As I transitioned from late-30s to early-40s, I've been much more healthier and injury free after I stopped training to run fast over the 5k and 10k distances and caught the bug of running for distance at slightly more comfortable paces. I couldn't run a 6:00 mile right now if I had to, but on Sunday I'll enjoy running 26.2 miles at an 8:00 pace in New York.
Just wait...just wait...time stops for no one.
Lateral thinking wrote:
Manupfolks wrote:
I'm 64 and have run 32 marathons since age 48.
Of course I have been injured. I've had strains and tears and even a stress fracture. But running-related injuries are the only reason I ever have to seek medical attention; otherwise the training keeps me in excellent health. I look younger than my non-running peers. My body is not a "wreck" but a source of amazement to the MD who gave me a physical last month.
I believe that proper marathon training by a person who is not overweight is about the best thing one can do for overall health. And racing the distance 2 or 3 times a year is not going to do any damage that lasts more than a week or two -- if the training is appropriate.
As for the distance being "arbitrary" and the whole thing being a waste of time, that can be said of any athletic pursuit. 5K (3.1 mi) or 1 mile or 100 yards or 100 meters, it is all "arbitrary". To me 26.2 mi is the best of all distances because it near perfectly demands both speed and endurance. I love trying to nail it. And the training is awesome: I love the long runs with friends, the weekly interval sessions, the recovery jogs in the woods; every run is a gift. It is the purest sport and in my view a far better and more efficient use of time than e.g. trying to hit a golf ball or tennis ball or play whatever other game humans have invented. Running came from God not man.
Some might respectfully point out to you that a 3'30/4' or whatever you are running these days is not as good as guys out there still laying the wood at your age and running mid 30' on a 10k..... give some thought to that will you
What does "laying the wood" even mean?!
I'm running much faster than 3:30. Placing in my age group in big races. By what measure or standard is that "not as good" as a fast 10k?
I have raced all distances from 5K to 100 miles. And the marathon is -- for me -- by far the most rewarding, and the gold standard of running ability.
I tend to agree that the marathon is bad for most. Back in the 1970s running boom, the marathon was widely understood as an event that was just for the well trained and experienced runner. the running boom of the 2000s marketed the marathon as an event for the masses by making it some big life experience that everyone had to do. People who were sedentary or minimally into running were suddenly going out and training for marathons. I saw friends and co-workers come down with all sorts of horrible injuries trying to run a marathon.
But for the well trained runner, the marathon is not bad for their health. I ran 16 marathons from about age 34 to 44. I had plenty of injuries, but otherwise was in excellent health all the years I was racing. The residual benefits for going into the big 5 0 are pretty amazing. Most of my non-runner friends are overweight or struggle with any kind of exercise program because they have been so inconsistent with their physical fitness over the years. I have been able to easily transition from running 60-80 mpw to doing 20-30 mpw easy with a few hours lifting weights in the gym.
anecdotal, I'll admit wrote:
Look at my handle. I stated anecdotal evidence.
Age 30 is not age 33.
Twenty-five miles per week is different than 25 to 30.
Forest Gumps on let'srun, fifty of you are whistling through the graveyard and attempting to state Marathons are healthy. Most of you will continue to be Marathoners until your body breaks down. I know there are benefits such as improving liver health. The evidence has shown that long runs and Marathons increases the risk of heart attacks. Are you Marathoners going to state that your orthopedic doctor has not warned you of hip and knee permanent damage?
30 and 33 are the same for marathon. 25-30 miles is equal to 25 miles as well.
I would say that people running a marathon are much more healthy in average that people who don't run and are obese, suffering from all kind of related health problems.
Marathon training can lead to heart attacks, that's why everyone should see a cardiologist once a year to check if you have not developped any issue. If this basic rule is respected, then it's not a problem.
Bad Wigins wrote:
marathons are not only bad for you, they are ridiculous. This is a celebration of a fictitious historical event set an an arbitrary distance. It's somewhat farther than humans can ordinarily run, though most can be trained to do it. It is much, much farther than anyone actually needs to run in real life.
Americans should really be running 30 mile marathons!!
https://kenyoncollegian.com/features/2018/09/famed-johnny-appleseed-planted-roots-in-mount-vernon/Precious Roy wrote:
I tend to agree that the marathon is bad for most. Back in the 1970s running boom, the marathon was widely understood as an event that was just for the well trained and experienced runner. the running boom of the 2000s marketed the marathon as an event for the masses by making it some big life experience that everyone had to do. People who were sedentary or minimally into running were suddenly going out and training for marathons. I saw friends and co-workers come down with all sorts of horrible injuries trying to run a marathon.
But for the well trained runner, the marathon is not bad for their health. I ran 16 marathons from about age 34 to 44. I had plenty of injuries, but otherwise was in excellent health all the years I was racing. The residual benefits for going into the big 5 0 are pretty amazing. Most of my non-runner friends are overweight or struggle with any kind of exercise program because they have been so inconsistent with their physical fitness over the years. I have been able to easily transition from running 60-80 mpw to doing 20-30 mpw easy with a few hours lifting weights in the gym.
Your top mention about the marketing was spot on.
Look, I love the sport of running, I run almost daily. I ran all through HS (sprints), I coached HS before kids and family life, but my biggest frustration that I see within the running community are runner's tying their identity to a BQ, or what their marathon time is.
I have friends/family members that never run, right after the holidays they'll sign up for the local city HM or Marathon, go from zero- x miles per week for a few months, talk about how tired or sore they are from running, and then likely fall off from running as soon as they (hopefully) cross the finish line. It's a frustrating trend that I know many of us likely encounter as well. People often forget that there are so many avenues within the sport of running, that the need to go from couch- HM or Marathon is just not wise, no matter what you saw on IG or read on Runner's World.
Just because someone's research doesn't support your point of view doesn't mean something is garbage. Running high mileage too quick or with insufficient recovery is bad for anyone. Additionally, marathons do result in some degree of kidney damage and have been shown to be detrimental to heart health (and ultras are even worse). It is good to understand the risks one takes and to take measures to mitigate those risks. Don't turn a blind eye to the risks. I knew a guy that had a stroke doing an ultra.
Lateral thinking wrote:
Manupfolks wrote:
I'm 64 and have run 32 marathons since age 48.
Of course I have been injured. I've had strains and tears and even a stress fracture. But running-related injuries are the only reason I ever have to seek medical attention; otherwise the training keeps me in excellent health. I look younger than my non-running peers. My body is not a "wreck" but a source of amazement to the MD who gave me a physical last month.
I believe that proper marathon training by a person who is not overweight is about the best thing one can do for overall health. And racing the distance 2 or 3 times a year is not going to do any damage that lasts more than a week or two -- if the training is appropriate.
As for the distance being "arbitrary" and the whole thing being a waste of time, that can be said of any athletic pursuit. 5K (3.1 mi) or 1 mile or 100 yards or 100 meters, it is all "arbitrary". To me 26.2 mi is the best of all distances because it near perfectly demands both speed and endurance. I love trying to nail it. And the training is awesome: I love the long runs with friends, the weekly interval sessions, the recovery jogs in the woods; every run is a gift. It is the purest sport and in my view a far better and more efficient use of time than e.g. trying to hit a golf ball or tennis ball or play whatever other game humans have invented. Running came from God not man.
Some might respectfully point out to you that a 3'30/4' or whatever you are running these days is not as good as guys out there still laying the wood at your age and running mid 30' on a 10k..... give some thought to that will you
How many guys do you know running "mid 30" for 10k at age 64?
Whoever is doing that has way more talent than I. Even 37:30 would be world class (90.8% AG).
And so what anyway? There is always someone better and faster at any given distance.
I take my best shot and love doing it at the marathon distance more than any other. It is always a profound experience. A 10K? Meh.
Precious Roy wrote:
I tend to agree that the marathon is bad for most. Back in the 1970s running boom, the marathon was widely understood as an event that was just for the well trained and experienced runner. the running boom of the 2000s marketed the marathon as an event for the masses by making it some big life experience that everyone had to do. People who were sedentary or minimally into running were suddenly going out and training for marathons. I saw friends and co-workers come down with all sorts of horrible injuries trying to run a marathon.
But for the well trained runner, the marathon is not bad for their health. I ran 16 marathons from about age 34 to 44. I had plenty of injuries, but otherwise was in excellent health all the years I was racing. The residual benefits for going into the big 5 0 are pretty amazing. Most of my non-runner friends are overweight or struggle with any kind of exercise program because they have been so inconsistent with their physical fitness over the years. I have been able to easily transition from running 60-80 mpw to doing 20-30 mpw easy with a few hours lifting weights in the gym.
You have to separate out the health benefits from being a regular runner from the benefits/detriments from running and training for marathons.
I think everyone in this thread would agree the health benefits from being a regular runner are immensee, but does running marathons on top of being a regular runner make one more or less healthy (not fit)? I’m pretty sure it makes one less healthy and ones health would be better if they just stuck to an hour easy every other day.
When training for a marathon you are more likely to get injured and sick than from just doing east runs, then after a marathon it often takes weeks for your muscles to heal back up to their pre marathon level (which is why everyone is encouraged not to resume training at the same level post marathon as they were doing pre marathon); nothing about that suggests your health (not fitness) improves by running marathons.
I don’t think the health detriments are big enough to outweigh the immense benefits from being a regular runner though and regardless if the most unhealthy thing someone does is run marathon, then they are doing pretty damn well.
runnerchef wrote:
I am new to running (5 years in) but not new to sport (former D1 tennis player)
All sports require a focus on form, yet, because humans all run, we believe that we all run correctly (or what is natural to us). Let me tell you, that if I just swung a tennis racquet in my life as it were "natural" then I would be a really crappy tennis player -- form must be FOCUSED on and LEARNED.
Again, i'm not a great runner, but it appears that (1) cadence (2) posture (3) foot strike are key elements to longevity in the sport...
I dont care if you run 10MPW or 50MPW - if your cadence is not 180+ , your head bobbles around and you strike with your heel (related to cadence) then yes, you'll get injured.
The 180+ cadence advice was built from watching elites compete in the 1500/mid distance races primarily, and is wholly inapplicable to hobby thonners in the 3+ hour range. That theory was debunked a long time ago.
Also there is reasonably compelling evidence abound that this focus on running form is likewise bro science. The body at various paces naturally finds the 'right' method of foot striking and cadence.
Very roughly, the sprinters/long sprinters are up on their toes, mid distancers competing are a bit more nuetral. Hobby thonners and other 7+ minute milers are heel striking to some degree and each of these is correct for the pace being run, and occurs naturally.
Trying to take a hobby thonner up on their mid soles and hitting 180 spm cadence while churning out 8+ minute miles is ludicrious and counterproductive.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
I think everyone in this thread would agree the health benefits from being a regular runner are immensee, but does running marathons on top of being a regular runner make one more or less healthy (not fit)? I’m pretty sure it makes one less healthy and ones health would be better if they just stuck to an hour easy every other day.
There's no evidence for that, and 1 hour every other day (i.e. 30 minutes per day) barely meets the minimum amount of cardio that adults should do. This is what the CDC says:
* For substantial health benefts, adults should do at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity. Preferably, aerobic activity should be spread throughout the week.
* Additional health benefts are gained by engaging in physical activity beyond the equivalent of 300 minutes (5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity a week.
Hardloper wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
I think everyone in this thread would agree the health benefits from being a regular runner are immensee, but does running marathons on top of being a regular runner make one more or less healthy (not fit)? I’m pretty sure it makes one less healthy and ones health would be better if they just stuck to an hour easy every other day.
There's no evidence for that, and 1 hour every other day (i.e. 30 minutes per day) barely meets the minimum amount of cardio that adults should do. This is what the CDC says:
* For substantial health benefts, adults should do at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity. Preferably, aerobic activity should be spread throughout the week.
* Additional health benefts are gained by engaging in physical activity beyond the equivalent of 300 minutes (5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity a week.
Say an hour everyday then, doesn’t really change my point ( also, I note an hour every other day means 3.5 hours a week, which is pretty close to what the cdc suggests per you post, between 2.5 to 5 hours)
Also, it’s kinda silly to leave out the portion my post where I give evidence and then declare I have no proof. As I said “When training for a marathon you are more likely to get injured and sick than from just doing easy runs, then after a marathon it often takes weeks for your muscles to heal back up to their pre marathon level (which is why everyone is encouraged not to resume training at the same level post marathon as they were doing pre marathon); nothing about that suggests your health (not fitness) improves by running marathons.” Do you disagree with any of those points, or believe they aren’t factually true?
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Also, it’s kinda silly to leave out the portion my post where I give evidence and then declare I have no proof. As I said “When training for a marathon you are more likely to get injured and sick than from just doing easy runs, then after a marathon it often takes weeks for your muscles to heal back up to their pre marathon level (which is why everyone is encouraged not to resume training at the same level post marathon as they were doing pre marathon); nothing about that suggests your health (not fitness) improves by running marathons.” Do you disagree with any of those points, or believe they aren’t factually true?
Yes I pretty much disagree with it all. You didn't provide evidence that you're more likely to get sick during marathon training. The idea that it takes time to recover from a marathon is irrelevant because that's how training works. You temporarily break down your body and then recover. Even if there is a point X hours per week of aerobic exercise beyond which it is detrimental to health, nobody knows what X is and it is probably a lot higher than you're suggesting and higher than most people will ever train anyways.
If you don’t have such a basic understanding of the science that you believe high mileage marathon training doesn’t negatively affect your immune system then you really shouldn’t be “contributing” to this conversation.
Hard training only temporarily compromises the immune system. So by that logic the 5k runner completing 12 by 400 at race pace is actually at more risk since it is at a higher pace and more intense than a long tempo. You're doubling down on a faulty argument and you look foolish.
Murdock wrote:
If you don’t have such a basic understanding of the science that you believe high mileage marathon training doesn’t negatively affect your immune system then you really shouldn’t be “contributing” to this conversation.
Explain the science then.
Ultra marathons are much unhealthier than marathoning.
Can anyone other than C Herron disagree with this statement?
Nope.
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
Hard training only temporarily compromises the immune system. So by that logic the 5k runner completing 12 by 400 at race pace is actually at more risk since it is at a higher pace and more intense than a long tempo. You're doubling down on a faulty argument and you look foolish.
Regular moderate exercise is associated with a reduced incidence of infection compared with a completely sedentary state. However, prolonged bouts of strenuous exercise cause a temporary depression of various aspects of immune function (e.g., neutrophil respiratory burst, lymphocyte proliferation, monocyte antigen presentation) that usually lasts ∼3–24 h after exercise, depending on the intensity and duration of the exercise bout. Postexercise immune function dysfunction is most pronounced when the exercise is continuous, prolonged (>1.5 h), of moderate to high intensity (55–75% maximum O2 uptake), and performed without food intake. Periods of intensified training (overreaching) lasting 1 wk or more may result in longer lasting immune dysfunction.
*and yes, I’m sure you will be able to find a contradictory study, but that’s science, there is always a contradictory study
Anything can kill you...
...if you have an a rare undiagnosed condition
Based on the posts you make, you’re generally just trolling. I’m not going to waste time proving anything to you because you’d never admit to being incorrect. I’m not a teacher here to educate you - try reading the voluminous amounts of peer-reviewed research. Start with Google Scholar, it’s pretty easy, but I’m sure you’re not interested in that.
I’m a high mileage runner who prefers ultramarathons but will race shorter distances every so often too. It’s widely accepted, based on actual science, that high mileage compromises the immune system, particularly when the efforts are high and sustained for long duration such as a marathon or beyond. That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of benefits that outweigh it, especially if you enjoy high mileage and long distances. I have made an educated decision to accept those risks rather than simply deny them.
Holy F****ing Sh**. Employee 1.1 just broke 15:00 for 5000 for the 1st time at age 36.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Al Jazeera publishes piece on how alleged Olympic marathoner Ashley Uhl-Leavitt has a GoFundMe. Who?
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
What is the worst insult anyone gave you about your running ability and how did you respond?
Japan's Kazuto Iizawa runs #2 1500 time in Japanese history - Guess the time (video)