It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You've dis-qualified yourself from potential 'idiot with a bucket list' to 'sensible fellow, paragon of common sense'.
RicF wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see) Maybe your post didn't come across very well then Ric but it sounded pretty flippant to me. The OP sounds like one of the more sensible posters we've had on here recently to be honest - he (or she) knows full well they aren't ready yet. And I'm still not sure why you need to question anybody's motives as to why they want to run a marathon. Even if it is something to tick off a list what harm does it do to anyone else?
Screamapillar wrote (see)
Where did I question anybody's motives to run a marathon?
Simply by saying "now it's just another item on an idiot's bucket list". It suggests you need to have a "proper" or worthy" motive (although what that I don't pretend to know) or it somehow doesn't count.
It might just have been a brain fart on your part but you needn't have said anything at all. Especially if you didn't want to be misinterpreted.
So, about the 10% guideline and 20 miles.
In my early runs, I ran to time rather than distance becaue I only had a cheap Timex and added five minutes a fortnight. Extend one week, repeat the next and then extend again until I felt like having an easy week with a shorter run. Later I added ten minutes when I got over 1:40. The second run at the same distance generally felt easier, better at the finish, slightly shorter time over the same route.
If people generally train to 20 miles, why not 22 and 24 ? Is there an actual reason or is it just custom ? a 30 percent increase on the day seems a heck of a stretch. Is it just becaue it's a bit too much trouble to set aside the time for practice at the full distance ?
People seem to agree that 'the wall' is at the 20 mile mark, which would appear to be the common training distance. Given that it represents point at which glycogen stores have been depleted and you rely on lipid metabolism, would it not make sense to train for longer distances ?
Nothing wrong with the bucket-list marathon. It's what got me into running seven years ago. That's different from doing one under-prepared though.
iwabl - I'd take some of those mileage "rules" with a pinch of salt. 20 miles is not a magical figure, but quite a nice psychological barrier cos it starts with a 2 and not a 1. Your longest run in the build up to a marathon should (IMO) be related to your fitness level. Charlie Spedding regularly knocked out over-marathon distance training runs; I'll do 6-8 runs between 20 - 24 miles; a newbie might best be advised to run at least 3 runs over 20 miles. Same with "the wall" - which is really a concept to scare people into training properly. There's no obvious connection between what happens on your longest training run and the marathon race in terms of glycogen depletion because (a) you run your training runs at slower than race pace, so you shouldn't be getting anywhere near the wall anyway, and (b) you start the race after a taper period and carb load, so should be in a more glycogen-fuelled state anyway. Also (c) on race day, you should be prepared to eek out every last drop of effort. If you're not gurning for England in the last mile you're not trying hard enough. Who cares if you've got no energy left and your legs don't work for another week? You certainly don't want to go that far in training!
Speaking as someone who did go the full distance in training for their first - suffice to say I never did it again! 20-23 miles tops, now.
If you do fancy doing one I second the Hal Higdon recommendation for a safe starter schedule. It *is* possible to run a marathon on less but the likelihood of spending the last hour or more of it in a very bad mood indeed does go up rather, and again, yes I do speak from experience