Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2013-12-15 8:20 PM in reply to: TriMyBest |
Canyon, Texas | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Originally posted by TriMyBest Other than agreeing that a stand alone marathon is of questionable value for someone with the goal of an IM, I'm going to ask a question. Why the rush to an IM only two years after coming off the couch? As a very general recommendation, and knowing nothing about you, I'd suggest getting at least one more year of endurance sports behind you before taking on the training load needed to have a good experience at the IM distance.
I have to agree... maybe complete a HIM before you even consider an IM? I applaud your enthusiasm but with only 3 months of activity after 15 years on the couch, the odds are stacked against you completing an IM within 2 years. Lord knows I endured many injuries my first two years of training and I wasn't even thinking about an Ironman. Either way, I wish you the best! |
|
2013-12-16 8:23 PM in reply to: Donto |
Veteran 2297 Great White North | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Originally posted by Donto Personally I'd do a HIM first at the end of the season as you'll be tri training all summer. I know people that have done a IM without running a stand alone Marathon beforehand. Did IM Whistler this year having never done a marathon beforehand. I melted a tad in the run but running a marathon would have made zero difference. A few extra 25-30 km training runs (2-3) would have along with a few more 150km rides. That said I can live with an 11:28 IM time if I never do another. |
2013-12-17 10:30 AM in reply to: simpsonbo |
81 | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Originally posted by simpsonbo Originally posted by Donto Personally I'd do a HIM first at the end of the season as you'll be tri training all summer. I know people that have done a IM without running a stand alone Marathon beforehand. Did IM Whistler this year having never done a marathon beforehand. I melted a tad in the run but running a marathon would have made zero difference. A few extra 25-30 km training runs (2-3) would have along with a few more 150km rides. That said I can live with an 11:28 IM time if I never do another. 11:28 is a pretty rockin' good first IM I think. I'd follow his advice since he's probably faster than I'll ever be. But, a marathon hurts like almost nothing else if you're actually racing it (vs. just finishing it). If you want to psychologically acclimate yourself to pain, I'd do the marathon. But, if your pain goes from hurt to injury, you've just destroyed the next few months of training. I'm going to go against the wisdom here and say: If your long-term goal is an IM in two years, then it's very helpful to endure pain now so it doesn't slow you down later. And, nothing hurts like the marathon. |
2013-12-17 10:39 AM in reply to: adelsud |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Originally posted by adelsud I'd follow his advice since he's probably faster than I'll ever be. But, a marathon hurts like almost nothing else if you're actually racing it (vs. just finishing it). If you want to psychologically acclimate yourself to pain, I'd do the marathon. But, if your pain goes from hurt to injury, you've just destroyed the next few months of training. I'm going to go against the wisdom here and say: If your long-term goal is an IM in two years, then it's very helpful to endure pain now so it doesn't slow you down later. And, nothing hurts like the marathon. One could argue that really racing a HIM would result in similar pain. No doubt the recovery of a M is longer. But in the moment of a race, a HIM can hurt pretty bad. |
2013-12-17 12:00 PM in reply to: marcag |
81 | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Hell, A sprint Triathlon hurts in the moment. I've run a 50k trail race and I'm still gassed at the end of a Sprint. I'm actually gassed at the end of a 100m sprint when I'm doing track work. There's a point, though, in a long distance running event where your body starts trying to convince your brain it's injured. It's a psychological game where you tell your body to shut the hell up and eventually it does. But, I think the Marathon is where that really starts to happen. But, I've never done an HIM. A previous poster said: Ask a runner and they'll tell you Marathon. Post on a Triathlete board and you'll get the Triathlon. There is a psychological value - I believe - in knowing the marathon won't actually hurt you. Otherwise, I'd expect it to be this massive, looming, edifice staring at your all 5 hours of the bike ride. |
2013-12-17 12:08 PM in reply to: Dnn |
Extreme Veteran 1001 Highlands Ranch, Colorado | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? Originally posted by Dnn I'd say training for a HIM is harder. A marathon race is harder than a HIM race. Also, at least for me, the recovery after a HIM is much quicker than after a Marathon. After last year's HIM I was back to normal in 4-5 days while it usually takes me about two weeks to get up to speed after a Marathon. Based upon this I would do the Marathon first then start training for a HIM after a week or two. |
|
2013-12-17 1:03 PM in reply to: simobk |
21 | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? You have to decide what your motivation for doing each of the events is. You don't need to complete a marathon to do an IM. In many ways a hard marathon might take more out of you than an IM will. If a marathon is something you want to accomplish though, definitely go for it. You'd want to place a significant amount of time between your marathon and your IM though since the recover involved with the marathon is going to take away from your ability to train after it. A HIM placed during your IM buildup can be a great idea as it giver your an opportunity to work on race day nutrition and won't take away from your training significantly. Above all though, make sure you are doing what you enjoy. It's too easy to get wrapped up in trying to put together a perfect race schedule. Sometimes you just have to go for what you want. |
2013-12-18 4:35 PM in reply to: travis_lt |
Champion 5312 Calgary | Subject: RE: Marathon or Half IM, what comes first? 1. Training for a marathon is way way way way harder on your body than training for a HIM. 2. Racing a marathon is way harder on your body than racing a HIM. 3. You are much more likely to get injured training for a marathon than a HIM. 4. There is no need to do either a HIM or a Marathon prior to completing a IM. 5. Given the choice between the person who did OK on the Marathon and the person who did OK at the HIM, given otherwise equivalent triathlon training my money would be on the guy who did the Marathon. 6. Completing an IM is easier and less taxing on the body than racing a Marathon. 7. Simply completing a marathon does not help you regarding your IM. If you could handle the hard training required to really go out and race a marathon, then I say go with the marathon. I doubt anyone just a couple of months into running can handle that. Therefore I say go with the HIM. |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|