We're not talking about them, that's a very small slice of the pie. The larger "problem" (depends on if you think it's a problem or not I guess) is why so many people exclusively run the marathon. Why has the marathon taken hold of the world's mind as the "premier" running distance? The answer, as I said before, is largely marketing.
Hypothetical: Two people who have never run seriously in their life. One trains to finish their first marathon in like 4:30. They run 20–30mpw running 5–6 days a week and follow some cookie cutter plan off the internet. The other trains for the 100m. They race a handful of meets over an outdoor season. They start off at 18 seconds. 3–4 times a week they train, they learn some basic drills, practice starts, and lift a little weight. They race a few times and get it down to 16s while attending dinky all comers club meets. Who would you rather be? The 100m runner gets to observe a trend of becoming better, they get to learn a more technical skill, and they have a hell of a lot more to be proud of than the marathon finisher.
The thing is, so many people don't even know the option of being "that 100m guy" is an option.
You are just all over the place now. Who cares whether someone who is new to running as a masters does a marathon or 5k or sprints on the track. They should do whatever they think is fun. Marathons tend to be more interesting because of the spectacle of the event and the accomplishment of completing a marathon. Local all comers track meets tend to be pretty lame in comparison.
When you hang around the water cooler at work and tell everyone you finished your first marathon, you get a big round of congratulations and excitement. When you tell everyone you broke 17 for the 100m at your local all comers track meet, they probably won't even know what that means.
No, I'm very consistent in my beliefs here.
1) Who cares whether someone who is new to running as a masters does a marathon or 5k or sprints on the track.? I really don't care, race what makes you happy. 2) They should do whatever they think is fun. Yes, this is exactly my point. Many people have zero exposure to other distance because marathoning is the only game in town as far they know. If you didn't come up racing in your youth and joined a local club, you often think it's marathon or bust. 3) Marathons tend to be more interesting because of the spectacle of the event and the accomplishment of completing a marathon. See my comments about the white collar merit badge. For further reading, I'd suggest DeBord's The Society of the Spectacle. 4) When you hang around the water cooler at work and tell everyone you finished your first marathon, you get a big round of congratulations and excitement. When you tell everyone you broke 17 for the 100m at your local all comers track meet, they probably won't even know what that means. Now tell me, why is that? Again, refer to the spectacle of it all.
Like I said earlier, I want people to actually be able to find out what distances they enjoy racing and training. My position is that the marathon has an outsized presence in American running, largely due to corporate efforts to maximize profits and boost its allure. This reduces the likelihood of exposure to other distances.
this has less to do with what other people are doing, and more to do with how annoying it is for hobby joggers to have no understanding of running outside of the marathon
I know a bunch of very talented 50+ runners and they have no problem racing both marathons and shorter road races. It is not an either or situation.
We're not talking about them, that's a very small slice of the pie. The larger "problem" (depends on if you think it's a problem or not I guess) is why so many people exclusively run the marathon. Why has the marathon taken hold of the world's mind as the "premier" running distance? The answer, as I said before, is largely marketing.
Hypothetical: Two people who have never run seriously in their life. One trains to finish their first marathon in like 4:30. They run 20–30mpw running 5–6 days a week and follow some cookie cutter plan off the internet. The other trains for the 100m. They race a handful of meets over an outdoor season. They start off at 18 seconds. 3–4 times a week they train, they learn some basic drills, practice starts, and lift a little weight. They race a few times and get it down to 16s while attending dinky all comers club meets. Who would you rather be? The 100m runner gets to observe a trend of becoming better, they get to learn a more technical skill, and they have a hell of a lot more to be proud of than the marathon finisher.
The thing is, so many people don't even know the option of being "that 100m guy" is an option.
Honestly, I don't want to be either of them but if I had to be one I'd be the first one, the one running marathons and a big part is because of how long the race is. Some of my most satisfying experiences in the sport have come after running a marathon. I've gotten good satisfaction at other distances as well. But I've never felt any kind of satisfaction after running a sprint.
I have run about 12-13 marathons in the quarter century since turning 40. Probably an average of 15 shorter races a year. I actually prefer 15K -25K. OP, you got a problem with that? What's up with you?
We're not talking about them, that's a very small slice of the pie. The larger "problem" (depends on if you think it's a problem or not I guess) is why so many people exclusively run the marathon. Why has the marathon taken hold of the world's mind as the "premier" running distance? The answer, as I said before, is largely marketing.
Hypothetical: Two people who have never run seriously in their life. One trains to finish their first marathon in like 4:30. They run 20–30mpw running 5–6 days a week and follow some cookie cutter plan off the internet. The other trains for the 100m. They race a handful of meets over an outdoor season. They start off at 18 seconds. 3–4 times a week they train, they learn some basic drills, practice starts, and lift a little weight. They race a few times and get it down to 16s while attending dinky all comers club meets. Who would you rather be? The 100m runner gets to observe a trend of becoming better, they get to learn a more technical skill, and they have a hell of a lot more to be proud of than the marathon finisher.
The thing is, so many people don't even know the option of being "that 100m guy" is an option.
Honestly, I don't want to be either of them but if I had to be one I'd be the first one, the one running marathons and a big part is because of how long the race is. Some of my most satisfying experiences in the sport have come after running a marathon. I've gotten good satisfaction at other distances as well. But I've never felt any kind of satisfaction after running a sprint.
And that's great! The one marathon I ran was a trail marathon. It was a weird experiment for my running. I ended up winning. It was... fine. I just wanted to go home and sleep and eat after it.
I broke 12s in the 100m for the first time in my life, as an unattached athlete, years after college, after not ever being a sprinter. I lost my mind. You might have thought I just won gold in the Olympics.
Different strokes for different folks, I just want people to have good options for trying different distances.
citing ed whitlock as an example is more gaslighting than anything else. He's a freak of nature and in the .0001% of runners. Not useful to the argument.
I'm old enough to not be sure what gaslighting is. Sounds like what used to happen when people would hold a lighted match next to their back end and farted. But Whitlock is definitely a useful example of someone who found that they stayed healthier by doing a lot of slow running rather than a much smaller amount of fast running. There probably aren't a lot of older runners who could do two to three hours runs everyday but can still get in a reasonable amount of mileage in.
There was a time when for some reason I wanted to see how fast I could run in an all out 220. Turned out that I couldn't. Every time I tried shortly before halfway I could feel the back of my thigh about to pull. I gave up on the idea. But around that same time I had a 30 mile day that was no problem at all.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
9 + 1 does seem like a good thing - a very good thing for NYRR's coffers, that's why they offer it. And in reality, most of these 9 races consist of a majority of joggers and walkers cluttering up Central Park on weekend mornings, the same ones who "do" the NYC Marathon. It does make it difficult for serious area runners to wisely choose their racing schedule. *Disclaimer: (Mea culpa) As a NYC running coach, I have related this option to many of my clients who come to me wanting to "do" NYC.
citing ed whitlock as an example is more gaslighting than anything else. He's a freak of nature and in the .0001% of runners. Not useful to the argument.
I'm old enough to not be sure what gaslighting is. Sounds like what used to happen when people would hold a lighted match next to their back end and farted.
heh
the term comes from a 1944 movie, so you actually may not be old enough to know what 'gaslighting' is!
I'm now 66-years-old and have been racing for more than 50 years.
I did a marathon in my late 30s just to get it out the way, but my best distance is 3000m, although I can run a halfway decent 5000m or 10000m.
I've trained by myself for the last 20 years and quite happy doing that. I usually race 3-4 times a year, and when I'm good shape (and generally towards the bottom of the age group) I'll do something like the US Masters Championship or the World Senior Games (which does have a 3000m track race).
I've longer races for fun - the longest a 15 mile trail race - and I'd do a half marathon as a training run, but I've no intention of ever seriously racing anything beyond 10000m.
I just enjoy the process of getting fit for a target race, and racing my contemporaries over distances that suit us.
A masters athlete could train very effectively for 3k-10k on 50 mpw. Get all he can get out of his legs and heart and do well. And race every few weeks instead of once or twice per year.
But still many/most masters runners insist on being marathoners. And their 40-50 mpw limits mean that these runners can't run a marathon at their potential. They suck at the marathon because you can't be a good marathoner on 40-50 mpw.
It's stupid. Don't let let the marathon win. Fight back. It's not a normal race. It's extreme and you don't have to do it.
I know several masters athletes who easily approach 100 mpw in marathon training. Why do you think they're limited to 40-50?
Honestly 100% with you, and this extends to 30 somethings as well. Including elites. Ironically some elite runners like Lauren Fleshman and Molly Huddle SHORTENED their careers rather than extended them by thinking it was just 'time to do the marathon now'. Fraser Pryce is meddling in the 100m at 36, y'all will be fine running 5k/10k in your 30s.
Lauren Fleshman shortened her career by toying with disordered eating and getting stress fractures at particularly inopportune and momentum-losing times like before the 2024 olympic trials. She ran the marathon mostly out of curiosity, not due to an intentional switch to being a marathoner.
Molly Huddle had a really solid marathon debut at NYC in 2016 where she hit the podium. She's 39 years old now, and has had a long and decorated career. Some pro women are still going strong in their 40s, but most pros are done or at the tail end of their career at her age. Nothing wrong with continuing to train and get appearance fees until she doesn't want to or can't anymore.
Do what you want with your life, I don't really care that much. But it's hard for me to not see many, many of these people being tricked in one way or another. Either peer pressure or the previously mentioned allure of the "ultimate white collar achievement." My sibling ran a marathon because it was "the thing" to do, even though they had zero business doing it. They broke their foot training and still ran it and hated every second of it. My cousin has "donated" many thousands of dollars to do NYC every year and they average about 5 hours.
Do you not know the sex of your sibling or cousin?
Do what you want with your life, I don't really care that much. But it's hard for me to not see many, many of these people being tricked in one way or another. Either peer pressure or the previously mentioned allure of the "ultimate white collar achievement." My sibling ran a marathon because it was "the thing" to do, even though they had zero business doing it. They broke their foot training and still ran it and hated every second of it. My cousin has "donated" many thousands of dollars to do NYC every year and they average about 5 hours.
I trained for one marathon as a lifelong runner. So many stomach issues. Constantly achy and tired compared to training for shorter distances. Horrible chafe. Finishing a long run would wipe me out for the day.
If you want the sport of running to grow in a meaningful way, we have to encourage meaningful participation. A literal marketing funnel pushing everyone towards one distance where very, very few people actually get to experience what it's like to train and race properly, is what I would call a bad move.
As someone who started running by getting into ultras and eventually transitioned to 5ks to marathons, I mostly agree with this.
Don't get me wrong, I've had tremendous experiences with the ultra scene, but I've gotten the best training experience from transitioning to the shorter stuff.
Meb's brother Merhawi put on a half in San Diego sometime around 2017 that he seemed to want to eventually become the half marathon equivalent of Boston. It had qualifying times around 75% age-graded (at least for the age groups around mine at the time), and he said he hoped the qualifying times would get more difficult as the event became popular. Seemed like something I would have enjoyed doing - and I can't train enough to race a marathon the way I would like - but it folded after the first year.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.