I like the high and righteous stance “I always ask those people, ‘What was your time?’ If it’s six hours or more, I say, ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ” said Givens, who finished the Baltimore race in 4:05:52. “The mystique of the marathon still exists. It’s the mystique of the fast marathon.”
The mystique of the fast marathon @ 4+hours? Anyways, I say more power to ppl who want to get up and complete a marathon. It's better than them sitting on the couch and I know the races I run are funded by the 3 hour+ crowd and the 20min+ 5k crowd. Do these people have a problem because it devalues their finishers medal/bragging rights? If that's the case they need to get over it. I haven't attached value to an award won at a road since I was 15. Who am I to call someone out for being slow if they find what they do meaningful. Unless you are Haile G you will always be slow in someone elses eyes.
I say run it unless you have some condition that is going to cause you to die in the middle.
I totally agree with every word.
I think cut off times should be in place for every race distance, not just the marathons (hour long 5ks? come on...). Running a marathon in 8 hours is appallingly slow and anyone can do that. Don't feel a sense of accomplilshment for doing something that 95% of the population is capable of doing.
I think that once the race hits its "time limit" everyone who isn't done is warned to continue at their own risk, no further help provided. A proper cut off point is 6 hours. If they complain, then they shouldn't be stopping for food and making all the race officials wait for them to walk the last 15 miles.
Also, medals and shirts shouldn't be given out at races simply for participation. They should be awarded for doing something spectacular. Walk-jogging a marathon in 8 hours is not spectacular. A child could do that.
Do you guys know how much less cardiovascular disease-related death we'd have in this country if everybody in it was fit enough to complete a sub-6:00:00 marathon?
this is a repost.
thinking on a rainy day... wrote:
Do you guys know how much less cardiovascular disease-related death we'd have in this country if everybody in it was fit enough to complete a sub-6:00:00 marathon?
yes I do, the answer is close to none. In countries and communities where the western diet (fast food, junk etc.) is non existent and running/fitness is not just a chore but a way of life, there is close to 0% incidence of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases (among the stuff that kills americans most frequently)
Believe me, people in the field have been trying to relay this information for decades. People just don't want to listen or do anything about their dwindling life span (although research has said that children born in this day and age are supposed to outlive us - don't know how they came to that conclusion, since nothing in our lifestyles has really changed all that much)
SserPrun95 wrote:
I like the high and righteous stance “I always ask those people, ‘What was your time?’ If it’s six hours or more, I say, ‘Oh great, that’s fine, but you didn’t really run it,’ ” said Givens, who finished the Baltimore race in 4:05:52. “The mystique of the marathon still exists. It’s the mystique of the fast marathon.”
The mystique of the fast marathon @ 4+hours? Anyways, I say more power to ppl who want to get up and complete a marathon. It's better than them sitting on the couch and I know the races I run are funded by the 3 hour+ crowd and the 20min+ 5k crowd. Do these people have a problem because it devalues their finishers medal/bragging rights? If that's the case they need to get over it. I haven't attached value to an award won at a road since I was 15. Who am I to call someone out for being slow if they find what they do meaningful. Unless you are Haile G you will always be slow in someone elses eyes.
That is hilarious. 4 hours and she's talking down about other runners?
Big deal. I dont spend 4 hours a day here and thought its interesting and so passing it along.
the dude abides wrote:
thinking on a rainy day... wrote:Do you guys know how much less cardiovascular disease-related death we'd have in this country if everybody in it was fit enough to complete a sub-6:00:00 marathon?
yes I do, the answer is close to none. In countries and communities where the western diet (fast food, junk etc.) is non existent and running/fitness is not just a chore but a way of life, there is close to 0% incidence of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases (among the stuff that kills americans most frequently)
Believe me, people in the field have been trying to relay this information for decades. People just don't want to listen or do anything about their dwindling life span (although research has said that children born in this day and age are supposed to outlive us - don't know how they came to that conclusion, since nothing in our lifestyles has really changed all that much)
I'm sorry ... I don't quite understand. Are you saying there would be close to no cardiovascular and metabolic disease, or that the reduction would be close to none? (the question was "how much less").
I think the reason of the increasing life span is due to modern medicine rather than a change in lifestyle.
It is time to separate out the real marathon from the rest. The marathon should be defined as having a maximum finishing time of 3:59.59 for men, 4:29.59 for women. After 4 and 4:30, you are not allowed to finish. Armed guards are dispatched to the finish line. Medals go to age group top 3. You must finish to get any free marathon gear, even the free goody bag from sponsors.
For those who can't run a marathon, we will create the "Spirit Life Opportunity Wonderful Acheivment in Superior Sportsmanship Run". No time limit. The distance will be 26.3, so everyone can think they are superior to those running the real marathon because they went a smidge further. There results will be graded for BMI (fatter runners will be given a time reduction over skinny runners). There will be buffets and picnic tables along the race course to maximize fueling. And you get your medal at the start, because being brave enough to start the run is what it is all about.
This is all pretty silly. For those with the attitude of you have to be fast to be a real marathoner, you have boston, or better yet, the olympic trials, or even the olympics, depending on how high you want to raise your standards. For all the other races, I really don't care. They need to make money; so sure, expand the pool. It doesn't bother me-- I'm home with a post-race beer and nap by 5 or 6 hours after the start.
Seeing as how we have an obesity crisis in our country, the more people that get out and cover 26 miles under their own power (running, walking, skipping, whatever) the better off we are. Sure, the purist in me would like to see fewer walk-breaks, no fuel-belts, and in general a return to the whole point of trying to cover ground quickly, but I really don't care what goes on behind me.
Except when I have to pick up my number at the expo. Then I hate the crowds.
The comments accompanying it are more illuminating than the article itself. After reading a few of them, I find I have more respect for the folks who do it for charity, or to commemorate someone who is a victim of illnesss or disease, and are happy just to finish. Especially since these entrants are often coming from completely non-athletic backgrounds, and/or have done little training, and are struggling just to finish. Anyways, quite a pointed reaction from a lot of readers. I'm pretty open to the plodders myself.
I have nothing against plodders, walking as a way of life, or good diet, but your statement about cardiovascular disease is surprisingly (to me) false. Here is the age-adjusted mortality rate from cardiovascular disease for the 23 most populous countries, according to WHO:
Japan 106/100,000
France 118
Mexico 163
Italy 174
U. K. 182
U. S. 188
Thailand 199
Germany 211
China 291
Vietnam 318
Philippines 336
Brazil 341
Indonesia 361
Pakistan 409
Bangladesh 428
India 428
Ethiopia 435
Nigeria 452
D. R. C. 465
Iran 466
Turkey 542
Egypt 560
Russia 688
Japan and France are doing something right (France: eating a lot of cream and butter?), but otherwise it is hard to find a country of any size that does significantly better than the U.S. on cardiovascular disease mortality.
N. Africa and the South Pacific have remarkably low rates of cancer.
Lots of deaths in Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo from injuries.
MarathonMind wrote:
The comments accompanying it are more illuminating than the article itself. After reading a few of them, I find I have more respect for the folks who do it for charity, or to commemorate someone who is a victim of illnesss or disease, and are happy just to finish. Especially since these entrants are often coming from completely non-athletic backgrounds, and/or have done little training, and are struggling just to finish. Anyways, quite a pointed reaction from a lot of readers. I'm pretty open to the plodders myself.
The mindset / phenomenon you mentioned has spawned another type of inflated self-worth or elitism, whereby those running a marathon just for the participant's personal athletic challenge are thought of as inferior because they're "being selfish."
Only in America do we feel compelled to boast about our charity and attempt to go from very sedentary to 26.2 continuous miles in under half a year, all the while expecting attention and funding.
Well then there's the grieving process which you seem to have little clue about.
????? wrote:
Japan and France are doing something right (France: eating a lot of cream and butter?), but otherwise it is hard to find a country of any size that does significantly better than the U.S. on cardiovascular disease mortality.
N. Africa and the South Pacific have remarkably low rates of cancer.
Lots of deaths in Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo from injuries.
With Japan and France, it's what, when, and how much they eat that help. Average American diets tend to have too much of everything, and how and when we eat don't allow us to follow our satiation cues. Even though Japanese eat "bad carb" rice, it's often served in bowls that most American would call "baby bowls."
Relax guys.....You don't see Albert Pujols getting pissed at me for playing in a recreational baseball league.
Sure, the "in your face" plodders can be annoying, but per capita, faster runners are probably more annoying.
I question the motivation people have for running if this kind of stuff really bothers you. And I don't mean the motivation to train and run fast, but your reasons for running to begin with.
Sure they have a place in the marathon -- at the back.
It's no skin off my nose if people want to run a marathon slowly. Good for them. It's still better than sitting around on their asses and it helps support the running industry for more competitive runners.
Now if they could only figure out a way of getting all those slow people to follow elite running, track & field, etc.
why people care. Do you really need other people to be impressed by your marathon? Why do you are what other people think? Why run at all.
I'm just happy people are doing something.....even plodding is better than sitting on their butts all day!