Opportunity cost of 100 mile weeks

Grocery bills and running shoes are hard costs, not opportunity cost.

Why run even 280 minutes a week? Why not work for those 280 minutes as well and bag running altogether thereby also saving yourself any costs for extra food, running shoes and other gear, etc.?

Sounds like that is based on the false premise that if you are not running you would be working.

That was not the situation for me when I was running 80 - 90 mpw (and 1 100 mpw). I never took time that I would otherwise have spent making money. All my run time came from my off/recreation time. I work 40 - 50 hours a week and I'm not doing more than that regardless of how many miles I run. I took time that I would have spent watching TV or chores around the house.

There is no opportunity cost unless you value other parts of life more highly than running.

Because eating more food and buying more shoes and spending more time running is just plain fun!

You're worrying about someone running for an extra hour per day? Why not worry about the millions of fat asses who watch 5 hours of tv a day?

Also, 17 pairs of shoes at 100 buck each? No real runner I know pays that much or goes through that many shoes. I average about 70 mpw and go through about 6-8 pairs of shoes a year. And I buy the cheapest half-decent shoes I can find. Just got 2 pairs of Asics Excite 4 for 41 bucks a pair on jet.com

Runsmith wrote:

There is no opportunity cost unless you value other parts of life more highly than running.

Because eating more food and buying more shoes and spending more time running is just plain fun!

This.

By the OP's logic, no one should ever spend any time doing anything recreational.

I disagree with the suggestion that the goal of life is strictly to make as much money as possible.

I agree with a previous poster that the value of your time is $25 an hour only if you can (and choose to) make $25 an hour in your free time instead of running. Also, I would also say you have to tax-affect the $25 per hour based on your marginal tax rate.

I waste a lot of food, so I would argue #2 is not 50% higher- it might be 20% higher.

And who replaces running shoes after 300 miles? Maybe if you're a fatty. See comment above- lose some weight and you will have to replace your shoes less.

Full disclosure- I run less than 100 MPW. But more than 40....

amkelley wrote:

Runsmith wrote:

There is no opportunity cost unless you value other parts of life more highly than running.

Because eating more food and buying more shoes and spending more time running is just plain fun!

This.

By the OP's logic, no one should ever spend any time doing anything recreational.

I disagree with the suggestion that the goal of life is strictly to make as much money as possible.

Today I learned that no one on LR knows what opportunity cost is. Opportunity cost is whatever you give up in order to do something. If I would have slept in for an hour if I hadn't gone for a run this morning, then the opportunity cost of my run is an hour of sleep.

Economics isn't just about money. It is generally about how we choose to allocate resources, which could be money, time, or anything else. Dollars are a convenient common metric for value, but that doesn't mean that maximizing well-being is equivalent to making as much money as possible.

TimeValue wrote:

I agree with a previous poster that the value of your time is $25 an hour only if you can (and choose to) make $25 an hour in your free time instead of running. Also, I would also say you have to tax-affect the $25 per hour based on your marginal tax rate.

I waste a lot of food, so I would argue #2 is not 50% higher- it might be 20% higher.

And who replaces running shoes after 300 miles? Maybe if you're a fatty. See comment above- lose some weight and you will have to replace your shoes less.

Full disclosure- I run less than 100 MPW. But more than 40....

Not quiet buddy. That’s a lot of wiggle room and “full disclosure” is not an accurate way to describe your mpw. Try again.

amkelley wrote:

This.

By the OP's logic, no one should ever spend any time doing anything recreational.

I disagree with the suggestion that the goal of life is strictly to make as much money as possible.

The OP isn't saying any of those things. He is just saying 100 miles per week has a high 'cost,' although the analysis is way too vague to be useful. Running obviously does have a cost, but most of us can easily 'pay' that.

Then again > 90% of this message board has never attempted 100 mpw so maybe most aren't willing to pay that cost after all.

One thing you're forgetting to factor in is recovery.

You likely:

A) need more sleep when running 100 MPW vs. 40

and

B) need more 'inactive' time.

Someone who takes Friday's off can go to a concert no big deal, but if you're squeezing in your 12 miler after work on Friday, most likely you're not up for a night out like that. But then you get into the reverse economics of how much extra your spending by NOT running and going out vs. running and staying in...

Again, it comes down to what you value more. Many would say they'd rather run than go to a concert.

The problem with the econ 101 breakdown is you really have to manage your energy and health, not some flat time/money continuum

Running 100 MPW in your early 20s to chase that lifetime PR is priceless.

Running 100 MPW in your early 40s to brag about winning your local turkey trot is sad.

Also does anyone actually replace their shoes after 300 miles? If mine aren't falling apart to the point where they don't function well or causing injury, I keep them. You can get 1000 on each pair if your form is good

let's escalate things a bit: what's the opportunity cost of not selling your kids/ parents?

I also just took econ101 and think I'm smart, but I'm not actual wrote:

let's escalate things a bit: what's the opportunity cost of not selling your kids/ parents?

No one wants to buy your parents.

an honest assessment wrote:

amkelley wrote:

This.

By the OP's logic, no one should ever spend any time doing anything recreational.

I disagree with the suggestion that the goal of life is strictly to make as much money as possible.

The OP isn't saying any of those things. He is just saying 100 miles per week has a high 'cost,' although the analysis is way too vague to be useful. Running obviously does have a cost, but most of us can easily 'pay' that.

Then again > 90% of this message board has never attempted 100 mpw so maybe most aren't willing to pay that cost after all.

I've done two 100 mile weeks in the past three weeks. I think it's worth the cost!

What is the real opportunity cost of 100 mile weeks?

if this question occurred to you independently, of your own free will, then you are, by definition, not a runner.

if you can type the words, "opportunity cost of running 100 mile weeks," without barphing up your breakfast, you are not a runner.

I don't care how many miles a week you run, or how many years you've been doing it. I don't care what your PB's are or how much you know about Craig Virgin's diet regime. and I certainly don't care about your extensive library of National X-Cross Country Championship Programmes signed by the winners or your cross-referenced back issues of Track and Field News. if you have ever spent one second thinking about the "opportunity cost" of running 100 miles per week you are an accountant, and you are not and never will be a runner.

cheers.