The hold of the marathon over masters runners is a serious problem.

I know a bunch of very talented 50+ runners and they have no problem racing both marathons and shorter road races. It is not an either or situation.

I could cite myself but it wouldn't be as impressive. I had no problem running upwards of 80 miles a week well into my fifties. You're trying to make everyone else solve your problem. I ran a few marathons in my forties and fifties because I wanted to. If I'd been in your club why should I not have run them so you wouldn't be bothered by it? Maybe you should find another club where there are more like minded members.

What event should I do if I can only run 25 MPW?

We're not talking about them, that's a very small slice of the pie. The larger "problem" (depends on if you think it's a problem or not I guess) is why so many people exclusively run the marathon. Why has the marathon taken hold of the world's mind as the "premier" running distance? The answer, as I said before, is largely marketing.

Hypothetical: Two people who have never run seriously in their life. One trains to finish their first marathon in like 4:30. They run 20–30mpw running 5–6 days a week and follow some cookie cutter plan off the internet. The other trains for the 100m. They race a handful of meets over an outdoor season. They start off at 18 seconds. 3–4 times a week they train, they learn some basic drills, practice starts, and lift a little weight. They race a few times and get it down to 16s while attending dinky all comers club meets. Who would you rather be? The 100m runner gets to observe a trend of becoming better, they get to learn a more technical skill, and they have a hell of a lot more to be proud of than the marathon finisher.

The thing is, so many people don't even know the option of being "that 100m guy" is an option.

would be interesting to have NYRR's data on its 9+1 program. Which is "if you run 9 NYRR events in a calendar year and volunteer once you have a guaranteed entry to the following year' NYC marathon"

The program sounds great - getting people off the couch into races and the marathon in some instances.

Would be interesting to see if it creates long-term runners or just 'one-year project' runners.

Sidepanel is that 9+1 is such a draw and marketing funnel that it is hurting serious runners because NYRR races sell out 6 months in advance because of all the 9+1ers. Very hard and expensive to be a serious runner in NYC right now because you have to sign up for races way in advance if you plan to run them or not.

That's all well and good. At any rate, your Lorax style POV is nothing new. I probably expressed something similar when I was in my 30s. You simply haven't presented a compelling enough case to alter macro perspectives. No one has. I live in a highly active area with many citizen runner groups and clubs. Exactly zero go to US Club XC regularly. Individual goal chasing is clearly more highly valued and rewarded than contributing to a collective, at least as a hobby. It seems like a broadly American trait.

Me and a friend have always said the 9+1 program is just a way to exploit free labor and maximize capital gains. I've always been in awe at how many people actually do it. It feels so slimy and exploitative, but big marathon has somehow made it "empowering" or something like that.

If you do 9+1, I reserve the right to call you a fool for your entire life.

An "upper limit" of 40-50mpw? One or two races a year? You are comically misinformed, my friend.

If you're not aware, runners gravitate to the marathon as they near 40 because the peak age for marathoning is much older than for other races. And many runners find they can still hit one last all-time PR, because they didn't know how or didn't have the patience to properly train for a marathon when they were younger.

And they thing they tend to discover is that marathon training is the best thing for their 3k-10k racing. There's no way I'm running 90-100 miles with two workouts every week just so I can run some 5k a minute slower than when I was in college. You need a bigger goal. And you end up doing lots of other races because you want to take advantage of and/or test out your fitness. 5k to half on the roads, indoor and outdoor track, xc.

Don't miss the forest for the trees. Succeed or fail at a marathon goal, you can easily find a group to pursue it with for support and camaraderie in most metro areas. To be "that 100m guy" it's you and maybe a coach at the track with nobody else, practicing block starts and drive phase all by your lonesome. Your S.O. probably can't even relate or care at all.

I think the 100m is a bad example. Most people who come to running later in life are primarily interested in health and longevity, and the sport is secondary. It's unclear what benefit sprint training would have (sure strength and explosiveness is important but there's gym stuff for that), there's a perception that there's acute injury risk, and most people wouldn't know where to get started with training. Whereas with distance there is a ton of clubs, content, books, etc for adult beginners. And endurance training is associated with great benefits for cardiovascular health, obviously.

With the mile/5k vs the marathon, you certainly have more of a point I think.

I'm a 5k specialist hobbyjogging master, and for me there's a lot of frustration with the rinky dink races I do -- courses inaccurately measured, folks not lining up right, a lot of times it's a side-event alongside a half or something and more of an afterthought. Sure I could go to carlsbad or some other premier race, but is it really worth travelling for such a race? Seems harder to justify for me.

I won't do marathons but I'm kind of jealous of all of my club mates who do these huge prestegious races, bring the family, see some new city, make a weekend out of it, celebrate, etc. Whereas my race is over in 20 minutes and I just leave and eat burger king in my car on the way home.

Not jealous enough to actually put myself through 26.2 miles though, heh. I can certainly see why they have such widespread appeal though, even though I don't think they're a good fit for most people (definitely not myself).

I can literally flip this and say "don't miss the forest for the trees" right back at you. There's a wide wide world of running out there and you want to do whatever's easiest and most convenient.

Yes, it's much harder to find a group to train with for shorter stuff, but even in my rural area there's a running club that has a sprinting workout once a week all year.

The real question that you're tiptoeing around is, "Why is it that it's so hard to find a group to train sprinting with?" It's because everyone runs marathons. Why does everyone run marathons? Because of a literal marketing funnel to do it.

What a vilely American view of the world.

NYRR is McKinsey dressed up as a non-profit.

that's not really fair. NYRR races are mostly cheaper than local peer races and far more competitive. Talking about the non-marquee races here.

9+1 is an elephant in the room, breaking stuff unintentionally, but it does get people out there racing who would otherwise not be runners. That's a big deal.

Marathon training is feasible for the masters crowd. Slower running matches our bodies capabilities.

The speed work required for 5k/10k... injury, injury, injury.

Well welcome to America, year 2024. Don't forget to spare some blame for the shoe and gear companies, who also make big profit from encouraging people towards the marathon. Plus the hydration and nutritional corporations. Then there's the publications and podcasters. You've opened my eyes. It's a veritable marathon-industrial complex.

I agree, there are plenty of youth sprint coaches and programs almost anywhere in the country that could provide coaching for an adult age group sprinter. Many adults enjoy watching the 100m and 200m at the OT and WC and Olympics. Yet they don't really feel drawn to engage in it themselves. There might be more adults drawn to participate in powerlifting or body building or crossfit than sprinting. Those are the activities that adult age group sprinting probably competes most closely for participants with.

Brother... Stress fractures. Overuse injuries. Cardiac events. Weakened immune systems from slogging out tons of miles. There's A LOT that can and does go wrong with marathoner.

Yes, shorter distances tend to pose more of an acute injury risk. But marathoning poses a huge overuse risk. Pretending one is magically safer is silly and I'd be interested in statistics on both sides. I'd wager the average casual shorter distance runner gets hurt less than the average casual marathoner.

+1. Achievement and a sense of pride can come in many, infinite forms. For some, it may be the marathon. But I wholeheartedly believe many, many, many (most?) marathoner participants would find much more satisfaction training for and competing in shorter events. The problems, as identified by many here, are:

1) Big marathon has a financial incentive to get you to pay their expensive entry fee for the allure of the marathon
2) Because of point 1, over time there's become a lack of races, support, and groups focused on shorter racing

It seems like everyone here that's very "pro-marathon" is operating under the assumption of "Well, everyone wants to run them and that's the way it is so why bother trying to change it?"

Instead they should step back and ask, "Why is it this way? Does it need to be this way? Is it worth it/beneficial trying to change it?"

I'm relatively young in the grand scheme of running history, but I know marathons weren't always the crown jewel of road running. It's a new-ish phenomenon. Even in the early 2000s, there were many 5 and 10ks around my area. Now they're almost all gone.

Finally, you say something that makes some sense!

I just want people to have a fair shot at exploring running for all it has to offer, but corporations have seriously hindered that.

If someone wants to take strength sports seriously and compete, it's not that hard to find a flavor that suits you. Many medium sized towns will have a powerlifting gym. Maybe that gym has a barbell club where they can learn Olympic lifts. Some are associated with strongman clubs. Crossfit is a thing, and they often have barbell clubs that members might find they enjoy more than Crossfit. These same places also might dabble in body building. The point is, there's not much pushing or pulling beginner strength athletes in one direction or the other. It's easy to get exposed to different types of training and competition.

Crossfit kind of tried to monopolize strength based fitness/training in the same way that marathoning has successfully become the most lucrative form of running. Thankfully Crossfit is starting to flail and the fad is going away.

I think what "big marathon" is doing is malicious. I also think what Crossfit tried to do is malicious. In the grand scheme of things, neither of these are important at all. Like, I should be way more riled up about big-pharma because it negatively impacts way more than big-marathon, but I'm just passionate about fitness.

So it goes.