Seriously, why? Why do so many hobby joggers run marathons?
Seriously, why? Why do so many hobby joggers run marathons?
The average person is more impressed that I have "run" a marathon than the fact that I have run a 5k in 1X:xx, even if my equivalent pace is wicked slower for the marathon.
I'm 63, distance running since I was 13. As you get older, you lose speed before you lose endurance. I can still do half marathons, but my time is now 2:04-2:06. Distance helps you to stay in shape, maintain weight, all sorts of benefits. I can't sprint anymore, but you don't lose the ability to do distance for a long time.
Obvs wrote:
The average person is more impressed that I have "run" a marathon than the fact that I have run a 5k in 1X:xx, even if my equivalent pace is wicked slower for the marathon.
So perhaps it is that most people don't realize that racing 5Ks can be challenging.
I know. Anyone who races anything longer than 400m is just doing it because they're slow.
My wife is the opposite. She is always complaining that I go too fast and not long enough.
Skyrunner wrote:
I'm 63, distance running since I was 13. As you get older, you lose speed before you lose endurance. I can still do half marathons, but my time is now 2:04-2:06. Distance helps you to stay in shape, maintain weight, all sorts of benefits. I can't sprint anymore, but you don't lose the ability to do distance for a long time.
I can understand this at 63, heck even at 43. But in the past 5 years I've also witnessed an epidemic of people in their 20's and 30's not even trying to go faster - it's conventional for them to go longer!
Where did this all start? I don't know, but it didn't exist until 5-10 years ago.
Live to run wrote:
Skyrunner wrote:I'm 63, distance running since I was 13. As you get older, you lose speed before you lose endurance. I can still do half marathons, but my time is now 2:04-2:06. Distance helps you to stay in shape, maintain weight, all sorts of benefits. I can't sprint anymore, but you don't lose the ability to do distance for a long time.
I can understand this at 63, heck even at 43. But in the past 5 years I've also witnessed an epidemic of people in their 20's and 30's not even trying to go faster - it's conventional for them to go longer!
Where did this all start? I don't know, but it didn't exist until 5-10 years ago.
Yes it did. It's possibe I've been around the sport longer than you've been alive, and this attitude goes back almost as far as I can remember.
1. Going longer is easier than going faster, especially for the less genetically gifted. Once you're in shape for it, you can finish a marathon being completely comfortable. Racing, on the other hand, always hurts.
2. If you know (or think) you don't have the talent to win a 5k, finishing a marathon feels like a more realistic goal, while still feeling like you did something, because it's a long way. A 5k isn't a long way, so finishing one doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment.
I dont know why this is the case either. Why stop at 50k and 100ks or 100 milers also ultra crew? Why not do those 6-day-race things like they did 100 years ago? Why stop there even?
If further is better why not have a 30-day race? a year? 5?
How many local 5k races are advertised in your area?
How many local 400m track races are advertised in your area?
Looking forward to your response.
A lot of old guys can still race shorter distances and do. Because of the intensity , to do well they probably have to lift weights do lots of range of motion stuff, take off days or xt . It's hard to find companions to train with on the specific stuff and enough races to really put in a season. Risk of an acute injury is high. To a lot of distance runners, that isn't interesting. It's not running. It's too dangerous. They just want to run.
Live to run wrote:
Skyrunner wrote:I'm 63, distance running since I was 13. As you get older, you lose speed before you lose endurance. I can still do half marathons, but my time is now 2:04-2:06. Distance helps you to stay in shape, maintain weight, all sorts of benefits. I can't sprint anymore, but you don't lose the ability to do distance for a long time.
I can understand this at 63, heck even at 43. But in the past 5 years I've also witnessed an epidemic of people in their 20's and 30's not even trying to go faster - it's conventional for them to go longer!
Where did this all start? I don't know, but it didn't exist until 5-10 years ago.
I am only 34 and it hurts like hell to try to run fast.
sit and kick wrote:
I dont know why this is the case either. Why stop at 50k and 100ks or 100 milers also ultra crew? Why not do those 6-day-race things like they did 100 years ago? Why stop there even?
If further is better why not have a 30-day race? a year? 5?
You were probably kidding, but notice that the same sort of 'reductio' reasoning can be applied against people arguing for shorter races. "Why 5k, why not 100m? Why not four inches?"
I agree with those above who said that the marathon just seems like a bigger accomplishment to those who don't know much about running. So it has higher signaling value.
People like to find themselves crippled when they get old....
Because non runners are impressed by time, they don't have the experience and can't comprehend that a 15 minutes 5k is more impresive than a marathon.
I had a non runner friend ask me how much I ran today and I told him I just did 5 km in like 19 minutes and his response was pshh I do it every time in like 12 minutes. Dude was actually running around 2.5 km but he had no idea of how long 1000 m are since he didn't use any tracking.
Distance is much more impressive to ordinary folk than speed over distance. If you tell someone you finished a 100k they will look at you like you aren't human. Tell them you ran 100m in under 11 and they will threat it like everyone can do that any time of the day
I think going longer just looks way more impressive to many people than going faster does. Part of the reason is that everybody (sry many/most) can run a 5K. (I know it's hard to run a 5K in 16ish) Running a 100K or -mile is not possible for most people.
WhitePony wrote:
Live to run wrote:I can understand this at 63, heck even at 43. But in the past 5 years I've also witnessed an epidemic of people in their 20's and 30's not even trying to go faster - it's conventional for them to go longer!
Where did this all start? I don't know, but it didn't exist until 5-10 years ago.
I am only 34 and it hurts like hell to try to run fast.
Yep. 44 years old and after years of injuries and on-again, off-again running as a result, I've figured out that I can run a long way slowly and really enjoy the sport. In a case like mine, the question is not whether I want to do this (run short and fast) or that (run long and slow). The question is whether I want to do what my body will allow and enjoy it or do I want to be a broken down mess, failing in an attempt to do something that I simply can't do anymore.
"RE: Why do people want to go longer instead of faster?"
That's what she want.
former d3 XC runner wrote:
sit and kick wrote:I dont know why this is the case either. Why stop at 50k and 100ks or 100 milers also ultra crew? Why not do those 6-day-race things like they did 100 years ago? Why stop there even?
If further is better why not have a 30-day race? a year? 5?
You were probably kidding, but notice that the same sort of 'reductio' reasoning can be applied against people arguing for shorter races. "Why 5k, why not 100m? Why not four inches?"
I agree with those above who said that the marathon just seems like a bigger accomplishment to those who don't know much about running. So it has higher signaling value.
Because clearly on the short end we are critically bounded by the 'zero' distance, which I think the victor can be decided by rock-paper-scissors. On the >0 end, we are bound by the size of the [expanding?] known universe. It is clear what are limits are on the 'short' side of racing. I agree with you in principle that the " 4 inch" race sounds like it should be added.
slow is slow wrote:
I know. Anyone who races anything longer than 400m is just doing it because they're slow.
Close. I would say anyone who run anything longer than a 1500m is doing it because they are slow. Why doesn't Grace Ping run an 800m against some of the girls in nationals? Do you really think when the fourth or fifth place girls move up to 5 and 10k they won't destroy all these little distance girls?