Runner dies after Marine Corp Marathon
lmmr
By Steve Nearman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Hilary Bellamy of Silver Spring died yesterday, two days after dropping
out of Sunday's
Marine Corps Marathon shortly after covering 21 miles.
She died yesterday at Georgetown University Hospital after life support
was withdrawn.
"When she left the race, she was conscious," race director Rick Nealis
said. "I understand
that she died from complications at the hospital."
Bellamy, 35, was a member of the National AIDS Marathon Training
Program, attempting her first 26-mile, 385-yard race.
Results of an autopsy, expected today, hopefully will explain Bellamy's
death, the fifth
participant to die in the 27-year history of the Marine Corps Marathon.
Nealis said that he had conflicting information, but he did confirm
that Bellamy was taken
from the course, by ambulance, to Georgetown University Hospital. At some
point, she slipped
into a coma and was kept alive for organ donor reasons.
"It bothers me anytime anybody dies," said Nealis as he grappled with
the situation last
night. What is clear is that Bellamy had been on the course from the
8:30a.m. start until
1:45p.m. She passed 10 kilometers in 1:19:54, the halfway mark in 2:52:55
and the 18-mile point in 4:02:19, on a pace just a bit slower than her
expected finishing time of 5:45:50.
In recent marathons run elsewhere, some runners have died of
hyponatremia, a potentially
fatal condition which occurs when an excess of water is consumed, blood
sodium levels are
diluted and ultimately the brain begins to swell. Those runners were on the
course four or more
hours and drank as much water as possible.
After April's Boston Marathon, the state Medical Examiner's Office in
Massachusetts
concluded that a 28-year-old female runner -- who collapsed four miles from
the finish --
perished from hyponatremia.
Michael Cover, executive director of the Whitman Walker Clinic, sponsor
of the AIDS
training group, said he understood that Bellamy's death was unrelated to
running the marathon.
Cover said that Bellamy was one of 825 program members who participated
in the Marine
Corps Marathon this year. The program also sends runners to marathons in
Baltimore and Dublin, Ireland.
"We have had 10,500 participants total in the five years we have had
the training program
and this is the first death," Cover said.
Charity training programs have brought hundreds of thousands of runners
to the sport in
the past decade, with runners raising millions of dollars. This year, the
Marines allotted
nearly 25 percent of their slots to charity runners.
The number of fatalities among marathoners is six to eight a year, out
of more than
420,000 finishers, according to Ryan Lamppa of U.S. Track & Field's Road
Running Information
Center.
James Goddard
news:Fcaw9.51313$wm6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Bellamy, 35, was a member of the National AIDS Marathon Training
> Program, attempting her first 26-mile, 385-yard race.
I guess .2 was just too hard to say.
> 1:45p.m. She passed 10 kilometers in 1:19:54, the halfway mark in 2:52:55
> and the 18-mile point in 4:02:19, on a pace just a bit slower than her
> expected finishing time of 5:45:50.
Please tell me Marine Corps has a 5 hour cutoff?
Brian Wagner
>
> Please tell me Marine Corps has a 5 hour cutoff?
Clearly not. Also note the victim was a charity racer.
Let the games begin.
lmmr
miles) by 5 1/2 hours into race. Which is approx 14min/miles.
"James Goddard" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:OTbw9.38555$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
James Goddard
> No cut-off other than you must be at the 14th Street Bridge (approx. 22.5
> miles) by 5 1/2 hours into race. Which is approx 14min/miles.
Sigh, unlike CS I have no problems with slower marathoners but I do believe
marathons should have a 5 hour cutoff. You're basically walking at that
point. I would have expected better from Marine Corps.
Cleveland Steamer
Semper Fi
"James Goddard" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:aFcw9.38569$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
James Goddard
news:aprqqf$535$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
> Its a kinder gentler Marine Corp now.
>
> Semper Fi
Yea, I'm going to have to start agreeing with you now. I've been looking,
it seem that many marathons that USED to have a 5 hour cutoff now have a 6+
hour cutoff.
Brian Wagner
or should I?
James Goddard
Go ahead....might be interesting to see him over here...
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3DC176DF...@cle.philips.com...
MJuric
wrote:
>1:45p.m. She passed 10 kilometers in 1:19:54, the halfway mark in 2:52:55
>and the 18-mile point in 4:02:19, on a pace just a bit slower than her
>expected finishing time of 5:45:50.
Is it more dangerous to run a 5:45:50 marathon than a 2:05:00
Marathon? Does anyone know of the stats on people dieing during
endurance sports events? Are they mostly 5+ hr marathoners and 16+
IM'rs or are they sub 3:00 marathoners and sub 13 hr Im'rs?
~Matt
Mike Tennent
>
>Please tell me Marine Corps has a 5 hour cutoff?
>
They bill the race as "The People's Marathon," which implies an
inclusive approach. They seem to be quite happy with that image of the
race and the mixture of runners. I don't think they even offer any
prize money.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Brian Wagner
>
> Is it more dangerous to run a 5:45:50 marathon than a 2:05:00
> Marathon? Does anyone know of the stats on people dieing during
> endurance sports events? Are they mostly 5+ hr marathoners and 16+
> IM'rs or are they sub 3:00 marathoners and sub 13 hr Im'rs?
By the time someone gets to 3:00, they've accumulated enough experience
and learned enough lessons to avoid such tragedies. Someone who's
going to die on a 5:45 won't ever get the chance to do a 3:00.
lmmr
overall marathon I have ran). As someone on this thread wrote, the
I know physical shape is no bearing on performance. But there was many
runners I saw at the start that I had to look twice at and wonder if they
had any idea what they were doing. This goes for both size of the individual
( well above any Clydesdale division) and the clothing (Cut off shorts,
tennis sneakers, etc.)
With the popularity of marathons these days, I think people have lost
respect for the marathon distance. I know many people who I run with or
listen to conversations at various start lines of races that enter a
marathon because it "will be fun". Not fully understanding that a few long
runs the month before, and having spaghetti on Saturday night is not
qualifications on finishing a marathon.
"Brian Wagner" <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote in message
news:3DC1987E...@cle.philips.com...
Brian Wagner
>
> They bill the race as "The People's Marathon," which implies an
> inclusive approach.
It's all so inclusive.
Isn't that just precious.
So warm and fuzzy.
Doesn't it just make ya feel all warm and gooey inside, Steamer?
Brian Wagner
>
> I ran the Marine Corp marathon for the 6th time this past Sunday (10th
> overall marathon I have ran). As someone on this thread wrote, the
>
> I know physical shape is no bearing on performance. But there was many
> runners I saw at the start that I had to look twice at and wonder if they
> had any idea what they were doing. This goes for both size of the individual
> ( well above any Clydesdale division) and the clothing (Cut off shorts,
> tennis sneakers, etc.)
Well that's what an "inclusive" theme gets you.
> With the popularity of marathons these days, I think people have lost
> respect for the marathon distance.
Respect? That's not a warm fuzzy inclusive concept. Your inner child
doesn't know from respect.
> I know many people who I run with or
> listen to conversations at various start lines of races that enter a
> marathon because it "will be fun".
As long as they feel good about themselves, right?
> Not fully understanding that a few long
> runs the month before, and having spaghetti on Saturday night is not
> qualifications on finishing a marathon.
Actually, for some, it is.
(For my first marathon, the night before, I had a Domino's large double
cheese/double sausage. It was SOOOOOOOOOOO good.)
MJuric
So does time make a difference? Does this go back to "if it
takes you "X" long to do "Y" race you probably aren't" a) ready for it
b) haven't trained enough for it or c) just aren't made to do it?
Once again it seems to me if your goal marathon time is 5:45
you probably should be doing some other distance than a marathon. If
this individual would have done a half she probably would still be
alive.
~Matt
MJuric
Ok, before we start this, disclaimer: This is not a personal
attack. I'm just curious as to your mindset.
Just because this is an "inclusive" no cut time event. Does
that mean anybody should do the race? At any point do you believe that
someone should not do a race?
~Matt
Jason O'Rourke
>> Bellamy, 35, was a member of the National AIDS Marathon Training
>> Program, attempting her first 26-mile, 385-yard race.
>
>I guess .2 was just too hard to say.
but would not be accurate. Let's give the reporter credit for getting
it right for once.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Jason O'Rourke
>By the time someone gets to 3:00, they've accumulated enough experience
>and learned enough lessons to avoid such tragedies. Someone who's
>going to die on a 5:45 won't ever get the chance to do a 3:00.
Elite athletes flame out all the time. They are visibible enough to get
medical attention. Someone 6 hours in, in the midst of the stragglers
who all resember the walking dead, doesn't stand out.
Alcatraz is being rebroadcast on Saturday (no NFL overtime this time) and
you can see exactly this happen to Greg Bennent on the last two (flat)
miles of the run course.
Sam
Sounds like he wanted to insert that. Could be a factor; could be a
stroke.
"lmmr" <vze3...@verizon.netXXX> wrote in message
Sam
Why? It bills itself as the "People's Marathon".
Sam
"lmmr" <vze3...@verizon.netXXX> wrote in message
> I ran the Marine Corp marathon for the 6th time this past Sunday (10th
> overall marathon I have ran). As someone on this thread wrote, the
>
> I know physical shape is no bearing on performance. But there was many
> runners I saw at the start that I had to look twice at and wonder if they
> had any idea what they were doing. This goes for both size of the
individual
> ( well above any Clydesdale division) and the clothing (Cut off shorts,
> tennis sneakers, etc.)
>
> With the popularity of marathons these days, I think people have lost
> respect for the marathon distance. I know many people who I run with or
> listen to conversations at various start lines of races that enter a
> marathon because it "will be fun". Not fully understanding that a few long
> runs the month before, and having spaghetti on Saturday night is not
> qualifications on finishing a marathon.
>
>
So what are the qualifications? Other than Boston (and it allows
"non-qualifiers"), Olympic Trials and the Olympics themselves (with a very
few exceptions) very few races have any "standards" that must be met. Maybe
all marathoners should be required to have run a marathon first with a
qualifying time---wait can't do it that way. Maybe everyone should have to
run a 10K in under 40min (45min for women) before they can enter a marathon.
Nah, let's make that 30 minutes. Nah, let's just make it 1 min faster than
you can run.
Mike Tennent
>
> Ok, before we start this, disclaimer: This is not a personal
>attack. I'm just curious as to your mindset.
I was merely stating a possible reason why the race doesn't have a 5
hour cut-off. It was a neutral observation. What does my mindset
have to do with it?
> Just because this is an "inclusive" no cut time event. Does
>that mean anybody should do the race? At any point do you believe that
>someone should not do a race?
>
Anybody who pays the entry fee can do the race. Should they? How the
heck should I know?
Would I encourage a new runner to go out and do a marathon? No. I
personally feel a person shouldn't consider doing one until they've
been running at least two years and have done at least one half
marathon.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
hy
You are such a trouble maker. Didn't your mamma spank you enough, when
you were little? :) heh.. (sorry, I had to.)
James Goddard
news:apsj9r$vpi$2...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "James Goddard" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:aFcw9.38569$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> > point. I would have expected better from Marine Corps.
> >
>
> Why? It bills itself as the "People's Marathon".
Marathon being the key word.
James Goddard
I'm assuming she still does ;)...
Brian Wagner
>
> You are such a trouble maker.
It's a dirty job, but....
> Didn't your mamma spank you enough, when
> you were little?
No, you wanna remedy that?
>:) heh.. (sorry, I had to.)
I often have that effect.
Brian Wagner
>
> Anybody who pays the entry fee can do the race.
But what about the poor, Mike? These races can be expensive.
> Would I encourage a new runner to go out and do a marathon?
Only if it made them feel good.
Brian Wagner
>
> James Goddard <do...@spam.me> wrote:
> >> Bellamy, 35, was a member of the National AIDS Marathon Training
> >> Program, attempting her first 26-mile, 385-yard race.
> >
> >I guess .2 was just too hard to say.
>
> but would not be accurate.
It would indeed be accurate. Not as precise, but accurate. You are
confusing accuracy with precision.
> Let's give the reporter credit for getting
> it right for once.
We can only give him/her credit for precision.
Brian Wagner
>
> So does time make a difference? Does this go back to "if it
> takes you "X" long to do "Y" race you probably aren't" a) ready for it
> b) haven't trained enough for it or c) just aren't made to do it?
Probably.
> Once again it seems to me if your goal marathon time is 5:45
> you probably should be doing some other distance than a marathon. If
> this individual would have done a half she probably would still be
> alive.
Exactly.
"Man's GOT to know his limitations" - Harry Callahan.
Brian Wagner
>
> Elite athletes flame out all the time. They are visibible enough to get
> medical attention.
They also have systems more able to withstand and recover from such
episodes.
Iron Pete
>ever heard. You could break 12 hours in an IM if you worked - I
>didn't say work harder because it sounds like you don't even work at
>your workouts now - especially with that advice you have given.
>
>2 years................ too funny.
Actually, I don't think it's really funny advice. Someone that is not
overweight and has casually participated in some form of sport would naturally
require a shorter time. But people who come from a purely sedentary background
who is considered obese and maybe smoked for maybe 10 years would need at least
2 years to undertake a marathon at a low risk. Remember, there are a lot of
people out there who get out of breath by walking from one side of their house
to another. I wouldn't want them participating in a marathon after only 6
months of training. Would you?
"Iron" Pete
USAT Certified Coach/NJ
Read My Mountain Masochist 50 Mile Run Report on www.ironpete.com
----------
| 26|
| Fe |
| |
----------
The Best Element Of Racing
James Goddard
news:20021101115131...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> Actually, I don't think it's really funny advice. Someone that is not
> overweight and has casually participated in some form of sport would
naturally
> require a shorter time. But people who come from a purely sedentary
background
> who is considered obese and maybe smoked for maybe 10 years would need at
least
> 2 years to undertake a marathon at a low risk. Remember, there are a lot
of
> people out there who get out of breath by walking from one side of their
house
> to another. I wouldn't want them participating in a marathon after only 6
> months of training. Would you?
I smoked for 15 years, weighed 250 lbs, and the only exercise I ever did was
an occasional swim and some golf.
I quit smoking and lost 80 lbs in 9 months. I then started running and did
my fist 3:43 marathon a year later. I took it slowly and was never in any
health risks from the exercise.
Jason O'Rourke
Like FloJo?
Jason O'Rourke
>> >> Bellamy, 35, was a member of the National AIDS Marathon Training
>> >> Program, attempting her first 26-mile, 385-yard race.
>> >
>> >I guess .2 was just too hard to say.
>>
>> but would not be accurate.
>
>It would indeed be accurate. Not as precise, but accurate. You are
>confusing accuracy with precision.
Sheesh - for people with a life, let me explain what Brian tried to say,
and failed to do so.
accuracy = correctness of measurement. .2 mile = 352y, which is far
from the true 385yard value. How many times have Ken@Kuaui told you how
important 9 seconds (8 min mile pace) can be to get that place?
precision has to do with reliability and repeatability. Marathons are
often written as 26.2 miles - this could be seen as precise, but not accurate.
Have your morning coffee (or substitute) before posting, Brian.
Brian Wagner
>
> Sheesh - for people with a life, let me explain what Brian tried to say,
> and failed to do so.
I succeeded, but you have failed.
> accuracy = correctness of measurement.
Accuracy = correctness at the stated precision.
Precision = granularity of measurement.
> .2 mile = 352y, which is far from the true 385yard value.
However, you will note that the difference is 33 yards, which is less
than half the 176 yards to the next tenth of a mile. THUS, when one is
expressing the distance to a tenth of a mile, 26.2 is indeed the
accurate measurement. 26 is just as accurate as 26.2, but less
precise. 26.0 is NOT as accurate as 26, but it is more precise. Once
you express that ".0" you raise the precision, but your last expressed
digit is off by two.
Accuracy is correctness at the stated precision.
> Marathons are often written as 26.2 miles - this could be seen as precise, but not accurate.
No, it is accurate. Accuracy is an all or nothing proposition. Either
there is no more accurate expression at the given level of precision, or
there is. We can not say that it is or is not objectively precise
because precision is relative. It is more precise than 26, and less
precise than 26 miles, 385 yards. It is the same precision as 26.0, but
it is accurate, whereas 26.0 is not.
In order of ascending precision:
26 miles.
(tie) 26.0 miles 26.2 miles.
26 miles 385 yards.
Divided by accuracy.
Accurate Not accurate
26 miles 26.0 miles
26.2 miles
265 miles 385 yards
> Have your morning coffee (or substitute) before posting, Brian.
Guess again, Jason. Just because you work with computers doesn't make
you an engineer.
Brian Wagner
>
> Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
> >Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> >>
> >> Elite athletes flame out all the time. They are visibible enough to get
> >> medical attention.
> >
> >They also have systems more able to withstand and recover from such
> >episodes.
>
> Like FloJo?
Oh, yes, unless they use drugs.
Iron Pete
>an occasional swim and some golf.
>
>I quit smoking and lost 80 lbs in 9 months. I then started running and did
>my fist 3:43 marathon a year later. I took it slowly and was never in any
>health risks from the exercise.
>
>
It's definitely commendable that you pulled youself together in only one year
to do a marathon. From a coach's perspecitve though, mine that is, you would
have to understand that I would normally advise against it though. My reasoning
is twofold. One, since I do know what it takes to complete a marathon and how
tough it can be, I cannot advise anyone with a non-athletic background with a
very short period of training to do the marathon. It's way to risky for the
individual. Two, because the client is under my watch, I would have to take
heed of any risk management factors if I advise for the marathon and something
terrible happens to my client during the race. Of course, I understand that
there is always the risk for everyone involved in these gruelling races, and
yes, I am insured against that liability, but I like to keep the possibility to
a sliver of a minimum.
Congrats on your time though. A 3:43 is definitely something to write home
about. :-)
Brian Wagner
>
> It's definitely commendable that you pulled youself together in only one year
> to do a marathon. From a coach's perspecitve though, mine that is, you would
> have to understand that I would normally advise against it though. My reasoning
> is twofold. One, since I do know what it takes to complete a marathon and how
> tough it can be, I cannot advise anyone with a non-athletic background with a
> very short period of training to do the marathon. It's way to risky for the
> individual.
If the DoD had traditionally taken that approach for boot camp, we'd be
overrun by the first banana republic to that came gunning for us.
Humans are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
Iron Pete
>overrun by the first banana republic to that came gunning for us.
>Humans are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
>If the DoD had traditionally taken that approach for boot camp, we'd be
>overrun by the first banana republic to that came gunning for us.
>Humans are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
Boot camp is usually for thouse around 18 years old. Definitely a very
resilient age. I'm not sure if someone who was 45 and has smoked for 15 years
can be placed into that category. Plus, I think the DoD can handle wrongful
death suits better than I can in case the worst happens. Legalwise and
consciouswise.
MJuric
Tennent) wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:27:36 GMT, MJuric wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, before we start this, disclaimer: This is not a personal
>>attack. I'm just curious as to your mindset.
>
>I was merely stating a possible reason why the race doesn't have a 5
>hour cut-off. It was a neutral observation. What does my mindset
>have to do with it?
I was refering to "mindset" as to the reasoning behind your
statement. Your answer is above.
>
>> Just because this is an "inclusive" no cut time event. Does
>>that mean anybody should do the race? At any point do you believe that
>>someone should not do a race?
>>
>
>Anybody who pays the entry fee can do the race. Should they? How the
>heck should I know?
Going back to time as an issue, IMO, at some point goal time would
indicatate whether they should be doing the race.
>
>Would I encourage a new runner to go out and do a marathon? No. I
>personally feel a person shouldn't consider doing one until they've
>been running at least two years and have done at least one half
>marathon.
>
>Mike Tennent
>"IronPenguin"
I agree with you on the two years. What about training, actual
running ability and goal times, should they ever impact whether a
person should or should not do a race?
~Matt
JJ Waguespack
Brian Wagner wrote:
>
>> Once again it seems to me if your goal marathon time is 5:45
>>you probably should be doing some other distance than a marathon. If
>>this individual would have done a half she probably would still be
>>alive.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
> "Man's GOT to know his limitations" - Harry Callahan.
>
Right actor, wrong movie. Either "Fist Full Of Dollars" or "For a Few
Dollars More", followed by the line, "Your Brother's very words"
JJ (how's that for brain sludge)
Jason O'Rourke
>> "Man's GOT to know his limitations" - Harry Callahan.
>>
>Right actor, wrong movie. Either "Fist Full Of Dollars" or "For a Few
>Dollars More", followed by the line, "Your Brother's very words"
>
>JJ (how's that for brain sludge)
Nope- it definitely made an appearance in the Dirty Harry series - the
one with the vigilante cops I believe (Magnum Force).
Cjohnston2001
>> Sheesh - for people with a life, let me explain what Brian tried to say,
>> and failed to do so.
>
>I succeeded, but you have failed.
>
>> accuracy = correctness of measurement.
>
>Accuracy = correctness at the stated precision.
>Precision = granularity of measurement.
>
Gotta agree with Brian on this one. At least, that's the way Iearned it in
engineering school.
Jason O'Rourke
>>Accuracy = correctness at the stated precision.
>>Precision = granularity of measurement.
>
>Gotta agree with Brian on this one. At least, that's the way Iearned it in
>engineering school.
I learned that variant as early as 9th grade. But I've also seen precision
deal more with repeatability, rather than mere decimal places.
It's also irrevelent to the conversation - we're not talking about a
measurement, but rather a constant. It will always be 26, 385 yards.
Using .2 instead is laziness.
Brian Wagner
>
> Boot camp is usually for thouse around 18 years old. Definitely a very
> resilient age. I'm not sure if someone who was 45 and has smoked for 15 years
> can be placed into that category.
Older enlistees receive no special treatment. In the end, coddling does
not produce results.
> Plus, I think the DoD can handle wrongful
> death suits better than I can in case the worst happens.
Depends. Do you have any assets? The best defense is to be
unrecoverable.
Brian Wagner
>
> Right actor, wrong movie. Either "Fist Full Of Dollars" or "For a Few
> Dollars More", followed by the line, "Your Brother's very words"
>
> JJ (how's that for brain sludge)
Guess again. It's Harry Callahan's line in "The Enforcer" right after
David Soul takes the police bike off the edge of the mothballed carrier
into the bay. Last line of the movie.
Brian Wagner
Oops, yes - Jason's right - I thought it was "The Enforcer."
Brian Wagner
>
> I learned that variant as early as 9th grade. But I've also seen precision
> deal more with repeatability, rather than mere decimal places.
Repeatability is not an attribute attached to a measurement value, but
rather to a measurement method.
Measurement devices are evaluated through a reliability and
repeatability (R&R) study.
> It's also irrevelent to the conversation - we're not talking about a
> measurement, but rather a constant. It will always be 26, 385 yards.
Not at all. When one is referring, as the reporter was, to a particular
race, it's the physical length of the course, which the RD has hopefully
made diligent effort to have as 26 miles, 385 yards. However, it is
doubtful that ANY marathon ever run has been 26 miles, 385 yards down to
the picometer, so that "constant" is the nominal length of most
marathons, probably to no better precision than +/- 6 inches, if we
wanted to cover the three sigma spread commonly used in quality control
systems.
> Using .2 instead is laziness.
Hardly. It's just good business practice when printing a newspaper,
since every character on the page, and its associated space, costs
money.
JJ Waguespack
was absolutely used in one of those spagetti westerns. "Bad guy leader
of the pack" said it one scene and later on Eastwood reused the line to
another group that included BG's brother and followed the line by "your
brother's very words."
JJ (but the bike off the carrier line does seem to ring a bell)
Iron Pete
>> death suits better than I can in case the worst happens.
>
>Depends. Do you have any assets? The best defense is to be
>unrecoverable.
Not much assets, but the assets I have I would like to keep. If I had a lot of
assets to protect though, I would incorporate my business.
There is no definite boundary when dealing with people who have been sedentary
for most of their lives. Most of my judgement on whether people are fit for a
marathon comes through coaching feedback. If the person wants to give a
marathon a shot only months after he/she is started his first real fitness
regimen in his/her, there are basic tests that I administer from time to time
(about 6 weeks apart) to determine the fitness of the individual. If the
results show some great gains made by the individual, then I would advise that
he/she would be fit enough to do the marathon. If not, well, at least I have
the tests to back up my advice.
Mike Tennent
>
> I agree with you on the two years. What about training, actual
>running ability and goal times, should they ever impact whether a
>person should or should not do a race?
>
>~Matt
Haven't we danced this dance before?
Tell you what - you lead this time. You answer your own questions and
I'll see if I agree with them
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
MJuric
Dancing I love dancing!
>> I agree with you on the two years.
>>What about training,
Training should match the race.
>> actual
>>running ability
Lets face it some of us just don't have the genes to "RACE"
certain distances. It has been shown in some studies that some of us
don't get the same benefit from the same amount of training. In some
rare cases almost no benefit at all.
>> and goal times, should they ever impact whether a
>>person should or should not do a race?
To me goal times are an indication of what someone "believes"
their current conditioning can propel them thru a race under nominal
conditions. This current level of conditioning is a combination of the
above, ability and training. If the goal time does not match to some
margin of error a nominal positioning in the standings this indicates
to me that one of the above is lacking. If goal time is well out of
nominal range it would indicate to me that the athlete would be better
suited to another race until they have either modified their training
or their genes.
Now with that being said I would say that under few rare
circumstances should someone keep someone else from doing a race. But
as the distance and difficulty of the race increases so does the
danger of being improperly trained. I have no numbers to back this up
so it is a PFA but I would suspect deaths from running 5Ks due to lack
of training(not including those that would probably died tomorow from
a heart attack anyway) are significantly lower percentage wise than
marathons for the same reason.
On top of that I think that the "push" to do the "Big Race" is
far to prevelant in the communities. "You're not runner if you don't
do a marathon" Or "Your not triathlete if you don't do an IM"
mentality in many cases influences people to do races they probably
aren't prepared for.
So if someone comes to you and says "I plan on a marathon in
5:45" is it wrong of you to question their preparedness? Maybe even
try to talk them out of it? Maybe suggest a half? Or heavens forbid
suggest that they may not be cut out for a marathon at all?
I lead.
~Matt
>
>Mike Tennent
>"IronPenguin"
>
Mike Tennent
>>>What about training,
>
>Training should match the race.
Well, duh. <g>
That's sort of like saying the sky looks blue on nice days. Nothing to
discuss.
>
>>> actual
>>>running ability
>
> Lets face it some of us just don't have the genes to "RACE"
>certain distances. It has been shown in some studies that some of us
>don't get the same benefit from the same amount of training. In some
>rare cases almost no benefit at all.
Well, there's a little more meat to chew on.
While I may agree that some of us don't have genes to be competitive
at certain distances, I don't find that to be a compelling argument
for not doing a race.
>
>>> and goal times, should they ever impact whether a
>>>person should or should not do a race?
>
<snip>
> If goal time is well out of
>nominal range it would indicate to me that the athlete would be better
>suited to another race until they have either modified their training
>or their genes.
I pulled this out for emphasis, as this seems to be your main point.
What you're saying is that I shouldn't enter a race and test my
particular (though limited) skills in a particular race situation
because I'm going to finish in the bottom third or so.
In the Jacksonville Sprint in June, I was 8th out of 11 in my age
group. Bottom third. Does that mean I shouldn't have done it? I've
done 6 Ironmans, but I shouldn't do a local sprint tri because my goal
time is out of your "nominal range?" Was I that woefully undertrained
that I endangered myself?
I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
position?
> Now with that being said I would say that under few rare
>circumstances should someone keep someone else from doing a race. But
>as the distance and difficulty of the race increases so does the
>danger of being improperly trained. I have no numbers to back this up
>so it is a PFA but I would suspect deaths from running 5Ks due to lack
>of training(not including those that would probably died tomorow from
>a heart attack anyway) are significantly lower percentage wise than
>marathons for the same reason.
You may be right, but I'll bet there are some deaths after 5K's. You
won't see them on the news, though, because they aren't in a marathon.
> On top of that I think that the "push" to do the "Big Race" is
>far to prevelant in the communities. "You're not runner if you don't
>do a marathon" Or "Your not triathlete if you don't do an IM"
>mentality in many cases influences people to do races they probably
>aren't prepared for.
Agreed. So does the notion of doing it for charity.
> So if someone comes to you and says "I plan on a marathon in
>5:45" is it wrong of you to question their preparedness? Maybe even
>try to talk them out of it? Maybe suggest a half? Or heavens forbid
>suggest that they may not be cut out for a marathon at all?
>
If I based my response ONLY on the time goal, yes, I'd be wrong. There
are other factors that are actual indicators.
If that person is out there slogging away, albeit slowly, building
their mileage consistently, working up to 3 and 4 hour runs, then I
have no reason to doubt their ability to finish in that time frame
without undue concern.
On the other hand, if they're just doing 1 hour runs or less, it's not
a good sign.
But who are you or I to question them? In this very thread, I was
criticized for saying I think a person should be running for two years
before doing a marathon. Jim Goddard pointed out that he ran his first
in less than a year, in a respectable 3:45.
If he had asked you beforehand if an overweight guy who had just quit
smoking should run a marathon in a year, I'd lay odds you would have
said no.
But you'd be wrong. What makes you think you're right about all those
other folks?
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Brian Wagner
>
> While I may agree that some of us don't have genes to be competitive
> at certain distances, I don't find that to be a compelling argument
> for not doing a race.
Well, then, why call it a race? Why not let people enter Yugo's in the
Indy 500?
> What you're saying is that I shouldn't enter a race and test my
> particular (though limited) skills in a particular race situation
> because I'm going to finish in the bottom third or so.
No, he's saying there's a point at which the risk of personal injury is
too great to justify it.
> I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
> position?
What would they be? That you want to? That it makes you feel good?
> But who are you or I to question them? In this very thread, I was
> criticized for saying I think a person should be running for two years
> before doing a marathon. Jim Goddard pointed out that he ran his first
> in less than a year, in a respectable 3:45.
>
> If he had asked you beforehand if an overweight guy who had just quit
> smoking should run a marathon in a year, I'd lay odds you would have
> said no.
>
> But you'd be wrong. What makes you think you're right about all those
> other folks?
Because they're not turning out 3:45 times? Did Mr. Goddard mention his
PLANNED finish time?
Iron Pete
>group. Bottom third. Does that mean I shouldn't have done it? I've
>done 6 Ironmans, but I shouldn't do a local sprint tri because my goal
>time is out of your "nominal range?" Was I that woefully undertrained
>that I endangered myself?
This is an "apples and oranges" subject. A person like Mike who has done
fitness over the years isn't what I call "undertrained". He is certainly fit to
do these races and shouldn't be put in the same class as those who have just
started training after years of neglect to their health.
To give you an example, if a person who just put in 9 months of training after
being sedentary for most of his life finishes faster than someone like Mike
here in a marathon, I would have still advised against the former person and
would have given the thumbs up to Mike anyway. I still would consider the
former runner a much higher risk for health complications during the race.
Again, it's risk management talking and is also my sincere opinion. Love it or
leave it. :-)
Brian Wagner
>
> To give you an example, if a person who just put in 9 months of training after
> being sedentary for most of his life finishes faster than someone like Mike
> here in a marathon, I would have still advised against the former person and
> would have given the thumbs up to Mike anyway. I still would consider the
> former runner a much higher risk for health complications during the race.
Not so much out of increased risk as increased unknowns. You have
Mike's past completions as evidence that he does not have any "certain
to kill him if he races" contraindications.
Jason O'Rourke
>> What you're saying is that I shouldn't enter a race and test my
>> particular (though limited) skills in a particular race situation
>> because I'm going to finish in the bottom third or so.
>
>No, he's saying there's a point at which the risk of personal injury is
>too great to justify it.
Being slow is not an injury risk.
>> I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
>> position?
>
>What would they be? That you want to? That it makes you feel good?
If it doesn't make you feel good, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
This is a recreational activity.
Iron Pete
>Mike's past completions as evidence that he does not have any "certain
>to kill him if he races" contraindications.
That is a factor yes. The marathon is one of the ultimate "stress tests" that
can determine if a person has a pre-existing condition. Of course, failing it
can be fatal...
Experience is another factor. I would love to see Ironman "wanna-bes" do at
least one half-Ironman before embarking on the iron distance so that they know
a little about how long these races usually are.
There is a long term factor in this though. On several possibilities, I might
consider Mike in an Ironman coming in around 15 hours more fit than a first
time Ironman with only several months of lifetime training under the belt
coming in at 13 hours. Marathons are the same way. Genetics can play a big part
over fitness in some instances. Mike has done this for years, so I know that he
is a very fit man, despite what people here call coming in "slow".
Brian Wagner
>
> Being slow is not an injury risk.
No, but it can be an indicator of inadequate fitness which is a health
risk.
> If it doesn't make you feel good, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
That would be the perspective from the Bay Area.
JJ Waguespack
Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
>
>>>What you're saying is that I shouldn't enter a race and test my
>>>particular (though limited) skills in a particular race situation
>>>because I'm going to finish in the bottom third or so.
>>>
>>No, he's saying there's a point at which the risk of personal injury is
>>too great to justify it.
>>
>
> Being slow is not an injury risk.
Not necessarily, a recent article I read suggests that the risk of
hyponatremia is much greater in slow runners than in faster runners.
It's much harder for a 3:30 runner to put down enough fluids without
throwing up to cause that problem than a 5:30 runner who's stopping and
walking through every water station. It's also easier to stomach more
fluid when your running a slower pace.
JJ
Brian Wagner
>
> There is a long term factor in this though. On several possibilities, I might
> consider Mike in an Ironman coming in around 15 hours more fit than a first
> time Ironman with only several months of lifetime training under the belt
> coming in at 13 hours. Marathons are the same way. Genetics can play a big part
> over fitness in some instances. Mike has done this for years, so I know that he
> is a very fit man,
Or just has a strong constitution and high pain threshold.
Jason O'Rourke
>> Being slow is not an injury risk.
>
>Not necessarily, a recent article I read suggests that the risk of
>hyponatremia is much greater in slow runners than in faster runners.
>It's much harder for a 3:30 runner to put down enough fluids without
>throwing up to cause that problem than a 5:30 runner who's stopping and
>walking through every water station. It's also easier to stomach more
>fluid when your running a slower pace.
So as you say, that risk has absolutely nothing to do with being slow,
but instead with inappropriate hydration. It would also be an issue only
with the ones that drink water instead of any of the sports drinks.
Jason O'Rourke
>> If it doesn't make you feel good, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
>
>That would be the perspective from the Bay Area.
hopefully that would be the perspective anywhere, when talking about a
voluntary recreational activity. If not, get a life quick.
Armin
As for deciding whether or not it is safe to attempt a marathon, IM race or
a sprint tri for that matter, I think common sense (and standard advice)
says to go visit your family physician and ask him. Taking advice from
"experts" on an internet newsgroup is suspect at best and downright
dangerous in many cases.
Also, keep in mind there are no guarantees as to the safety of doing a
race... no matter how long you've been doing it and how fit you are. Just
remember Jim Fixx.
Armin
MJuric
<iron...@darientel.net> wrote:
>MJuric wrote:
>
>>>>What about training,
>>
>>Training should match the race.
>
>Well, duh. <g>
>
>That's sort of like saying the sky looks blue on nice days. Nothing to
>discuss.
>
>>
>>>> actual
>>>>running ability
>>
>> Lets face it some of us just don't have the genes to "RACE"
>>certain distances. It has been shown in some studies that some of us
>>don't get the same benefit from the same amount of training. In some
>>rare cases almost no benefit at all.
>
>Well, there's a little more meat to chew on.
>
>While I may agree that some of us don't have genes to be competitive
>at certain distances, I don't find that to be a compelling argument
>for not doing a race.
I find it to be a fairly good reason on the fact that if I'm
genetically unable to run a marathon/IM safely I shouldn't do it.
>
>>
>>>> and goal times, should they ever impact whether a
>>>>person should or should not do a race?
>>
><snip>
>
>> If goal time is well out of
>>nominal range it would indicate to me that the athlete would be better
>>suited to another race until they have either modified their training
>>or their genes.
>
>I pulled this out for emphasis, as this seems to be your main point.
>
>What you're saying is that I shouldn't enter a race and test my
>particular (though limited) skills in a particular race situation
>because I'm going to finish in the bottom third or so.
No I'm not really saying that. I'm saying if you finish a particular
race well outside of the bell curve there may be an issue. Finishing
place is a comparison to others in the race. If you finish last but it
was close race thats fine. If you finish last and your 5 hours behind
the next guy who finished 2 minutes behind the guy in front of him I
think there is an issue. Particularly when the average race time was 5
hrs. Of course I'm exaguarating but I hope it illistrates my point.
>
>In the Jacksonville Sprint in June, I was 8th out of 11 in my age
>group. Bottom third. Does that mean I shouldn't have done it? I've
>done 6 Ironmans, but I shouldn't do a local sprint tri because my goal
>time is out of your "nominal range?" Was I that woefully undertrained
>that I endangered myself?
>
> I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
>position?
Mike I'm really trying to make this not about you. On an
individual basis I really cannot state whether an individual should or
shouldn't make such a descion whithout having many more facts than we
have time to share here. I'm trying to keep the idea a little more
global.
On that point however I would be less likely to advise someone
not to do a sprint distance than a IM.
>
>> Now with that being said I would say that under few rare
>>circumstances should someone keep someone else from doing a race. But
>>as the distance and difficulty of the race increases so does the
>>danger of being improperly trained. I have no numbers to back this up
>>so it is a PFA but I would suspect deaths from running 5Ks due to lack
>>of training(not including those that would probably died tomorow from
>>a heart attack anyway) are significantly lower percentage wise than
>>marathons for the same reason.
>
>You may be right, but I'll bet there are some deaths after 5K's. You
>won't see them on the news, though, because they aren't in a marathon.
I would suspect that there are probably ALOT of deaths because of
5K's. However on a percentage basis I think they are less than
marathons etc simply because the length of the race does not allow for
a complete breakdown of the system. OTOH I would think alot of people
go do a balls out 5K with little or no training and end up having a
grabber.
>
>
>> On top of that I think that the "push" to do the "Big Race" is
>>far to prevelant in the communities. "You're not runner if you don't
>>do a marathon" Or "Your not triathlete if you don't do an IM"
>>mentality in many cases influences people to do races they probably
>>aren't prepared for.
>
>Agreed. So does the notion of doing it for charity.
>
>> So if someone comes to you and says "I plan on a marathon in
>>5:45" is it wrong of you to question their preparedness? Maybe even
>>try to talk them out of it? Maybe suggest a half? Or heavens forbid
>>suggest that they may not be cut out for a marathon at all?
>>
>
>If I based my response ONLY on the time goal, yes, I'd be wrong. There
>are other factors that are actual indicators.
I agree that there are many other factors. However I also
believe it has become "acceptable" to go out and finish in any time. I
believe coupled with the community presssure this helps get people in
over there head.
>
>If that person is out there slogging away, albeit slowly, building
>their mileage consistently, working up to 3 and 4 hour runs, then I
>have no reason to doubt their ability to finish in that time frame
>without undue concern.
>
>On the other hand, if they're just doing 1 hour runs or less, it's not
>a good sign.
>
>But who are you or I to question them?
Obviously you have a significant amount of experiance. I would suggest
that that experiance is worth something. That is who you are to
question them. There is nothing wrong with questioning, reccommending
or even judging and criticizing. Hopefully these actions will help the
community rather than harm it. Maybe someday you may question the
right person and save them from injury or even worse.
> In this very thread, I was
>criticized for saying I think a person should be running for two years
>before doing a marathon.
That wasn't me.
> Jim Goddard pointed out that he ran his first
>in less than a year, in a respectable 3:45.
>
>If he had asked you beforehand if an overweight guy who had just quit
>smoking should run a marathon in a year, I'd lay odds you would have
>said no.
Yes definately. Even knowing his success I still would reccomend he
take longer. But thats me.
>
>But you'd be wrong. What makes you think you're right about all those
>other folks?
I don't think I would have been wrong. What harm would have
came to Jim if he would have taken to years to train? Granted there
are those people that can make significant gains in short periods of
time. It may kill others however. What would be wrong with
recommending someone take a little more time and getting a little
faster or stronger?
~Matt
>
>Mike Tennent
>"IronPenguin"
>
Brian Wagner
It's not necessarily recreational. For some, it's health maintenance.
For Steamer, it's a Jihad.
Jason O'Rourke
>Also, keep in mind there are no guarantees as to the safety of doing a
>race... no matter how long you've been doing it and how fit you are. Just
>remember Jim Fixx.
He is evidence that you can do everything right, and still end up dead
before your time. The moral: do what you want, when you want to, and fuck
those who tell you to take a 5 year journey first. There may not even
be a next year.
Jason O'Rourke
>> hopefully that would be the perspective anywhere, when talking about a
>> voluntary recreational activity. If not, get a life quick.
>
>It's not necessarily recreational. For some, it's health maintenance.
>For Steamer, it's a Jihad.
If we're talking marathons, it's always recreational. It's about twice
the distance that can be justified for health reasons. No matter how
fit you are, this is a distance that is unhealthful.
JJ Waguespack
Jason O'Rourke wrote:
> JJ Waguespack <j...@pem-usa.com> wrote:
>
>>>Being slow is not an injury risk.
>>>
>>Not necessarily, a recent article I read suggests that the risk of
>>hyponatremia is much greater in slow runners than in faster runners.
>>It's much harder for a 3:30 runner to put down enough fluids without
>>throwing up to cause that problem than a 5:30 runner who's stopping and
>>walking through every water station. It's also easier to stomach more
>>fluid when your running a slower pace.
>>
>
> So as you say, that risk has absolutely nothing to do with being slow,
> but instead with inappropriate hydration.
Only that by being slow the opportunity to hydrate inappropriately is
much greater. I'd bet that it's virtually impossible for a 2:30
marathoner to suffer from hyponatremia. I guess you could spin a
scenario where it could happen but it would be pretty far fetched.
It would also be an issue only
> with the ones that drink water instead of any of the sports drinks.
>
It would probably depend on the length of the activity and how dilute the sports drinks were. I'm sure you could pose a case where you could wash the salts out of your system drinking only dilute sports drink.
JJ
Brian Wagner
>
> If we're talking marathons, it's always recreational. It's about twice
> the distance that can be justified for health reasons. No matter how
> fit you are, this is a distance that is unhealthful.
That doesn't address Steamer, and a marathon is a healthy thing to do if
it's the only way to motivate you to get out and run regularly.
Armin
My sentiments exactly !
Armin
Mike Tennent
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:10:37 -0500, Mike Tennent
><iron...@darientel.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>While I may agree that some of us don't have genes to be competitive
>>at certain distances, I don't find that to be a compelling argument
>>for not doing a race.
>
> I find it to be a fairly good reason on the fact that if I'm
>genetically unable to run a marathon/IM safely I shouldn't do it.
So you're saying that it's possible for a person to know their
physical limits? They can know that if they try to train or race
beyond a certain level, they can't do it safely?
I agree. Which is why I said just last week that I know with certainty
that I can't bike @ 20 mph for 112 miles.
If I recall correctly, you (and others) took exception to that. So
which is it? Can we know our own limitations or not?
<snip>
>>
>>In the Jacksonville Sprint in June, I was 8th out of 11 in my age
>>group. Bottom third. Does that mean I shouldn't have done it? I've
>>done 6 Ironmans, but I shouldn't do a local sprint tri because my goal
>>time is out of your "nominal range?" Was I that woefully undertrained
>>that I endangered myself?
>>
>> I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
>>position?
>
> Mike I'm really trying to make this not about you.
Neither am I, but I can only speak with certainty about myself, so
that's the example I have to use.
>On an
>individual basis I really cannot state whether an individual should or
>shouldn't make such a descion whithout having many more facts than we
>have time to share here. I'm trying to keep the idea a little more
>global.
But that's my point - you wish to make global statements about folk's
fitness or suitability to do a race using limited criteria and with
no specific knowledge of them.
We're individuals and there are myriad factors involved. The fact that
I, at this particular point in time, could probably only manage a 5
hour marathon (my PR is 3:47) really says nothing about my fitness,
does it?
The fact that I just did two IM's in 3 months MIGHT be a factor,
right? As would any number of other factors for other folks.
<snip>
>>But who are you or I to question them?
>
>Obviously you have a significant amount of experiance. I would suggest
>that that experiance is worth something. That is who you are to
>question them. There is nothing wrong with questioning, reccommending
>or even judging and criticizing. Hopefully these actions will help the
>community rather than harm it. Maybe someday you may question the
>right person and save them from injury or even worse.
But now you're talking about working with individuals who you know. I
have no problem with that.
I have a problem with universal statements such as someone who can't
do a 5 hour marathon or a 5:45 marathon shouldn't do one and/or is
endangering themselves. That kind of universal statement is BS. There
are just too many exceptions.
>
>> In this very thread, I was
>>criticized for saying I think a person should be running for two years
>>before doing a marathon.
>
>That wasn't me.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was.
>
>> Jim Goddard pointed out that he ran his first
>>in less than a year, in a respectable 3:45.
>>
>>If he had asked you beforehand if an overweight guy who had just quit
>>smoking should run a marathon in a year, I'd lay odds you would have
>>said no.
>
>Yes definately. Even knowing his success I still would reccomend he
>take longer. But thats me.
>
>>
>>But you'd be wrong. What makes you think you're right about all those
>>other folks?
>
> I don't think I would have been wrong. What harm would have
>came to Jim if he would have taken two years to train?
None, as far as I'm concerned. Funny how you can say it and not raise
anyone's ire, though. <g>
>Granted there
>are those people that can make significant gains in short periods of
>time.
That is IronPete's point. When you work with individuals, you can make
those judgements. Jim might be one of those folks that Pete would OK
for an early marathon based on his progress.
>It may kill others however. What would be wrong with
>recommending someone take a little more time and getting a little
>faster or stronger?
>
Nothing wrong with that. That's what I usually recommend.
But that's not the same as a universal statement that no-one should do
a marathon if they can't finish within 5 hours or some theoretical
nominal bell shaped curve, is it? That doesn't leave any room for
individual differences and circumstances.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Mike Tennent
>Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
>>
>>What would they be? That you want to? That it makes you feel good?
>
Why, yes.
Here's a challenge: List all those reasons that we do triathlons that
are glorious, noble, altruistic, benefit mankind, make a better world,
etc.
I can only think of one: Charity races.
That's about it. The rest are personal reasons that benefit no-one but
ourselves: personal satisfaction and achievement, self-confidence,
personal fitness, etc.
We spend thousands of dollars on equipment, pay hundreds a year to
enter races, train constantly instead of sending time with family,
just so that we can do a race which only has meaning, value and
benefit to us personally. It's the ultimate selfish act.
And I have no problem with that. We need to do things only for
ourselves occasionally.
Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Brian Wagner
>
> I agree. Which is why I said just last week that I know with certainty
> that I can't bike @ 20 mph for 112 miles.
>
These two figures seem to conflict. If your body can stand the
punishment of a 3:47 marathon, then you should be able to handle the
pedaling easily.
> I have a problem with universal statements such as someone who can't
> do a 5 hour marathon or a 5:45 marathon shouldn't do one and/or is
> endangering themselves. That kind of universal statement is BS. There
> are just too many exceptions.
Not necessarily. Someone who completes a 5:45 marathon without incident
is not an exception to the claim that such people are endangering
themselves, any more than the anecdotal 75 year old who's smoked a pack
a day since the age of 16 is an exception to the fact that smoking is
hazardous to your health. People beat the odds every day, but that
doesn't mean it's a smart way to bet.
> > I don't think I would have been wrong. What harm would have
> >came to Jim if he would have taken two years to train?
>
> None, as far as I'm concerned. Funny how you can say it and not raise
> anyone's ire, though. <g>
OK, then, what harm would come to someone who never gets to complete a
marathon because of a cutoff?
All this emphasis on inclusiveness seems misplaced unless exclusion is
some kind of gross injustice.
Brian Wagner
>
> Here's a challenge: List all those reasons that we do triathlons that
> are glorious, noble, altruistic, benefit mankind, make a better world,
> etc.
Simple - I do it as a way to motivate myself to stay in shape, so I
don't become yet another burden to the health care system, and so, if
some disaster occurs, I won't be useless due to lack of fitness.
Brian Wagner
>
> >Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
> >>What would they be? That you want to? That it makes you feel good?
> >
>
> Why, yes.
>
pragmatic considerations against doing it. There are many things I
might want to do, that might make me feel good, but principles deter me.
Jason O'Rourke
>Not necessarily. Someone who completes a 5:45 marathon without incident
>is not an exception to the claim that such people are endangering
>themselves, any more than the anecdotal 75 year old who's smoked a pack
>a day since the age of 16 is an exception to the fact that smoking is
nope.
The people who set out to do a planned 6hr marathon on the Galloway program
are at far lower risk than the first timer that sets out to go 4:30. The
entire focus of his run-walk routine is that it nearly guarantees a finish
at the expense of getting the best time possible for the individual. This
death was the first for AIDS Marathon in 7 years, and most of their
participants are not running under 5.
All you accomplish with the 5 hr cutoff is the elimination of the first
timers using these methods - ie, most of the charity group runners.
Probably not prudent for a RD, and just plain silly in any event.
Brian Wagner
>
> Brian Wagner <brian....@cle.philips.com> wrote:
> >Not necessarily. Someone who completes a 5:45 marathon without incident
> >is not an exception to the claim that such people are endangering
> >themselves, any more than the anecdotal 75 year old who's smoked a pack
> >a day since the age of 16 is an exception to the fact that smoking is
>
> nope.
Uh, yes. We can debate all day whether or not someone planning a 5:45
is endangering their health, and there may be many valid items in
support of either side, but the fact that people complete 5:45 marathons
without incident is not one of them.
> The people who set out to do a planned 6hr marathon on the Galloway program
> are at far lower risk than the first timer that sets out to go 4:30.
Just because you say so?
> The
> entire focus of his run-walk routine is that it nearly guarantees a finish
> at the expense of getting the best time possible for the individual.
So does walking, both in complete denial of the fact that it's a race.
> All you accomplish with the 5 hr cutoff is the elimination of the first
> timers using these methods - ie, most of the charity group runners.
In my book, that wouldn't be a bad thing, but I've already said that I
think a 5 hour cutoff is cutting it too close.
> Probably not prudent for a RD, and just plain silly in any event.
Not at all. Depends on what the RD's goals are.
Jason O'Rourke
>> The people who set out to do a planned 6hr marathon on the Galloway program
>> are at far lower risk than the first timer that sets out to go 4:30.
>
>Just because you say so?
It's a given that walking is easier on the body than running. It's nearly
a given that running 26 miles is abusive to the body. Galloway asserts,
and there's good reason to side with him, that interjecting frequent
walking breaks reduces the risk of leg injuries. Those walk breaks also
keep the heart rate down, and other factors that lead to flameout.
In short, it's past the point where you need to establish the opposite.
>> entire focus of his run-walk routine is that it nearly guarantees a finish
>> at the expense of getting the best time possible for the individual.
>
>So does walking, both in complete denial of the fact that it's a race.
the point of his program is to finish, period. After the first one, you
go for time.
And which point are you going to argue? That run/walking has a higher
potential for injury, or that it's not racing?
>> Probably not prudent for a RD, and just plain silly in any event.
>
>Not at all. Depends on what the RD's goals are.
Not losing 10,000 participants might be one of them.
Jill
Though Jim Fixx had a horrible family history or early disease, which
likely was the biggest factor in his early death. Kind of like
baseball player Darryl Kile.
MJuric
<iron...@darientel.net> wrote:
>MJuric wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:10:37 -0500, Mike Tennent
>><iron...@darientel.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>While I may agree that some of us don't have genes to be competitive
>>>at certain distances, I don't find that to be a compelling argument
>>>for not doing a race.
>>
>> I find it to be a fairly good reason on the fact that if I'm
>>genetically unable to run a marathon/IM safely I shouldn't do it.
>
>So you're saying that it's possible for a person to know their
>physical limits? They can know that if they try to train or race
>beyond a certain level, they can't do it safely?
Not only do I think that you can know your limits I think that
is part of the danger of competing too soon. It is difficult to safely
find these limits in 4 months. More than likely you won't find them
which means you have a greater possibilty of finding them tradgicly
>
>I agree. Which is why I said just last week that I know with certainty
>that I can't bike @ 20 mph for 112 miles.
>
>If I recall correctly, you (and others) took exception to that. So
>which is it? Can we know our own limitations or not?
I'll have to look back at the thread. But I beleive my argument was
more towards the idea that you can always improve. You may not be able
to do 20MPH but you can go faster.
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>
>>>In the Jacksonville Sprint in June, I was 8th out of 11 in my age
>>>group. Bottom third. Does that mean I shouldn't have done it? I've
>>>done 6 Ironmans, but I shouldn't do a local sprint tri because my goal
>>>time is out of your "nominal range?" Was I that woefully undertrained
>>>that I endangered myself?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Maybe there are better indicators than finishing
>>>position?
>>
>> Mike I'm really trying to make this not about you.
>
>Neither am I, but I can only speak with certainty about myself, so
>that's the example I have to use.
If it is about you I can't say whether you can or can't run a
marathon. I don't know you well enough. Assuming that you have done
several IM's marathons etc. I would hope that even if you do run a
5:45 you would know your limits.
>
>>On an
>>individual basis I really cannot state whether an individual should or
>>shouldn't make such a descion whithout having many more facts than we
>>have time to share here. I'm trying to keep the idea a little more
>>global.
>
>
>But that's my point - you wish to make global statements about folk's
>fitness or suitability to do a race using limited criteria and with
>no specific knowledge of them.
Without a doubt goal time for a race is reflective of ones
fitness or suitability to do a race. If an individuals goal time is
significantly less than average then thay are significantly less
suited to due the race. Assuming that this individual is racing and
not going intentionally slower than his/her abilities. Then this
individual is either not trained to the average or not genetically
capable to the average.
That being said I personally feel that if I knew only the goal
finishing time of an individual that a 5:45 marathon would cause more
concern for the individuals safety than if their goal time was 2:30
for any myriad of reasons.
However to determine whether or not the 5:45 individual should
or shouldn't run the race takes much more information and probably
personal contact and experiance with that individual.
>
>We're individuals and there are myriad factors involved. The fact that
>I, at this particular point in time, could probably only manage a 5
>hour marathon (my PR is 3:47) really says nothing about my fitness,
>does it?
It absolutely says something about your fitness. Assuming that
your 5hr is age adjusted and is significantly slower than your 3:47 it
says your are less fit than you were at the time you ran a 3:47. This
is also disreguarding race conditions course etc.
>
>The fact that I just did two IM's in 3 months MIGHT be a factor,
>right? As would any number of other factors for other folks.
Of course I wouldn't suspect that you would run a marathon the
day after completing an IM. However in these discussion I'm assuming
we are all trying to be a little realistic and trimming a few of the
more fringe possibilities. My discussion is based on someone training
for and running "X" race.
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>But who are you or I to question them?
>>
>>Obviously you have a significant amount of experiance. I would suggest
>>that that experiance is worth something. That is who you are to
>>question them. There is nothing wrong with questioning, reccommending
>>or even judging and criticizing. Hopefully these actions will help the
>>community rather than harm it. Maybe someday you may question the
>>right person and save them from injury or even worse.
>
>
>But now you're talking about working with individuals who you know. I
>have no problem with that.
Thats my point. But I believe in general terms a much less
than average goal time is a trigger for helping or investigating into
helping that individual. If after further investigation you find out
the individual is woefull undertrained something should be said. If it
is a case of an indvidual just is not made to run marathon then mabey
extra precautions are in order.
>
>I have a problem with universal statements such as someone who can't
>do a 5 hour marathon or a 5:45 marathon shouldn't do one and/or is
>endangering themselves. That kind of universal statement is BS. There
>are just too many exceptions
I don't intend it as a universal statement. Simple as a
starting point. At some point as a person moves away from the norm
thier potential for putting themselves in danger goes up. And thus the
cause for concern.
I agree. I'm not for stopping anyone from doing anything. or
setting universal rulles. It has just been my experiance that a) most
of the individuals running very slow races (adjusted for age) are
generally newbies. b) alot of these people are undertrained and
underexperianced etc. c) the communities (running,triathlon) does very
little to convince these individuals to take their time and in most
cases encourages them to skip right up to the big time. The old "if
you can run 6 miles you should start traing for the marathon"
mentality.
Under these circumstances when someone says "I plan on running
a 5:45 marathon" it warrants a few questions.
~Matt
>
>
>Mike Tennent
>"IronPenguin"
>