Pete MaGill - Tell us what you did to be able to run a 14:34 5k at 46.

SB wrote:

And, "pile on posts"? I simply asked a guy who was accusing another guy of neglecting his parental duties to go for a bike ride whether he knew the full story. Then, I offered my own view. Besides, why don't you let others make the call as to whether they feel they've been unfairly attacked or not? We were managing to have a civil, if pointed, discussion here until you came along. (Now, I suppose now, in classic Letsrun fashion, you will simply re-register and go on being a dick under another name...)

Everyone makes judgments about other folks, fairly or unfairly. We do it without even thinking about it - it's just human nature to do so. Usually we don't act on those judgments - they're just opinions we keep to ourselves (or post anonymously on message boards which is basically the same thing). Or, if we somehow have to act on an initial judgment we would rightly slam the caution brakes on and make sure we get as many facts as possible before making any decision that has consequences.

I formed an opinion on this one Dad a few years back based on what I saw and what I knew. Maybe I was way off base. But I would have to be not breathing to not form an initial private opinion on the matter.

Someone comes on here after me and basically says that guys who are not running a ton of miles and training real hard, regardless of their professional and family responsibilities, just lack the desire to do so. Now tell me - is that not an unfair judgment of others?

Actually you agreed with this post the first time it was brought up. So cut the crap!

No, I don't think that's an unfair judgment at all, because I don't think it's a moral failing not to have the desire to compete at running to the best of one's ability. My point was simply to say that a big part of the "secret" of why the very fast masters guys are fast is that the absolutely love the sport and love to train, perhaps to the exclusion of a lot of things that slower runners may value, like making tons of money or watching T.V. This is, of course, only part of the secret, the rest of which is some genetic luck and other forms of luck (the same thing that explains the success of athletes at ANY age). Could attentive parenting be one of the things that faster masters neglect in pursuit of their passion? Of course, just as pursuit of money vastly beyond one's basic needs could be an obstacle to being a good parent. My beef concerned how quickly some of us want to ASSUME that faster masters must be worse parents, or in some way unhealthy fanatics, on the basis of how much they train or how fast they run. I maintain that if this discussion had been about some other form of middle class success, the subject of parental responsibilities would not have come up quite so quickly, if at all. Again, I think we tend to assume that it excusable to be an absentee parent,particularly for men, if that happens to be the case, if the payback is lots of disposable income; which, it can be clearly shown, does not fix the problem where emotionally neglected kids are concerned.

The sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be at peace with it. SoCal Pete just functions at a higher level than you do in all phases of life.

This is just a general reply and a little off the OP but is there a case for to much time with the kids ,a case of over parenting ?

Up to a certain age 8 or 10 you could feel the need to spend a lot of time with your children but after that ?

I think a lot of parents feel guilty about to little time spent with kids ,due to work etc and the kids are "Hanging onto the teat a bit to long ".

I am a big believer in finding your own way and figuring things out yourself,obviously as a parent i am always there but learn by doing is my mantra.

After the age of 8 i would not have thanked my dad for spending time with me i just wanted to be out with my friends playing football or cricket.

My parents were always there IF I NEEDED THEM they did not force themselves on me.

For which i am eternally grateful.

Up at 3 too wrote:

Actually you agreed with this post the first time it was brought up. So cut the crap!

I was referring to postfontaine's post (the 1st one) which I never responded to or commented on, so I don't follow you at all. You clearly have it in for me, but that's ok.

Actually, postfontaine's post is quite reasonable and quite normal. I wasn't trying to call him out as unfair 'judger'. I was simply pointing out that he has it in his mind that anyone can maximize their potential (whatever that might be) if they simply have the desire and dedication, regardless of their personal situation. I would not disagree with this in principle, of course. But I would offer that for some people (not ALL people) who have demanding professional and/or family situations, doing this would require that the person sacrifice some quality time/energy otherwise devoted to the employer or the family or both.

I'm absolutely not saying this is the case with Pete MaGill. I am saying that it is the case with some people and it would be unfair to judge them as having a lack of desire because they believe they must choose to give more time to their other obligations than they can give to running.

SB - you're right that judging someone to have a lack of desire is not judging them to be morally deficient. But it is a judgment, nonetheless.

Well said. I am living through this now, with kids who are 8 and 11. There are many weekend days where they both disappear to their friends' houses, and my wife often has errands to do, leaving me on my own. I can either (a) go for a run (b) watch TV or (c) spend time on letsrun.com, or (d) all of the above, which is what I usually end up doing in those situations. We spend plenty of quality time together, but I think part of fatherhood is understanding that we don't need to spend every possible minute together.

i have a theory wrote:

After the age of 8 i would not have thanked my dad for spending time with me i just wanted to be out with my friends playing football or cricket.

My parents were always there IF I NEEDED THEM they did not force themselves on me.

For which i am eternally grateful.

this reminds me of those dating websites

where you can spend 4 days texting a girl

and then when you see them in person

you laugh and say

I got all worked up OVER THAT!!!!

Magill would crush these pansies like a jelly bean!

[quote]nyloco wrote:

We spend plenty of quality time together, but I think part of fatherhood is understanding that we don't need to spend every possible minute together.

/quote]

Of course we don't. And I certainly don't. I also run about 60 mpw and believe me almost every other father in the neighborhood probably thinks I'm the running fanatic who takes it way too seriously.

My youngest of 4 is 12 now and I have 3 in high school. I am very well aware of when they don't want me around. But somehow I still find the time commitment very demanding, primarily because they are all athletes and my wife and I find ourselves running all over the place on weekends trying to get them to/from games or meets and trying to watch them play/compete.

When they are young you spend a lot of time with them because they need to be more closely supervised and because they want you to play games with them, read to them, etc...When they are in high school they don't want or need that, thank goodness, but you better believe you'll drive 2 hours one way to watch your kid run a one mile race.

Okay, okay, we get it. Running 60 mpw is demanding but still permits one to be a great parent, whereas running 90 mpw is completely different and necessitates some sacrifice of parental duties. It's those extra 3-3.5 hours per week that make all the difference.

(Not that it's at all solipsistic to define what's normal and possible based on one's own limitations.)

hold the phone wrote:

Okay, okay, we get it. Running 60 mpw is demanding but still permits one to be a great parent, whereas running 90 mpw is completely different and necessitates some sacrifice of parental duties. It's those extra 3-3.5 hours per week that make all the difference.

(Not that it's at all solipsistic to define what's normal and possible based on one's own limitations.)

Solipsistic - nice! You don't see that on letsrun every day.

Again, for about the 50th time for those with high-powered vocabularies who still don't follow along very well, the extra 30-40mpw may make no difference to many folks but in fact may be too much for other folks.

One more time in bullet format:

- Some people can run 100mpw and be great parents and professionals in their 40s

- Some people cannot

I do not find this a recondite concept

Perhaps I shouldn't be replying to this thread at all, but I do find it amusing. It's amazing how many people will go out of their way to make excuses for not having time to run. At least on here we are talking about people still getting out to exercise, but some more than others. It kills me when I hear people make excuses as to why they can't make time to exercise for 30-60 minutes a day!!! Come on...wake up earlier, run on your lunch break...

Now I'm 27...so I'm sure I'll get crap for that. I do probably recover faster than most of you.

I have a 4.5 month old son and I have been getting in between 100-115 miles a week for a long time now and was up in the 120s during the fall.

How do I get in that much mileage with a son and a full-time job? Easy...wake up at 4:30-4:45 in the morning to get in my first run and do another run on my lunch break. Getting up that early may sound crazy. It even sounded crazy to me at first and I suffered for a couple weeks, but your body adapts. My body is used to getting up that early now.

hold the phone wrote:

Okay, okay, we get it. Running 60 mpw is demanding but still permits one to be a great parent, whereas running 90 mpw is completely different and necessitates some sacrifice of parental duties. It's those extra 3-3.5 hours per week that make all the difference.

(Not that it's at all solipsistic to define what's normal and possible based on one's own limitations.)

This may be putting rather to fine (and sarcastic!) a point on it, but it's is pretty much the nub of things. In the end, I actually don't think time is the reason that the vast majority of masters don't train as hard as they could or should to maximize their ability, and that passion for the sport explains a good deal, but certainly not all, of why someone like Pete M. is as good as he is. If you're only running 60 miles per week in this sport AT ANY AGE, you're simply not going to be as good as you could be (and here, I include myself, although I would do more if I physically could). And, if you're not willing to run more than that, it's much more likely that you find the extra running not worth your while than that you simply don't have the extra 4-hours a week (plus perhaps another 2 for proper recovery) to do it. We can describe this condition of "not finding the extra running worth one's while" in any terms we like. I prefer to think of it as lacking sufficient passion for the training process; but, by "sufficient", I don't intend any moral judgment, I just mean insufficient in the sense "not enough to be as good as one possible could." I don't judge people who don't train as hard as they could; in fact, most of the people I coach fall into this category. I would, however, say to any masters runner who is not as fast as guys like Pete, Tony Y, or me: Don't be mystified about why these people are so much faster than you. They may simply more talented than you, but I can almost guarantee that they love to race and train more than you do, and that they do more of both than you would ever be willing to contemplate. And, there is no reason to assume that this makes them a worse person than you in other respects; not better either in the larger scheme of things, but certainly not worse.

And, BTW, I would explain a good part of Haile Gebresellasie's success precisely in terms of this kind of passion; Geb's passion to run may not explain his his rare talent, but it certainly explain his longevity. In spite of his age, his growing non-work responsibilities (which, he himself has suggested, may include a run at the national presidency), and all that he has achieved, he will not here of retirement from the sport. Whatever we may think of it,this is a rare thing, and thing that most of the top runners (or the most successful people in any field, for that matter) I have ever met seem to possess.

I have a coffee cup that says "#1 Dad" case closed !

It's funny that you say 'only 60 mpw'. Only a hard core runner would utter those words. And that's cool.

I've been working with a strength trainer recently (just once a week or two weeks) to try and adopt some new core and leg strength exercises. When I first met him he asked what I do for fitness and I said I run about 60mpw. He responded "HOLY CRAP - it's amazing a guy your age can handle that much running!"

But this brings up another point - I have to spend some time each week (4 times a week) doing some weight lifting and core work. If I don't I feel more susceptible to injury. 60 0r 80 or 100mpw invariably involves more than the actual running time. It involves warm up, cool down, and strength training.

I was 26 when my first child was born. Probably had a very similar situation as you do - new career, etc...

It's great to see you making an adjustment in your schedule to accomodate. But it will get tougher if you have more kids and if your career takes you to places of increased responsibility. Someday you may look back and wish you could sleep in to 4:30.

When did the title of this thread change to "RunDaddy - Tell us what you did to be able to run a 18:00 5k at 46?"

postfontaine wrote:

I have a coffee cup that says "#1 Dad" case closed !

Is that a BCS ranking?? Because I have one too.

I think that weight is an unmentioned factor. At 18, I weighed 130-135 at 5'11''; now I weigh 152-154. At neither point was I overweight, but 20 extra pounds has to account for some of my slow down (about 35 seconds/mile in a 5k).

BTW, this is not an argument for me weighing 130; it's just that I don't see weight mentioned much as a factor. We're all probably carrying more weight.