undertrained marathon strategy?
View Full Version : undertrained marathon strategy?
What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming the
course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-feet
isn't the limiter? (e.g. a hiker who can do multi-day
backpack trips at altitude, a swing/lindy/ballroom dancer
who does all day and/or all week dance camps, or someone
who's job includes spending almost an entire day standing
and walking, etc.)
What formula should one use to estimate ones finishing time,
given only a VO2 max from a fairly short distance, 5k or
less, plus ones average miles/week fitness running?
I assume that trying to run the entire marathon will most
likely result in an injury or DNF for such a low milage
runner; and that furthermore an even or negative split
strategy will still result in the best time.
So would the best strategy be to:
1) forget running shoes, put on the well-tested hiking boots
and plan on hiking the whole thing (but without the heavy
backpack, yeah!).
2) walk the first 20 or so miles, then discard sweats, and
try to
run the last 5k or 10k. (obvious negative split strategy)
3) walk the first half, then run every other (or 3rd) mile
of the last half. (perhaps a better negative split
strategy?)
4) run every 3rd or 4th or 5th mile from the very beginning.
5) run N00 meters out of every mile from the very beginning.
(pseudo-"Gallowalk" strategy?)
6) or?
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>complete a marathon in the best time possible
When you run your 10 mi/wk at what pace do you run? In what
size chunks are your individual runs?
If you've been doing something like two 5-mile runs a week,
you can jog a marathon at your usual pace plus, say, 2
min/mile or thereabouts, I should think. I think you'll get
more out of the event to try and jog the entire distance, no
matter how slowly, than to deliberately plan to walk.
Certainly your results would be more instructive for the
future that way.
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:12:49 +0000 (UTC), rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald
H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote:
>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming the
>course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-feet
>isn't the limiter?
[snip]
>So would the best strategy be to:
[snip]
>5) or?
6) pick a marathon a year or so from now, train for it
and run it.
>IMHO. YMMV.
HTH. HAND.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:
> What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
> undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
> complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming
> the course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-
> feet isn't the limiter? (e.g. a hiker who can do multi-day
> backpack trips at altitude, a swing/lindy/ballroom dancer
> who does all day and/or all week dance camps, or someone
> who's job includes spending almost an entire day standing
> and walking, etc.)
You didn't say if it was a trail or road marathon. If road
marathon, then all of your above activities may mean little
in terms of conditioning your feet to run / walk / crawl
for 26.2 miles on asphalt - the same motion, again and
again and again.
>
> What formula should one use to estimate ones finishing
> time, given only a VO2 max from a fairly short distance,
> 5k or less, plus ones average miles/week fitness running?
ouija board ;) I'd take your hiking times as the best
estimators, but it may depend on how many miles you hiked in
a day. Hopefully, that would be the worst case scenario, but
if you try to run/walk too fast too early, that may be an
underestimate.
>
> I assume that trying to run the entire marathon will most
> likely result in an injury or DNF for such a low milage
> runner; and that furthermore an even or negative split
> strategy will still result in the best time.
>
> So would the best strategy be to:
>
> 1) forget running shoes, put on the well-tested hiking
> boots and plan on hiking the whole thing (but without
> the heavy backpack, yeah!).
Depending upon how your feet like running shoes or hiking
boots on roads / trails, I'd pick the most appropriate foot
wear. FWIW, I've had some foot problems, where they still
don't like asphalt at all. For awhile I was hiking up hills
(3000 ft ones) in hiking boots, then using running shoes to
hike down (that's what my feet liked at the time). Now,
after a lot of strengthening exercises, I'm using my running
shoes for all my hiking (including bushwhacking) and
running. The place where I was bushwhacking could've been
the location of an orienteering control, so I was testing
(while I was actually working).
>
>2) walk the first 20 or so miles, then discard sweats, and
> try to
> run the last 5k or 10k. (obvious negative split
> strategy)
>
> 3) walk the first half, then run every other (or 3rd) mile
> of the last half. (perhaps a better negative split
> strategy?)
>
> 3) run every 3rd or 4th or 5th mile from the very
> beginning.
>
> 3) run N00 meters out of every mile from the very
> beginning. (pseudo-"Gallowalk" strategy?)
>
> 5) or?
Given those restrictions, I think I would run / walk it in
running shoes, alternating from the start. Since you seem
more experienced on trails than roads, I'd probably lean
toward a trail marathon, since that might be kinder to your
feet - assuming you have ankle strength. Run / walk for me
usually involves hills or obstacles that are easier to
negotiate while walking, so this makes more sense than
fixed intervals. If doing fixed intervals on a road
marathon, I'm guessing the alternating from the beginning
will provide more rest for the different muscles, so
provide more efficient pace. I would base it on time or
obstacles, rather than distance simply because it's easier
to keep track of time than distance. You can drink / eat
during the walk breaks.
Even though you do a lot of hiking, don't underestimate the
difference between roadways - hard, uniform - compared with
trails - softer (except where rocky), more variation. Also,
if you go without high-top hiking boots, your ankles might
need more strengthening for running shoes (but may not make
a difference on roads).
But, like Joe Positive, I would have to wonder why you would
want to do that, esp. if you were doing a road, rather than
trail, marathon. I know I always hated it when some of the
trails I backpacked on back east followed roads for awhile.
I'd train for a couple years before doing a marathon. OTOH,
if you're supporting someone or a charity or whatever, I can
understand, but would think it would be beneficial to try to
increase time on legs while running.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:c9qvlh$p29$1@blue.rahul.net...
> What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
> undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
> complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming
> the course time limits allow, and
assuming
> that time-on-feet isn't the limiter?
Motivation for this? Need a shirt? Find one that encourages
walkers which would most likely be a fund raiser and have a
nice walk and likely have people with the same abilities
and company.
Better yet find a 12 hour race and move forward until you
hit 26.2 and quit. This type of event is much more sensible
than walking a marathon.
> What formula should one use to estimate ones finishing
> time, given only a VO2 max from a fairly short distance,
> 5k or less, plus ones average miles/week fitness running?
Formula? Find the one with the longest/slowest clock.
> 1) forget running shoes, put on the well-tested hiking
> boots and plan on hiking the whole thing (but without
> the heavy backpack, yeah!).
Ask your feet.
>
>2) walk the first 20 or so miles, then discard sweats, and
> try to
> run the last 5k or 10k. (obvious negative split
> strategy)
Are the sweats some added variable for this bizarre
strawman?
>
> 3) walk the first half, then run every other (or 3rd) mile
> of the last half. (perhaps a better negative split
> strategy?)
>
> 3) run every 3rd or 4th or 5th mile from the very
> beginning.
>
> 3) run N00 meters out of every mile from the very
> beginning. (pseudo-"Gallowalk" strategy?)
>
> 5) or?
Mambo every fourth yard. Ballroom every second. Dance the
marathon away.
You wouldn't be trolling us would you?
-DougF
In article <c9qvlh$p29$1@blue.rahul.net>,
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming the
>course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-feet
>isn't the limiter? (e.g. a hiker who can do multi-day
>backpack trips at altitude, a swing/lindy/ballroom dancer
>who does all day and/or all week dance camps, or someone
>who's job includes spending almost an entire day standing
>and walking, etc.)
>
>What formula should one use to estimate ones finishing
>time, given only a VO2 max from a fairly short distance, 5k
>or less, plus ones average miles/week fitness running?
VO2 max is irrelevant in this situation. It's of
questionable value for marathon time prediction, and
only rises to the level of questionable (from absurd)
if the training base is adequate. At 10 mpw run as
'fitness running', the VO2max can't be used to predict
even a 5k time.
No other formulae make sense at all either. They all
assume that you have done decent running training.
For a severely undertrained runner, I'd say: Don't do it.
For a well-trained walker/hiker, I'd say to walk/hike it.
On the basis of no training, but youthful (mid 20's)
stupidity I walked marathon distance, with a relaxed
picnic lunch in the park at our turnaround point, in about
8 hours. Bad shoes, and because it was slower than my pace
I accumulated some non-meritorious muscle soreness. Bit of
discomfort that passed in a day or two. But that's all.
>5) or?
Walk briskly through the first 26 miles, run the last
385 yards.
Train to run a marathon next year.
I'm a big fan of letting people decide their own goals,
and then helping them figure out how to get there. But I'm
a bigger fan of not getting injured. Aside from the
(in)famous Matt Mahoney, 10 mpw is just not enough to
approach running a marathon without significant
expectation of injury.
Two anecdotes: Few years ago a girl (late teens, early
20's) finished a marathon in 5:30 or so on the basis of
about 15 mpw (and that may all have been in a single run)
and 'some' soccer. I know this because she stopped in the
medical tent I was volunteering at -- at mile 5. I'm
pretty sure that she didn't have a whole lot of fun over
the next 21 miles, or the days after. She definitely
wasn't running well (form) by mile 5.
Last fall I ran a severely under-prepared marathon. Peak
weekly mileage was a hair under 30. This is nothing I'd
ever recommend to anyone else, and having done it, I'll
never do it again. I did get in 2 20 mile runs, and
several over 2 hours, and figured, correctly, that the
long runs would get me to the finish line. But the
training being that marginal left me in serious threat
from less than ideal conditions. We got them, so I wound
up spending the last 10k in seriously unhappy condition.
(OTOH, I did find that I can walk 10k in under 90 minutes,
even with a 20 mile 'warmup' running. yay?) Even in my
case, where I had a much better training base, and a lot
more experience, it was impossible to estimate ahead of
time what sort of time I'd be able to do. (I tried, and
asked the group. Nobody could figure out much except that
we all agreed it was delusional to use my race times from
shorter races as predictors.)
If you want to race for time, you have to train for the race
you're
doing. If you're doing 10 mpw, you're not trained for racing
a marathon.
If you _must_ 'do' a marathon, screw the time and just cover
the course.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Your training doesn't give you enough information to predict
what you can
do.
If you have exceptional talent, you can run a marathon on 10
mpw -- my cousin did a 3:45 at LA on 10 mpw at age 30, but
he ran fast in training, and was a state class wrestler and
is very strong and mentally tough. I'd bet on him being able
to run under 2:40 if he got into shape.
For mortals, I'd suggest a test (although it will mess up
your 10 mpw!):
Try to cover 18 miles in some pattern of walk/jog, e.g., 5
on, 5 off. If you can do it, I'd bet on you completing the
marathon at a slightly slower average pace. If you survive
this workout, you'll also be better prepared to complete
the big one.
-- Dan
"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote in
message news:c9qvlh$p29$1@blue.rahul.net...
> What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
> undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
> complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming
> the course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-
> feet isn't the limiter? (e.g. a hiker who can do multi-day
> backpack trips at altitude, a swing/lindy/ballroom dancer
> who does all day and/or all week dance camps, or someone
> who's job includes spending almost an entire day standing
> and walking, etc.)
>
> What formula should one use to estimate ones finishing
> time, given only a VO2 max from a fairly short distance,
> 5k or less, plus ones average miles/week fitness running?
>
> I assume that trying to run the entire marathon will most
> likely result in an injury or DNF for such a low milage
> runner; and that furthermore an even or negative split
> strategy will still result in the best time.
>
> So would the best strategy be to:
>
> 1) forget running shoes, put on the well-tested hiking
> boots and plan on hiking the whole thing (but without
> the heavy backpack, yeah!).
>
>2) walk the first 20 or so miles, then discard sweats, and
> try to
> run the last 5k or 10k. (obvious negative split
> strategy)
>
> 3) walk the first half, then run every other (or 3rd) mile
> of the last half. (perhaps a better negative split
> strategy?)
>
> 3) run every 3rd or 4th or 5th mile from the very
> beginning.
>
> 3) run N00 meters out of every mile from the very
> beginning. (pseudo-"Gallowalk" strategy?)
>
> 5) or?
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
> --
> Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
> http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
> <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <8332c057fb82puoru1c8rtbm4ifsfiteuu@4ax.com>,
joe positive <kcollin5NO@SWENtampabayNO.rr.com> wrote:
>6) pick a marathon a year or so from now, train for it and
> run it.
A) The goal is to complete a marathon in the best
possible time and in accordance with the official
rules, not to run one.
B) The rules for most marathons (even the Olympics AFAIK) do
not require that one run the entire distance.
C) I have yet to see a 10 mi/wk training plan suitable for
running an entire marathon safely.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <20040604192047.00660.00000540@mb-m01.aol.com>,
TopCounsel <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote:
>>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>>complete a marathon in the best time possible
>
>If you've been doing something like two 5-mile runs a week,
>you can jog a marathon at your usual pace plus, say, 2
>min/mile or thereabouts, I should think. I think you'll get
>more out of the event to try and jog the entire distance,
>no matter how slowly, than to deliberately plan to walk.
Does anyone here agree with this??? This sounds more like a
strategy guaranteed to cause the participant to blow up
somewhere after running around 10 or 12 miles and perhaps
barely make it walking to the halfway point.
I was thinking more in the other direction: e.g. the small
amount of running training would allow someone to maybe try
an average pace 1 or 2
min/mile faster than their long distance walking speed by
mixing in short segments of running. (again, assuming
that time-on-feet isn't the limitation).
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <10c3bg0tomlhkcf@corp.supernews.com>,
Robert Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
>In article <c9qvlh$p29$1@blue.rahul.net>, Ronald H.
>Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>>complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming
>>the course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-
>>feet isn't the limiter?
> VO2 max is irrelevant in this situation.
Sounds reasonable.
> For a well-trained walker/hiker, I'd say to walk/hike it.
> On the basis of no training, but youthful (mid 20's)
> stupidity I walked marathon distance, with a relaxed
> picnic lunch in the park at our turnaround point, in
> about 8 hours.
Thanks. An actual data point.
>... so I wound up spending the last 10k in seriously
>unhappy condition. (OTOH, I did find that I can walk 10k
>in under 90 minutes, even with a 20 mile 'warmup'
>running. yay?)
Would you have been happier if you planned in advance and
did the 10k (or longer) walk before the 20 mile
"cooldown" run?
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:
> In article <8332c057fb82puoru1c8rtbm4ifsfiteuu@4ax.com>,
> joe positive <kcollin5NO@SWENtampabayNO.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>6) pick a marathon a year or so from now, train for it and
>> run it.
>
>
> A) The goal is to complete a marathon in the best possible
> time and in accordance with the official rules, not to
> run one.
One of the rules is closing time of the course. Many are in
the 5-6hour range. On 10miles per week, and no other
information, I would not be surprised the runner finishing
in 8hours or more. Good reason to suggest more training and
running it NEXT year.
>
> B) The rules for most marathons (even the Olympics AFAIK)
> do not require that one run the entire distance.
So if the runner is really determnined to try, I'd agree
that a run/walk approach is better.
>
> C) I have yet to see a 10 mi/wk training plan suitable for
> running an entire marathon safely.
You got that right!
>
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ed Prochak running http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 01:22:16 +0000 (UTC), rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald
H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote:
>In article <8332c057fb82puoru1c8rtbm4ifsfiteuu@4ax.com>,
>joe positive <kcollin5NO@SWENtampabayNO.rr.com> wrote:
>>6) pick a marathon a year or so from now, train for it and
>> run it.
>
>A) The goal is to complete a marathon in the best possible
> time and in accordance with the official rules, not to
> run one.
Why? Despite the semi-snarkiness of my original post
(shoulda put a smiley there, I know), I'm not trying to rag
on you but am genuinely curious why someone would want to
"go" (somehow - walking/jogging/running/clomping in hiking
boots) 26.2 miles in a situation where just about everyone
else is trying to run that distance as best they can. Is it
because the particular race has sentimental value? Are you
"going" in order to pace or support someone who has trained
for the race and is trying to run it in a certain time? Are
you just trying to see if you can complete a marathon race
any way you can before they close the course? I just can't
imagine a worse way to spend 7 or 8 hours (in my humble
opinion; your mileage may vary).
On 2004-06-05, Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
> In article <20040604192047.00660.00000540@mb-m01.aol.com>,
> TopCounsel <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote:
>>>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>>>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>>>complete a marathon in the best time possible
>>
>>If you've been doing something like two 5-mile runs a
>>week, you can jog a marathon at your usual pace plus, say,
>>2 min/mile or thereabouts, I should think. I think you'll
>>get more out of the event to try and jog the entire
>>distance, no matter how slowly, than to deliberately plan
>>to walk.
>
> Does anyone here agree with this??? This sounds more like
> a strategy guaranteed to cause the participant to blow up
> somewhere after running around 10 or 12 miles and perhaps
> barely make it walking to the halfway point.
Depends on who the participant is. I wouldn't recommend
testing this theory, though there are certainly some who
would pass such a test.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
In article <c9tcf2$ppt$1@blue.rahul.net>,
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <10c3bg0tomlhkcf@corp.supernews.com>, Robert
>Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
>>In article <c9qvlh$p29$1@blue.rahul.net>, Ronald H.
>>Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>>>What's the best strategy for a basically fit but severely
>>>undertrained runner (say a 10 mi/wk fitness runner) to
>>>complete a marathon in the best time possible, assuming
>>>the course time limits allow, and assuming that time-on-
>>>feet isn't the limiter?
>
>> VO2 max is irrelevant in this situation.
>
>Sounds reasonable.
>
>> For a well-trained walker/hiker, I'd say to walk/hike
>> it. On the basis of no training, but youthful (mid 20's)
>> stupidity I walked marathon distance, with a relaxed
>> picnic lunch in the park at our turnaround point, in
>> about 8 hours.
>
>Thanks. An actual data point.
Not really. Or at least, not a _useful_ data point. It's
what happened that day, on my 'training', and
circumstances, with my particular talents and weaknesses.
You're not me.
>>... so I wound up spending the last 10k in seriously
>>unhappy condition. (OTOH, I did find that I can walk 10k
>>in under 90 minutes, even with a 20 mile 'warmup'
>>running. yay?)
>
>Would you have been happier if you planned in advance and
>did the 10k (or longer) walk before the 20 mile
>"cooldown" run?
No. The only solution, and the one I'd have taken if
I'd known then what I know now, is to not do an
undertrained marathon.
Apparently you're going to do (or at least start) this
marathon come hell or high water. That's your call. Given
that you don't have the training for one, nobody can make
any sort of prediction that's of any use for any purpose.
The range is anything from
2:45, finishing strong, to DNF with serious knee and hip
problems, hospitalization for hypo- or hypernatremia, and
permanent skeletal and neurological damage. The odds favor
being closer to the latter than the former. The more
obstinately you pursue a time for the marathon on your non-
training, the more likely the latter becomes.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
In article <9p9wc.996$%u4.68@fe39.usenetserver.com>,
Ed Prochak <ed.prochak@magicinterface.com> wrote:
>Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:
>> A) The goal is to complete a marathon in the best
>> possible time and in accordance with the official
>> rules, not to run one.
>
>One of the rules is closing time of the course. Many are in
>the 5-6hour range. On 10miles per week, and no other
>information, I would not be surprised the runner finishing
>in 8hours or more.
There are several marathons listed with 7, 8 and even 10
hour course limits.
If 10 miles/week of actual running might be sufficient for
an 8 hour marathon course limit, how many average miles/week
of running would be the minimum to finish safely given a 5
or 7 hour course limit? (again, assuming that time-on-feet
is not a problem).
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <i7a2c09uh1qu9i4uc0i64ii5g37mmou7aj@4ax.com>,
joe positive <kcollin5NO@SWENtampabayNO.rr.com> wrote:
>>A) The goal is to complete a marathon in the best possible
>> time and in accordance with the official rules, not to
>> run one.
>
>Why? Despite the semi-snarkiness of my original post
>(shoulda put a smiley there, I know), I'm not trying to rag
>on you but am genuinely curious why someone would want to
>"go" (somehow - walking/jogging/running/clomping in hiking
>boots) 26.2 miles in a situation where just about everyone
>else is trying to run that distance as best they can.
It makes far more sense to me to turn this around. Why, for
a non-NCAA & non-Olympic caliber runner, would anyone want
to train long & hard, well over what's required for good
cardio fitness, to run continuously at some pace well off
the world record (even in age category)?
Far more people in the San Francisco Bay Area turn out for
the Bay to Breakers 12k parade (complete with costumed
walkers, Elvis impersonators, naked joggers, mixed in with a
few actual world class runners) than show up at any of the
local flat 5k races where "serious" runners are more likely
to turn in a fast time. So, around here, there seem to be
many more people interested in participating or finishing a
big event than merely running it for time (and the polite
costumed strollers start in back, out of the way of the
runners...)
Some years I walk it, some years I run it. And unlike when I
go hiking up over some mountain pass for multiple days
carrying a full pack and bear resistant cannisters to take
some photos similar to the postcards one could have
purchased at the ranger station by the parking lot, when one
finishes Bay-to-Breakers one earns a t-shirt.
If one finishes a marathon, one gets a t-shirt. :^)
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <slrncc2k3u.aff.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>Who cares if it's world record pace or not ? Some of us
>like running fast. Most of us are happy to compete with
>ourselves, and not with the worlds best.
>
>If you do take it upon yourself to do what it takes to run
>fast (though maybe not wr pace), perhaps you'll understand
>why many of us like to run fast. Until then, we may as well
>amuse ourselves by explaining colors to the blind.
Exactly. Speedy runners have their motivations. And so do
slow walkers. And hikers. Neither set of motivations might
be understood by the other group. If you want to understand,
talk to people who've done all of the above. Even then,
you'll find people with all sorts of different motivations.
Moot point.
My original question wasn't why. Is was how to... (given
constraints)
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <10c6e06s75jb454@corp.supernews.com>,
Robert Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
>>>On the basis of no training, but youthful (mid 20's)
>>>stupidity I walked marathon distance, with a relaxed
>>>picnic lunch in the park at our turnaround point, in
>>>about 8 hours.
>>
>>Thanks. An actual data point.
>
> Not really. Or at least, not a _useful_ data point.
All data points have variance. That doesn't make them
useless, just statistical in application (once you get
enough of them).
How fast could you have walked/run a 10k at that age?
Invalidly extrapolating from:
> http://users.erols.com/jimsue/running/marathoning/predict-
> ing_a_marathon.htm
Milage Ratio(marathon/10k) 55 mpw 4.9 35 mpw 5.5 15 mpw 6.1
(estimate) mpw 6.55 (estimate)
So if you did no no training but were in shape to walk a
10k at 5 mph:
6.55 * 75 = 491, which is a bit over an 8 hour marathon.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
In article <c9vi4b$3s4$1@blue.rahul.net>,
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <10c6e06s75jb454@corp.supernews.com>, Robert
>Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
>>>>On the basis of no training, but youthful (mid 20's)
>>>>stupidity I walked marathon distance, with a relaxed
>>>>picnic lunch in the park at our turnaround point, in
>>>>about 8 hours.
>>>
>>>Thanks. An actual data point.
>>
>> Not really. Or at least, not a _useful_ data point.
>
>All data points have variance. That doesn't make them
>useless, just statistical in application (once you get
>enough of them).
Dot has addressed this.
>How fast could you have walked/run a 10k at that age?
>
>Invalidly extrapolating from:
It's an invalid extrapolation. Doesn't matter what
your result
is. GIGO. It's also invalid because I did not cover the
distance as fast as I could. (Recall that lunch in
the park.)
GIGO, for the youngsters, is an old computer term. GIGO =
Garbage In = Garbage Out.
>> http://users.erols.com/jimsue/running/marathoning/predic-
>> ting_a_marathon.htm
>
>Milage Ratio(marathon/10k) 55 mpw 4.9 35 mpw 5.5 15 mpw 6.1
>(estimate) mpw 6.55 (estimate)
Those aren't estimates. They're numbers you pulled from
thin air, with no physiological, statistical, or
experiential justification whatever. You're entitled to
your delusions, but I do feel honor-bound to point them
out as you're heading towards causing yourself injury
based on them.
Worse, you might snare other innocent people into doing
egregiously underprepared marathons and injure _them_.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and
amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo
Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less
appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a
more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
In article <10c74ohp2acmtcc@corp.supernews.com>,
Robert Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
>In article <c9vi4b$3s4$1@blue.rahul.net>, Ronald H.
>Nicholson Jr. <rhn@mauve.rahul.net> wrote:
>>
>>Invalidly extrapolating from:
>
> It's an invalid extrapolation.
That's what I said. Until we get enough data points (note
that I used the plural), the hypothesis remains untested.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include
<canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
