Wan Phat Dude wrote:
He's an ultrarunner. Holds the 100 mile world record (11:40).
Pretty sure that is the United States record, not the world record.
As for the topic, how interesting can it be to describe in great detail how you ran around a track 36 times going fast sometimes and going slow at other times?
Thanks.
It just seems very strange to me that people profess to love a sport and even make it a centerpiece of their identity, but don't seem to even want to try to excel at it.
DFASDFAFADF wrote:
[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.[/quote]
No evidence...Oh, good thing you told me that...I needed a good laugh today. Thank you!
Dude, unless you've run a sub 2:02 marathon you don't have anything to add. Everyone can read up on what to do to get to sub 2:03 so you don't have anything to say there.
X-Runner wrote:
Seems like a decent mile time.
Seriously was my first thought.
Ho Hum wrote:
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?
Tony Sandoval.
What do fast people know about running that slow? If I want to find out how to run that slow, I'd ask a slow person. I don't think Bekele would have any idea how to run 4:07. Like, jog a mile, walk 2 miles, jog another mile, stop off for a snack, jog a few more, etc.
Are slow runners also slow at writing articles about slow running?
Think about this wrote:
Are slow runners also slow at writing articles about slow running?
I'm a slow runner and I've been trying to finish an article on slow running since December 1969. I'm almost finished. Hoping it will be published sometime in 2019. Can't wait for fast runners to read it.
Some 118 year old guy wrote:
Think about this wrote:Are slow runners also slow at writing articles about slow running?
I'm a slow runner and I've been trying to finish an article on slow running since December 1969. I'm almost finished. Hoping it will be published sometime in 2019. Can't wait for fast runners to read it.
It will take a fast runner 5 seconds to read your article.
Uriel. wrote:
Some 118 year old guy wrote:I'm a slow runner and I've been trying to finish an article on slow running since December 1969. I'm almost finished. Hoping it will be published sometime in 2019. Can't wait for fast runners to read it.
It will take a fast runner 5 seconds to read your article.
How do you know this?
Fast Runner wrote:
No disrespect to this person, because it happens all the time. But why should I care about someone's grueling journey to a 4:07 PR? Obviously they don't care. Why would I?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.runnersworld.com/diet/can-eating-more-fat-make-you-a-better-runner%3Famp
At first I thought you meant 4:07 mile. Then I realized that even on LetsRun, that's fast.
Fast Runner wrote:
No disrespect to this person, because it happens all the time. But why should I care about someone's grueling journey to a 4:07 PR? Obviously they don't care. Why would I?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.runnersworld.com/diet/can-eating-more-fat-make-you-a-better-runner%3Famp
It's for the same reason that people write inane stuff about themselves on Facebook etc ...
Magazines depend on advertising for most of their income. There are far more slow runners in the world than elite athletes. Granted, Joe Slow wants to read occasionally about super fast runners but he also wants to know that there are plenty more people in the world just as low as him (or her!).
It's all a question of finance!
mark b wrote:
Magazines depend on advertising for most of their income. There are far more slow runners in the world than elite athletes. Granted, Joe Slow wants to read occasionally about super fast runners but he also wants to know that there are plenty more people in the world just as low as him (or her!).
It's all a question of finance!
Then why doesn't Golf Digest run articles from people who shoot 110? Because that is the equivalent here.
Fast Runner wrote: I have a difficult time understanding why I should have any interest in what this woman has to say about her experience.
Are you that egocentric? There are plenty of non-atheltic middle aged folks who probably read and enjoyed that article. It was not written for you. Go cry about that elsewhere.
hjfr40gujq0 wrote:
Fast Runner wrote: I have a difficult time understanding why I should have any interest in what this woman has to say about her experience.Are you that egocentric? There are plenty of non-atheltic middle aged folks who probably read and enjoyed that article. It was not written for you. Go cry about that elsewhere.
I'm not egocentric at all. In fact, despite my handle on this thread, I'm not even that fast of a runner. At least not yet. I am, however, someone who has improved from a 5:05 first-timer to 4:55, then to 4:33, then to 4:22, and then to a 3:40 marathoner last time out, just by trying a little bit. And I don't understand why people who improve from 4:22 to 4:07 are getting articles published about their trials and tribulations in trying to improve their marathon times. This person presumably finishes in the back half of every field she runs in. Would "Golf Digest" run an article about the gimmick someone who doesn't practice used to improve from 110 to 105?
People read those articles for the same reason they like movies like "Rudy" and "Hoosiers". People like to applaud the human spirit, and to celebrate the accomplishments of the "less-talented, less-gifted, less-perfect of the species".
(Which describes 99% of the posters here, even if they can't admit it to themselves)
cheap old guy wrote:
People read those articles for the same reason they like movies like "Rudy" and "Hoosiers". People like to applaud the human spirit, and to celebrate the accomplishments of the "less-talented, less-gifted, less-perfect of the species".
(Which describes 99% of the posters here, even if they can't admit it to themselves)
You, and others, keep making this false equivalence. I'm not saying that only Galen Rupp and his ilk should be writing training articles. There is a long continuum between Galen Rupp and a woman who can't break four hours, despite her apparently epic sacrifice this time around in pursuit of it. It doesn't take "talent" or a "gift" to break four damn hours, or three and a half hours for that matter.
I ask again: Would Golf Digest regularly run training articles written by duffers who shoot 110?