The War on Running

My outlook has always been hobby joggers and their ilk are more than welcome in the running community and I respect their attempts to exercise and aspire to a healthier lifestyle.

What I don't like is when those hobby joggers create an atmosphere that is outwardly disdainful and even hostile towards those of us who train at a high level and are competitive runners.

It feels to me as though this sentiment is on the rise. There's a sense I get that competitive runners are treated like the kid who tries too hard in class. It's "cool" to jog and smile your way through a 5k, but not to actually race it.

I see this attitude reflected in the walkers/joggers who can't be bothered to move when they see me running an interval workout on the track.

I'm a live and let live kind of person, and I really don't understand the hostility I sometimes feel from other people simply because I'm running fast.

correction: thier

I think there are two key factors here.

1. The world is full of people who are insecure and/or narcissistic, or who are just having a bad day. They build themselves up and rationalize their perceived shortcomings by heaping scorn on others. Whether those others are widely admired or widely loathed, what matters is that they're different. Some LRC posters hate on "hobby joggers." Some lifters hate on "skinny" distance runners. Some of the more sedentary members of the general public hate on people who put in consistent effort toward their fitness and athletic goals. And, I don't think that people trying to get attention for running is necessarily any more off-putting than the myriad other things people try to get attention for through social media.

2. As another poster pointed out, the media likes contrarian stories because they attract attention: "You'll Never Believe What I Found Out about This Popular Exercise!" I'd add that researchers, too, have an incentive to be contrarian, because it can attract attention and potentially make their reputation. Sometimes they're right, or sort of right, but it's good to look closely at their methodology and their (or the media's) interpretation of their results.

I'm not sure that the "War on Running" is significantly worse than it has been, though. I think a relatively recent trough in public opinion resulted from the coverage of the plans to hold the New York City Marathon after Hurricane Sandy. However, that seemed to be quickly forgotten several months later in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. My prediction is that this most recent study alone won't have much of a lasting impact on public perception unless additional research supports it.

classic liberal collectivist thinking. contempt for the successful - marginalize their accomplishment - play the populist card to garner support.

krispy kremlin wrote:

classic liberal collectivist thinking. contempt for the successful - marginalize their accomplishment - play the populist card to garner support.

If liberals have contempt for the successful, as you claim, what explains our contempt for you?

Excellent post, Bonkers. I think you have summed it up well. I have come late to running, but I am able to sense what you and others here have sensed. I would add that, as long as I can recall, there has ALWAYS been a war against running. I have yet to see anything like this in regard to ANY other sport. I use caps here because I really believe this (no offense intended with the caps).

I can remember my father warning against getting "bad knees," among other things, from running. He loved/loves pro football, and his disdain for runners was/is more than obvious. I remember him viewing them as skinny wimps. He has such a disdain for runners that I do not even discuss my running with him, even though I have had some success at the local/regional level, and would love to tell him of my experiences.

I am not certain of the true root of the war, but ultimately I think these people know that what we do is difficult and demanding. Perhaps they simply cannot handle the fact that we do it--in rain, snow, heat, wind and all else--and they do not.

Are you Martin Murray?

Very good post. Whenever I tell people that I run 5k and 10k they ask me when I will do a marathon. It's like people want to brag about completing the longer distances, like the marathon. The more I run and learn about the sport the more I train in shorter distances in order to improve my form, strength and overall ability.

over half the country is obese and on their way to a life of Type II Diabetes, heart disease, etc. not much backlash against that though, seen as 'normal behavior'.

if you want to take advice from that group of people, you've got a problem. don't sweat it and do your thing, keep hitting the roads/trails and doing what you enjoy.

There is no war on running.

martin6654 wrote:

parkrun UK ... Running has never been more popular for all standards.

I second that - and I firmly believe that parkrun has done more in terms of

public health in England than all of the Olympic legacy. It's not just parkrun

though; my local running club has just reached 300 members, up from less

than 100 a few years ago, while my local XC series, only open to club runners,

has record participation this year. If there is a war on running somewhere, it's

not happening in the UK.

I own running. No one else is allowed to enjoy it, except according to my definitions of running and beliefs about it. Everyone who disagrees with me is clearly an idiot.

Soon, I will save running by sharing my enlightened point of view. Please stare at this screen and wait for me to do that.

The most damning statistic from this study: The hazard ratio of strenuous running was 0.4-8.

For those of you that don't know what a hazard ratio is, this means that the researchers found that hard running gives you something in the range of 40% as likely to die or 800% more likely to die. And this is all cause death, which means that the runners could have been hit by a car or mugged on the way home from work. Maybe not such a big deal if you had a group of thousands, but a fatal flaw when it's 40.

Even more than his past research, this is true garbage and O'Keefe should be roundly mocked for it. The sample size of serious runners is far too small, and he certainly knows this, so he is outright lying in his conclusions.

Positive Contribution wrote:

Seems like there are a lot of articles coming out against the perceived health benefits of distance running. Along with more and more passive aggressiveness towards the sport; runners obviously have deep psychological disorders why else would they run for 60 minutes without stopping, lets ridicule them mercilessly of them under the guise of "just poking fun bro".

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.

In my opinion, the people who do the most damage to the image of the running community are those who are slower runners who have 13.1 stickers on the back of the cars but tout their athletic accomplishments as if they are Bill Rodgers. They come across as huge a-holes to people who are not exposed to running and I think they keep people from getting involved because they are so turned off by this. By the way, everyone knows you are pretty slow and are not impressed that you broke 2 hrs. in the half marathon. No matter what you do in running, there is always someone faster than you on any particular day so remain humble. Humility could lead to an explosion of interest in the sport.

Hey look I hate to be the guy that supports the hobby joggers on the elitist running blog, but look, those hobby joggers make the sport what it is.

I totally get where a lot of you are coming from with the frustration with not just the passive attitude of the general running population, but sometimes their hostility when it comes to "strenuous" runners working hard. Totally. I work in running retail, and I see it all the time, and while it's this feel-good attitude, it's sort of annoying for the 2-3% of us that know what the hell PR stands for.

But with that said, these people spend the money and make the sport what it can be today. For one, there's actually a pretty good-sized industry based around the sport itself, not just for gear and everything, but for events. And if the industry was made up of the same people that make up LR, it would be dead in the water. We're 18-35y males that are either in school or trying to figure out a career for ourselves. We don't have $150 to spend on the new nike light up pants, or for the cute down vest from North face or even to buy shoes at full retail price in person often enough. These hobby joggers do though, and they spend the money for the races, and the hydration belts and everything.

Without so much of that money going around from the complete opposite demographic, major manufacturers probably wouldn't survive. Just a basic lack of support for the sport would make it no better than competitive diving. Seriously.

I know that most of you are just happy to get this sort of frustration off your chest with like people, but honestly, you should appreciate the fatso with the visor sometime though, because you probably wouldn't be doing this without them.

Absolutely up for discus-ion, but it had to be said.

I actually think most posters on this thread aren't concerned with hobby joggers as much as with the questionable scientific studies and general negative attitude coming at us from those outside the running community altogether.

on a semi-related note, I was out on my run the other day and some jerk started harassing me from his car. Usually I just ignore those people but this time I went right back at him verbally. We were in the middle of a downtown area with other people around, and he looked pretty shocked and embarrassed.

Sometimes I wonder if runners need to stick up for themselves more often instead of ignoring it or taking the high road. Just a thought.

I am all for humility, but I see too many posts with this general tone.

I tend to like your posts, sub3over40, but I disagree with this one. I have no problem with people discussing their running with me, whether it is in regard to training or with respect to their times. So what they are slower than most of us here? What is the big deal? In many ways, the "hobby joggers" keep this sport afloat. Further, as we have discussed at length on this forum, "hobby jogging" is a subjective/relative term that could, if stretched, could include some pretty fast categories of running (i.e. anything non-professional, sub-Olympic, sub-national class, and such).

Running certainly requires some talent, and not all of us have it. After my first half--which was not a two-hour affair--my wife got me a 13.1 magnet for my car. I keep it on my fridge, though it belongs on a car, because of people who express your type of perspective.

You also have sub3over40 as your handle. Some might say this shows a lack of humility. I say--"Good for you," as this is a nice accomplishment. Why not enjoy what we do? As I shoot for "sub-3 over 45," I am glad I am able to even have this within the realm of possibility. If someone wants to talk to me about this or some other running goal/time, I am not bothered by it.

I agree. We runners need to stick up for ourselves on occasion and stick together, too.

While I respect your knowledge of the running-related retail industry, you seem to be assuming that you NEED the current version of it in order for their to be plenty of competitive runners, a reasonable number of races, and an acceptable assortment of shoes and clothing. You don't. And we need not guess about this - just look at, say, 1978. Yes, inside the Boom, but races were still races, there were plenty of them, and folks survived just fine without there being hundreds of choices of shoes and clothing. Oh, and times were fast. Of course, "purists" even older than me (I started running in grade school in the late seventies) might say that the same applied in 1968, too!