Why do slow runners write articles?

Fast Runner wrote:

My point is not that only world-class runners, or even BQers should be writing personal narratives about their training. But I have a difficult time understanding why I should have any interest in what this woman has to say about her experience

You shouldn't have an interest in what she's writing, what she's writing isn't for you or for anyone else that runs seriously. Her article was published in Runner'a World for god's sake, nothing in that magazine is targeted to fast runners! You may as well pick up a copy Martha Stewart Living and comment about howthe article are not of relevance to your training...

I feel you wrote:

I know where you are coming from. A self promoting Instagramer followed me, and he predominantly gives tips on stretching, warming up, diet, etc. There are a couple videos of him running and pictures of his watch after workouts. He is like a 16:50 5k runner. Yet, he has a cult following of like 200k who treat him like a running god.

Tips are very RunnersWorld esque. I have no idea why, but listening to him give very mediocre advice makes me irrationally angry. It shouldn't! But it does.

It would be like Golf Digest running tips from people who can't break 100.

Why are most world-class coaches so ridiculously slow?

Well that just isn't true. Most were incredibly fast in their prime.

tester of tests wrote:

Why are most world-class coaches so ridiculously slow?

Again, I would be interested in what the coach had to say about training his runners, and the tips that led to success for them, just like I'm interested to hear what Joe Maddon has to say about baseball, even though he wasn't a Hall of Famer. But I would not be interested in reading about Joe Maddon's personal journey from batting .200 to batting .210, or the running coach's personal journey to a 4:07 marathon.

DFASDFAFADF wrote:

2. There's no evidence that running more than 30mpw is necessary to reach any level of performance.

Well of course not. You can not run at all and reach a "level of performance."

You know, when you look at marathon results these days you see that for an awful lot of those finishers, 4:07 is not slow. So I'd guess that in some cases slow runners write these sorts of articles because they don't think of themselves as slow and because there's an audience of even slower runners who are really interested in how the author got that "fast."

I've also found that those articles rarely mention the sort of means to improvement that we take as basic here, i.e., "run more." I've had those sorts of discussions with five hour type marathoners and have largely given up because they usually reject that kind of suggestion as impossible for them to do. So there's a real market for articles about how to run faster without working more.

Fast Runner wrote:

I just don't believe this. That number has to be vanishingly small. Four hours takes some level of commitment - you can't just show up that day and run it like it's a turkey trot at the VFW. But I would say 99 percent of people in reasonably decent physical condition could easily break it with a little bit of effort.

People with competitive running backgrounds have a hard time appreciating how slow other people are because they tend to have above-average genes for running. In the bottom 10% of the genetic giftedness spectrum are people who are astonishingly slow by the average letsrunner's standards, people who probably can't even run 3 miles in 28 minutes no matter how hard they train. Just like K. Bekele can't fathom how anyone can be slow enough to run a 15:00 5K.

Explain this further.

There is no hard evidence that the training ideas that most people in the running community take for granted are actually correct, no evidence that any given mileage level is needed for optimum results or that a mileage-based approach is requited at all. Here's the single fact that most people on here will never allow themselves to accept: just because a training approach is used by professional athletes does not make it correct. But I realize that's just too heavy for most people on here to deal with.

I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes people get very excited about a certain endeavor and want to share their passion with others.

I recognize that this is a strange human emotion, and requires great mental effort to comprehend.

Randy Wholeway wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes people get very excited about a certain endeavor and want to share their passion with others.

I recognize that this is a strange human emotion, and requires great mental effort to comprehend.

1. She's so excited about it that she hasn't broken four hours now after several attempts, and admits she wasn't mentally tough enough last time, despite no physical difficulties at all.

2. She may want to share her "passion" with others. (I reject the premise because someone with "passion" wouldn't likely be churning out 4:20 finishes.) But that doesn't mean "Runner's World" should pay her to do so.

HRE wrote:

You know, when you look at marathon results these days you see that for an awful lot of those finishers, 4:07 is not slow. So I'd guess that in some cases slow runners write these sorts of articles because they don't think of themselves as slow and because there's an audience of even slower runners who are really interested in how the author got that "fast."

I've also found that those articles rarely mention the sort of means to improvement that we take as basic here, i.e., "run more." I've had those sorts of discussions with five hour type marathoners and have largely given up because they usually reject that kind of suggestion as impossible for them to do. So there's a real market for articles about how to run faster without working more.

Well articulated

Fast Runner wrote:

Randy Wholeway wrote:

I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes people get very excited about a certain endeavor and want to share their passion with others.

I recognize that this is a strange human emotion, and requires great mental effort to comprehend.

1. She's so excited about it that she hasn't broken four hours now after several attempts, and admits she wasn't mentally tough enough last time, despite no physical difficulties at all.

2. She may want to share her "passion" with others. (I reject the premise because someone with "passion" wouldn't likely be churning out 4:20 finishes.) But that doesn't mean "Runner's World" should pay her to do so.

So anyone slower than you should either improve or give it up, right?

Fast Runner wrote:

tester of tests wrote:

Why are most world-class coaches so ridiculously slow?

Again, I would be interested in what the coach had to say about training his runners, and the tips that led to success for them, just like I'm interested to hear what Joe Maddon has to say about baseball, even though he wasn't a Hall of Famer. But I would not be interested in reading about Joe Maddon's personal journey from batting .200 to batting .210, or the running coach's personal journey to a 4:07 marathon.

Thank you for revealing your interests. Please, do tell us more about what you like and dislike.

Randy Wholeway wrote:

Fast Runner wrote:

1. She's so excited about it that she hasn't broken four hours now after several attempts, and admits she wasn't mentally tough enough last time, despite no physical difficulties at all.

2. She may want to share her "passion" with others. (I reject the premise because someone with "passion" wouldn't likely be churning out 4:20 finishes.) But that doesn't mean "Runner's World" should pay her to do so.

So anyone slower than you should either improve or give it up, right?

I don't know where you would get that from. Again, this isn't a 3:20 marathoner writing this. It's someone who runs 4:20 marathons, jumping on a gimmick diet to see if she can possibly break the apparently magical 4-hour barrier that anyone could break if they just got a little dirt under their fingernails. I used the analogy earlier: Would Golf Digest run tips from someone who shoots 110? So why does "Runner's World" consider hobby joggers experts in the field?

Fast Runner wrote:

[quote]So why does "Runner's World" consider hobby joggers experts in the field?

Where does "Runner's World" or anyone else imply that she's an expert?

Why do you have your panties in a bundle about this?

She tries a thing, writes about her experience like many of us do without believing we're experts or anything, and sends it in to RW. They think someone might be interested and post it. Maybe people will be interested, maybe not. They can read it if they are or not read it if they aren't.

Fast Runner wrote:

Randy Wholeway wrote:

So anyone slower than you should either improve or give it up, right?

I don't know where you would get that from. Again, this isn't a 3:20 marathoner writing this. It's someone who runs 4:20 marathons, jumping on a gimmick diet to see if she can possibly break the apparently magical 4-hour barrier that anyone could break if they just got a little dirt under their fingernails. I used the analogy earlier: Would Golf Digest run tips from someone who shoots 110? So why does "Runner's World" consider hobby joggers experts in the field?

Why do you care if she "gets a little dirt under her fingernails"? She enjoys doing marathons and blogging about it. How exactly is she hurting you? If you don't like her blog, don't read it.

I agree with you that much of journalistic output, whether it's about running or the economy, is penned by non-experts, and this is a serious problem. However, there are reasons aside from strict conformation to elite training regimens for publishing the piece that you cite. It is meant as an experiential article for the general mainstream. You aren't the target audience. If you would like more attention, we can use this thread to focus more on your needs and wants.

DFASDFAFADF wrote:

There is no hard evidence that the training ideas that most people in the running community take for granted are actually correct, no evidence that any given mileage level is needed for optimum results or that a mileage-based approach is requited at all. Here's the single fact that most people on here will never allow themselves to accept: just because a training approach is used by professional athletes does not make it correct. But I realize that's just too heavy for most people on here to deal with.

Can you name a single person who has run an elite marathon off 30 mpw?

The article is from runnersworld, why are you surprised?

Also, the article was actually interesting but I think that the choice of the author to include her personal dilemmas (ignoring her husband, running with the "fast guys") depreciated what could have been a nice succinct summary of an experience on a new diet. That, to me, is more aggravating.