Re: 42 k marathon

[Doesnotcompute]

R R wrote:
> I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he informed me that a
> true marathon is 42k.

What's that in miles? If it's 26 then your friend is correct.

> I couldn't believe it. I once ran what thought was a marathon, so it was
> called. It was only 10k or
> 6 miles. I trained for a month doing 5 miles a day and did it in 43 minutes
> at a very brisk running pace, no stoppage.

Well done - it's 5.5 miles more than I could run, however without
wanting to take away from your exellent achievement, 6 miles is known as
a "fun run". Not much fun if you ask me though!

> There were people on both sides
> of us sponging us down and cheering us on. It was incredible, but I was done
> after 10k. How do you train for a 42k marathon?

repeatedly for a long time.
A colleague did last years London marathon, he was training for months.
Running, gym'ing, playing golf - whatever he could do.

> My hats off to anyone who
> does this.

Indeed.

--
Dnc

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:
>
>
> > So, tedious spam but I found it interesting looking up the data.
>
> Another thing that's quite interesting (to me anyway) is the way the
> gap between the men's and women's world record is narrowing.
>
> In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes,
> which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men
> capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most
> sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top
> male competitors.
>
> People have speculated that for endurance sports like marathon running
> women should, in theory, be able to perform as well as as men... maybe
> this will actually happen in the not to distance future.

This is certainly getting close to happening in mountain marathons and
long distance fell/hill running. There are a couple of prominent women
runners who consistently place highly in mixed fields, sometimes as high
as second place with just a minute between them and the first place men.

Incidentally, are there any competitive cycling events which have mixed
fields?

Colin

[Dave Larrington]

Paul Rudin wrote:

> People have speculated that for endurance sports like marathon running
> women should, in theory, be able to perform as well as as men... maybe
> this will actually happen in the not to distance future.

Beryl Burton's performance in the National "12" in 1967? 'tis rumoured
that, on passing the leading male competitor, she leaned across and said "Eh
up, lad! Want a Dolly Mixture?" before continuing, to set a record which
still stands...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Peter Connolly]

> In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes,
> which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men
> capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most
> sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top
> male competitors.

But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must surely
hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)

Regards,

Pete.

[Ian Bates]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

>>> > In 1971 the gap was about half an hour; now it's under 10 minutes,
>>> > which still sounds like a lot - but there are not very many men
>>> > capable of running inside Paula Radcliffe's record. Whereas in most
>>> > sports the women's record is a long way outside the performance of top
>>> > male competitors.
>>>
>>> But of course, the original poster did it in 43 minutes, so he must
>>> surely
>>> hold the world record! (for cross-posting at least!)
>>
>>
>> He did say for a 10k.
>>
>> Anyone that can do 10k in 43 mins should not be particularly daunted by a
>> marathon, and with a little extra training could easily do it in a rather
>> respectable time.
>> ie a lot better than a 4hr20 that I'd want to do (if I wanted to do
>> one at
>> all).
>>
>>
>
> A man with a 43min 10k time should do a marathon in 3:22:50, a woman in
> 3:19:47. (Seconds are approx.)

A quick calculation of my own indicates this is not a linear
extrapolation of the initial data point, can you explain how you arrived
at these figures?

Ian.

(An interested marathon runner who has only run half marathons who
understand linear extrapolations are flawed in this context, and would
like to know the fudge factor to calculate a full marathon time)...

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:13:35 +0100, Colin Blackburn
> wrote:


>This is certainly getting close to happening in mountain marathons and
>long distance fell/hill running. There are a couple of prominent women
>runners who consistently place highly in mixed fields, sometimes as high
>as second place with just a minute between them and the first place men.
>
>Incidentally, are there any competitive cycling events which have mixed
>fields?

Loads. It's quite common in road racing in Britain for the women to
join the 3rd or 4th cat male fields. Time trials also commonly have
mixed fields. Women also compete in ultra-distance events such as the
Race Across America where theoretically they should perform best
against men.

--
Dave...

[Dave Kahn]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:19:07 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> wrote:

>Give me your times (by email if you prefer) and I'll give you the
>predictions. Bear in mind that you have to do the training programme for
>the event to stand a chance of meeting the prediction.

Damn! There's always a catch somewhere!

--
Dave...

[[email protected]]

good luck in this marathon.