Why do people want to go longer instead of faster?

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 find both harder!

It is called track for a reason. We still deal with wind and rain buddy, we just compete on a track so we can all know who is the fastest. We don't run in the streets all over the US and then claim we have these great times on courses that are way shorter (or even longer in some cases) than a track.

track guy wrote:

Change @ Park wrote:

What's funny about being 60?

Read much? I said the 60 year olds running 4 minute 800 is funny, not the 60 year old. But if you want to go there.....

Yes. I read it all. What is so funny about a 60-year old running 800m?

I did a dope road 100meter that was shorter than a track. What's the prob, pal?

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

This entire argument of longer v faster is stupid.

Think about it.

A 100 meter runner would say to a 200 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

A 200 meter runner would say to a 400 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

And so on and so on for every distance (which really is just an arbitary number anyways).

It's all different strokes for different folks. I don't spend more than the minute and 20 seconds it took me to type this reply on it.

You're missing the point of the thread. People run a 5k then move to 10k and so on instead of trying to pr in the 5k.

Running fast is painful

Running long gets a lot of likes on social media

Vanity wins

track guy wrote:

When they realized they sucked at speed. The world is a big place with lots of fast people in it. But the majority of people just aren't that fast. So with every doctor saying running is healthy, people began running to stay healthy. Well just like anything else people do, they want recognition. Since they can't go fast, they go long.

You're mostly right but I want to point out that newbie runners GIVE UP on trying to get faster before they get anywhere near their max.

Also, we all know that running longer is easier than running faster. But that's the elephant in the room in hobby jogger circles, and if anybody mentions the truth they're an outcast.

But a lot of slow people will PR in the 5 when they move to 10 and then do a 5. Same thing for the marathon.

They are so aerobically underdeveloped that longer means faster.

For a pro jogger like me that doesnt apply, btw!

Natural selection selector wrote:

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

This entire argument of longer v faster is stupid.

Think about it.

A 100 meter runner would say to a 200 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

A 200 meter runner would say to a 400 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

And so on and so on for every distance (which really is just an arbitary number anyways).

It's all different strokes for different folks. I don't spend more than the minute and 20 seconds it took me to type this reply on it.

You're missing the point of the thread. People run a 5k then move to 10k and so on instead of trying to pr in the 5k.

Thank you! This is not your discussion of which is better, people. Try to keep up.

Live to run wrote:

track guy wrote:

When they realized they sucked at speed. The world is a big place with lots of fast people in it. But the majority of people just aren't that fast. So with every doctor saying running is healthy, people began running to stay healthy. Well just like anything else people do, they want recognition. Since they can't go fast, they go long.

You're mostly right but I want to point out that newbie runners GIVE UP on trying to get faster before they get anywhere near their max.

Also, we all know that running longer is easier than running faster. But that's the elephant in the room in hobby jogger circles, and if anybody mentions the truth they're an outcast.

Is it "easier," though? It's boring and time-consuming to run 20 miles. It's painful in the short term, but infinitely more interesting and quicker to run 8x400 or 4x800 speed workouts or whatever variations there are.

Live to run wrote:

track guy wrote:

When they realized they sucked at speed. The world is a big place with lots of fast people in it. But the majority of people just aren't that fast. So with every doctor saying running is healthy, people began running to stay healthy. Well just like anything else people do, they want recognition. Since they can't go fast, they go long.

You're mostly right but I want to point out that newbie runners GIVE UP on trying to get faster before they get anywhere near their max.

Also, we all know that running longer is easier than running faster. But that's the elephant in the room in hobby jogger circles, and if anybody mentions the truth they're an outcast.

yup, I'm in agreement

UltraDork wrote:

Is it "easier," though? It's boring and time-consuming to run 20 miles.

Time-consuming. Sure. Boring? Maybe for some.

Because nobody's told them that running to finish is an extremely boring stat to be proud about. They've just drunken the hobby jogger koolaid.

I'm with you. I think marathons started appealing to the masses shortly after jogging for health caught on. To health runners, as opposed to those of us who'd run in high school and college and kept on, covering distance was a big thing. For a lot of those people it was a big deal to run a mile without stopping and much bigger to do two or three miles. Then they just seemed to progress, wanting to finish a 10k was common. And then the marathon seemed like the next horizon. But the thing that made it seem possible for them to cover those longer distances was not worrying at all about pace or finishing time and that's where we are today with so many people who run marathons.

Mr. Mellotron wrote:

UltraDork wrote:

Is it "easier," though? It's boring and time-consuming to run 20 miles.

Time-consuming. Sure. Boring? Maybe for some.

Well, it's not boring to me because I'm pacing, etc., but if you're just churning out endless miles with no goal but to finish, that seems like it could get pretty lame.

UltraDork wrote:

Live to run wrote:

You're mostly right but I want to point out that newbie runners GIVE UP on trying to get faster before they get anywhere near their max.

Also, we all know that running longer is easier than running faster. But that's the elephant in the room in hobby jogger circles, and if anybody mentions the truth they're an outcast.

Is it "easier," though? It's boring and time-consuming to run 20 miles. It's painful in the short term, but infinitely more interesting and quicker to run 8x400 or 4x800 speed workouts or whatever variations there are.

To answer that you have to answer which is less impossible, and more importantly, which is deemed more impossible by the average hobby jogger who idolizes distance goals.

Based on my experience, most hobby joggers never learned to push themselves mentally. So they deem fast times as being impossible. But they don't think that running longer is impossible. Hard? Sure. But not impossible.

Now, whether they're wrong or right about getting faster being impossible is another question, and IME the majority of runners who didn't start in their teen years, don't know how to push themselves mentally to even know what they're capable of.

Uh uh wrote:

My wife is the opposite. She is always complaining that I go too fast and not long enough.

funny, she doesn't have that complaint with me

Natural selection selector wrote:

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

This entire argument of longer v faster is stupid.

Think about it.

A 100 meter runner would say to a 200 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

A 200 meter runner would say to a 400 meter runner "Why would you want to go longer instead of faster?"

And so on and so on for every distance (which really is just an arbitary number anyways).

It's all different strokes for different folks. I don't spend more than the minute and 20 seconds it took me to type this reply on it.

You're missing the point of the thread. People run a 5k then move to 10k and so on instead of trying to pr in the 5k.

You mean, like Galen Rupp who moved up to marathon, instead of trying the break the AR in 5k? His 5k PR is from 2012 and his 10k PR is from 2014. Why doesn't he try to run faster in those events instead of going longer?

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Natural selection selector wrote:

You're missing the point of the thread. People run a 5k then move to 10k and so on instead of trying to pr in the 5k.

You mean, like Galen Rupp who moved up to marathon, instead of trying the break the AR in 5k? His 5k PR is from 2012 and his 10k PR is from 2014. Why doesn't he try to run faster in those events instead of going longer?

He did try to go faster. He broke many PR's! Which part of that did you miss?

The point is that most hobby joggers start aiming for longer without even TRYING to go faster first.