Not a whole lot new here. We've always been saying in this newsgroup there are two training strategies- one just to complete a marathon and another to get a good time below three hours.
The only other quibble I have is "first running boom" in the 1970s. I never noticed a decline in the past three decades. Participation has been rather steady with an increase in more serious competitions like marathons, ultras and triatholons. I'll be celebrating 30 years of year-round running myself in July.
The only other quibble I have is "first running boom" in the 1970s. I never noticed a decline in the past three decades.
Well, the "first and second running booms" have been part of the dialog for years now, and yours is the first objection I've heard.
Even absent a decline (I'll take your word for it), there were still two distinct surges in participation, right? In the 70s following Cooper's and Fixx's books and Shorter's Olympics, and in the last decade or so.
Participation has been rather steady with an increase in more serious competitions like marathons, ultras and triatholons.
You meant, "less serious", right ? (-;
It may be different in your town, but in NY, the crowd who show up at local track races (800m-2 mile indoors, 800m-5k out) and cross country races are a more serious bunch than the 20mpw marathoners who discover or rediscover running during the summer ...
Not a whole lot new here. We've always been saying in this newsgroup there are two training strategies- one just to complete a marathon and another to get a good time below three hours.
One tidbit new to me was the marathon completion rates. Mentioned in the article was over 90%. Now the question is: what percentage were real DNF's (stopped and took the bus back) and what percentage were due to cutoff times? (which apparently have risen in the last several years?)
I know Cleveland used to have a 5:30 cutoff, but this year has an 8hour limit. That can make a big difference in completion rates.
Not a whole lot new here. We've always been saying in this newsgroup there are two training strategies- one just to complete a marathon and another to get a good time below three hours.
Who said this? Yes there are programs aimed for those that just want to finish. Then there are programs aimed for those that want to be competitive be it going from 6 hours to 5 or below three. Where did three hours come from?
"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | | "rick++" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:[email hidden]... | > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/fashion/31FITNESS.html | > | > Not a whole lot new here. | > We've always been saying in this newsgroup there | > are two training strategies- one just to complete a | > marathon and another to get a good time below three hours. | | Who said this? Yes there are programs aimed for those that just want to | finish. Then there are programs aimed for those that want to be | competitive be it going from 6 hours to 5 or below three. Where did | three hours come from?
I am with you DF, just another elite BS. People always try for a little better than where they are yet, not leap for sub-3. There are many people with 3:xx:yy, but trying to get better. Same applies to 4 or 5 or 6 hour ranges.
