Hits the 50 year mark.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/11306147/Former-Olympian-runs-a-mile-a-day-for-50-years.html
His two part bio "Long Hard Road" is a great read.
Hits the 50 year mark.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/11306147/Former-Olympian-runs-a-mile-a-day-for-50-years.html
His two part bio "Long Hard Road" is a great read.
daryl beardall has beaten that mark by about ten years.
Hill's streak ended years ago when he used crutches to cover a mile the day after knee surgery.
That's not running.
People desperate to keep streaks alive come across as delusional in their quest to make their silliness matter.
Gary Oldman wrote:
Hill's streak ended years ago when he used crutches to cover a mile the day after knee surgery.
That's not running.
People desperate to keep streaks alive come across as delusional in their quest to make their silliness matter.
Haters gonna hate.
Congratulations, Dr. Hill.
Critical Thinking wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:Hill's streak ended years ago when he used crutches to cover a mile the day after knee surgery.
That's not running.
People desperate to keep streaks alive come across as delusional in their quest to make their silliness matter.
Haters gonna hate.
Congratulations, Dr. Hill.
Hill is one of my favorite runners, but not for these theatrics.
I've never understood the one mile minimum for keeping these streaks alive.
If you're an out of shape fat slob or really, really old, shuffling through a mile might constitute a run for a given day. Maybe if you're coming back from an injury and haven't run in a while...
If you are a daily runner, then jogging a mile is not really enough to say you got in a run. If I decide to run across the street to beat a light changing, should I put that in my running log?
This is part of a column I wrote in 1999 or so when I did a little bit of writing for the local paper. Since then an actual streakers group has formed that sort of monitors this stuff:
If you went to college in the seventies, or are the rare Ray Stevens fan, you may have a different definition of the term streaking than do runners.
To a runner, the word means running consecutive days, lots and lots of them. It would seem to be a relatively simple concept, but it is not without its controversies.
The great British marathoner Ron Hill, a former Olympian and Boston Marathon winner, is often credited with the longest running streak. His streak began on Dec. 20, 1964. He will tell you that he hasn't missed a day in more than 34 years. But Hill's definition of running is probably a tad lenient.
For instance, he counts as part of his streak a day in which he hobbled about a mile on crutches. Is that running? Should pool running count? Should a fast walk count? Should a half mile count?
The problem with streaking is that the standards aren't really standards at all, but rather a runner's individual and arbitrary decision on what constitutes a run. One runner profiled in a recent Running Times article will count as little as a mile, while another might say four miles is a minimum.
Certainly a streak of four mile days is a different animal than a streak of one mile days.
Another problem is that some streakers are so proud of their streaks that they protect them like Aunt Tilly protects her cheesecake recipe. As a result, they tend to carve out exceptions to their own rules.
One runner said that her minimum was two miles. Except at the beginning of her streak she ran only one mile. And let's not forget the day that she went home from the hospital and ran a mile and a half. So her minimum was two miles, unless of course she couldn't run two miles, at which point the rules suddenly changed.
As a community service, I will provide some rules for what constitutes a legitimate running streak. They are just as arbitrary as anyone else's, but aren't so watered down as to be worthless.
Duration: I believe that a runner should get in twenty minutes as a minimum. Anything less than that doesn't do much good. A slower runner might get in two miles and a faster runner might get in three. Those who accept a mile are more interested in being streakers than runners.
Pace: At a certain point, a runner can go so slowly that he is walking. A reasonable guideline for minimum pace is two minutes a mile slower than your average daily pace. A runner who averages 8:00 pace could therefore get away with 10:00 pace on a day when he is perhaps tired or hurt. If he slows down much more than that, he's not doing what his own body and experience recognize as running.
Frequency: At least seven runs in seven days. No twofers. In other words, don't come in late from a trip, run from 11:40 p.m. to 12:20 a.m. and give yourself credit for two days with one run.
Aid: If you need crutches, a walker, or a pool, it doesn't count. Treadmills count.
Honesty: Whatever standards you set for yourself, don't change them on the fly. If your minimum is two miles, don't add an "unless."
Good runners are as consistent as a John Stockton free throw, but even the best runners take days off. Many people with long streaks are unexceptional runners, in part because the effort involved in being a good runner and a tough competitor almost demands occasional rest days.
But as the numbers start to pile up, streaks take on a life of their own, and it becomes increasingly difficult to stop. There are currently twenty-five Americans with streaks of at least twenty years without a day off. Keep in mind, however, that they all have set their own criteria and all are on the honor system.
Critical Thinking wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:Hill's streak ended years ago when he used crutches to cover a mile the day after knee surgery.
That's not running.
People desperate to keep streaks alive come across as delusional in their quest to make their silliness matter.
Haters gonna hate.
Congratulations, Dr. Hill.
Why is he being a hater. He is just speaking the truth. Streakers in general are very insecure people looking for a way to get attention. With the exception of Hill, all the streakers I know were never elite runners and they looked for other ways to try to be "special". One of the guys I know even has a party every year for his streak. Really? In regards to Hill, it is really strange in that he was a world class runner, but he seems to get more satisfaction and brag more about his streak than is actual running accomplishments. In regards to his streak, very, very few people recognize it as a streak once he did the one mile on crutches. The streak ended there and why some people still recognize it I will never understand.
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
I've never understood the one mile minimum for keeping these streaks alive.
If you're an out of shape fat slob or really, really old, shuffling through a mile might constitute a run for a given day. Maybe if you're coming back from an injury and haven't run in a while...
If you are a daily runner, then jogging a mile is not really enough to say you got in a run. If I decide to run across the street to beat a light changing, should I put that in my running log?
If you run a short warmup, and then do the mile in 4 minutes, it is.
My track club had a 5km minimum for streaks, at least one seperate run per day but in the 24 hours period, no pace restrictions. I once did 501 days then had to end it as I had some foot injury. That was very tough. I can't imagine how hard it would be to do the 20 year plus streaks.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for Ron Hill, one of my favorite runners of all time. I know that these running streaks have no governing body so it is all on the honor system and what constitutes a run is left to the discretion of the individual runner. I must say that doing a run with crutches is not what I would consider a run. But then again that is me and I do not make the rules.
I think a lot of these streak runners are lying to themselves to keep the streak alive and they just can’t let go.
I am not the smartest person but when I had knee surgery the doctors told me if I continued running I would be a candidate for knee replacement in the near future, so I stopped running. At the time of surgery I had a streak going of 19 ½ years where I averaged 11 miles per day. My rule for what constitutes a run was five miles.
Sooner or later all of these runners will have their streak end, Mark Covert had the longest streak in the US I believe and he finally ended his.
Bottom line is that nobody really cares except the runner who has the streak.
Nineteen years at 11 miles per day. Wow.
What is respected about that to me - and of Ron Hill's (let's call it two streaks, one of 39 years and one of 11 years due to his "crutches run") - is the discipline it takes.
It is easy to sleep in when it is snowing hard, windy and perhaps raining and then criticize anyone who has a streak as being silly when the fact is the person who kept the streak going was not the one sleeping in.
I agree completely, when you are sick, or have nagging injuries, or the weather is terrible you are out there running, even if only for one mile. It is something that many can not fathom.
broken arrow wrote:
I agree completely, when you are sick, or have nagging injuries, or the weather is terrible you are out there running, even if only for one mile. It is something that many can not fathom.
Those are the sensible people who are training, not just running.
The person who takes a day off is the person moving forward in fitness.
Streakers have long since lost that objective.
I never quite understood the purpose of a running streak. I mean it's great someone accomplished something for themselves, but in all honesty, running every day for years doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
However, I'm on my 39th consecutive day running. It's kind of neat to think I haven't taken a day off, but I'm just base building right now and don't have any workouts planned until January. I am planning on taking off Jan 2, after getting 50 days in a row and then I'll have regularly scheduled rest days once marathon training starts later that month.
Gary Oldman wrote:
Streakers have long since lost that objective.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You forget mental health. At least in my case.
Running every day has kept me alive, it has once aborted a suicide attempt...
Do not make such statements, please.
What's the purpose of running at all once you've obviously been as good as you're going to be? Why would a running streak need to have a purpose? For Hill, and for many of us who have streaks, the original idea was to insure consistency in training and race better.
At some point it just becomes what you do because you want to do it. Why would someone like Hill stop running every day now if he doesn't want to? He's mentioned in some interviews that he finds that a doing a short, easy, run when he's feeling sick or hurt helps him recover faster than not running. That's been my experience as well and for someone who finds that to be the case, let's turn your comment around and ask what is the purpose of NOT having a running streak?
HRE wrote:
He's mentioned in some interviews that he finds that a doing a short, easy, run when he's feeling sick or hurt helps him recover faster than not running.
How would he know that if he doesn't take days off? He's going by what his body was like pre 1964?
One of Them wrote:
Gary Oldman wrote:Streakers have long since lost that objective.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You forget mental health. At least in my case.
Running every day has kept me alive, it has once aborted a suicide attempt...
Do not make such statements, please.
Stop it. You're giving a helpful thing way too much credit.
Gary Oldman wrote:
One of Them wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about.
You forget mental health. At least in my case.
Running every day has kept me alive, it has once aborted a suicide attempt...
Do not make such statements, please.
Stop it. You're giving a helpful thing way too much credit.
Talk to me one day and I will explain it to you but I will not tell my story here.