last long run six weeks out from a marathon - any point in racing it? (injury for hour+ runs)

My first two marathons went pretty much exactly like this. I under performed in both and got injured a while after each.

"knee pain" is a bit vague. do you have any idea what the cause of the knee pain is? I would continue running once you have fixed the problem. for example if the cause is too high a heel/over pronating or old shoes, replace with lower drop/new shoes.

if you just continue as you are, whatever causes the pain isn't going to go away or it will go away on reduced mileage but flare up again when you run your marathon/up your mileage.

thanks for your input. this is more or less what I'm expecting, unfortunately.

this is a problem I've had on and off for about 16 years. if I had only continued running once the problem was fixed, the majority of my running career would've never happened.

it's essentially what people call patellofemoral syndrome, chrondomolacia, etc. - a bunch of terms that I've decided basically don't mean anything. after seeing a number of doctors and physiotherapists, I gave up on trying to find lasting solutions over a decade ago.

I've found ways to largely prevent and recover from flare-ups - but I've never been in such a grey zone where the pain only comes on off after running quickly for over an hour. that's really what I'm wondering about, if/how other people have managed or corrected injuries of that nature.

I should add that I've had many periods of training of 70-100 miles/week over the years without ever fully 'resolving' this issue

There have been very good marathons run by people who did no or few long runs. That's not an issue if your mileage has been good. I don't see any reason to risk aggravating this by doing a long run.

Not worth it.

Marathon is not a joke.

If you never ran 26.2 in your training why risk it if you already have aches and pains?

Your time will not be good, you may injure yourself even further.

Recover, train properly, race.

I actually was not aware of this...would be interested to hear examples. thanks for giving me a ray of hope!

you're probably right. "why risk it": I basically only have an opportunity to run a good marathon once a year at best, especially in the part of the world I'll be in. we'll feel it on based on the next few weeks.

that was supposed to be "will feel it out"

Okay, you asked for it. There was a thread here several years ago about Karel Lismont's training. He ran three times a day through the week but rarely if ever ran for more than an hour. He got bored going much farther. Chris Stewart was third at New York in successive years in 2:13 each time. I think the years were 1976 and '77. He told me that in one of those years he had no runs longer than eight miles but had been doing 120-130 a week. My old college roommate had a best of 2:40 and some seconds. He rarely got beyond 45 miles a week, typically five to seven mile runs four or five times a week and a long run of ten miles. If we were getting ready for a marathon he'd extend that to twelve miles. He always pushed the pace on his runs. I once talked him into doing fifteen. He said it was the worst experience of his life and nearly quit the sport.

When Ian Thompson was at his prime "Athletics Weekly" did a training profile. It showed him doing about 100 a week with 30 on Sunday. So I started doing 28-30 each week for a while. I hated it and was sort of glad it didn't seem to do anything. I found out recently that he actually did that as three 10s. There was guy I knew when I was in DC in the 70s who was a mid 2:20s marathon guy and was getting a Ph.D in exercise physiology. He did the same thing as Thompson, three 10s on Sundays each in about 58 or 59 minutes. He said he'd found there was some enzyme released into your system when you ran for more than an hour that damaged muscles. So he only ran longer than an hour in races. Jim Pearson qualified for the Olympic Trials marathon in '72 and '76 then had the US 50 mile record for a while. Runner's World did a training profile of him. He was a triple digit mileage guy but in the profile he said he believed in the value of doing a long run but rarely did them because they were inconvenient. Finally, on the lower rung of the performance ladder, Ron Hill told me that May, his wife, had run 4:11 at London one year. Her biggest week was 18 1/2 miles and her longest run was 8 miles.

Lots of good anecdotes here but even if all these are accurate, it is doubtful this style of training would work for the majority of athletes with the exception of the 4+ hour marathon. It's good that there are people out there willing to experiment in the face of all our current running philosophies but tried and true is there for a reason. If someone runs a 2:40 on 45 miles per week then they would run faster on higher mileage 100% of the time assuming no injuries. There could be some truth to the other stories but I guarantee there are some details left out.

What sort of details do you have in mind? Yes, my roommate almost surely would have run faster if he'd have run more. But at the time he was faster than loads of us who did long runs. And if he'd left the sport because he had to do long runs he would not have run faster.

and I'm glad I asked for it! thanks, really interesting stuff even if my path this 'season' ends up going differently or the race doesn't even happen...makes me wonder if these people would have done just as well doing more traditional training or if there was something beneficial about this approach that benefited them more than an average person (in physiological terms)

I sometimes wonder how much of what we do is because it's really necessary or because everyone else does it and we think it's really necessary. Chris did some long runs for one of his New York races and got the same result as when he didn't. Ron Hill's first marathon was 2:24, which in 1962, was a very respectable time. His longest run was 11 miles. He got under 2:20 with long runs of just 14 miles. Of course by the time he was at his peak the long runs were 20 to 27 miles so I think we can conclude they lead to big improvements. But he'd changed other things too so it's impossible to know exactly how much of that improvement was due to the longer long runs.

I have come to believe that ideal marathon training for anyone who's not an outlier includes overall high volume and regular long runs. But of the two variables, I think the overall high volume is the most important. Ideally you don't want to sacrifice either but if you do I'd say it should be the long run. Lismont got two Olympic medals without them. Would at least one of those medals be gold if he'd done regular long runs? Who knows? But nearly all of the people he beat in those races were doing more long runs than he was.

In your case, you've done long runs and your race is six weeks off. You'd do what, another 3 to 5 in the time left? Missing those runs, especially if your overall mileage is good isn't going to wreck your race. But if you force those runs and further damage your knee, or even just slow its healing, you're much more likely to wreck your race.

Perhaps look into seeing some more physical therapists/doctors that focus on running related injuries? Maybe someone can recommend taping, compression, bracing, stretches, mobility work, strength routine, etc etc etc -- something to take the edge off?

I don't think the issue going into the marathon has as much to do with not getting enough long runs in, but more so that your injury seems to flare up after an hour or so of running. Will your knee simply be status quo after the marathon, or could you be risking something significantly worse by subjecting it to all of the added marathon stress?

Obviously you know your body and have lived with the injury long enough to make an informed decision.

I personally think it might be possible, but you have to know what the knee issue is. There might be “hacks”, for lack of a better term to safely get you through a marathon. Maybe a knee brace, more focused massage or foam rolling, new PT exercises, etc. Maybe a new pair of shoes that hits differently.

But you need to know what is going on to know if it might be possible.

put this way, it does indeed not sound so bad. I worry a little that I will lose some "running for well over an hour fitness" but maybe it doesn't work that way. there's also the nervousness about not knowing how my knee will react to the duration after not having done it for so long. but you also have a point that that the weeks off from running those amounts may help the injury itself.

thanks again for your thoughts and the cool anecdotes about other runners' training

would consider doing so, but I can't afford medical care of that kind here. in any case, I have reincorporated a moderate strength routine and stretches post-run most days (+ usually mobility stuff prior to run)

whether I'm risking longer term damage is a concern of mine, too, but so far any degree of 'damage' I've had with this injury seems to respond fairly well to just a few days rest followed by a very gradual and 'technical' build-up (sprinting uphills, walking downhills, etc.).

I actually had this same pain 1:30 in to my marathon last year (despite not having it in the weeks prior) and I did feel it for days after, but I used my own 'rehab' technique to get better