Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners

[Ryan]

Flightless, consider me one person who is glad you took the risk to wade into the topic. Your post was extremely well articulated and actually a much more clear explanation of the point of view that I share with you than anything I could have written.

[Chris]

I think I can see where this article is coming from 100%.  Two things stick out that I disagree with.  First, there are runners who run hard to run 4:00.  Why criticize them.  Second, synthetic fabric is the best thing since sliced bread. 

I agree on the injury thing.  I am almost never injured.  Since running Grandmas this spring and training more than normal I have had 3 knee injuries and nagging back pain.  Some may not be running related, but I'm sure it's not coincidence.  I'm a 60mpw guy on a normal year and don't get injured doing that.  70mpw and long runs must have got the best of me!

[GTF]

First, there are runners who run hard to run 4:00.  Why criticize them.

Why, indeed -- better yet, where was such criticism found? 

Second, synthetic fabric is the best thing since sliced bread.

Again, where was it claimed otherwise that would allow you room for disagreement?

70mpw and long runs must have got the best of me!

Perhaps not a coincidence though likely not any causation, outside of perhaps the long runs being too high of a % of that '70mpw' -- of course it likely might be something else entirely that has been overlooked or not given proper consideration.

[GTF]

Excellent message post.

This topic is always dangerous to wade into, but I will.

Apparently it is only as dangerous as how typical are misinformation and misinterpretation.

If I had to be concise I'd say it's not about speed, it's about sport. We shouldn't criticize individual people for the speed they run, but it is completely OK to worry that in the aggregate the sport is being depleted by not enough individuals treating running as a sport.

It does not seem that the author's point of contention is necessarily about speed, either.  The slowing of average finish times is simply a (highly predictable) outgrowth of both the rise in popularity of the marathon as a one-time activity goal and the related decline in popularity of treating the marathon as a serious sporting event and respected competitive athletic endeavor.  The slowing is simply an obvious and easy symptom to which to point -- the times are not what denigrates the sport, it is the general attitude of those who end up needing 6+ hours and thus contribute to the ballooning of average finish times.

It's also mostly true that individually the people chasing times and places are not that put out by the rise in recreational non-competitive entries (though the complaint about races filling up early is legitimate).

There is also the issue of rising costs arising from keeping the course open beyond 5.5-6 hours (street closure, EMT & PD wages, etc.) that are passed along to everyone in the race, regardless of whether they need the course open that long or not.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to connect the promotion of running as recreation only to the fall in competitive depth (below the international level). People who come through the sport as high school and college runners know that it's a competitive sport. But there are lots of people who take up running later in life, and if what they see in race promotion and the media is the message that running is just a recreation it's not surprising that people don't take it seriously as a sport. For example, the Star Tribune yesterday had a full-page spread on 5 people running Twin Cities next weekend. Only one had a time goal. Perhaps they'll have more on the top end of the field later, so I will reserve some criticism. But this was the public face of our sport.

Event organizers/race directors also have some say in how their race is marketed, whether they will reserve blocks of entries for TiT, et alia, ad nauseam, whether race funds are spent on bands and finisher's paraphernalia or on performance-rewarding prizes, and so forth.

Sometimes analogies are useful. I don't think that cycling, swimming, triathlon or cross-country ski-ing (which are comparable sports to running) have been as diluted as running by recreational runners who aren't interested in the competitive side. Certainly they have proportionately more races in those sports which are races for the sake of races, and not vehicles for charity fundraising.

To wit, cycling has become rather inundated with recreational riders, at least if I am to believe the promotional materials I see published, compared with the competitive side.  At least in cycling as a competitive sport there is a structure (categories to slot riders of like ability, and through which to ascend, descend, or maintain) that serves to encourage competition much better than what can be found in running road racing today.

Its quite likely the decline has been even worse between 2:20 and 3:00 since people around 2:20 have some financial incentive to keep going.

It is doubtlessly so.

I think that people would enjoy running more as a recreation if they built up to marathons slowly, and that more would become competitive runners if they slowly increased their race distances. If you're going from 0 to 26.2 in 6-12 months it's difficult for most people to also learn to race.

Definitely.  The general population, which likely includes a good majority of the one-and-done crowd, seems to lack the level of understanding and patience to take a significantly wiser approach.

There's a lot of money invested in, and to be made from, the current focus on recreational marathoning. It ain't changing anytime soon unfortunately.

This is also the author's contention.  My term for such people looking to cash in while doing nothing to help the sport (if not actively aiding the denigration of the sport) is "running leeches".

[JCWrs]

I see this same topic (in various incarnations) over and over these days.  It seems to me that we, as runners who like to compete and try to better our times rather then simply run as recreation or social event, can only do so much. 

Things we can do include:

Vote with your dollar.  Run races, whenever possible, that cater to the race at least as much, if not more-so, then the event.  There are so many people now that will run races just to do something that their market-share overwhelms the hardcore runner market-share.  We must then make an effort to support those races that give us what we are looking for.

Encourage those on the cusp.  Instead of ignoring those that are not as fast as we are, look for those people that show signs of becoming a competitive runner (more a mindset then a certain speed) and encourage them.  The more people that start to run races for the race, the more our market-share grows and the more race directors can afford to cater to our type of runner.

Organize your own race.  If you cant find enough races that give you what you want...organize your own.  You know whats important to you in a race...who better to make sure that happens then you.  I realize this isnt an option for everyone, but if you have 10 running friends and you all organize one race a year then that will provide many options for the more serious runners.

I'm sure there are other things that you can do, but at some point you have to stop and say, just do your thing and let the chips fall where they may.  It is the economic climate of running right now that dictates a catering to the less then serious crowd.  We can do things to change that, but it will take time to change and probably will never be fully reveresed.  At the end of the day running is about you and it is what you make of it.  If you dont enjoy races with thousands of walkers then dont run them.  If you hate the fact that there are fewer 2:20 guys then their used to be, train harder or become a coach.  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  Or just shut-up, train your @$$ off and use it as motivation to PR at your next race (after-all, if you dont run fast all the fun-runners will eat all the post race food). 

[GTF]

Good post, for those of us not already walking our talk. 

[sueruns]

excellent post.

I need to mull this over. 

[Ryan]

JCWrs, great points. We can complain about the situation all we want. However, if we don't do anything about it, then we're just part of the problem. Organizing races can be difficult but, if you talk to a local high school track coach, you can most likely pretty inexpensively set up a track meet. A 5k, a 1500/1600, a few other events in other disciplines, and you can create an event that caters to the competitors and keep the entry fees very low.

There's also the angle of encouraging people to try competition and educating them on how to train for competitions and how to compete. This is something that I like to think this site is about. Encouraging competition and helping to explain to people on how to compete. In a way, I think by participating in this forum, a lot of the people here are doing something because we are spreading the word on the benefits of competition and on how to compete. I don't think most people who post here realize how many people who never post read what is posted here and take things from it. I've gotten e-mails expressing interest in competition that was either picked up or expanded on through reading this forum or other parts of the site and asking how to take the next step. Don't think your words here don't make a difference. I have seen that they do.

One thing I would add. We not only need to encourage and support those on the cusp of becoming competitive, as I believe we are all doing in some way by posting about competitive running here, but we need to encourage and support those on the cusp of being competitive at high levels. Think about the best runners in your area. How much support do they receive? Could they train harder and run against better competition if they received more support from the local running community? Could those factors take them to a higher level?

[Chris]

First, there are runners who run hard to run 4:00.  Why criticize them.
Why, indeed -- better yet, where was such criticism found? 
Quote
Second, synthetic fabric is the best thing since sliced bread.
Again, where was it claimed otherwise that would allow you room for disagreement?

Quote
70mpw and long runs must have got the best of me!
Perhaps not a coincidence though likely not any causation, outside of perhaps the long runs being too high of a % of that '70mpw' -- of course it likely might be something else entirely that has been overlooked or not given proper consideration.

You coming after me or what?

The article states 4:00 marathoners are "slow pokes" and in danger of overhydration.  If someone called me a slow poke I'd take that as criticism.

On the synthetic fabric, the article states that runners wearing this attire look like something out of NASA.  Once again I'd say the author is suggestion this stuff is a joke....criticism. 

On my training.  My 70mpw program is 100% Pfitz.  I missed ONE day in 18 weeks due to INJURY.  Are you questioning his program?

IMO this article is 100% criticizing the recreational runner.  The thing is those recreational runners are the ones dumping $$ into the running economy and keeping this already waning sport alive.  Maybe if even more slowpokes would take up running there would be enough interest to televise a T&F event once in a while.  Maybe even a nationally televised Marathon??

I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread...maybe I'll do so now. 

[Ryan]

On my training.  My 70mpw program is 100% Pfitz.  I missed ONE day in 18 weeks due to INJURY.  Are you questioning his program?

I think I mentioned to you that I thought your easy days were too fast. If the easy day paces were suggested by Pfitz, I'll question those paces.

IMO this article is 100% criticizing the recreational runner.  The thing is those recreational runners are the ones dumping $$ into the running economy and keeping this already waning sport alive.  Maybe if even more slowpokes would take up running there would be enough interest to televise a T&F event once in a while.  Maybe even a nationally televised Marathon??

IMO, he was criticizing the "one and done" marathoner more than the general recreational runner. Also, I would question who's subsidizing whom. If the slower runners are subsidizing the faster runners, why are entry fees skyrocketing as we get fewer faster runners and more slower runners? Finally, I would question whether we would get T&F on TV just because there are more recreational runners out there. T&F was on TV more in the 70s and 80s than it is now from what I've heard. Also, how many people do you see in their 40s and 50s playing organized football games and basketball games? Other sports don't rely on people who participate in their sport for an audience, they rely on people who are only concerned with watching the sport as a form of entertainment. The key to getting T&F on TV is to market it as a competitive sport that is entertaining to watch.

[GTF]

You coming after me or what?

What?

The article states 4:00 marathoners are "slow pokes" and in danger of overhydration.  If someone called me a slow poke I'd take that as criticism.

Where is that?  Quote the passage, I have read the article multiple times and that was not stated even implicitly.

On the synthetic fabric, the article states that runners wearing this attire look like something out of NASA.  Once again I'd say the author is suggestion [sic] this stuff is a joke....criticism.

That does not make it correct.  The context was apparently missed and thus so was the main idea.

On my training.  My 70mpw program is 100% Pfitz.  I missed ONE day in 18 weeks due to INJURY.  Are you questioning his program?

How you train is a mystery to me; a rather common possible problematic issue was simply suggested, it is left to you to decide whether or not it might fit.

IMO this article is 100% criticizing the recreational runner.

Only if one goes out of one's way to interpret that way.  The author's object of criticism was outlined early on and should be easy enough to keep in mind as one reads further into the article. 

The thing is those recreational runners are the ones dumping $$ into the running economy and keeping this already waning sport alive.

Despite senses of entitlement, the sport was in no way "waning" before one-and-done just-get-to-the-finish participants (most are seemingly not runners) swelled their ranks and as a group they in fact take more from the sport than they contribute to it, their participation is subsidized by the vast majority of marathoners who hit the starting line with performance aims. 

Maybe if even more slowpokes would take up running there would be enough interest to televise a T&F event once in a while.

Despite the fact that televised T&F has worsened since the ballooning of the marathon ranks and subsequently the average finish time? 

Maybe even a nationally televised Marathon??

Boston is annually televised.

I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread...maybe I'll do so now. 

Better late than never. 

[sueruns]

I don't question Pfitz's program.  The problem is that it isn't "tailored" for you specifically.  Maybe you followed too closely by missing only one day.  It's one of the best guidelines out there...but it is only a guideline.

[Chris]

GTF, apparently we interpret the article differently.  Let's leave it at that.   

[Chris]

Ryan you are correct in that my easy runs were generally too fast.  We certainly aren't talking 30 seconds per mile too fast, but still too fast. 

[GTF]

I don't question Pfitz's program.  The problem is that it isn't "tailored" for you specifically.  Maybe you followed too closely by missing only one day.  It's one of the best guidelines out there...but it is only a guideline.

Precisely, 'Pfitz 70' (which I doubt that Pfitzinger ever followed himself, even proportionately) is simply a suggestion, a rough guide, and like any plan it is only as good as its fit to a given individual at a given point in time and progression -- a better fit might be 'sueruns 84' or 'Chris 68' or 'Ryan 143' (just to use blindly random examples) as one should not be afraid to mold the training to one's own strengths, weaknesses, and history rather than trying to work it in a rather opposite manner.  The proportion of one's volume comprised by the long(est) run is just one (easily identifiable) facet, another is the effort level of any given run or workout, as Ryan suggested.  Throwing all the blame at the mileage is simplistic and commonly suggests physiological ignorance -- injuries should be minimal if one takes the smartest (often synonymous with most/more patient) approach in building aerobic development through volume.

GTF, apparently we interpret the article differently.  Let's leave it at that.

That is your choice to freely make.  I stand by my assertions - I have no problem defending them - though I have zero interest in dragging anyone to a place he or she is unwilling to go.