Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Walking a marathon is easier?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
i put my knee problem down to the trainers I had at the time plus when I get tired my back hurts and this puts my running gait out, placing extra pressure on my knees. So I am now do core stability exercises. Again can be found on google.
I am no expert though.
And occasionally you do need expert assistance and a trip to the physio is worthwhile.
And I would also say that this is what threads should be about. A forum for runners to air their problems and to see what advice comes your way. As opposed to whether runing or walking in a marathon is an achivement or not. (Not wishing to start another debate on this issue).
weak gluts cause most of my problems.from achillies to knee problems.......they are still weak though as I get lazy with the exercises.but do try and do yoga once a week now to try and help a little.....
I seemed to have lost my running mkojo the last month..i realised that i was probably run less than david over the last few weeks.
but a twohour uphill all the way run this morning sorted that out
And don't forget referred pain - sometimes an injury isn't where you think it is. When I had IT band problems it initially felt like a pulled hamstring. PF problems can all be centred in the calf.
That's where physios come in - they know how all the bits join up!
BTW David - don't you think it's generous of the Forum to offer you all this good free advice?
Just re-reading some of the old posts on the Guardian's running blog, came across this which made me think of this thread ...
"The minute that you feel a slight niggle, speak to somebody. Because if you're thinking in eight weeks time I would like to enjoy running a marathon, being physically prepared and able to walk the week afterwards, then what are you waiting for? It makes no sense trying to run it off. There is no heroism involved."
but I'm sure DF3 would disagree because 1. its a quote from a physio and 2. really, isn't the way to deal with our injuries to just man up?
Here's the article, in case anyone else is interested : http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/19/how-to-avoid-running-injuries
Bollocks to that. KK's knocking up my invoice right now!
Didn't want to start a new thread for this, but thinking about the ballot next week and loosely related to walking a marathon - would you have a better chance of getting a place in the ballot if you put a really slow time? They must take into account predicted times so there's an even spread from 2 hours to 8 hours. A total guess, but I'm thinking your average club runner doing their first marathon would all be putting 3:30-4:30 - then you'd have a load of non-runners thinking around 4:00-4:30 would be do-able with a bit of training so surely your at a disadvantage putting around this time? I'm thinking of putting 6+ hours and seeing what happens - I appriciate this would mean starting right at the back and battling through the crowds, but I'd be happy with a slow start and to be overtaking rather than being overtaken.
Just a thought - in all honesty, I'll probably put my realistic finishing time but I think there's more of a chance if you are just 'walking it'.
And I suppose you think a forum on a running magazine should be for people to belittle everyone else so they can feel better about themselves perhaps?
SR (NLR) - thanks. However, I have gained these insights from the very knowledgeable forumites on the Paris Marathon thread. And with their help and assistance they got me through my first marathon in Paris. Not only helping with training, injuries but also assisting through the good days and the bad days. Plenty of the latter.
And, as I say, this is what forums are for.
I took it in good faith. If it was not intended in good faith then so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.
Pen 9, the back pen, is the biggest one so I'd say that, if anything, the opposite is true.
You would have a better chance of getting in a marathon if you entered a different one. Starting from pen 9 sounds like it will be a truly miserable experience. Although this is in my oppinion, other people may think differently.
Of course, a forum is for whatever people want to put onto it, so long as it complies with the rules of the forum and the laws of the land. Free speech, innit.
Actually trying to help, but if it boosts your ego.
Just to chip in with a comment on ITBS, I thought I'd share my own experiment-of-one-experience. I started training seriously for my first marathon (which is this Sunday) back in December. I'd tried to start six weeks earlier but was almost immediately scuppered by what I self-diagnosed as ITBS. I spent a long time googling all manner of research and advice, even shelling out 20 dollars on an ITBS self-help pdf.
Anyway, I couldn't run for six weeks. Since then I've had no problems at all and I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the whole thing was caused by my lack of fitness. But, hey, who knows; I never consulted a physio so all this is just wild speculation.
As for the OP's question, I don't know the answer, but I do know that my intention is to run the distance on Sunday.
I'm a sample of one and can't yet complete a marathon in under 2:30 so quite clearly, my opinions mean nothing. However, I will say that my PB marathon was one where I ran the entire thing and my worst ones have been in the 7+ hour range with a lot of walking. I can say easily that the PB with 100% running was my easiest by far.
Those of you who have noted that the 7+ brigade did not look elated you are 100% correct. The slower runners do not get any of the perks that the faster runners get. In many places there are no crowds, the drinks are packed away, the balloons at the mile markers are gone and even some of the red mats are gone by the time you get to the 40K mark. This can be heart wrenching for those who have families tracking progress. I was at the finish when I was able to reassure a worried family member that their runner probably had passed 40K but the mat was no longer there.
It is soul destroying to turn the corner after Tower Bridge while the majority of the runners are getting all the crowds and fanfare as they are nearing the 22-mile mark. That's definitely a low point for me two years in a row at the marathon. I was personally mortified post-marathon to see the Lucozade Mile 23 video with all the fun, encouragement and fanfare that the faster runners got. The slower runners got nothing but a dark and empty tunnel. Also, you never know why somebody is slow. Perhaps they have arthritis. Perhaps they are in their 80s and this is their 20-something marathon. Are they less of a marathoner now they are taking 7:30 vs. the 3:30 of their youth? I think not. There were also people deliberately going slowly so that they could raise money and raise awareness for their charity. The marathon is about the human spirit and a person's personal best. Good on you if you're good enough to race it and come in the top 100. Some of the back of the packers are raising a phenomenal amount of £ for their charities, £20K plus. They have nothing but my admiration. I think it is inappropriate to use this forum to bash people who complete the London Marathon in a slow time. There are marathons that cater solely for faster runners and of course Boston is a good example of this. If slow runners or walkers get on your nerves so much, race only fast courses.
Personally I want to get faster for personal reasons, to beat my PB and to enjoy the pomp and circumstance that the front and middle-of-the-pack runners get.
Just my opinion...
I fully understand that some of the back markers may be old, arthritic, in elaborate fancy dress etc. but I would think that there are many more who did not put in enough training and completely underestimated the amount of hard work that goes into running 26.2 miles. Just my opinion.
Millsy, I agree that a lot of people underestimate the amount of hard work that goes into running 26.2. When people say the second half of the race starts at 22 miles, it's totally true. However, it's not just the slower people. I have seen a lot of fit and seasoned runners with decent half marathon times go into the marathon deluded into thinking that 13.1 miles is halfway with finishing times that are much slower than they had hoped for.
Re: prudent pedestrian, yes, it does indeed state that clearly Millsy! If anything has scared me into wanting to get fast again it's that as I never want to be in that boat again! I witnessed something quite horrible as a result of this. Between mile 20 and 21 where marathoners had to then run on the pavement, mixing with large crowds milling on the pavement, one of them had a nasty crash into the barriers as there was literally no room for them to move. They were with a friend and a police officer was nearby, so she got aid, but it looked like she had a nasty bang to the head. I hope she managed to finish, what a blow to get that far and have to bow out.
On a tangent specifically directed at David Falconer 3: should triathletes who can't swim butterfly be banned from taking part in triathlons?
What point are you trying to make.