General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

magazines

Started by David · · Last activity · 9 posts · 488 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 January 2004
Last activity
12 January 2004
Original author
David
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
488
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hello,

    What is a better magazine to subscribe? Runner's World or Running Times? Any comment? Thanks

    David

  2. In article <oHoMb.68992$BQ5.16551@fed1read03>, "David" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    What is a better magazine to subscribe? Runner's World or Running Times? Any comment? Thanks

    I like them both. Why don't you buy a copy of each at Barnes and Noble (which I think carries them
    both) and see what you think?

    --Harold Buck

    "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

    - Homer J. Simpson

  3. They both make a marvelous bird cage liner.

  4. Depends on what you are after too. Both have some interesting articles for beginners, runners
    without a coach or both. If you are after news on the sport then nothing beats Track and Field News,
    but if you want somethng to help your running and keep up with any breakthroughs then Runners World
    is hard to beat. Seasoned runners might find they flip past most pages but every now and then there
    is a little nugget hidden in their somewhere.

    Harold Buck wrote in message ...

    Quoted message said:
    In article oHoMb.68992$BQ5.16551@fed1read03 said:

    What is a better magazine to subscribe? Runner's World or Running Times? Any comment? Thanks

    I like them both. Why don't you buy a copy of each at Barnes and Noble (which I think carries them
    both) and see what you think?

    --Harold Buck

    "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

    - Homer J. Simpson

  5. In article <oHoMb.68992$BQ5.16551@fed1read03>, "David" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Hello,

    What is a better magazine to subscribe? Runner's World or Running Times? Any comment? Thanks

    David

    runners world is more touchy feeling with rather repetitive material in its articles. good for
    occasional inspiration, but i find the info can better be gotten from a few good books. running
    times is a more serious publication IMO, offering up results of int'l races for the more hard core
    runners, making the reader feel more a part of the running/racing community the world over, and it's
    generally more helpful in its articles. depends what you're looking for in a mag.

    Cam

  6. Quoted message said:

    They both make a marvelous bird cage liner.

    This would seem to explain your endless fascination with dumping on runners...But how do they fit
    all that "WEBTV" equipment into your cage?

  7. onemarathon said:

    runners world is more touchy feeling with rather repetitive material in its articles. good for
    occasional inspiration, but i find the info can better be gotten from a few good books. running
    times is a more serious publication IMO, offering up results of int'l races for the more hard core
    runners, making the reader feel more a part of the running/racing community the world over, and
    it's generally more helpful in its articles. depends what you're looking for in a mag.

    To be perfectly honest and I have been reading them for close to 20 years and they are both remedial
    running. I'm still friends with George Hirsch from RW(he is mostly retired from the place) and I
    always busted his chops, in a friendly way, about the monthly pablum. He laughed all the way to the
    bank. I stopped RT but the last editor was an old pen pal from the dead runners society years ago. I
    can remember when his ambition was to to write for one of the rags and now he is head ragman.

    RT when it was under the auspices of John L. Parker, etal, truly took the magazine from a remedial
    099 level to a 102 level. The sad part raising the level caused the circulation to fall. Bottom
    line, pablum sells. If you want serious running rags try Peak Running or Running Research news.

    Having said all that, from a pure running perspective and not schedules and fluffy human interest,
    you will get more information from the Runners world web page then the magazine.

    --
    Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

  8. On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:40:37 GMT, Doug Freese <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    To be perfectly honest and I have been reading them for close to 20 years and they are both
    remedial running. I'm still friends with George Hirsch from RW(he is mostly retired from the
    place) and I always busted his chops, in a friendly way, about the monthly pablum. He laughed all
    the way to the bank. I stopped RT but the last editor was an old pen pal from the dead runners
    society years ago. I can remember when his ambition was to to write for one of the rags and now he
    is head ragman.

    RT when it was under the auspices of John L. Parker, etal, truly took the magazine from a remedial
    099 level to a 102 level. The sad part raising the level caused the circulation to fall. Bottom
    line, pablum sells. If you want serious running rags try Peak Running or Running Research news.

    Having said all that, from a pure running perspective and not schedules and fluffy human interest,
    you will get more information from the Runners world web page then the magazine.

    Back in my first running "career", I seem to recall a pretty good magazine called "The Runner." This
    would have been around 83, 84, somewhere in there. I thought is was far better than either RW, or
    RT. I think that RW bought out The Runner, and made it disappear.

    Anyone else recall this mag?

    -Fountainhead

  9. Doug Freese wrote:

    If you want serious running rags try Peak Running or Running

    Quoted message said:

    Research news.

    Did you mean Peak Performance? I also get Sports Injury Bulletin for the obvious info, although
    won't maintain that in the long term because of cost. But if a person is looking for race schedules
    or that type info, they're better off with RW, I think (I've only bought 1 issue but have seen their
    TOC) - although they're probably better off just using web.

    Quoted message said:


    Having said all that, from a pure running perspective and not schedules and fluffy human interest,
    you will get more information from the Runners world web page then the magazine.

    Agreed. But it might depend on what a person is looking for as you point out. Interestingly, very
    few people in the RW ultra/trail forum subscribe to RW, but we're happy they provide a free forum 🙂
    (TrailRunner and Ultrarunning are the main mags there.)

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.