Seriously, why are running the marathon?
Except for a handful of Africans up at the front, the rest of us are NOT racing the marathon.
The marathon is just a game of fuel storage. Will I run out before the finish line? Maybe - maybe not. Ugh!
Real runners excel at the 1500, mile, 5k, 8k, cross country, 10,000 meters on the track, etc...
Real runners are the 100 milers and 100k runners who have learned how to replenish their fuel so they can run more.
Feel better?
Why the marathon wrote:
The marathon is just a game of fuel storage. Will I run out before the finish line? Maybe - maybe not. Ugh!
Not in this day and age. The marathon is a full out race from gun to tape. Pros get beat because the other guy was faster and stronger, not because they hit the wall and ran out of fuel. Just look at Kimetto, Mutai, Kebede and others when they win. They look fresh as a daisy with plenty left in the tank. The marathon is all about speed now. Distance no longer determines the outcome.
I sort of agree. the marathon certainly has its place, but it shouldn't be as important as it currently is.
The half marathon is a better test of a distance runner since the fuel issue isn't there.
That said, the 10,000 on the track is a terrible race (spectators don't like it, and fast runers even avoid it outside of championships!).
If it were as easy as proper fueling, why wouldn't everyone be doing it?
And in ten years when you are a washed-up, pot bellied ex-miler, you will take up running again... and sign up for your first marathon. Just let the Africans in the front do their thing, they won't bother you.
True dat. The Marathon is a weird kinda distance. First you try to get as SCRAWNY as possible, try to destroy all the testosterone your body got and the last two days you are trying to load up on TOXIC SUGAR/GRAINS so you can somehow make it to the finish line?
What is the point? A TOUGH MUDDER is, as the name implies, a lot harder and you need REAL MUSCLES in order to compete successfully in it.
Also, Kimotto, Sangkip, Rotkiptich or Mitau? Who gives a crap. Combined these guys aren't as strong as Froning. FACT!
You're right. I'm making the transition towards the Spartathlon as we speak.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
True dat. The Marathon is a weird kinda distance. First you try to get as SCRAWNY as possible, try to destroy all the testosterone your body got and the last two days you are trying to load up on TOXIC SUGAR/GRAINS so you can somehow make it to the finish line?
What is the point? A TOUGH MUDDER is, as the name implies, a lot harder and you need REAL MUSCLES in order to compete successfully in it.
Also, Kimotto, Sangkip, Rotkiptich or Mitau? Who gives a crap. Combined these guys aren't as strong as Froning. FACT!
I see lots of pictures of fat chicks doing "tough" mudders. They're not tough, almost anyone can do them, without any training whatsoever.
83% of people who do "tough" mudders only do it so they can post a new profile picture on their Facebook or dating website.
Another fact: Froning has bigger penis than Kimetto. I know from first-hand experience. FACT!
Ok, so we live in the world where people "run" distance races not as a culmination of their training, but instead of their training, and so in that sense the marathon is overkill and arguably harmful to health (I am not excited for having my insurance premium raised because some overweight guy decides on a whim to enter a marathon and ends up wrecking his legs), to say nothing of the Ironman.
On the other hand, even though the distance is somewhat arbitrarily chosen as the be-all and end-all of distance racing, those that have run marathons seem to have found something unique about the experience, and I am guessing it has something to do with the last 10K of the race, because otherwise everyone would just be racing 20 milers. Perhaps people with marathons under their belt could explain what it is about the event that keeps them coming back. (Personally, I am not excited about racing anything over 25K.)
But is the marathon a true test of running prowess for those of us not under-say 2:40? (I'm 50 BTW and still run in the 2:4x's).
If I run 2:45 and get 500th place in the Chi. marathon but KNOW that if it were a mile race I could possibly be better than top-100? Are those other 400 runners better runners or simply better at managing their fuel?
How about we run a series of races at each distance and we earn points based on the time we run. Then after this series of races is done we see who wins?
Maybe we could get people to buy into running...
Every distance has its own unique challenges. Fueling is one of the challenges of the marathon, but not the only one. Why don't you step up and see if you can master it? It might actually help you when you move back down to 5k.
Fat Joe wrote:
Every distance has its own unique challenges. Fueling is one of the challenges of the marathon, but not the only one. Why don't you step up and see if you can master it? It might actually help you when you move back down to 5k.
You are correct. However, the point of the thread is that marathon get undue attention to the masses that have an interest in it.
I could see the trend reversing in the long term though. Since everyone and their mom has finished a marathon, maybe a fast 5K or 1500 will give runners more bragging rights.
1) That does already exist for the elites with the U.S. Running Circuit:
http://www.runnerspace.com/USARunningCircuit
as well as BAA (and maybe NYRR) doing similar things locally:
http://www.baa.org/races/distance-medley/participant-information/2013-current-leader-board.aspx
2) I am not sure that on average there is not a pretty good correlation, especially among trained athletes (with developed aerobic systems, as someone else here on a different thread put it), between their say 5K and marathon "prowess". In fact, when people start training for the marathon their "goal pace" should age-grade to about the same as their age-graded score for other distances, although the longer the better, probably.
Finally, I would think that someone in their 50s like yourself would generally expect to be at least slowing down less in the marathon than in the mile with time. So you are an exception, hopefully an ageless wonder :)
You just jumped the shark with that one, buddy.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
Another fact: Froning has bigger penis than Kimetto. I know from first-hand experience. FACT!
Why the marathon wrote:
But is the marathon a true test of running prowess for those of us not under-say 2:40? (I'm 50 BTW and still run in the 2:4x's).
If I run 2:45 and get 500th place in the Chi. marathon but KNOW that if it were a mile race I could possibly be better than top-100? Are those other 400 runners better runners or simply better at managing their fuel?
How about we run a series of races at each distance and we earn points based on the time we run. Then after this series of races is done we see who wins?
Maybe we could get people to buy into running...
You know, some people couldn't care less about what "other" people run or what place they finish. Some people run to better themselves and beat their previous race times. Some people run marathons because it's a different experience than small local 5Ks and they [*gasp*] enjoy them.
it's not just about managing fuel. I'm sure you know this, given your times, but training is also about making your body better at burning fats at higher paces over long periods of time. It's obviously also about things like running economy, but training to use fats at higher effort levels is extremely important.So it's not just about managing your fuel, OP, its about preparing your body. I can't believe I even have to be writing this, given the audience of LR.note - largely not directed at the dude I'm quoting
Why the marathon wrote:
But is the marathon a true test of running prowess for those of us not under-say 2:40? (I'm 50 BTW and still run in the 2:4x's).
If I run 2:45 and get 500th place in the Chi. marathon but KNOW that if it were a mile race I could possibly be better than top-100? Are those other 400 runners better runners or simply better at managing their fuel?
How about we run a series of races at each distance and we earn points based on the time we run. Then after this series of races is done we see who wins?
Maybe we could get people to buy into running...
Why the marathon wrote:
If I run 2:45 and get 500th place in the Chi. marathon but KNOW that if it were a mile race I could possibly be better than top-100? Are those other 400 runners better runners or simply better at managing their fuel?
If you had a mile race with a field the size of the Chicago marathon, I doubt you'd be top 100...
You greatly underestimate everyone else's mile ability and overestimate your own.