The Misconceptions of Running
Greetings,
I know I already posted a blog today, but I got the buzz to post another one, more or less a good old fashioned "Rickshaw Rant on Running".
Via Facebook news feeds today from my favorite trainer from Baton Rouge, Sarah Rippel (http://fitprosarah.com ), I got wind of an article in the NY TImes, right here: "Plodders Have A Place, But Is It In A Marathon?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
This article kind of amazed me, how it talks about a good portion of runners in a marathon race who will run/walk the distance, just to say they completed it. There is sort of a 'penguin' type movement in running, as mentioned in the article too, that reaches out to the slow crowd of runners, saying basically "It's okay to go out there at your own little pace and finish the race."
I'm somewhat okay with this movement, but not really.
At the forefront, I'm not okay with telling people that moving SLOW is 'okay to do', when research keeps telling us that slow running and slow-action activities can only get you so far into getting your body into quality shape. The research & real-world applications of interval training tell you that the old traditional ways of plodding through life at a slow pace will not go well in the long run.
I am okay with the movement's main effort into getting inactive people to become more active, because it does promote an early form of interval training: walking & running. Walking is generally done at easy recovery efforts in-between the bouts of running.
They shouldn't be stuck in this walk/run mode forever, though.
I don't think this type of interval training should be done over LONG distances, like 13.1, & 26.2 miles. Even a 10K distance of 6.2 miles should be able to be run at a total running effort, given time to bulid up to that kind of distance.
This type of training also just feeds the misconception that a runner isn't really a 'true runner' until that person can complete a marathon.
I'm sorry, but if you're my age (32), a male, and plod at a mile pace of 11-12 minutes a mile for your marathon, I can get almost TWO MILES done at my fastest pace I could handle within that time. Who's the real runner in this comparison? The one who can do twice the amount of work in the same time, or the one who just plods along to feel like he's a 'real runner'?
I may offend some people with that comment, but I look at the sport of running from the perspectives of a coach, a sports performance trainer, and as a runner myself.
I have seen myself that I can't handle long distances, such as those past 7-8 miles. Why should I slow myself down, in order just to say I went longer and could finish a half-marathon, or go even slower just to say I finished a full marathon?
Why not go FASTER, over the shorter distances, to really test my true limits of maximum effort?
Let me put it this way: When I raced in the 1600m, 800m, and 400m at the ND state amateur track meet, and I told people my race results, I didn't get many questions of "Have you ever thought of doing a marathon?" People were amazed more at the times I raced.
In the running world, from my standpoint, "Speed Talks, Baloney Walks". Speed makes a statement moreso than finishing a long race distance does.
In my 3rd place finish at a local 5K race, I didn't remember how many people were participating, all I mainly remembered was not only my own performance, but the winner's time of a sub-16 5K finish. I also remembered being asked "Do you want to be timed for this race?" That was a first for me, because even the 5K race is now billed as two seperate events: a Race and a "Fun Walk". I feel if you're walking the 5K distance, you should be pushing yourself to walk it fast and be timed. That's just me.
EARN that darn t-shirt. Get timed. Train like you mean it.
You see it in every little kid doing the 1/2 or full Mile race. Those little ones are running their hearts out, and wearing that t-shirt with PRIDE after their little race is over. They earn that baby.
This is why I do believe there should be cut-off times in marathon races. There is so much work that's done by volunteers and public safety personnel, where the event itself should be limited. There should be some standards out there, especially for big-time events.
I've chatted with 1/2 & full marathoners before who fully train to qualify for the "Big City" races, such as Boston, Chicago, and New York. Being up in ND, I know many will use the Fargo Marathon and the Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, MN as their qualifying races for others, such as Boston. That's fine with me, because they are training to reach a goal time in order to qualify.
For a big-time race in those bigger cities, it should be mandatory to have cut-off's. The article talks about this, how in one race, at the 20 mile mark, if you come in late by a set time, they can put you on a bus to take you to the start/finish area.
If you can't stand the heat, then don't compete.
They don't let everyone into the Olympics, do they? Would they let Joe Couch Potato run alongside Usain Bolt in the 100m race? Don't think so.
I've often touched on the marathon issue of how some runners can develop long-term injuries and problems by running at such slow paces over long distances. Simply put, some people just aren't built for long distance running, just as some people aren't built by God to be a great baseball pitcher, a football quarterback, or a hockey player.
So, in that sense, why force your body into doing something it perhaps isn't meant to handle?
Like I mentioned before, why should I slow down my pace to run longer, when those longer distances are uncomfortable for my body? Why can't I easily focus my effort on shorter distances with faster times, something I can recover better from?
This is why I blog on what I blog about: I'm reaching out to not only runners, but active people, to show them that they DON'T have to fall into the "marathon trap" and can use shorter distances as their focus.
I know that just as the marathon isn't meant for everyone, shorter distance running isn't for everyone either. However, I do think it can be more manageable to do, in terms of total time it takes to train, and how to manage those efforts, too.
I know this because I've seen it: I've seen multiple sport athletes in high school who use the 400m, 800m, 1600m, 3200m, 4000m, and 5000m races to help get themselves into better, all-around shape for their other sports. There is a carry-over that exists, by improving their VO2 max with short duration, high intensity interval training which is a backbone of all of those race distances. They can recover faster when they particpate in other sports. Their 'wind' improves, as they say. Plus, they can stay at close to competition speeds for their other sports. I can put dollars to donuts that any 400m runner is most likely a very fast athlete in the other sports they do. If they can handle a 400m race in 60 seconds or less, they are running faster than 15mph over that time. That's moving, folks. Plodding does NOT make you move faster.
I cover a lot of the reasons why I do what I do in my running guide, "7 Weeks to 7 Minutes", a guide on focusing on how to get down to a 7-minute Mile time or less. The guide is sold as a part of an entire training package at http://RocketSpeedTraining.com. Frankly, its my best program outline to help people get faster running times, in a much quicker time than traditional training can.
I'm simply tired of seeing this 'slow movement' pick up its speed in turning people into plodders.
I'm on a mission to help change that perspective, and get less people plodding, and more people PUSHING themselves much harder than before.
Rant Over.
-----
Run Strong, Run Fast...
Run So As To Win!
Coach Rick Karboviak
http://1MileNation.com
http://ASAPWorkouts.com
I know I already posted a blog today, but I got the buzz to post another one, more or less a good old fashioned "Rickshaw Rant on Running".
Via Facebook news feeds today from my favorite trainer from Baton Rouge, Sarah Rippel (http://fitprosarah.com ), I got wind of an article in the NY TImes, right here: "Plodders Have A Place, But Is It In A Marathon?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
This article kind of amazed me, how it talks about a good portion of runners in a marathon race who will run/walk the distance, just to say they completed it. There is sort of a 'penguin' type movement in running, as mentioned in the article too, that reaches out to the slow crowd of runners, saying basically "It's okay to go out there at your own little pace and finish the race."
I'm somewhat okay with this movement, but not really.
At the forefront, I'm not okay with telling people that moving SLOW is 'okay to do', when research keeps telling us that slow running and slow-action activities can only get you so far into getting your body into quality shape. The research & real-world applications of interval training tell you that the old traditional ways of plodding through life at a slow pace will not go well in the long run.
I am okay with the movement's main effort into getting inactive people to become more active, because it does promote an early form of interval training: walking & running. Walking is generally done at easy recovery efforts in-between the bouts of running.
They shouldn't be stuck in this walk/run mode forever, though.
I don't think this type of interval training should be done over LONG distances, like 13.1, & 26.2 miles. Even a 10K distance of 6.2 miles should be able to be run at a total running effort, given time to bulid up to that kind of distance.
This type of training also just feeds the misconception that a runner isn't really a 'true runner' until that person can complete a marathon.
I'm sorry, but if you're my age (32), a male, and plod at a mile pace of 11-12 minutes a mile for your marathon, I can get almost TWO MILES done at my fastest pace I could handle within that time. Who's the real runner in this comparison? The one who can do twice the amount of work in the same time, or the one who just plods along to feel like he's a 'real runner'?
I may offend some people with that comment, but I look at the sport of running from the perspectives of a coach, a sports performance trainer, and as a runner myself.
I have seen myself that I can't handle long distances, such as those past 7-8 miles. Why should I slow myself down, in order just to say I went longer and could finish a half-marathon, or go even slower just to say I finished a full marathon?
Why not go FASTER, over the shorter distances, to really test my true limits of maximum effort?
Let me put it this way: When I raced in the 1600m, 800m, and 400m at the ND state amateur track meet, and I told people my race results, I didn't get many questions of "Have you ever thought of doing a marathon?" People were amazed more at the times I raced.
In the running world, from my standpoint, "Speed Talks, Baloney Walks". Speed makes a statement moreso than finishing a long race distance does.
In my 3rd place finish at a local 5K race, I didn't remember how many people were participating, all I mainly remembered was not only my own performance, but the winner's time of a sub-16 5K finish. I also remembered being asked "Do you want to be timed for this race?" That was a first for me, because even the 5K race is now billed as two seperate events: a Race and a "Fun Walk". I feel if you're walking the 5K distance, you should be pushing yourself to walk it fast and be timed. That's just me.
EARN that darn t-shirt. Get timed. Train like you mean it.
You see it in every little kid doing the 1/2 or full Mile race. Those little ones are running their hearts out, and wearing that t-shirt with PRIDE after their little race is over. They earn that baby.
This is why I do believe there should be cut-off times in marathon races. There is so much work that's done by volunteers and public safety personnel, where the event itself should be limited. There should be some standards out there, especially for big-time events.
I've chatted with 1/2 & full marathoners before who fully train to qualify for the "Big City" races, such as Boston, Chicago, and New York. Being up in ND, I know many will use the Fargo Marathon and the Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, MN as their qualifying races for others, such as Boston. That's fine with me, because they are training to reach a goal time in order to qualify.
For a big-time race in those bigger cities, it should be mandatory to have cut-off's. The article talks about this, how in one race, at the 20 mile mark, if you come in late by a set time, they can put you on a bus to take you to the start/finish area.
If you can't stand the heat, then don't compete.
They don't let everyone into the Olympics, do they? Would they let Joe Couch Potato run alongside Usain Bolt in the 100m race? Don't think so.
I've often touched on the marathon issue of how some runners can develop long-term injuries and problems by running at such slow paces over long distances. Simply put, some people just aren't built for long distance running, just as some people aren't built by God to be a great baseball pitcher, a football quarterback, or a hockey player.
So, in that sense, why force your body into doing something it perhaps isn't meant to handle?
Like I mentioned before, why should I slow down my pace to run longer, when those longer distances are uncomfortable for my body? Why can't I easily focus my effort on shorter distances with faster times, something I can recover better from?
This is why I blog on what I blog about: I'm reaching out to not only runners, but active people, to show them that they DON'T have to fall into the "marathon trap" and can use shorter distances as their focus.
I know that just as the marathon isn't meant for everyone, shorter distance running isn't for everyone either. However, I do think it can be more manageable to do, in terms of total time it takes to train, and how to manage those efforts, too.
I know this because I've seen it: I've seen multiple sport athletes in high school who use the 400m, 800m, 1600m, 3200m, 4000m, and 5000m races to help get themselves into better, all-around shape for their other sports. There is a carry-over that exists, by improving their VO2 max with short duration, high intensity interval training which is a backbone of all of those race distances. They can recover faster when they particpate in other sports. Their 'wind' improves, as they say. Plus, they can stay at close to competition speeds for their other sports. I can put dollars to donuts that any 400m runner is most likely a very fast athlete in the other sports they do. If they can handle a 400m race in 60 seconds or less, they are running faster than 15mph over that time. That's moving, folks. Plodding does NOT make you move faster.
I cover a lot of the reasons why I do what I do in my running guide, "7 Weeks to 7 Minutes", a guide on focusing on how to get down to a 7-minute Mile time or less. The guide is sold as a part of an entire training package at http://RocketSpeedTraining.com. Frankly, its my best program outline to help people get faster running times, in a much quicker time than traditional training can.
I'm simply tired of seeing this 'slow movement' pick up its speed in turning people into plodders.
I'm on a mission to help change that perspective, and get less people plodding, and more people PUSHING themselves much harder than before.
Rant Over.
-----
Run Strong, Run Fast...
Run So As To Win!
Coach Rick Karboviak
http://1MileNation.com
http://ASAPWorkouts.com
Posted by 1 Mile Nation at 10/23/2009 2:44 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: long distance training interval training
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: long distance training interval training
I found your post through Twitter. I can see your point that you don't want to just plod through a race or take a lunch break. However, I disagree that one should discourage slower runners from running marathons as long as they are reasonably well trained.
My opinion is obviously colored by the fact that my 70-something Dad runs marathons regularly. He's had heart and hip surgeries over the years, but he's still very fit and running even more marathons than before, albeit with a heart monitor. He's certainly not setting any speed records, but I think forcing him to stop running just because he's running slower than he did 30 years ago would kill him quicker than anything he does on a course.
The smaller races just don't cut it for him at this stage in life. He revels in the camaraderie and accomplishment of each marathon event, and the kind of sniping about slower marathoners that's recently gotten press is really unfortunate, and really counter to WHY he runs marathons. He's not running marathons to be a "real runner." He's running because he *is* a runner, whether he's running down a busy street in his own neighborhood or running the Chicago marathon.
Yes, there are more slow runners these days. It's too bad that faster runners somehow feel diminished by another's accomplishment. I'm finding it interesting that most of the anti-slow quotes I'm seeing are from runners in their 30s and 40s. What will they feel about that when they are in their 60s and 70s and 80s? Are they are going to sit down in front of a TV and say oh well, if I can't run it in 3 hours, I'm not going to run? It's not very sportsmanlike (IMHO) to snipe from a position of strength.
I realize that I am talking about more than what you covered in your article, but I wanted to throw that out there. Heh, I suppose I should write my own blog post.
Reply to this
I can see your points and opinion, and they have some merit. I would venture to say most of my frustrations that come to light amongst my blog posts, in regards to long distance training, is how most people view long distance races & its training as the 'superior' way to only be a runner. I have seen this image come across to me, time & time again, how you must give up so much of your free time to running and running alone, at the sacrifice of other things, if you really want to be a 'true runner'. To me, the marathon race is what feeds this, like you aren't anything until you can do a marathon, it seems. That's the vibe I get, and that even if you are a 5K or 10K specialist, you MUST follow marathon runner's methods, which is mostly slow & long training workouts. I don't think every runner, especially the shorter distance ones, do not have to follow the 'golden path' of marathon training methods.
I applaud your dad for running marathons not only at his age, but with his past conditions (the surgeries) as well. And if running marathons can make him a happier, healther person, that's wonderful. However, as with most other sports, there are some limits, and when you take into consideration what it takes to put together a marathon race, from crowd control to first aid and to other public service needs, there should be some limits. I've helped operate 5K & 10K's before, and its only maybe 90 minutes worth of time to manage. With a marathon, you're talking weeks of preparation and days of getting the course 'race-ready', plus on race day, you're talking about an almost full day's worth of race activities. These things need to be managed smoothly & efficiently. So, in regards to that, there should be some limits, in my opinion, if slower marathoners are depleting the resources needed to keep the event going. Like the article stated, 4% of the finishers finished in that last hour of the event, so things like public service & access to roads were continually tied up due to the race going that much longer. I don't think its too much to ask for in putting a limit that only affects 4% of the runners. If they still want to participate in a long distance event, then maybe they should do the 1/2 marathon and test themselves on that distance, if its taking too long to finish the race. Even high school coaches do this with the runners on a team, to help them find the right race for them. If a 2-miler is just not fast enough, there's no sense in making that athlete be the last one to finish, minutes after the rest of the field. That runner is usually moved down to the 1600 or 800 race, or perhaps put on an 4x800m relay team, because they can go much faster over a shorter distance. Even in cross-country, you will see some of the last ones who finish a 5K or even a 4K turn in some much slower times than the rest of the pack. But, in these races, you're talking minutes, not hours, being the time factor. If the top guy in a 5K is in the 15-16 minute range, and the last guy on the course comes in at 25 minutes, that isn't a big problem. If the top marathoners are getting in the 2-2:15 range, and the race continues on for well over 3 times that time frame, now we have a major time issue.
I would say when I hit my 50's, 60's and 70's, I want to be like the guys I saw at the state amateur track meet this past summer, who were racing in the 400, 800, & 1600 along with me. There was a great sense of camraderie and passion amongst them that I admired. I guess I just love going fast, and not long & slower, that's why I choose to run the distances I do of 5K & less. Through my blog, I feel if more runners took to this way of thinking, especially those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, they would get more out of their workouts than they would by following the traditional long & slow training methods for runners.
Thank you for posting your opinion, and for responding with your insight on this topic.
-Coach Rick
Reply to this