediately sign up for another. In the end, every day I can run is a good day. That makes me a runner.