poor marathon times = longer working day?

for someone who professes not to have enough time in the day, you post an awful lot to letsrun. why not stop posting here and turn your 11hr day into a 10hr day at work and have more time for running and family.

I completely agree with the original poster. As an American marathoner running 120-140 miles per week in preparation for marathons, I also work 60 hour weeks.

I was a full-time runner at one point when my life allowed, but with wife and infant and work, the quality of my mileage has decreased, though I still am able to set personal bests and run fairly well at US National Championship races.

However, the American work week and American mentality of all work and no rest has dramatically affected the core of American marathoners. If I was working 9-5, I would gain an extra 5-10% more rest and be able to hammer just that much more. I can definitely understand for the full-time working runners that are striving to be the best they can be. And that's it: you are what you are and choices are made.

Bottom line: Yes, I agree that one major reason for poor marathon times is the longer working day.

Yes, I agree with the original poster too. Professional runners then and now don't work a "regular" job, but for almost everyone else the workweek is much longer than it used to be. I think that's why you see such a big drop off in numbers of guys running 2:20 all the way to 3:15. There's a pretty big difference between 9-5 and 9-7 or 9-8 and for most people it's much harder to train a lot consistently.

No Offense wrote:

Yeah I read what he said, but he is obviously just spinning what he said. This whole thread sounds like an excuse for him to cry about not being able to run because of his job (yes excuses).

Working an 11 hour work day doesn't equal a "real" job. I have a real job and make good money and work 8 to 9 hours per day an manage to get my running done. It's about choices, people that work crappy jobs are just too lazy to look for a good one.

Hi

Greetings from Portugal

I agree with a lot of thinks you guys are saying here, this is a discussion that is very important to take, and we have now one here in Portugal similiar.

couple of things:

1 - Mayeroff is right. Social / Culture environment is the Key, not the family / work pressure;

2 - Nobody wants to pay money for a marathon guy. It takes to much time to prepare and they just do 1 or 2 marathons in the year. Is better for a sponsor to have a squad running in road racings and cross every other week. Marathon runners are not popular anymore. For people in America and Europe is a 3º world thing, so comum people / runner do not have marathon runners as role models;

3 - Kids dont want to be marathon runners, Soccer is better paid, they want to be in something with popularity and money. Running is neither. Worst - > kids dont want to run anymore, it make breath difficult ! is better playstation and nintendo

Sorry about my english

Regards

Rodrigo

timebandits,

Funny thing is, I think I posted 3 times yesterday, all of which took me probably about 7 minutes or so, and didn't look at Letsrun again til this morning (while I eat my breakfast and take a break after my first hour of work). Don't give me this shite about how I should be working 10 hours straight without taking a break. Obviously you've never worked a day in your life if you think ANYONE can be productive without taking 5 minutes to rest your brain every now and then. You're probably some college kid who has a very idealistic view of the world and thinks they can do everything better than everyone. Sorry, you can't. In an 11 hour day, yes, I work probably about 10. If I were here for 10, I would probably only work about 9. You need to get up, go to the bathroom, get some food, and surf the net a little otherwise your productivity goes down by a ton by the end of the day. Learn from someone who is doing well and has yet to burn out... you're not the best, and nor am I, but I obviously have a more realistic and wholistic view of the world then you do. You'll learn my angry friend.

Damn you work 10 hours of your 11 hour shift? That's 91%. You got me beat. Of my 9 hour shift I probably work 4 hours or so.

No Offense wrote:

Well then instead of whining about it on here, just change jobs. You talk about wanting to spend time with your family. Obviously your job is more important then them. 11 hours is not a requirment. What profession are you in? You can't find something better then an 11 hour day? Sad.

11 hrs is not out of line

2 x 30 min travel + 1 hr lunch brake + 8 hr paid time = 10 hrs

If you stop at the Post Office/Home Depot/Autoparts Store/etc on the way home it's another 1/2 to 1 hr. Or the late afternoon meeting run late. Time is tight w/full time job and family.

The only real option is to run to/from work or at lunch (=midday heat). However, when you chose that, you acquire a rep of being a weird loner because you have no time for socializing with the fatso coworkers at lunch or after work. Your advancement may suffer since you run the danger of being branded 'not a team player'. It's one thing to tell people you run, but when they actually see you do it in 90 degrees in the shade they do think there is something wrong with you.

drPete wrote:

11 hrs is not out of line

Maybe it's not for people that want to do it. But if you are trying to work full-time, run big mileage, and have the family then you need to find a job that doesn't take up 11 hours. Like I said above people that have crappy jobs are just too lazy to go find a good one.

OK, so what is the point of this thread again, since you're "not complaining"?

You don't want to fully pursue running -- work and family are your priorities. We've agreed that if you want to pursue running to the extent of your potential, it needs to be a higher priority.

Simple. Great. No real debate there.

I am not an elite runner but a runner who loves to run. Throughout my twenties and early thirties I was putting in hours similar to yours. I burned out and it was the best thing that could have happened. I was forced to reconsider priorities and by the time the wife and I became parents(I was 41, she 40) we had moved to a much smaller house but with more character, she cut her work to 2 days per week and I to 4 days. I'm home one working day per week with the kids, have time to work on the old house and can run 50 to 70 miles per week without causing any friction in the family or missing anything that is important. We drive old cars but we still save for college and retirement.

Full time daycare would eat up every cent of the wife's additional pay if she were to return to full time work. I guess I am recommending that you look at what you get for the extra cash you make by working so many hours. If it is for daycare, big house and trophy cars then maybe you can trade stuff and cash for time for things like being with the kids and running.

OK, first things first... to me, running is not as important as work. End of story. If it was, I would concentrate, guess what, more on running and less on work. I also do not understand why working 11 hour days euqates to a shitty job? I love my job. Its sad that people assume that working hard means that the job is bad. I find its the other way around. Those that work hard and long usually love what they are doing (and in us runner's cases, we're also probably a little obsessive). To me, fulfilling my professional goals is far more gratifying and helpful to my family than to run 2:20, let's say. It provides many things to me mentally and economically whereas running provides nothing other than athletic enjoyment. Think of it this way. Does anyone put off a career because they want to become the best club baseball player they can be? No. And I have no desire to put off my career to become the best runner I could be. I would also content, that many of the guys of the 70s did not "put off their career" while they were running 2:20, but rather were just plain able to run and pursue their career because of the expectation of putting in less hours.

So the point is... in the 70s and early 80s, there were many WORKING professionals who were not "elite" running 2:20 in the marathon. These were guys who worked full-time jobs and ran as a "hobby". They also, I IMAGINE, were working pretty standard 9-5 jobs... not because they chose to because of their running, but because that was a typical working day 30 years ago.

My point of the thread, then, was to suggest that the mindset of the people today is the same, but working 8-7 doesn't really make a 2:20 marathoner. If you take all those guys in the 70s... and assume they keeep the same mindset as they had then... and transplant them to today's world... would they still be 2:20 guys? Or more like 2:30 or 2:40 guys?

I know when I was little my dad worked pretty much 8:30-5:30 or so... and as the times changed his workday became longer. If he was a runner, he would have found less time to run because of what was expected at work. He wouldn't have found a new job so that he could run more. I believe that would have been the case for many of those guys back then.

Who said anything about putting off your career? I said don't work 11 hours per day and complain that you can't run good enough. You CHOOSE to work 11 hours per day. If it were all "about your family" then you wouldn't work 11 hours per day and would be home to see them. It's not about your family, it's about your greed.

Obviously sooomie isn't talking about himself. He's talking about the large-scale drop-off in Americans running 2:20. And I think his point has a lot of validity. Basically what he's saying is that across the board, jobs in America require more hours per week in 2005 than they did in 1975.

Now, this is not to say that you can't find a job that lets you run a lot. It's only to say that there are less of those jobs available.

Put it this way: Let's say in 1975 jobs X, Y, and Z exist. Job X requires 30 hrs/week, job Y 40, and job Z 55. So if someone with job X likes to run as a hobby, and is fairly serious about it, they can run 120 miles a week, no problem, and still have a life. Someone with job Y probably can as well, maybe a little less depending on how well they manage their time. The person with job Z is going to have less hours to go around, and if they have a family will probably end up running 50-90/week, depending on dedication.

The difference in 2005 is that job X probably requires 40/week, job Y 50-60/week, and job Z 60-80/week. So over the population as an AGGREGATE, there will be less people with jobs that are conducive to running. This doesn't mean that someone with a lot of dedication can find work that doesn't require too much of their time.

What it DOES mean is that college runners in general will graduate, look for a job, and then start trying to find ways to fill their free time. If you're only working 40 hours/week, you can use this time to try to become a very good distance runner. But if you're working 60 hours/week, you will probably decide not to run, or else just to run for fitness, or to keep in decent racing shape.

Competitive marathoning requires 14 hours per week. Minimum.

Either do it or don't.

soooomie wrote:

So the point is... in the 70s and early 80s, there were many WORKING professionals who were not "elite" running 2:20 in the marathon. These were guys who worked full-time jobs and ran as a "hobby". They also, I IMAGINE, were working pretty standard 9-5 jobs... not because they chose to because of their running, but because that was a typical working day 30 years ago.

My point of the thread, then, was to suggest that the mindset of the people today is the same, but working 8-7 doesn't really make a 2:20 marathoner. If you take all those guys in the 70s... and assume they keeep the same mindset as they had then... and transplant them to today's world... would they still be 2:20 guys? Or more like 2:30 or 2:40 guys?

They would still be 2:20 guys because they would still be working 9 to 5, not 8 to 7. Because they want to see how far they can take their running before they get too old to hit their peak performances. To them, the running was more important than the work. To you it is the other way around. No shame in either attitude and no real debate either.

Top guys back in the 70s and 80s were working at running stores, or other places that didn't expect beyond 9 to 5. Those jobs still exist. But today, people want to have a fast-track, high-paying career AND be a big time runner. It didn't happen back then and it's not happening now.

Bill Rodgers used to say that nobody with full-time job could ever beat him. So clearly, he didn't have a full-time job.

Nothing has changed expect the expectations of people who aspire to run that fast.

Simple Really, I believe you are talking about the really elite guys. I'm talking about the depth... the 2:18 (even 2:15)-2:30 guys. I don't believe, tell me if I'm wrong and you're from the day, but I don't believe many of the 2:15-2:30 guys were really concerned with finding a low hour job that was going to allow them to maximize their potential. I think they were working at AT&T, GE, etc, using their degree and working the corporate ladder while running competitively. Those same types of jobs today may be 55-60 hour a week jobs rather than the 35-40 hour a week jobs they were. Who's to say that the majority of 2:20 marathoners from the 70s were trying to maximize potential. I would say that the considered themselved good local guys just like how a 15:30 guy today considers himself a good local guy. The difference? The 2:20 guy from the 70s had more time to train than the 15:30 guy, but the priorities, I imagine, are the same (part-time local runner, full time professional). The reason they could do that is because back then, you could have your cake and eat it to. Now, we have to make a hard choice... pursue a career, or run. I may be wrong, but that's the purpose of the debate.

Yeah you are wrong you don't have to choose. You still can "have your cake and eat it too." You just can't be a baby about it.

You describe my situation and mentality to a T (except I have two kids). I have the notion (more like a dream) that I could perhaps, just maybe scare a Trial qualifying time if I had the time to put in 100 miles per week.

That said, it would require that I take another hour or so a day away from my family which I'm not willing to do right now.

I run 30-50 mpw and it allows me to be competitive enough. If I continue to improve my marathon time off of just this type of mileage - I just might make that sacrifice.

why do you insist on making it about me? i don't have to chose because i don't want to chose. I don't want to be any more of a competitive runner than I am. I want to spend 11 hours a day at work. what is so hard to understand? If I worked less, I would not run more. Does that get through to you? I'm not in a debate about my situation. Been at the 100 mile weeks and don't want to go back. How many other ways do I have to put it?