So I’ve started running, albeit very slowly.  After three weeks I’ve made it up to three miles..without walking.  However, it takes me about 45 minutes to complete those three miles.  At this rate, it’ll take me way over 6 hours to run a marathon!  And that’s not even counting the walking breaks that I know I’ll be taking.  Yes I intend to run/walk the marathon.  It still counts 🙂  So umm yeah there’s a lot of room for improvement.

I’m running blindly now.  I need some kind of philosophy to guide my way.  There’s a lot of advice out there about training but some of it is contradictory.  And most of it seems aimed at elite athletes who want to race their way to the top.  I obviously will never be one of those expert runners who are trying to win races.  My race is about the journey, not just the destination.  Ultimately it doesn’t matter to me how long it takes to complete the marathon, just the fact that I (hopefully) can cross that finish line in one piece.

It seems like the traditionalists endorse a training regimen of 4-6 weekly runs, totaling 30 to 60 miles.  I can’t even imagine that!  Then there’s the “less-is-more” approach.  I like the sound of that!  That appears to be 3 runs a week, and 2 cross-training workouts during the same week.  It’s sad when the “easy” approach is significantly more exercise than I’m doing now.  If/when I exercise 3 times during a given week, I consider that great 🙂

There’s also the “run-walk-run” method which sounds intriguing.  Supposedly, starting to walk before your muscles get tired allows the muscles to recover instantly, and manages the fatigue more efficiently.  Incorporating walk breaks into a long run just intuitively seems like a good idea.  Especially during the marathon.  But I don’t think I’ll walk during the 5K though.  I know I can run that distance without stopping, although I have to work on increasing my speed.  So maybe this method isn’t right for me either.

Is less really more?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated 🙂

Advertisements