Charity and marathons: As charity runs increase in popularity, ...

You won't know how tough running a marathon is until you actually run a marathon. But, you may get a good picture of it if you hang out at mile 23, and wait for the 4 and 5 hour marathoners to pass. I'm all for opening up races to more runners (charity runners included)- but being able to run 6 miles before starting training for this distance is a good idea.

what a waste of time. i guess life has become to easy. we need to run 26 miles for kicks. weird. if you want to do good there are other ways to help. Narcastic.

da truth wrote:

what a waste of time. i guess life has become to easy. we need to run 26 miles for kicks. weird. if you want to do good there are other ways to help. Narcastic.

yeah, improving one's physical fitness AND doing something to help the community at the same time--what an idiotic idea!

98 percent of the population can't run a mile, let alone 6, let alone 26.2. It's not the actual day of the race that's so grueling, it's the weeks and weeks of training that most people can't handle.

These charity programs are fine but the article is correct in that they're hooking in people who have NO CONCEPT what it takes to run a marathon. It's not for the faint-hearted and it's not for people who aren't afraid to suffer.

train?

pssh, you don't train for a marathon, you just run it.
Here's how you run a marathon...
Step 1: You start running.
There is no Step 2.

Is averaging 17 minutes per mile really considered a "run? Let's call it what it is, a walkathon.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but if we where to stay true to the origional Marathon, all the participants should run as fast as they can, and until they die. Which is why I thought the 2007 Chicago Marathon was the best one yet. Only problem was they ended it early.

Barney,

What??

Anyone who has trained all summer for the Chicago Marathon on the lakefront knows that these charity programs are out there, training their runners every single weekend, too.

There is a common misperception that this article compounds that these runners are not well-trained. That's simply not true.

Yes, like the general running population, some don't do all their training. But many of them train just as hard, if not LONGER than most CARA runners.

Also, most 'slow' runners and walkers who just look to complete a marathon don't run Chicago - because it's well-known that the race has a strict tme limit. Perhaps if you'd interviewed some experienced slower and charity runners, you'd know they go where they are wanted - not Chicago.

I'm all for anyone doing a marathon. As it did with me, it was a life changing experience and that was four marathons and 5 halfs ago. However, 17 mins a mile is really not running. While there is nobility in finishing a full marathon, I'm not sure what it accomplishes to walk it. At some point, you need to actually "run." Yes, it's all relative to the particular runner, why you're doing it, you're life story, etc. Perhaps some people should start slow and work their way up first.

As a marathon runner who completed 4 in Chicago, I am so done with them. If I can't park my car for free like every other year, forget it. And 45,000 people? No thanks. So glad I'm doing one OUTSIDE of Chicago this year. I'm taking my tourism dollars to Toronto! If I want to raise money or give some to a charity, I would rather commit time or give money to the organization directly.

This article confuses the central point. You don't have to meet some sort of time standard to enter the Chicago Marathon (it's not Boston). Therefore, there are all sorts of 5,6,7 hour marathoners signing up even without charities. I've never seen anything that suggests that your average charity runner is better or worse than your average open field runner.

If the issue is slow marathoners, then Chicago should enter a time requirement. If the issue is slow charity runners, then the article should back up their contention that charity runners are slower or more ill-prepared.

Monkey wrote:

98 percent of the population can't run a mile, let alone 6, let alone 26.2. It's not the actual day of the race that's so grueling, it's the weeks and weeks of training that most people can't handle.
These charity programs are fine but the article is correct in that they're hooking in people who have NO CONCEPT what it takes to run a marathon. It's not for the faint-hearted and it's not for people who aren't afraid to suffer.

I don't know about you, but no one has ever shoved a sign-up form for a marathon in my face. People have to go online or make a call or go to a location to sign up. The participant initiates the process and is fully responsible for making sure they are adequately prepared.

Monkey wrote:

While there is nobility in finishing a full marathon, I'm not sure what it accomplishes to walk it. At some point, you need to actually "run."

My, aren't we superior today? I'm training to walk a half-marathon for charity. Of course, I know better than to start with a full marathon and I also know better than to even think about participating in the Chicago marathon.

Have you even given a minute's thought to those people (like myself) who've been through surgery and have been told by their physicians that running is no longer in their future?

Belive me, I'd like to do nothing more than actually run a half-marathon or marathon. But I plan on keeping a 15-minute mile pace walking and finishing the half in 3:30, which is pretty damn decent, IMHO.

as long as everyone (charity runner or non-aligned runner) starts in accordance to their minutes per mile pace (real and not delusional), there shouldn't be any problems. the problem is when slower runners clog things up for runners who have a time goal in mind (and have trained accordingly for it) by starting too far up in the pack.

I trained with a non-charity program in 2007 and while they are about collecting the $$$s, the charity and non-charity programs are well-organized to take care of the slower and newer runners and do make an effort to ensure people are not doing more than they can manage.
I agree that it would be better to start with a half-marathon but there are precious few programs out there who are willing to train you to do one.
It should also be noted that Chicago is a popular charity destination because it is so flat, having run two marathons in decidedly less flat locations, I can understand the attraction!

I've run the last 10 Chicago Marathons as part of a charity. All my times (when fully healthy) have been in the 3:25-3:45 range except the last two hot ones. I'm a slightly above average runner (based on my age graded performances) who is trying to qualify for Boston. Every individual has to have their own goal, as far as their marathon time and also raising money for charity. Each person has to commit themselves to actually training for the event, or it's going to be a long, miserable day. The folks who finish in more than 6 hours should maybe consider another event. I'm not in favor of an actual time standard for Chicago similar ot Boston, but I do think to be able to compete in Chicago you must show proof of actually finishing a half marathon in a certain time (3:30 would be good).

Hey Walker,

I've done those marathons and halfs that I mentioned in the earlier post with a plate and six pins in my leg following surgery for a broken fibula so I know what you're talking about. I also had a PT who told me at the start of my rehab that she wasn't sure that I'd be able to run again.
However, I'm not feeling superior. I'm just saying that at some point there should be some "running" involved when you do a marathon. I'm certainly no Kenyan but 15/mins a mile is no really running.

I am so sick of the comparison or implication that charity runners are NOT REAL RUNNERS or ATHLETES! We put in the same amount of training that everyone else at that starting line does. The so-called running community is always trying to discredit the charity programs with their little digs and innuendos. Nobody in the Team in Training program is pulling the wool over your eyes to convince you to run a marathon (excuse me, jog/walk/trot, because you know, we don't actaully run) just to suck money out of you. There is no shame in a marathon time that I consider to be "middle of the pack" of 5-6 hours. I am tired of the snobbery in the marathon community. There is accomplishment in any marathon "finish". And yes, for most average runners, it is about just finishing. To do that is a testament to the months of training you've invested, for whatever reason. There is a place for everyone who wants to run a marathon.

Monkey wrote:

Hey Walker,
However, I'm not feeling superior. I'm just saying that at some point there should be some "running" involved when you do a marathon. I'm certainly no Kenyan but 15/mins a mile is no really running.

I never claimed that I was a runner of any type. However, I am taking issue with your claim that walkers should not participate in marathons. If a walker (or slower runner) stays at their proper place in the pack, what's it to you if they participate?