The War on Running

Sorry for the run on sentences. I don't proofread my letsrun post.

I saw one article, which was widely acknowledged to be misleading.

Too many people run anyway. I hope some do stop.

If you enjoy the sport, why care what others think?

Positive Contribution wrote:

All in all I blame the attention seeking hobby joggers and there need to be rewarded and recognized constantly for running long distances at maddeningly slow paces for the backlash against the running community as a whole.

Discus.

There has been a backlash against running (other than sprinting probably) almost forever, although for a time in the 70s and 80s it was kind of hip. The early death of author Jim Fixx sort of put a quash on that and people used it as a way to point out that indeed running isn't so great for you.

Your second part, quoted above, is more intruiging and right on the mark. The new running boom is all about participation, nothing wrong with that, while competition and quality are almost disdained. It's all about the finisher medal anand good bag, or X number of marathons a month or a week, 50 state half marathoners. I've seen 5 hour marathoners claim with a straight face that the 10K isn't really a race. This tsunami of mediocrity is maddening.

And then on the other end of the spectrum are the letsrun purists who with just as straight a face, and no doubt a sneer, say that anyone running slower than 13:30 for 5K is technically a hobby jogger.

Whilst I love running as a sport and spiritual activity, the idea that aerobic activity embodies the requirements for promoting general health is responsible for leading millions of people astray and preventing them from obtaining the benefits of proper exercise. The aerobics mentality needs to be stopped.

A big part of it is that a few cardiologists (most notably James O'Keefe) have a vendetta against running, for whatever reason. It's the same few authors using mostly the same data on all of these "different" studies.

well that is a deep subject wrote:

I've seen 5 hour marathoners claim with a straight face that the 10K isn't really a race. This tsunami of mediocrity is maddening.

And then on the other end of the spectrum are the letsrun purists who with just as straight a face, and no doubt a sneer, say that anyone running slower than 13:30 for 5K is technically a hobby jogger.

Love it. It appears that the "new running boom" is finally beginning to whither away with the advent of adventure runs, warrior dashes, cross fit gyms, etc. New fads are replacing your standard 5k 10k road race, and to me, it is a good thing. Less of that mediocrity celebration BS. To further add to this, the seasoned veterans who liked to race often, have left because the 5k is not a "bucket event" they can afford to regularly shell out 50 bones for. This is going to create a vaccuum for road racing in the next few years where many races will die, but the established races will be able to hold steady either lowering their entry fees or keeping them constant over the next decade while inflation slowly brings the dedicated runners back. I predict that the late 2010s will see a resurgence in participation of the local road race with just your die hard runner-racers.

well that is a deep subject wrote:

And then on the other end of the spectrum are the letsrun purists who with just as straight a face, and no doubt a sneer, say that anyone running slower than 13:30 for 5K is technically a hobby jogger.

To be fair to our community, I think 14:30 is the recognized threshold to be considered a real runner.

I think the local "no frills" race is already replacing the mega event within the event within the event big city extravaganza.

oab wrote:

To be fair to our community, I think 14:30 is the recognized threshold to be considered a real runner.

Per mile? I can do that.

I don't run for the health benefits.

Anytime something gets popular with the general public, there is going to be some nitwit articles and "studies" that try and bring it down. Why? Because media likes getting attention.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Whilst I love running as a sport and spiritual activity, the idea that aerobic activity embodies the requirements for promoting general health is responsible for leading millions of people astray and preventing them from obtaining the benefits of proper exercise. The aerobics mentality needs to be stopped.

Good point. One pervasive issue amongst people who run for the perceived health benefits is diet. "If the furnace is burning hot enough..." "You can eat all the (crap food) you want! You just ran x miles!" I don't run for the health benefits but it can fit nicely into a healthy lifestyle. Running in and of itself doesn't mean anything for health without accompanying healthy choices. It can actually lead to an apathetic attitude in other vital areas.

Public Health Guy wrote:

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Whilst I love running as a sport and spiritual activity, the idea that aerobic activity embodies the requirements for promoting general health is responsible for leading millions of people astray and preventing them from obtaining the benefits of proper exercise. The aerobics mentality needs to be stopped.

Good point. One pervasive issue amongst people who run for the perceived health benefits is diet. "If the furnace is burning hot enough..." "You can eat all the (crap food) you want! You just ran x miles!" I don't run for the health benefits but it can fit nicely into a healthy lifestyle. Running in and of itself doesn't mean anything for health without accompanying healthy choices. It can actually lead to an apathetic attitude in other vital areas.

Excellent point. Just because you ran 10 miles won't make up for housing three Big Macs. A healthy lifestyle Is just that, a lifestyle. Means healthy choices when it comes to diet and exercise. Running is an enjoyable activity and a great sport but those who insist there marathon training while neglecting the rest of there body are only fooling themselves.

Positive Contribution wrote:

Sorry for the run on sentences. I don't proofread my letsrun post.

and you bash people who don't proofread their letsrun post

FAG

parkrun UK - the series of free weekly 5k events in nearly 400 towns across the country, has just had it's 1 millionth registration this week - out of a population of 65 million. Running has never been more popular for all standards. My local race has course records of 14.30 and 16.38 with the last finishers often over 50 minutes so it appeals to a wide section of runners.

asdfdsfds wrote:

A big part of it is that a few cardiologists (most notably James O'Keefe) have a vendetta against running, for whatever reason. It's the same few authors using mostly the same data on all of these "different" studies.

I shared a house with James and a couple of other good local runners back in the early '80s while he was in college. He was a very gifted runner and I expect he could have been semi-great if he had done the work required, but his studies were definitely the first priority. I've only casually followed his research and Ted Talks, etc. but I suppose he could be correct in his assertions about the long-term dangers of over training. But it seems counter-productive to speak out so strongly against what I would call quality training (high miles, faster paced) when such a very small percentage of people actually do it. In warning those least likely to care about the adverse effects, he is giving those who are least likely to exercise one more platform to justify their sloth. Rather than going on about the dangers of too much exercise, he really should focus on the benefits of moderate exercise. But that is old news and wouldn't sell books.

99% of Americans are undertrained. Many who run are just decal-sporting bucket listers. That leaves a tiny number who run big enough mileage to risk cell damage, chronic fatigue and the like.

"The War on Running". Poor victim. I feel so sorry for you.