Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
"I could have walked it faster"
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 must admit, I'd rather have to run a marathon than walk one
I am not a fast walker, I'd be out there for twice as long
We did a few training walks of 20miles on road and would average 3.3mph.
You still need to train though. When I walked the West Highland Way my companions started their training with a 5 mile walk. They were fairly average people and struggled the next day.
It's not really about the ability to walk 26.2 miles in a certain time, it's about being able to get up and into work the next day. For your average person would struggle to go sub 8hours.
Dustin - I don't think you get it, you say you ran 3:38 at an effort of 10/10 & if you ran at 5:30 it would be an effort of 5/10 so would be easy
If I run at 5:30 pace it is a 10/10 effort for me so how is that less effort, I have had people in my club say "Why do you run so slow, you should just run faster"
As a slower runner I think that Dustin and Jordie both have a point.....I did my first marathon 2 years ago in 4.57 and didn't really push too hard and did it quite comfortably wanted to finish and do sub 5
With hindsight could have gone quicker.
When I have marshalled races I have seen front runners come in drooling and often thought that's why I am slow because I couldn't give a 10/10 effort as can't put myself through that pain.
This year I did it in 4.46 did push harder...but way off my half pace...Could talk the whole way round etc..
I get a bit peeved when peeps say I did it in say X hours etc but ran the whole way. I did it in 4.46 and had to walk parts. I could have run the whole way but pushed to go quicker than 4.57 and was forced to walk some.
Which is the better effort?
That's another debate!
Anyway for me well done to everyone...
You've just put half the amount in for twice as long. Although the proportions are not exactly that. It's just an illustration.
It's about efficiency. The more efficient you are the faster you can run for longer. I suspect that the faster runners are still running at HRs approaching 75% WHR. The slower less experienced runners are probably running at just under 70% because they don't know whether they can complete the distance at the higher HR or maybe don't want to go through the pain that you would endure at 70% for 4+ hours.
In any case at any fitness level you'll get HR drift and slow down.
It doesn't matter how fast,slow or efficient you are, the average runner can maintain their "threshold" HR for around 1hr which is normally between 85-90% WHR. It is irrelevant if that gets you 5 miles or 13 miles within that time period.
The longer you run for past that hour mark wiill then mean you have to lower your HR effort accordingly to not "blow up".
The guys running 2:04 at the front only need to drop their effort levels by around 1-2% below threshold due to the combination of "only" being on their feet for an hour longer and also because they are obviously trained to their full potential.
If you asked the same guys to run for 5hrs non-stop they would have to lower their effort levels considerably ( I'm guessing by around 10%) in order to sustain that amount of time on their feet.
This is why the guys at the front look more aerobically on the limit.
I guess the important thing is this, did you give it your all on the day and get the best out of yourself. If yes then sod the time, be proud of your achievement knowing the fact that you gave it 100%
......... and then do another one and kick your PB's arse all over the shop
My 3:38 is 10/10 for me and your 5:30 is 10/10 for you, so both equally as hard
My point is that for me a 5/10 effort (say 5:30) would be easier to achieve, and is equivalent to your 5/10 effort - say 7h30??? Hope that makes sense.
Its very difficult to comment on actual effort levels for individuals. It really depends on lifetime fitness, training levels and experience. Running a marathon isn't just something you can decide one day you want to do next year - well you can but it's not a great idea.
Taking the O/P as an example 2 years starting from scratch to get round in 5:30 is very good especially if they have only raced up to 10k.
I started running again in Jan 2009 after 15 odd years of battling illness. Since then I have run more than 10 half marathons and in every one I have learned something about race pacing. You cannot learn this on your long slow runs. So someone who is running the London Marathon as either their first or second race is going to have to base their pace on what they have felt like on their LSRs or what a table has told them they 'could' achieve. Tables are wildly out and make a lot of assumptions.
Taking the McMilan calculations (nice new website!) I should be able to run a sub 4:00 marathon, but having run 2 hilly trail marathons (4:55 and 4:45) and 2x 28mile mountain races (7:00 and 6:40), I know that is being optimistic.
Strange things happen to everyone around the 20mile mark - even if you have trained properly - that's where the experience and mental games start.
The problem with the London is; it is so hard to get into you can't afford to have an "off" day.
Just out of interest, I've just set a treadie to 4.8mph and tried to walk on it at that speed without breaking into a jog.
You" might" manage this feat if you are in the Harlem Globetrotters but not if you're 5'8"
That's what surprised me about the 'ultras' I've done. Steady state running at a pace just below lactate is one thing. Running for a bit then walking for a bit is tough. It's hard to get moving again once you've started to walk and deciding when to run and when to walk isn't easy. OK run downhill, most flat, but what constitutes a hill?
As far as I'm aware London is relatively flat so you just have to decide what run/walk ratio you're going to do from the start. Don't fancy that much!
Watching from my armchair there seemed to be a lot of people at 13miles 3 hours in walking and looking pretty much all in. I'm guessing they're the 6+ hour people and I would say that they've worked pretty hard to finish. Maybe they were injured in training or had not done the training or had just got carried away and started too fast. Whatever, they've still achieved something personally amazing.
Tim - I was at Cutty Sark. I saw people passing through six miles looking as though they'd done 20 and had 6 left.
Now I'm not fast myself but if you're beaten at six miles.....did you REALLY do the training? REALLY?
Swear on the Holy Bible?
He can't run at all - he has a leg problem that means it could break with the repeated impact of running. So not quite 4mph pace for him, but I think he was fairly tired after over 14 hours or activity.
Its bloody ridiculous to be struggling at mile 6 of the VLM. Snipers would be the fairest thing. A bit like at the Grand National ?
*peeks in*
I have walked marathon distances (most importantly I trained to walk them - Njimegen Marches in Holland; no running allowed, and you either do 40K or 50K a day, for four consecutive days) and at the time I completed them faster than I could run them (a smidge over 5 hours for 40K).
I then got into running and got my marathon time down to 4.20 (though I am now working towards sub-4) but, if you asked me to walk a marathon now, I would be waaaayyy slower than 5 hours! As I think BBH said, it's a totally different mechanism.
Just saying.
As you were
Too many folk IMHO reckon they fancy a dabble at the VLM when they see it on the telly and get in on the ballot and probably guess a reasonable time they think they will do and then miss by miles and stagger round. Surely far too many over 5 hour folk doing it now compared to years back.
Guess I am just moaning cos I didn't get in this year!!
Walking is harder than running I reckon.
Yes that's right, they weight it by estimated finish time. Someone from VLM came on once before to confirm that, and I think they also said they weight it by home area and some other factors.
The problem is that most people, especially first-timers, misjudge their marathon time, so if all the plodders put down four hours because it sounds good then it will screw things. But I imagine VLM have a way of factoring that in too.
Probably.
🙂
I suspect many first timers take their longest run and multiply it up to get their expected time, and we all know that is a recipe for disaster!
I walk fast.
At Brighton, you had the opportunity to change that, and I shifted it it 5 - 5:30. No change in pen, so it didn't make any difference in reality. Based on improved half time of 2:19, double it, add a bit. Also increased training, more longer runs.
I did debate putting 4:30-5:00, but decided to err on the side of caution, and finishing in 5:06.
I've always found 4mph to be a pretty fair guess of my walking pace, but I train to try and run the thing, not walk it.