Skirt Runner
They don't actually BQ they just run the Boston Marathon and start with the charity runners. Spoiler alert- no one ran a BQ time in the race.
PRs: 5K- 28:16 (5/5/13) 10K- 1:00:13 (10/27/13) 4M- 41:43 (9/7/13) 15K- 1:34:25 (8/17/13) 10M- 1:56:30 (4/6/14) HM- 2:20:16 (4/13/14) Full- 5:55:33 (11/1/15)
I started a blog about running :) Check it out if you care to
I ran my first marathon 13 months after I started running and didn't half-ass any part of it. I ran it to the best of my ability based on a pace I thought I could hold for 26.2 miles for where I was at that time, no different than anyone does regardless of how long they have been running.
Should a person run a marathon 13 months after beginning running? That is not for me to answer. Do *I* have any regrets given that I got my ass handed to me? Hell to the no!
Are we there, yet?
I'll watch that sometime, but wondering if the goal was to run 26.2 at Boston or to actually BQ on 40 weeks?
The goal was to run a marathon. I believe it was Tufts University in Boston that ran the program and set up an arrangement with the BAA to do so using the Boston Marathon as the race to conclude the program.
Interesting, LTH.... I feel like so many people here, including you, discourage and/or frown on when people try to run marathons after just beginning to run and encourage years of running under one's belt before attempting it. Is that more because you feel marathons should always be "raced" and run at the very top speed the person has the potential to run?
No more so than any other event should be raced, whether it be 5K, HM, or marathon. From my perspective it's more about preparing oneself for the stress that running a marathon places on the body. It doesn't really end at the finish line. There is the aftermath, recovery, and return to training that should also be considered. I cringe rather than laugh at some of the videos and descriptions of the "post-marathon walk". There's no need to suffer like that after a marathon if you've trained well for it. This year I have run 2 marathons plus an ultra where I ran 50 miles. In each case I took off one day afterwards and was back running the following day. In fact since NC24 I have taken off only two days, the day after and Sep 30th. No down time, no injuries, no illnesses. Not even thoughts that I never want to do one again.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Return To Racing
Is there a video to go from 13 miles to 26 miles in 50 weeks?
No more marathons
Had to update my signature line - more gems.
Boston 2014 - a 33 year journey
Lordy, I hope there are tapes.
He's a leaker!
LTH...How do you say merely completing a marathon isn't a big deal? Is it videos like this one....where sedentary people go couch to marathon in less than a year and half end up death marching? Or your notion in a previous thread that anyone could BQ if they set their mind to it, so if one doesn't BQ their accomplishment of completing a marathon is meaningless? And I think a 17:00 minute 5K and a 5 hour marathon are completely different and I wouldn't compare them.....some people are very fast but can't run far.....some people have great endurance but can't run fast.....why compare the 2?
Brad is fixated on the 17:00 5k vs 5h marathon thing. If if it's the same runner running both races, then yes, the 17:00 5k is better, of course. But if it's two different people, then we can't say which is better without knowing more details on the runners.
EDIT: In terms of just speed alone, of course the 17:00 5k is better... I was just talking previously about in terms of accomplishment for the runner.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
I think it's a pretty clear-cut statement to say a 17:00 5k is more impressive than a 5:00 marathon. This is just based on the percentile of those times among all the people that run those distances. Yes they are two different activities, but you can still say pretty definitively which is a greater accomplishment.
Dave
I feel like running a short distance fast and a long distance slow are still really difficult to compare. There are people who could be incredibly fast at short distances but not be able to run a marathon.....yes? Fast twitch vs slow twitch fibers and all that? Some people built for speed and others for endurance? Or are you just saying a 17 minute 5K takes a ton of work but a 5:00 marathon does not?
.....I actually don't know why I'm arguing this..... Feeling argumentative tonight lol.....I'm pretty damn impressed with someone who can run a 17 minute 5K.... But I think finishing a marathon is an accomplishment even of the finishing time seems slow to others.
Which is better: a 17:00 5k run by let's say, Ryan Hall on a bad day (marathon equivalency of 2:45 according to McMillan) or a 3:30 marathon run by Ed Whitlock when he was 81, last year?
Ed Whitlock.....I'm generally impressed when 81 year olds can cross the street at a speed that doesn't cause cars to angrily blow their horns.
When you compare fast twitch vs slow twitch, the types of runners are sprinters who race 100m, 200m, and 400m vs distance runners, i.e. 5K and up. The differences between 5K and marathon runners is much less than that between 100m sprinters and 5K runners. Fast twitch-slow twitch is not really that relevant when comparing 5K and marathon. The trouble with comparing running a short distance fast and a long distance slow is not the short and long, but the fast and slow. It would take a lot more work to train a 5:00 marathoner to run a fast 5K, if it's even possible, than it would to train a 17:00 5K runner to run a marathon faster than 5:00. I've run sub-17:00 for 5K. I've also run 5:30 for a marathon. I suffered longer in the actual race running the marathon, but it took a lot more work to train to run that sub-17:00 5K.
I agree with your answer, Kristin.
kristin - it is an interesting comparison (the 17 min 5k and/or the 5 hour marathon.) But I'm not sure it is a comparison that even makes sense to make. I can only speak from my own experience - and when I was in shape to run a 17 and change 5K, it was not a stretch to run a 3 hour and change marathon. Now, I guess that someone who is capable of a sub 15 minute 5K could go out on minimal training and run a 17 minute 5K and then struggle thru to a 5 hour marathon - but you see what I mean? - that sounds ridiculous - who would do that?
Quite frankly, I'm impressed with anyone who undertakes the effort to complete a run/walk/shuffle of 26.2 miles. Who among us does everything (or even anything) to their maximum potential? Does that mean if we're not going to give the proverbial 110% then it's not worth doing? Tell that to all the weekend golfers shooting in the 100's, or the Thursday night bowlers with their 120 average. And if you're not going to get into MIT or Harvard Law, why go to school at all. Just a loser.