4 ms·

Can't popularity explain this? Marathons used to be for an elite of first movers, then everyone joined and the elite left to do ironman and other sorts of crazy

Can't popularity explain this? Marathons used to be for an elite of first movers, then everyone joined and the elite left to do ironman and other sorts of crazy extreme. I mean, this is a personal theory that I've basically pulled out my ass right this instant, based solely on what I've seen my coworkers do, so it's probably completely ridiculous. But in my network the people who were the fastest at running marathons aren't running marathons anymore.

raverbashing 9y ago
Yeah I think this is also a possibility (to be honest, healthwise, Marathons are very bad exercises - they're extremely biased towards aerobic capabilities - just check the amount of muscle mass a marathon runner has) Also running for 3h straight is extremely boring and repetitive
- phicoh 9y ago
  This argument doesn't make much sense to me. Running is hard on your body sure. Lots of load on muscles and joints. But then you use as argument 'extremely biased towards aerobic capabilities'. This argument doesn't make any sense. People have only very limited capability of anaerobic exercise. At the same time people are build to exercise aerobically almost forever.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    > People have only very limited capability of anaerobic exercise. At the same time people are build to exercise aerobically almost forever. Hence the need for balance (though sports at the Olympic level are rarely healthy, I'm betting on the swimmers, short range runners (not 100m though), rather than the marathoners to be the healthiest)
    - phicoh 9y ago
      Running a marathon is risky because of the load on muscles and joints. That's specific to running. Doesn't have anything to do with extreme aerobic exercise. If you replace running with equivalent amount of cycling then there are no ill effects. You can easily cycle at a recreational level for 8 hours a day and see no ill effects. Muscle structure will be quite similar to distance runners. They just don't wear out as much.
      - alecst 9y ago
        > If you replace running with equivalent amount of cycling then there are no ill effects. You can easily cycle at a recreational level for 8 hours a day and see no ill effects. Muscle structure will be quite similar to distance runners. They just don't wear out as much. I once thought this too, but I have come to think that this is a myth. It's what my doctors and physical therapists (and friends) say -- if you're injured running, pick up cycling. I injured my knee cycling and haven't been able to do it in years. It's a chronic pain that starts when I hop on my bike, and only then. (I have had the full fit, bike sizing, and all that.) I began running instead and have never felt better. I do it barefoot, but I don't know if that's relevant. It's now hard for me to accept that cycling is easy on one's joints. Maybe it is true, but if it is true, it's not obvious. Our bodies are very good at running and walking. There is no reason to think they are good at cycling. A bike is a rather unusual and modern invention. I can speculate that maybe it's the shoes that are contributing to injuries in distance runners. I am not sure. Feel free to reply if you feel I am wildly off.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Depends on the person. When fit I can enjoy running. I cannot explain why but (again, when fit, heart, muscles, joints all on appropriate state) it feels like flying.
- welly 9y ago
  3 hours straight? If only. In my previous marathon running past, if I made it in 4 hours I was ecstatic. Must say that I disagree with you about it being boring - the marathons I took part in were more often than not set in beautiful locations and that was most of the enjoyment for me, seeing incredible landscapes. Would you say that going hiking for 3 hours is also boring and repetitive?
- cafard 9y ago
  Repetitive, sure. Boring, well that depends. I haven't run 3+ hours straight in going on 30 years, but I didn't find it so.

raverbashing 9y ago

Yeah I think this is also a possibility (to be honest, healthwise, Marathons are very bad exercises - they're extremely biased towards aerobic capabilities - just check the amount of muscle mass a marathon runner has) Also running for 3h straight is extremely boring and repetitive

phicoh 9y ago
This argument doesn't make much sense to me. Running is hard on your body sure. Lots of load on muscles and joints. But then you use as argument 'extremely biased towards aerobic capabilities'. This argument doesn't make any sense. People have only very limited capability of anaerobic exercise. At the same time people are build to exercise aerobically almost forever.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  > People have only very limited capability of anaerobic exercise. At the same time people are build to exercise aerobically almost forever. Hence the need for balance (though sports at the Olympic level are rarely healthy, I'm betting on the swimmers, short range runners (not 100m though), rather than the marathoners to be the healthiest)
  - phicoh 9y ago
    Running a marathon is risky because of the load on muscles and joints. That's specific to running. Doesn't have anything to do with extreme aerobic exercise. If you replace running with equivalent amount of cycling then there are no ill effects. You can easily cycle at a recreational level for 8 hours a day and see no ill effects. Muscle structure will be quite similar to distance runners. They just don't wear out as much.
    - alecst 9y ago
      > If you replace running with equivalent amount of cycling then there are no ill effects. You can easily cycle at a recreational level for 8 hours a day and see no ill effects. Muscle structure will be quite similar to distance runners. They just don't wear out as much. I once thought this too, but I have come to think that this is a myth. It's what my doctors and physical therapists (and friends) say -- if you're injured running, pick up cycling. I injured my knee cycling and haven't been able to do it in years. It's a chronic pain that starts when I hop on my bike, and only then. (I have had the full fit, bike sizing, and all that.) I began running instead and have never felt better. I do it barefoot, but I don't know if that's relevant. It's now hard for me to accept that cycling is easy on one's joints. Maybe it is true, but if it is true, it's not obvious. Our bodies are very good at running and walking. There is no reason to think they are good at cycling. A bike is a rather unusual and modern invention. I can speculate that maybe it's the shoes that are contributing to injuries in distance runners. I am not sure. Feel free to reply if you feel I am wildly off.
agumonkey 9y ago
Depends on the person. When fit I can enjoy running. I cannot explain why but (again, when fit, heart, muscles, joints all on appropriate state) it feels like flying.
welly 9y ago
3 hours straight? If only. In my previous marathon running past, if I made it in 4 hours I was ecstatic. Must say that I disagree with you about it being boring - the marathons I took part in were more often than not set in beautiful locations and that was most of the enjoyment for me, seeing incredible landscapes. Would you say that going hiking for 3 hours is also boring and repetitive?
cafard 9y ago
Repetitive, sure. Boring, well that depends. I haven't run 3+ hours straight in going on 30 years, but I didn't find it so.