Is being really ideal for distance runners?

I don't understand the title. To be or not to be? Is that the question? Dead men can walk but can they run?

Re: "Is being really ideal for distance runners?"

I think the answer must clearly be found in Heidegger's " On Being and Time."

Maybe find an old copy of Dr. George Sheehan’s book, “Running and Being”. I think that is where you might find the answer you seek.

Drugs and training had nothing to do with their success. It was their height.

To be or not to be. That’s is the question. Generally I would say that being is usually good for distance runners

"I'm me?"

Ideal is to be born with the cardiovascular system of a horse and the body of a gazelle.

Yes, being is really ideal for runners. Not being definitely hurts a runner.

I'm only 6'2" but people have often said that my long legs are an advantage in running. In return I ask "How many 7 foot marathoners have you seen?" I do agree though that being is a big help.

What is ideal: to be or not to be?

Isn't "being" pretty much mandatory to running (and pretty much everything else)? After all if you're not "being", what exactly are you?

a fascinating Kantian disruption of the all-too-often assumed ontological reality routed in the material body as a precursor for distance running

someone claim this as the title to their philosophy dissertation

This is why the participants in the Sri Chinmoy Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race can run around a city block for 47 days. They've overcome the burden of being.

Jacob, Asbel and Coco might take issue with your opinion

I would be a better runner if my 6'3" height was not made up, disproportionately, of my neck. I got a stress reaction cooking so I don't know if being is helpful (tall).

For everyone of those there are 115 that are long legged.