Never run a marathon before-- why would you drop out?

Ritz dropping out early preserves the chance to turn around and run Boston or another spring marathon. Also preserves chance to switch to track training sooner, if so inclined to chase a spot on the 10k team

Coebra wrote:

I understand being injured and dropping out, but the idea of not finishing ANY race is completely incomprehensible to me. Why would you drop out of a race, or even the OT?

Try running one, and going off a few seconds a mile quicker than you're fit enough to do.

Then you'll know, probably around mile 21-22, why people drop out.

trollism wrote:

Coebra wrote:

I understand being injured and dropping out, but the idea of not finishing ANY race is completely incomprehensible to me. Why would you drop out of a race, or even the OT?

Try running one, and going off a few seconds a mile quicker than you're fit enough to do.

Then you'll know, probably around mile 21-22, why people drop out.

I know enough about the marathon to respect the distance and I'm not asking for myself.

Let me rephrase for the readers who can't comprehend the question well enough: Why, as an elite runner, would you drop out of a race (specifically, the Olympic Trials marathon we just watched)

Yupp wrote:

Ritz dropping out early preserves the chance to turn around and run Boston or another spring marathon. Also preserves chance to switch to track training sooner, if so inclined to chase a spot on the 10k team

This makes sense for Ritz, but what about the other marathoners? same idea for the spring marathon?

Coebra wrote:

I know enough about the marathon to respect the distance and I'm not asking for myself.

Let me rephrase for the readers who can't comprehend the question well enough: Why, as an elite runner, would you drop out of a race (specifically, the Olympic Trials marathon we just watched)

You come off as a fool. Destroying yourself needlessly in a marathon adds weeks to one's recovery, amplifies the potential of long-term injury, etc. There's little point to it unless you're running the Olympics or are an amateur with little risk-reward tradeoff to consider.

braskey wrote:

You come off as a fool. Destroying yourself needlessly in a marathon adds weeks to one's recovery, amplifies the potential of long-term injury, etc. There's little point to it unless you're running the Olympics or are an amateur with little risk-reward tradeoff to consider.

Give me a second to recover from your vicious insult

New question. If these people are running 120-150 miles a week... can't their body handle the stress of a fast 26.2? Aren't their long runs around 20-22 miles anyways?

I know there's a difference in intensity, but the volume's still there and the caloric needs aren't too much different, so i'd have to guess that the additional stress of the intensity makes all the difference?

Just how f*cking stupid are you?

It's called a bad race. What you have done in training is irrelevant when things go south.

Interestingly there is also a lot of casual runners who never actually have good races. They prefer to ''finish" really crappy races as if they are somehow "better".

coach deez nuts wrote:

Just how f*cking stupid are you?

Thanks for your reply. It means a lot that you would share your wisdom with me. I hate to be critical of you, after you've been so generous as to share your hard-earned knowledge with me, but could I ask for a favor?

The next time, when you decide to magnanimously impart your teachings, could take your head out of your a$$ before speaking? next time, maybe I'd actually understand what you're saying. Thanks, appreciate it.

heroically drop out wrote:

It's called a bad race. What you have done in training is irrelevant when things go south.

Interestingly there is also a lot of casual runners who never actually have good races. They prefer to ''finish" really crappy races as if they are somehow "better".

I don't understand this. Is it a mental state? You're saying that everything goes down the sh!tter? I've had bad races on the track before (5k, 10k) but there's always the thought about finishing for me. Does the race distance make it seem hopeless?

Ritz got cramped 9/10 miles in? Now that's just depressing

Ritz got cramped 9/10 miles in? Now that's just depressing

who dropped besides estrada and ritz?

Coebra wrote:

coach deez nuts wrote:

Just how f*cking stupid are you?

Thanks for your reply. It means a lot that you would share your wisdom with me. I hate to be critical of you, after you've been so generous as to share your hard-earned knowledge with me, but could I ask for a favor?

The next time, when you decide to magnanimously impart your teachings, could take your head out of your a$$ before speaking? next time, maybe I'd actually understand what you're saying. Thanks, appreciate it.

embarrassment by proxy alert! Im sitting here with cheeks red as tomatoes, man.

wow, that was cringeworthy.

Coebra wrote:

... and the caloric needs aren't too much different,...

This is where you are obviously ignorant about the event. The "caloric needs" can become drastically different right about the 2 hour point.

Coebra wrote:

New question. If these people are running 120-150 miles a week... can't their body handle the stress of a fast 26.2? Aren't their long runs around 20-22 miles anyways?

I know there's a difference in intensity, but the volume's still there and the caloric needs aren't too much different, so i'd have to guess that the additional stress of the intensity makes all the difference?

No. It can't.

Training runs are often done on soft surfaces, with more cushioned shoes. The lower intensity is a huge factor when comparing the muscle damage. Finally, going into the red-zone, or over cooking yourself in a marathon race, sends your body into emergency panic mode; it does not recover the same way from the extreme over extension of toughing through a race effort for another 30 minutes.

It's incomprehensible to you because you have never run one. The marathon is different. The old, old saying that "you only have so many good marathons in you" says that they are destructive long term - not like any shorter distance.

If you are having a bad day, you know it at least an hour before the end, and the damage to your bod is significant. Better to "fight another day" than beat yourself up.

one and done wrote:

Coebra wrote:

... and the caloric needs aren't too much different,...

This is where you are obviously ignorant about the event. The "caloric needs" can become drastically different right about the 2 hour point.

I said I was ignorant in the post title. What are you getting at?

That aside, I've got my answer. Thanks Stanley Yelnats/Comfy Numb