Serious Answer wrote:
How many local 5k races are advertised in your area?
How many local 400m track races are advertised in your area?
Looking forward to your response.
Go to coach o and tell me that. I find way way more track races than 5ks because that is what I look for. Just you idiots who don't even know where to go, find these crappy 5ks and courses that run about 2.5 miles max. Is it cool beating a bunch of soccer moms? RACES ARE RUN ON TRACKS THAT ARE 400M, NOT ON STREETS AND FIELDS!
runnerxy wrote:
I think going longer just looks way more impressive to many people than going faster does. Part of the reason is that everybody (sry many/most) can run a 5K. (I know it's hard to run a 5K in 16ish) Running a 100K or -mile is not possible for most people.
Something like that.
Most people don't know what is fast, but they know what is a lot.
Another reason is that people can run longer much easier than faster. Injured, walking, who cares?!
Trying to go faster is more difficult and more likely to end in disappointment. You have bad races and stagnate and you don't know why. Going longer is a safer way to progress because the only thing that can stop you is getting injured. (Also why hobbyjoggers are so paranoid with injury avoidance)
So, which way are you most likely to end up crippled in old age, long or short racing/training preference? Would it better to change it up every year or so?
My Chineese zodiac says to stay away from intense exercise, so I am screwed anyway.
HardLoper wrote:
Trying to go faster is more difficult and more likely to end in disappointment. You have bad races and stagnate and you don't know why. Going longer is a safer way to progress because the only thing that can stop you is getting injured. (Also why hobbyjoggers are so paranoid with injury avoidance)
More importantly, why is this forum fixated on what hobby joggers do or don't do? Seems so infantile.
track guy wrote:
Serious Answer wrote:How many local 5k races are advertised in your area?
How many local 400m track races are advertised in your area?
Looking forward to your response.
Go to coach o and tell me that. I find way way more track races than 5ks because that is what I look for. Just you idiots who don't even know where to go, find these crappy 5ks and courses that run about 2.5 miles max. Is it cool beating a bunch of soccer moms? RACES ARE RUN ON TRACKS THAT ARE 400M, NOT ON STREETS AND FIELDS!
Are there actually track races for hobby joggers? Like 800m fun runs? I've never seen such a thing advertised. Does anyone show up?
This entire argument of longer v faster is stupid.
Think about it.
A 100 meter runner would say to a 200 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"
A 200 meter runner would say to a 400 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"
And so on and so on for every distance (which really is just an arbitary number anyways).
It's all different strokes for different folks. I don't spend more than the minute and 20 seconds it took me to type this reply on it.
UltraDork wrote:
Seriously, why? Why do so many hobby joggers run marathons?
Age my man, age.
They aren't for hobby joggers. But the open races are funny as hell with has beens running 4 minute 800m at like 60 yrs old.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
This entire argument of longer v faster is stupid.
Think about it.
A 100 meter runner would say to a 200 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"
A 200 meter runner would say to a 400 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"
And so on and so on for every distance (which really is just an arbitary number anyways).
It's all different strokes for different folks. I don't spend more than the minute and 20 seconds it took me to type this reply on it.
But 200 meter runners don't want to run longer, they want to run faster. It's not like they finish a 200 and decide to move up to 400 with the goal of eventually finishing an 800.
And anyone who prefers vanilla to chocolate is a loser and an idiot. Chocolate is far superior to vanilla; it's not close. They only get vanilla because they're too weak to handle chocolate and they think they'll look cooler to their Facebook friends if they choose vanilla.
track guy wrote:
They aren't for hobby joggers. But the open races are funny as hell with has beens running 4 minute 800m at like 60 yrs old.
What's funny about being 60?
RossiCheated wrote:
WhitePony wrote:I am only 34 and it hurts like hell to try to run fast.
Yep. 44 years old and after years of injuries and on-again, off-again running as a result, I've figured out that I can run a long way slowly and really enjoy the sport. In a case like mine, the question is not whether I want to do this (run short and fast) or that (run long and slow). The question is whether I want to do what my body will allow and enjoy it or do I want to be a broken down mess, failing in an attempt to do something that I simply can't do anymore.
^This. Fortyseven years old and intervals or fast tempo runs are a thing of the past, but I can run long and easy.
So, the middle age guys that can still train for and race the 800 and 1500 different animals than the old guys who can't, or did they learn how to adapt?
Best bet is to become a 10 Meter runner. It really distills down the essence of running. Anything shorter isn't really running (it is jumping) and anything longer is just a waste of time.
Change @ Park wrote:
track guy wrote:They aren't for hobby joggers. But the open races are funny as hell with has beens running 4 minute 800m at like 60 yrs old.
What's funny about being 60?
Read much? I said the 60 year olds running 4 minute 800 is funny, not the 60 year old. But if you want to go there.....
Duh. Thanks Mr Predictable! Try to keep up, the reasons WHY people get roped into running distance over speed are obvious and over discussed.
The issue I mentioned, and the overwhelmingly unsolved mystery is WHEN did this start gaining traction with the majority of runners?
It’s a waste of time to take this question literally and respond with, “in 1917 I knew this one guy in WW1 who swore by running longer, all the rest of us thought he was crazy because we were training for speed to dodge bulletsâ€. That’s why I’ve updated the question with the world “majorityâ€, to not confuse you literal short term thinking and digressing types.
It’s BS that the “majority†of runners trained to go longer before the 2000’s. So the question is, what was the cause of this shift?
When they realized they sucked at speed. The world is a big place with lots of fast people in it. But the majority of people just aren't that fast. So with every doctor saying running is healthy, people began running to stay healthy. Well just like anything else people do, they want recognition. Since they can't go fast, they go long.
track guy wrote:
Serious Answer wrote:How many local 5k races are advertised in your area?
How many local 400m track races are advertised in your area?
Looking forward to your response.
Go to coach o and tell me that. I find way way more track races than 5ks because that is what I look for. Just you idiots who don't even know where to go, find these crappy 5ks and courses that run about 2.5 miles max. Is it cool beating a bunch of soccer moms? RACES ARE RUN ON TRACKS THAT ARE 400M, NOT ON STREETS AND FIELDS!
I beg to differ. Your perfect little track with its smooth surface and lack of elevation changes is for fragile prima donnas who cannot handle the real world. It is like the difference between a golfer and a bowler. Golfers deal with the wind, the rain, the ocean, the cliffs, the sand... bowlers sit there in their perfect little climate controlled environments and pretend to be athletes. You, sir, are nothing more than a bowler with a smaller waistline... for now.
Daniels the destroyer of USA wrote:
Because non runners are impressed by time, they don't have the experience and can't comprehend that a 15 minutes 5k is more impresive than a marathon.
I had a non runner friend ask me how much I ran today and I told him I just did 5 km in like 19 minutes and his response was pshh I do it every time in like 12 minutes. Dude was actually running around 2.5 km but he had no idea of how long 1000 m are since he didn't use any tracking.
Distance is much more impressive to ordinary folk than speed over distance. If you tell someone you finished a 100k they will look at you like you aren't human. Tell them you ran 100m in under 11 and they will threat it like everyone can do that any time of the day
Is this an intellect problem? Is that what we're seeing here? That the majority of the population actually lack the intellectual capacity to understand that there's more than 1 motivation to run?