Woman "runs" marathon when 39 weeks pregnant

39 weeks

A Good Idea or just Very Silly?

«1

Comments

  • Imagine the fuss had it gone wrong
  • Good point - hadn't thought of that.
  • Pre-existing medical conditions?

    "39 weeks gone and it could blow any minute"

  • I'd say a really, really stupid idea. Run/walk it may have been, but it still means running 13 miles of it. If anything bad had happened to the baby she would have been villified, but because nothing did she's made out to be some kind of hero.

    Sorry for the rant - I've had three people I'm close to lose babies in the last year through no fault of their own, and 'success' stories of people taking risks and getting away with it like this really get my goat...
  • no win situation really

    some women have asy pregnancies and some not

    some are never the same after and some dont survive

  • Craig

    dont be sorry for your rant

    your are spot on mate

  • "I am crazy about running."

    Not just about running....
  • I think she was absolutely off her head - but she got away with it.

    I exercised all the way through my second pregnancy although by week 39 a high intensity workout meant a 10 minute walk. These sorts of stories blow my mind. All I cared about was a healthy baby - being nuts about exercise quite simply was not as important. I think people these days, in the developed world, forget just how dangerous pregnancy/childbirth is.
  • I would have thought it wasn't worth the risk. Couldn't "proper running" lead to the baby being shaken? And if said nipper came out tout suite by the side of the road that wouldn't have been that great either.

    A healthy baby is more important than a 6 hr 25 marathon - it seems obvious to me but some people don't seem to understand the concept of erring on the side of caution.

  • I agree - obviously she and the baby were fine - but seriously - not worth the risk.
  • I have no idea why this gets celebrated by some people.  Seems pretty irresponsible to me.  Not even Paula Radcliffe would have done 26.2 at 39 weeks...
  • It's good to hear that both her and the baby are fine... I dont think it was worth the risk (as Gym addict said) but if it was such a big issue - shouldnt the organisers/marshals pulled her off the course?
  • Presumably she didn't look 39 weeks. She must have had a pretty neat bump to run at all.

  •  Sky News reports:

    ' Before the world-famous marathon, doctors had given her the all-clear to run half the race.

    'Her time was six hours, 25 minutes and 50 seconds, which is much slower than her usual marathon time.

    But she was happy with the experience and still managed to beat her husband Joe by 19 minutes.

     Some people think that runners are nutsimage

    I expect her next challenge will be an ultra, if that wasn't 'ultra' enough!

  • I just tried to find her splits but the results aren't showing.

    Why take the gamble that something could have gone wrong? Med staff were there to help people with blisters, strains etc not give birth. If the lady had needed to get to hospital in an ambulance, I bet the surrounding roads would have been very congested. And of course, they'd also had to have tried to find her husband in the race. The husband and wife didn't even stay together FFS. 

  • The more I think about this, the more angry I get... Seems (to me) to be incredibly selfish and also just plain stupid. Obviously I don't know the woman, and I hope I'm not getting all Daily Mail here, but it just seems like she hasn't thought about anything properly. Getting more angry...
  • Not that I agree with what she did but just to offer an alternative view:

    Labouring women throughout history pretty much worked until the day baby was due - they couldn't afford not to.  Physical exertion immediately prior to (and not that long after) the birth would not have been looked on as anything unusual in the past. 

  • That's a good point Screamapillar - I think that's one thing that we forget; previously things were a lot different.

  • Screamy - Those woman would have been using 'similar' rates of exertion day in day out (though probably lessening). This marathon had to be a  massive increase in exertion compared to the lady's day to day activities and the fact she gave birth so soon after the end really speaks volumes.
  • Having read up on the subject in the past, there is no reason why a pregnant woman can't exercise even relatively vigorously all the way through her pregnancy, as long as she ensures that she doesn't increase her core temperature by over a certain amount (can't remember exactly), doesn't get into oxygen debt, stays hydrated and avoids impact. 

    From the article I read, she was a seasoned marathoner, had trained well, and took things easy on the day.  There's a difference between running 26.2 and racing 26.2

    However, as Ninja says, the logistics of getting to the hospital had she gone into labour during the race may have been tricky. 

  • I can't imagine doing a marathon while 39 weeks pregnant !

    However, when I worked at a gym, one of our members came in looking desperate, determined and very, very pregnant. Her baby was overdue and her doctor had advised her to try gently jogging ... her treadmill was surrounded by her hubby, 2 of the personal trainers and the duty manager, all with spare towels and clutching mobile phones in case she went into labour on the gym floor! She didn't, but she did give birth the next day so perhaps it works ... I can't see it being as popular as a hot curry though.

  • I think it's up to a woman what she does with her own body and that there is no 'baby' until a 'baby' is born.
  • While I do kind of agree with what you are saying - 39 weeks is pretty damn close.
  • FlowDemand wrote (see)
    I think it's up to a woman what she does with her own body and that there is no 'baby' until a 'baby' is born.
    I think I may hear the sound of a can of worms being opened.
  • Little Ninja wrote (see)

    I just tried to find her splits but the results aren't showing.

    Don't the doctors just sew up the splits?
  • Frankly I don't know what to think, well done to her for completing it and poor her she won't get much recovery time with a small baby around but part of me thinks it was irresponsible and silly to put the child under risk. Either way, good that it all ended well.

  • I really don't know why people are 'angry'. The doctors did give her the go-ahead. I can see many reasons why she should not run a marathon, BUT surely it is down to the woman, her husband and the health professionals.

    Her husband should have kept up with her though!image And maybe hired a midwife who was also a marathon-runnerimage

  • Well I can think of easier, and more fun ways, of inducing labour. Curry. Sex. Actually, sex at 39 weeks is *not* fun, it's functional and dull. But MUCH easier than running 26.2 miles.
    When I'm pregnant, I can just about waddle to the toilet for a wee. A walk to the corner shop is a serious achievement. Thinking about it, a mate of mine used to take a bucket to bed with her because she couldn't be arsed with the 5 times nightly toilet visits. But I digress.
    MENTAL woman.
  • I managed a mile the night before little C born so well done on her 26.2 miles.  Least she asked her Dr first but like others, wonder what would have been said if it had gone wrong.

  • I wonder just how easy she found the labour given that she would have been pretty tired already.  A recipe for emergency section IMHO.  As someone who sees the effects of difficult births on children I think this was taking too much of a risk.  I do wonder whether it was her regular doctor who said it was OK or if she shopped around till they told her what she wanted to hear.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.