My longest run yet!



"However, bear in mind
That as soon as you go down Route 66,
You are no longer running The Marathon
To get a time,

You are simply redialing,
Spinning round the rotary's turn ~ style,

So you can say
You've played Round One.

Now turn ~ around,
You are now going down Route 99,

Spinning round the rotary's
Turn ~ style,

So you can say
You've played Round Ninety ~ Nine.

Spinning round the rotary's
Turn ~ style, now turn ~ around,
You are no longer running The Marathon,

You're spinning round a magical
Orbit."
~ Peter Allen

"Heck, yeah ~ !
Play your piano, O, baby ..."
~ Fobby
 
"bc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
< That's when I started using the plan by
> Art Liberman, available on the web. It was a good plan, but I was
> probably a little agressive, moving onto it at a higher level than I
> was really ready for.

< He suggests, for example, that you have a solid
> year of running under your belt before embarking on a marathon
> preparation, whereas I certainly did not. Additionally, many other
> factors: Some training inconsistency, Old injuries from other
> activities, and A not-really-made-for-distance body, caused me to run
> into trouble eventually.

There are an anecdotal few that can take up running and do a marathon in
their first year but the odds are very slight. I would take a year to
get a base and build to run at most a 1/2 marathon. Use the initial year
to learn about yourself. Yes you have learned a few things but a nice
slow plan to build a base and stay injury free is more fun and higher
rewards.

> If I try again, it will be with care and caution and margin built into
> the schedule.


Even though most marathon schedules are about three months, I would
suggest 4 and allow for a cold or some ****ling injury that needs rest.

Ignore Mr. Allen. logic like that will keep you injured.

-DF
 
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:37:48 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ignore Mr. Allen. logic like that will keep you injured.

Like I said, listen To Peter Allen, and you'll end up REALLY hurting.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:02:38 GMT, T <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A friend of mine, her whole fitness program is a weekly Sunday morning century.
> She ran a sub-4 marathon on a lark, for the T-shirt. Made her about half an
>hour slower the following Sunday, a little stiff all that week. Turned down
>dancing two weekends in a row (marathon weekend and the weekend after).
>
>No biggie, if you're an endurance weenie anyway. ;-)

You are a troll, an azzhole, or just a liar.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
As a competitive cyclist, now in training for my first marathon, I can
testify that the notion of running a marathon without running is
ridiculous. A year ago tomorrow I won my category in a 180+ mile road
race (Logan, UT to Jackson, WY--LOTOJA) by nineteen minutes, and I felt
like I could have ridden another hundred miles at the end. Today, I ran
8 miles (11 is my max thus far). While it was reasonably easy, as it
should be as a step-back distance, there were some slow patches. The
previous two weeks of 10 and 11 miles respective were barely doable (as
I did not walk, and my legs burned...no injuries, though). Why? Well,
because my massive quads that I've acquired in cycling do nothing for
my weak hamstrings and calves, lack of bone density, strike pattern and
pronation, stride length and turn over...

Responding that you personally know one person who did it is a lousy
argument. I know someone who runs 100+ mile trail ultra-ultras, or
whatever the hell they call 'em, but I'd be an idiot if I were to post
something like "100+ foot races are for wussies! I could do one with a
month's training if I wanted (I just don't want to)". Everyone who knew
Thomas Edison "knew someone" capable of inventing the lightbulb, but no
one else had done it at that point. Better put, of the many people do
you know who are endurance atheletes in a sport other than cycling who
have ALSO run a marathon, how many of them did minimal training for the
marathon? Is it less than 3%? Well, if so, that's two standard
deviations--a lot--and I suspect that's what you'd find, if that.

Almost nobody can run a marathon without proper training, just like the
folks here at rec.running couldn't hop on a bike tomorrow and win a
sanctioned double century road race.

The ultimate question in posting such nonsense is, have YOU ever run
(or attempted) a marathon in this manner? And, if so, what was the
result?

John
 
On 9 Sep 2005 19:25:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Almost nobody can run a marathon without proper training, just like the
>folks here at rec.running couldn't hop on a bike tomorrow and win a
>sanctioned double century road race.

Well, I could, but none of these other wussies could.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
> A friend of mine, her whole fitness program is a weekly Sunday morning century.
> She ran a sub-4 marathon on a lark, for the T-shirt. Made her about half an
> hour slower the following Sunday, a little stiff all that week. Turned down
> dancing two weekends in a row (marathon weekend and the weekend after).
>
> No biggie, if you're an endurance weenie anyway. ;-)

"A friend of mine..."

Hmm. I don't suppose this "friend" also had robbers break into her
house who stuck her toothbrush up their cornholes and then mailed her
the pictures a week later? And these robbers probably then sued her and
won? Then they all did the Ironman Hawaaii together and had a good
laugh? Yeah, I've heard of her.

Before cashing in my four bikes for some running shoes a few months
ago, I might have believed this. First of all, one simply cannot run
26.2 miles without first conditioning your legs regardless of your
conditioning for other sports. Okay, Superman could, and maybe the
Flash, but they are both runners already. Secondly, and more
astonishing to me, an "endurance weenie," 100m/wk on a bike is HARDLY
an endurance weenie!!!

Cyclists train by time, not miles, as you know if you're a cyclist, and
at 20mph on flats or as low as 15mph in the mountains, this (100 miles
once a week) would amount to at best a horrible training program of an
inexperienced citizen or Cat V racer, or, more likely, a slow
recreational rider (by racing standards). Serious cyclists train at
least 10-20 hours per week, and if just ten, it's really intense and
toward a peak with a race each weekend. Anyone training on a bike
should be distributing the mileage across the week, in this case like
1hr-2hr-rest-1hr-1hr-1hr-rest...that's a weenie, for sure, but not an
endurance weenie. Training for distance on a bike is very similar to
marathon training: One big ride, and riding almost every day, with at
least one rest day. I could go on...

Your story just doesn't seem to hold much water. ;-)

John Derby
2004 LOTOJA category winner (~187 mile road race, 9:01:04)
2002 Intermountain Cup, overall class champion, Expert 30-39 (mountain)
2001 Utah Cyclocross Series State Championships, 2nd, A Flite

2005 (finish the Air Force half marathon next week, and the Tucson
marathon in December, as the result of proper education and
training...both pending)
 
Why would you waste so much time replying to an idiot troll?

On 9 Sep 2005 20:05:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>> A friend of mine, her whole fitness program is a weekly Sunday morning century.
>> She ran a sub-4 marathon on a lark, for the T-shirt. Made her about half an
>> hour slower the following Sunday, a little stiff all that week. Turned down
>> dancing two weekends in a row (marathon weekend and the weekend after).
>>
>> No biggie, if you're an endurance weenie anyway. ;-)
>
>"A friend of mine..."
>
>Hmm. I don't suppose this "friend" also had robbers break into her
>house who stuck her toothbrush up their cornholes and then mailed her
>the pictures a week later? And these robbers probably then sued her and
>won? Then they all did the Ironman Hawaaii together and had a good
>laugh? Yeah, I've heard of her.
>
>Before cashing in my four bikes for some running shoes a few months
>ago, I might have believed this. First of all, one simply cannot run
>26.2 miles without first conditioning your legs regardless of your
>conditioning for other sports. Okay, Superman could, and maybe the
>Flash, but they are both runners already. Secondly, and more
>astonishing to me, an "endurance weenie," 100m/wk on a bike is HARDLY
>an endurance weenie!!!
>
>Cyclists train by time, not miles, as you know if you're a cyclist, and
>at 20mph on flats or as low as 15mph in the mountains, this (100 miles
>once a week) would amount to at best a horrible training program of an
>inexperienced citizen or Cat V racer, or, more likely, a slow
>recreational rider (by racing standards). Serious cyclists train at
>least 10-20 hours per week, and if just ten, it's really intense and
>toward a peak with a race each weekend. Anyone training on a bike
>should be distributing the mileage across the week, in this case like
>1hr-2hr-rest-1hr-1hr-1hr-rest...that's a weenie, for sure, but not an
>endurance weenie. Training for distance on a bike is very similar to
>marathon training: One big ride, and riding almost every day, with at
>least one rest day. I could go on...
>
>Your story just doesn't seem to hold much water. ;-)
>
>John Derby
>2004 LOTOJA category winner (~187 mile road race, 9:01:04)
>2002 Intermountain Cup, overall class champion, Expert 30-39 (mountain)
>2001 Utah Cyclocross Series State Championships, 2nd, A Flite
>
>2005 (finish the Air Force half marathon next week, and the Tucson
>marathon in December, as the result of proper education and
>training...both pending)

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
[email protected] wrote:
> As a competitive cyclist, now in training for my first marathon, I can
> testify that the notion of running a marathon without running is
> ridiculous. A year ago tomorrow I won my category in a 180+ mile road
> race (Logan, UT to Jackson, WY--LOTOJA) by nineteen minutes, and I felt
> like I could have ridden another hundred miles at the end. Today, I ran
> 8 miles (11 is my max thus far). While it was reasonably easy, as it
> should be as a step-back distance, there were some slow patches. The
> previous two weeks of 10 and 11 miles respective were barely doable (as
> I did not walk, and my legs burned...no injuries, though). Why? Well,
> because my massive quads that I've acquired in cycling do nothing for
> my weak hamstrings and calves, lack of bone density, strike pattern and
> pronation, stride length and turn over...

Also because you pushed too hard on your long run; no walk breaks, either.
>
> Responding that you personally know one person who did it is a lousy
> argument. I know someone who runs 100+ mile trail ultra-ultras, or
> whatever the hell they call 'em, but I'd be an idiot if I were to post
> something like "100+ foot races are for wussies! I could do one with a
> month's training if I wanted (I just don't want to)". Everyone who knew
> Thomas Edison "knew someone" capable of inventing the lightbulb, but no
> one else had done it at that point. Better put, of the many people do
> you know who are endurance atheletes in a sport other than cycling who
> have ALSO run a marathon, how many of them did minimal training for the
> marathon? Is it less than 3%? Well, if so, that's two standard
> deviations--a lot--and I suspect that's what you'd find, if that.

In college I knew a lot of people who ran Boston as bandits on virtually no
training; just youth, high spirits, and beer.

> Almost nobody can run a marathon without proper training, just like the
> folks here at rec.running couldn't hop on a bike tomorrow and win a
> sanctioned double century road race.

If you can't distinguish between running, racing, and winning, life is going to
be very hard for you.

> The ultimate question in posting such nonsense is, have YOU ever run
> (or attempted) a marathon in this manner? And, if so, what was the
> result?

No.

But if I did I'd win, I'm sure. ;-)
 
[email protected] wrote:

>>A friend of mine, her whole fitness program is a weekly Sunday morning century.
>> She ran a sub-4 marathon on a lark, for the T-shirt. Made her about half an
>>hour slower the following Sunday, a little stiff all that week. Turned down
>>dancing two weekends in a row (marathon weekend and the weekend after).
>>
>>No biggie, if you're an endurance weenie anyway. ;-)


> Before cashing in my four bikes for some running shoes a few months
> ago, I might have believed this. First of all, one simply cannot run
> 26.2 miles without first conditioning your legs regardless of your
> conditioning for other sports. Okay, Superman could, and maybe the
> Flash, but they are both runners already. Secondly, and more
> astonishing to me, an "endurance weenie," 100m/wk on a bike is HARDLY
> an endurance weenie!!!

Gotta learn how to count, dude; 100 miles/ride is a very specific subset of 100
miles/week.
>
> Cyclists train by time, not miles, as you know if you're a cyclist, and
> at 20mph on flats or as low as 15mph in the mountains, this (100 miles
> once a week) would amount to at best a horrible training program of an
> inexperienced citizen or Cat V racer, or, more likely, a slow
> recreational rider (by racing standards). Serious cyclists train at
> least 10-20 hours per week, and if just ten, it's really intense and
> toward a peak with a race each weekend. Anyone training on a bike
> should be distributing the mileage across the week, in this case like
> 1hr-2hr-rest-1hr-1hr-1hr-rest...that's a weenie, for sure, but not an
> endurance weenie. Training for distance on a bike is very similar to
> marathon training: One big ride, and riding almost every day, with at
> least one rest day. I could go on...

I'm not a cyclist. Danielle wasn't a racer. She probably was slow by cycling
standards, about six hours every Sunday in a pretty flat area, Chicago.
Certainly her 5-hour marathon finish - 1 minute walk breaks every half mile -
wasn't the least bit competitive. But if you racers can't tell the difference
between endurance and stamina - between running and racing - then you're going
to way overprescribe.
>
> Your story just doesn't seem to hold much water. ;-)

Not to a racing weenie, I guess. ;-)

> John Derby
> 2004 LOTOJA category winner (~187 mile road race, 9:01:04)

See, I did a ride about that long (Houston to Austin) on almost no training...

But I did it in 2 days, not 9 hours. Going slow takes much less training.
 
T wrote:
> you pushed too hard on your long run; no walk breaks, either.

I didn't. All of my long runs are accomplished on flats with mild hills
with an average HR of about 145 (out of 190 max), and I took one or two
walk breaks for water. But running over ten miles is tough for me,
because my legs are honed for another sport, which is my whole point.

> In college I knew a lot of people who ran Boston as bandits on virtually no
> training; just youth, high spirits, and beer.

I doubt anyone completed Boston as a bandit while actually drunk, but
you have a point about youth, particularly if these bandits were once
athletes in high school, in which case they would have some fairly
recent running and weight training and other conditioning. My
assumption, though, is that most posters in this group are past their
early 20s when this would no longer be feasible.

> If you can't distinguish between running, racing, and winning,
> life is going to be very hard for you.

Last time I checked the competitive spirit was alive and well in the
good ol' USA. I was raised to be competitive for the sake of work ethic
(and from my dad's perspective for some hickish reasons), and I
consider it a plus. Setting realistic goals and achieving them
motivates me to work hard, and I do work hard. So far that has paid off
really well in my life. The piece of the pie that you're missing is my
idealistic and religious character, which I have not discussed because
this is the wrong forum. I won't elaborate other than to mention that
I'm a high school teacher now working on a doctorate, my primary hobby
is singing in a top liturgical choir, and the most important things in
my life are my wife and two cats. I mention this not because it
qualifies me as superior to anyone, but to contrast your implication of
me as the 110 IQ middle-management loser chasing the dollar whose every
action hinges on the decrees of Rush Limbaugh.

> > The ultimate question in posting such nonsense is, have YOU ever run
> > (or attempted) a marathon in this manner? And, if so, what was the
> > result?
>
> No.
>
> But if I did I'd win, I'm sure. ;-)

Just be sure to set the alarm extra early so you can start pounding
those beers well in advance of the start time, lest it sneak up on you!
:*@~~~
 
[email protected] wrote:

> T wrote:
>
>>you pushed too hard on your long run; no walk breaks, either.
>
>
> I didn't.

You did.

> All of my long runs are accomplished on flats with mild hills
> with an average HR of about 145 (out of 190 max),

130 would be a much better target for a long run.

> and I took one or two walk breaks for water.

One or two per mile would be much more sensible.

> But running over ten miles is tough for me,
> because my legs are honed for another sport, which is my whole point.

Because you do it wrong, was my point.


Ever read Galloway?
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> Ignore Mr. Allen. logic like that will keep you injured.

Which will cause injury, the 26 miles one-off at a very slow pace or the
developing good fitness in another sport?

Possibly what you mean is it won't make for anything like a competitive
time, which I already said.

Peter
 
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:27:10 GMT, T <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> T wrote:
>>
>>>you pushed too hard on your long run; no walk breaks, either.
>>
>>
>> I didn't.
>
>You did.
>
>> All of my long runs are accomplished on flats with mild hills
>> with an average HR of about 145 (out of 190 max),
>
>130 would be a much better target for a long run.
>
>> and I took one or two walk breaks for water.
>
>One or two per mile would be much more sensible.
>
>> But running over ten miles is tough for me,
>> because my legs are honed for another sport, which is my whole point.
>
>Because you do it wrong, was my point.
>
>
>Ever read Galloway?

This jerk is a lost cause. He'll just keep changing his story, so F
him.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:35:14 +0100, "Peter Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Which will cause injury, the 26 miles one-off at a very slow pace or the
>developing good fitness in another sport?
>
>Possibly what you mean is it won't make for anything like a competitive
>time, which I already said.

No, what he meant is you're an idiot, giving idiotic advice, and the
runners group agrees. You can pull BS like that on brain dead lifters,
but runners know better.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
Congrats. 5 miles in a big milestone for a runner.

You are running too fast. Slow down until you don't experience any
pain. The pain may make you think you are getting something out of it,
but it really takes the fun out of the run. Get a heartrate monitor,
it does not make you run faster, but it will help you pace yourself and
run slower. I used that when I first got started, and I still find it
very useful.
 
T: you initially wrote:

> A friend of mine, her whole fitness program is a weekly
> Sunday morning century.
> She ran a sub-4 marathon on a lark, for the T-shirt.
> Made her about half an hour slower the following Sunday,
> a little stiff all that week. Turned down
> dancing two weekends in a row (marathon weekend and the weekend after).
>No biggie, if you're an endurance weenie anyway. ;-)
Then, I challenged this by saying it hurt me (an endurance weenie by
your standard, being one who rides a bike at least five hours per week)
to run ten miles the first time I did it. I threw my conservative
training regimen out on the table, and suddenly you switched from your
original position as the Phil Donohue of running suddenly shifted to
the **** Cheney of running, and you wrote:

> 130 (HR, beats per minute for someone with a 190 max) would be
> a much better target for a long run.

> One or two [minutes of walking] per mile would be much more sensible.

Your argument is seriously flawed, and here's why:

Your initial argument, connecting the dots, reads: "For one who
[rides a bike five hours per week (and is thus an endurance weenie)],
it's "no biggie" to "run a sub-4 on a lark". The only
detriment of this is that it would make you "a little stiff all that
[next] week").

I then refuted that with personal experience that a conservative
approach is necessary (I train much more than this, and had trouble
running ten miles using a conservative, appropriate program).

You then counter my argument *for conservatism* by stating that it is
*not conservative enough*! Hence, you admit fault with your original
point, because you are now declaring that even ten miles at a 4 hour
marathon pace, which is the exact pace my 10 and 11 milers were
(9:10/mile) is too much, too soon. Thank you for admitting that the
implication of your initial post was erroneous. Yay, I win again!

Now, if you cannot follow my rationale, which proves your initial
implication wrong-it's not my opinion, then you should immediately
drop everything and call DeVry University or equiv. to see if they are
offering an entry level course in logic (probably called Philosophy 103
or something like that). Next, enroll. During the time of your
enrollment, do no running-but ride a century once a week on Sunday.
Study hard. The day you complete your course, if you pass, go out and
run a marathon in under four hours to celebrate. Do all this, then come
back and tell me that "you told me so". I will then proceed to
stuff all of my worthless degrees and vain trophies into my running
shoes, which will have deteriorated midsoles from training too much,
and I will eat them. The shoes will smell and it will hurt my throat.
But I warn you...dancing that weekend may be tough! ;-)

John
 
Bill Rogers wrote:
> Why would you waste so much time replying to an idiot troll?

Well, I think it's because I have marginal social skills and enjoy
insulting and arguing with people!
 
Of course I can spot the flaw in your reasoning, you keep making the same
mistake over and over; you can't tell the difference between training and racing.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> There are an anecdotal few that can take up running and do a marathon
> in their first year but the odds are very slight. I would take a year
> to get a base and build to run at most a 1/2 marathon. Use the initial
> year to learn about yourself. Yes you have learned a few things but a
> nice slow plan to build a base and stay injury free is more fun and
> higher rewards.

But if you do that, you might be stuck with this strange thing called a
running habit. Might even end up enjoying it. Who has time for that?
This person just wants the damn t-shirt, then never run another step in
her life.

All I want is a t-shirt that says "Pearly Gates Eternal Bliss Marathon,"
but not just yet. I'm trying to avoid a DNF, which means eternal
damnation in purgatory. ;-)

--
Phil M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back