Run Run Away

Question:

Dan, nothing’s ‘gone wrong’ with running.   Things ‘went wrong’ with society.   Chronological progress and progress in humanity aren’t always the same thing.

Truer words were never writ.  How many centuries after the fall of Rome did it take until cities had running water and sewage systems? Social commentators are now beginning to mumble that we may have wandered up something of a blind alley since the ’60’s in terms of genuine social and personal development.   A re-interpretation – not a return – to some of the social values of discipline, hard work, real competition, self denial, and an appreciation of the importance of community are being proposed by some of the forward-looking social anthropologists working in both the US and Europe.

Most of the serious runners I know and knew are very hard workers outside of running.   Most are quite wealthy, run successful businesses, or have advanced degrees in the hard stuff (math, engineering, medicine).  Success is the residue of hard work. The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one indicator of our skewed social values.  After all, isn’t everyone’s a winner? So why bother to try and win?

Running is cruel — one is forced, in the crucible, to face up to one’s own limitations. Yet it also teaches us that we can, to some extent, neutralize natural advantages through hard work and sacrifice. –Dan

Response:

Most of the serious runners I know and knew are very hard workers outside of running.   Most are quite wealthy, run successful businesses, or have advanced degrees in the hard stuff (math, engineering, medicine).  Success is the residue of hard work.

That mirrors my own experiences.   In fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of one running contemporary from my youth that hasn’t led a fairly successful professional life. Running is cruel — one is forced, in the crucible, to face up to one’s own limitations.

And therein lies the rub.   How popular is that attitude with the 20-30 y-olds of today? Goddamn it!   I’m beginning to sound like my father:-) Yet it also teaches us that we can, to some extent, neutralize natural advantages through hard work and sacrifice.

Yeah, but these lessons are wasted on many.  Perhaps these ‘natural competitors’ were drawn to running in years gone by.   Maybe they’re all snow or skateboarding now, who knows?   One thing’s for sure, they aren’t packing the startlines in races in Europe and the US. Emily.

Response:

As I recall – and it really is dredging a dark, dark, place in my memory – cotton improved body cooling quite significantly by retaining some moisture (sweat) within the fabric (Yeah, I know, it’s the exact opposite of what ‘Coolmax’ manufacturers claim for their product). This enabled the body to have a ’second chance’ to evaporate the sweat – and thus further reduce skin temperature.

I’m not a great fan of using wet cotton for cooling. It irritates my skin and gets heavy. I consider it bearable (I mean, people did run before coolmax, right ?) but hardly ideal. I find cotton OK for cooler conditions. My favourite natural fabric is wool (comfortable, and handles moisture nicely). Technology provides some degree of convenience and some degree of entertainment value. Technical attire is ultimately just another piece of technology — convenient, pretty, but not essential. Now that I can afford it, I’m happy to own fancy running clothes, but in my days as a college student, I just went with cheap cotton clothing and it didn’t seem to hurt my running performances or my enjoyment of running. I suppose that to someone whose running career predates personal computers, consumer GPS, and technical fabrics, this fascination (even obsession) with technology probably seems quite ridiculous. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

What gives?

flabby americans. – k i t z – "yeah, she wakes me up in the middle of the night just to tell me everything will be alright…" http://spinning_plates.tripod.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really?  Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published. I know Roger is a troll, but is there any truth to this statement? I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer.

That’s my understanding also. I’ve gotten the impression that cotton is used in hot desert races (eg Badwater) for exactly the reasons people don’t use it for winter wear. While I don’t run in those temps and haven’t actually seen scientific studies, the people that describe clothes (several different on-line groups, not necessarily running) to wear usually go with cotton. Whether they’re all shootin’ the breeze or not, I don’t know, but the logic makes sense. Wet cotton (from sweat or water poured on you) cools you. Might be some other side effects of wet cotton like chafing, but that’s something else. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

There are more marathoners, and paradoxically, fewer fast runners.  

In fact there are more casual joggers and fewer fast runners. There are more people than ever who do casual running for fitness, but very few who are willing to put in serious training for competition. I finish in the top 1-2% of most local races, but I was not that high up in elementary/high school races. That suggests to me that most of the really gifted athletes do not take up competitive running. Also, the marathon boom possibly pushes a lot of people into the stresses of marathon training before it’s in their interests to pursue it. Club or college competition schedules may pressure runners to race all the time instead of shooting for a few key goal races. The result of this could be that lower level competitive runners don’t get in very good training. Also, while most people at least put a reasonable effort into marathon training, few train nearly as hard or carefully for middle distance races. The common mindset is that a marathon performance takes 6 months of preparation while the middle distance performance only involves basic maintenance training. I think this is in part due to the misguided (IMO) hype surrounding marathons. [snip] I did train very diligently–95 mile weeks, with typically 2 speedwork sessions and a 5k-10k race on Saturday and a hilly 20 miler on Sunday.   No one who posts his workouts on this list (excepting Andy, who’s sub 2:30) trains with this combination of volume and intensity.

Keep in mind that most of us aren’t as fast as you were. Karen ("joe positive") frequently runs 70 mile weeks, at 8-9 minutes/mile or slower. That’s a lot of time on the road — same duration as 80-95mpw at 6:40 pace. I ran several 60 mile weeks and a 70 last cycle (most of this at about 7:30 pace) — and I was training for middle distances (my first half marathon was in March). Any week under 60 (except the peak phase) included 2hrs+ cross training. Most of this was at about 7:30 pace so in terms of road time I consider this half-respectable volume for someone who’s primarily interested in 1 mile to 10k times. I don’t do 20 milers, I don’t think they’re relevant to my training goals at the moment. I was doing 3 speed workouts a week in the hard phase of my cycle. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Re: Are we getting soft or what?

Not me, I take Viagra.

Response:

I know Roger is a troll

No, dear Matthew, I’m not.   At least, not in the accepted sense of the word on Usenet.   I simply prefer to use interesting or amusing ways of getting my message across – ones where you have to think rather that just read. but is there any truth to this statement?

Yes, there is. I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer.

As I recall – and it really is dredging a dark, dark, place in my memory – cotton improved body cooling quite significantly by retaining some moisture (sweat) within the fabric (Yeah, I know, it’s the exact opposite of what ‘Coolmax’ manufacturers claim for their product). This enabled the body to have a ’second chance’ to evaporate the sweat – and thus further reduce skin temperature. When you think about it, it makes sense.   As moisture evaporates from the surface of our skin it cools us once.   If the evaporated moisture is partially retained within the cotton fabric and flaps back onto our skin a second or third time the cooling effect should be increased. Of course, radiated heat is also trapped by this wet fabric layer so the cooling effect may be mitigated somewhat but, as long as the cotton top was left open at the bottom and loose at the neck, sufficient airflow permitted the radiated heat to escape. No need to thank me.   Glad I could help. Emily.

Response:

‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really?  Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published.

I know Roger is a troll, but is there any truth to this statement? I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer. Matthew

Response:

Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and he may be partially correct.

He may be completely correct.   He usually is. Look at out own Andy. Let’s assume he has the talent and not just a better than average runner. He gets married foregoes  having children, put his education on hold, put off getting a job and she supports support him for NO years while he strives for a few years of possible money. This is the type of decision runners have to make. Maybe I’m in the morality depraved group but that is one sucky future.

A ’sucky’ future?   One when you have the opportunity to find your limits?   Where you can – for probably the only time in your whole life – give *everything* you’ve got in pursuit of a dream?  Where you KNOW your wife supports you wholeheartedly?   Where you step aside from the rat race in favour of a real race? Many moons ago I made a similar choice.   Unfortunately, I lacked innate ability, yet I NEVER regretted the decision to try.  How else would I have known what I could (or, more accurately, couldn’t) achieve? Running has the same popularity as 9 inch black and while television is a sports bar or flat chested woman in Hooters.

D’ya know, the inhabitants of ’sports bars’ are probably immune to the educational or informative effect that ANY sort of TV could provide, and flat-chested wimmin can still rock your world – trust me on this. Caroline.   Flat-chested, but one hot babe.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time:  3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time:  2:31 3.) The numbers possibly reflect the same trend that has been observed in Finland: while marathon gains in popularity, the "quality" marathoners become fewer _in absolute numbers_. For instance, in 1981 there were (IIRC) 500 sub-3 runners out of 5.000 marathoners – and in 2003 300 out of 11.000!     It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then, were there more guys who _wanted_ to go sub-3, are the guys who *could* do it now involved in other sports or not seriously involved at all, were the guys so much tougher then, have the younger guys have had it all handed to them which has made them too soft or is it that the damands of the workplace are so much larger now etc etc?:-)

 Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and he may be partially correct. We are a materialist society and serious running provides nearly zero financial rewards. Why only run when you can combine running with some other sport and like baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc. and have a future. A future that provides personal accomplishments and food on the table at the same time. Running is growing with people looking for healthy lifestyles. Health is long way from speed. Serious running, at least in the USA,   is dead,  like it or not and I see nothing for the future. Look at out own Andy. Let’s assume he has the talent and not just a better than average runner. He gets married foregoes  having children, put his education on hold, put off getting a job and she supports support him for NO years while he strives for a few years of possible money. This is the type of decision runners have to make. Maybe I’m in the morality depraved group but that is one sucky future.  Running has the same popularity as 9 inch black and while television is a sports bar or flat chested woman in Hooters. — Doug Freese (Remove the NOBS)

Response:

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods  Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run and train.

Macelroy, we are kindred spirits, you and I.   We troll from a deep sense of despair at the pit into which our beloved sport has fallen. In your usual obtuse way, you make complete sense.   IIRC, there was one fat child in my year at High School.   His name was Neil Manuel. He was tormented so cruelly that – whatever delight was on offer in the dining hall – the rest of us only had to look at the humiliation endured by Neil for our greed to disappear.   Somewhere over the past twenty years, that perspective changed.   It became ‘ok’ to be tubby and to avoid sports.   Fat was no longer viewed as ‘lazy’ or ‘incompetent’.   Fat became what it is today – an acceptable lifestyle choice. I also find myself in complete agreement with your outlook on ‘running gurus’.   With the possible exception of Fixx – who managed to convey a genuine affection for running – most authors of running literature are either compete numpties or ex-marathoners out to cash in on a ‘marathoners lifestyle manual’.   They are cynically written to exploit the gullibility of the newbie who then has the greatest of difficulty in moving away from this trivia towards a deeper understanding of real athletic competition.   Hi, Oz. Even those who simply run for enjoyment find themselves sucked into the commercial hype surrounding our sport.  NO – and I repeat – NO magazine provides unbiased advice on running shoes.   The only way you’ll get that is by talking to shoe company reps or trade insiders. ‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really?  Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published. Why?  They make fat profits of their ‘Coolmax’ range and see no reason to upset the apple cart.) Dan, nothing’s ‘gone wrong’ with running.   Things ‘went wrong’ with society.   Chronological progress and progress in humanity aren’t always the same thing.   Social commentators are now beginning to mumble that we may have wandered up something of a blind alley since the ’60’s in terms of genuine social and personal development.   A re-interpretation – not a return – to some of the social values of discipline, hard work, real competition, self denial, and an appreciation of the importance of community are being proposed by some of the forward-looking social anthropologists working in both the US and Europe. The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one indicator of our skewed social values.  After all, isn’t everyone’s a winner? So why bother to try and win? Caroline.

Response:

    It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then,

that would be about the right age for baby boomers wouldn’t it?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The winning time in 2003 for Humboldt Redwoods was 3:01! It was 2:27 in ‘81 with 4 people running 2:31 or better. What’s changed at Humboldt that it’s size has shrunk in half as well as seemingly slow times? 3:01 wouldn’t win a marathon with almost 4k elevation change mostly on trails up here (about 1/3 road). Maybe all the tough guys moved north!

Suspect they might be running elsewhere in the redwoods on Oct 10, the week before Humboldt this year. (hadn’t read my ultra digest earlier) http://www.redwoodtrails.com/bizz/index.html Not sure how old this race is or whether this might historically be around the same time, but I know which I’d go for trails vs road in redwoods. no brainer. That’s not to say the fast guys would go there for that reason, but it sure looks like they’re going there (Scott Jurek, Chirs Zieman). Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners, the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so that the few fast runners are spread amongst more marathons.

Dilution makes sense to me, yoo.  Sort of like the ballooning of ERA’s in baseball as the leagues have greatly expanded?  The number of folks who can pitch at 90+ mph is much more limited than the number who can swing the lumber.

Response:

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods. Therefore, when they weigh more they have gravity holding them back. Then if you asked them to go on a diet, they think they are going to die if they miss just one meal. 90 out of every 100 runners I see today is overweight. That was not the case at all in the 60s and 70s.   Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run and train. So what you get are these writers who have taken up jogging for a year or two and then write a book about it thinking that they are world experts and really know all there is to know about running. And then all you blind jerks in this group and every do nothing but follow the deaf, dumb, blind and ignorant. You all would make perfect parrots. And you ask why people can’t run today? It’s no wonder. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked at the results web page.  Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the top times seemed pretty slow for such  a large race. So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and burned at mile 20), and came in 14th.  There were 398 finishers. Here are some stats: ‘04 Big sur  under 2:50:  .002%  8 runners out of 2863 ‘81 Humboldt  < 2:50:  5%  21 runners out of 398 ‘04 Big Sur under 3:00   .006% 19/2863 ‘81 Humbolde < 3:00      12%  21/398 ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time:  3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time:  2:31 What gives? –Dan Dan, this has been going on for a while.  Every year just about every running website and magazine laments the dearth of American men running sub 2:20. I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners, the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so that the few fast runners are spread amongst more marathons. It would be better to me to compare the times of the same marathon since courses can make a difference (albeit 30 minutes in this case is a big difference).  You might be surprised that some marathons are probably faster (like Chicago for instance!).

Response:

(…) ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time:  3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time:  2:31 What gives?

1) There are more "semi-major" marathons now, but the number of "semi-elite" marathoners is the same or smaller – as a result you