- May 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm #11343
I remember a long time ago first seeing a “run a marathon in a year” plan, after years of hearing nothing but “run for several years and gain valuable experience before running a marathon”. The idea at the time seemed crazy after what I had been taught about the marathon. Then, I saw the “run a marathon in 6 months” plans come out and I spoke out against that idea because I flat out disagreed with the idea that 6 months is enough time to prepare. Then, I saw “run a marathon in 4 months” show up and I asked when this would stop. I jokingly said not until we're down to 2 months, maybe less. As usual, I was accused of being “elitist” and overstating the risks of doing a marathon on such little preparation and I was told that 4 months is not unreasonable and that plans wouldn't get shorter because shorter would be unreasonable. Then, the 12 week plans came out and I went through the same discussion again.
Now, we're one step closer to my prediction that I thought would never come true. Introducing the 10 week “complete” marathon training plan.
My 10 second impression of this site was that it was a 10 week plan with a prerequisite of some kind of base training. However, upon further inspection, I found a couple of quotes that suggest these people are going to try to peddle it as 10 weeks couch-to-marathon for those who are gullible enough to believe that's reasonable.
Who is the Marathon Kit for?
The prerequisite for the Marathon Kit is courage to accept the challenge and the commitment, discipline and dedication required to train for your big race.
Is 10 weeks enough time to prepare?
With the correct tools and commitment to running and recovery, you will finish a 26 mile (42km) race 10 weeks after your first training run.
How long until my prediction comes true and we see a 2 month marathon training plan?
And how long until someone either posts here (doubtful to be honest) or e-mails me, telling me 10 weeks is perfectly reasonable, that I'm overreacting, I'm being elitist, and there will never be a program that is only 2 months or less because that would be unreasonable?
- May 12, 2009 at 8:44 pm #27533
You elitist Ryan!!!! ::)
Do they “guarentee” finishing in under 6 hours and being injury free?
At the risk of sounding elitist 😉 – there is NO WAY a person can go from couch to running a full marathon in 10 weeks. At least not if they want to run again or even walk normal ever again.
I think the proponents are looking for some internet revenue regardless of the injuries it causes to the many people that will fall for that crap!
- May 13, 2009 at 12:28 am #27534
If I recall, the site guaranteed you would finish. I didn't see any promises of what condition you would be in.
- May 13, 2009 at 3:38 am #27535
Eh, the market for this sort of thing is self-selecting. I highly doubt that people who would go for this sort of thing would likely be open to being swayed by the logic of a significantly longer build-up. Even many of those who get easily caught up in ongoing marathon obsession are not swayed by such logic.
- May 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm #27536
I suppose that's true at least to some extent. Still, I can't help but think that it's not always the case (I've heard from some people for whom it wasn't) and that, even if it were, it doesn't help the impression people have of the sport. It just seems like some individuals are out to make a buck, no matter what it means for the sport they profess to love.
- May 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm #27537
Well of course, I would just deem them to be completely outside of the sport.
- May 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm #27538
As would I, though these types often claim to be integrally connected with the sport and care for it greatly.
- May 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm #27539
The huge underlying issue, to me, comes down to how the sport is poorly organized and regulated, top to bottom. Beyond even token doping control, there just is no tangible network to administer road racing. I have a buddy who likes to run but is primarily a competitive (age group) cyclist. He gets much more out of the way that competitive cycling organizes its competitions. Competitive cycling has a better structure in place not only to encourage genuine competitiveness – on both individual and team bases – but also to regulate those who would want to contribute to and/or profit from the sport. By comparison, running is basically a free-for-all and from that will naturally come both positive and negative consequences.
And then there is the notion that if it seems too good to be true (easy path to marathon fitness) then it must be. P.T. Barnum's observation remains just as true today, even for supposed sophisticates.
- May 13, 2009 at 6:53 pm #27540
Yes, I have heard good things about the structure cycling offers, though I've also heard some complaints that it's a bit too rigid. I guess nothing can be perfect. You have to find the right balance between that rigidity and the free for all. Everyone's perfect balance is probably a bit different, so there probably is no perfect solution.
- May 14, 2009 at 12:21 am #27541
“Too rigid” might be preferable to any and every charlatan and charity exploiting claimed ties to the sport for profit without really giving much back in return. Notice how many UCI, USAC, IMBA, NORBA events are “for the cure” or how many “zero to Cat 2” programs/coaches exist. There is a clear disconnect between the sport of cycling (competing in crits, road races, time trials, stage races, etc.) and the recreational pastime (touring, RAGBRAI, fitness, charity fund-raising rides, etc.), something I believe distance running is sorely lacking and suffers from as a result.
- May 14, 2009 at 1:26 am #27542
Agreed. I think running could benefit from some additional rigidity. I think the cat is out of the bag so it probably isn't reasonable to talk about the level of cycling but some additional regulation of events and/or training groups/coaches would definitely be beneficial.
- May 15, 2009 at 5:25 pm #27543
I just spoke to a former H.S. teammate of my kids, who was a solid if not spectacular runner in H.S. (17:30 for 5k CC), and he told me he was thinking of running Lakefront because his sister had been training 'for almost a year now' for her 1st marathon this October. I asked if he'd been running much, and he replied “No, not for the last 2 months.” I told him if he wanted to run a decent marathon he needed to prepare like his sister was, and if he really wanted to run a decent time (he thought maybe he could qualify for Boston), then he needed to be prepared to run 9-12 months of at minimum 40 MPW before he should even begin a 4 month build-up.
Maybe someone could finish 26.2 miles doing far less training, but those are the people that I'd imagine will only run one marathon in their entire life. So Ryan, I'm in no way an elitist, but am solidly in your camp on this one.
- May 15, 2009 at 6:07 pm #27544
Maybe someone could finish 26.2 miles doing far less training, but those are the people that I'd imagine will only run one marathon in their entire life.
Oh, many do cover the distance but they are the ones who usually have horrible experiences or end up injured, then go around telling everyone they know how painful/dangerous running is.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.