Tuesday, July 29, 2008

WHAT IS A "REAL RUNNER"?

I have been reading some posts and blogs and received some interesting e-mails recently on the matter of what is a "real runner". Interesting. In my mind, a "real runner" is someone who runs, whether it be a 15 minute mile, a 4 minute mile, races to air out some competitive angst or runs to relieve stress after a hard day of work. Most adults I know who run in the Gym, come into the store, etc. have busy lives and simply love to run because it provides them with an escape from the insanity and stress of their real lives. They use running as a means of coping with our urban/borderline non-human office like lifestyle culture we have created for ourselves. Why do you think people want buy houses in the country to escape. Running falls into the same category of escapism. Escape to freedom or such.

As for why some people are fast, etc. 90% of its genetic. In that respect, its simple. Running is no different than any sport in that regard. When I played soccer and basketball I was always put in the position that required lots of running and endurance. Point guard or center mid-field, etc. I was good at these positions because I just was. I have good hand eye coordination that is just natural. I think the same applies to running. I do not have to run a great deal to just do it ok. I know some guys who run 65-70 miles a week to run a 16 minute 5k. That seems like too much work for such a feat. If doing that makes you a "real runner", I would say the criteria for "real runner" should be re-evaluated. Perhaps running to that extent for such an achievement is more a sign of being a "compulsive/driven runner" rather than a "real runner". In any case, that is a subject for another post. I will say that too much of the darn sport combined with simply getting older has broken me down a bit and in retrospect, I can say that I got carried away with it a bit over the years. None the less, I still find running and overall fitness, a nice complement to my life.

With all of that said, all runners can improve to meet their own goals and objectives, no matter what they might be.

Personally, I have more admiration for the weekend runner dad or mom who makes it out and runs a 60 minute 10K and nearly collapses in exhaustion with their kids watching from the sideline. These are my heroes simply because the effort and sacrifice made to make such an effort is more so than those of us who are single and have time to dwell on our running/personal lives, etc. to such an extent.

The aforementioned mom/dad non-competitive elite runner population is also the one that makes up the majority of the "real running" population in the DC area.

For every speedster who was blessed with quick wheels like Jake, etc. there are 50 other "real runners" out there just moping along trying to stay fit and and make running a positive compliment to their stressful lives.

For all of you guys/gals in your 20s who run like the wind, your 20s will go and other matters take over and then eventually, you might end up like one of those 60 minute 10k moms or dads.

In your 20s its hard to see that your body and such will change. It will though. I can remember 26/27/28, etc. like it was yesterday and now I am 38. I tried in vain to make time stop but it would not. Things are really no better or worse but simply different. Once gains perspective.

Time flies when you run and are having fun.

peace out

9 comments:

KLIM said...

Max,

What is your question? I read, then re-read (3x), that post and can't determine WHAT you might be inquiring about?

One comment - I don't think running is 90% genetic. Most runners I know have had to work VERY hard to get faster/better (same thing by the way).

I, personally, tend to define one's talent "barometer" by their PRs in high school (or one's PR when they first start running without putting in any major work/mileage). You then work off that platform by increasing mileage/work to get better...plug in key workouts and bingo.

Brian Sell was a 10:06 2 miler in high school. His two Olympian teammates Ritz and Hall ran 8:44 and 8:55 respectively.

My guess is that most, if not all, of the next 17 runners in the top twenty runners had 2 mile PRs much slower than 10:06. So hard work does pay off and, some would argue, can trump talent.

MAX said...

Jake, you may work your butt off but you are naturally more talented that 90% of the running poulation out there. Chris Raabe is an ultra talented guy who was running 10ks in 31-32 minutes before taking his training to the next level. If you compare it to say Baseball, Manny Ramirez can get by with talent. He might show up overweight, etc. to training camp or the start of the season and still, he is better than 90% of the left fielders out there. There are tons of athletes like that.

With that being said, I will say that nowadays I am getting smoked in some races by runners who I used to beat all the time. I might say that I am more talented than them but at the present they are putting in the hard work and running more than me. Thus, their hard work is paying off.

Dane said...

Jake,

I agree with your comment here
"One comment - I don't think running is 90% genetic. Most runners I know have had to work VERY hard to get faster/better (same thing by the way)."

I would say it is more like 75%. Saying it is 90% makes it appear that talented people do not have to work hard. I despise that notion. I know VERY talented people who work VERY hard. I also know VERY talented people who do not work hard but because their floor level starts higher than mine, they don't have to work as hard and can still beat me.

I think the viewpoint espoused by Max is often given by those who do not want to work hard, almost as an excuse. Not saying you said this ,Max but that some people think it.

PR said...

Max,

OK, I usually don't like to comment on posts like this, but this resonates with me.

Every runner I have ever known really enjoys 1.) training, 2.) racing, or 3) both. Fitting into one of these catagories makes you a "real" runner in my view. But if you can't take pleasure in at least training or racing, then sorry--you're NOT a real runner, and probably don't consider yourself to be, anyway.

I also take exception to this:

"I do not have to run a great deal to just do it ok. I know some guys who run 65-70 miles a week to run a 16 minute 5k. That seems like too much work for such a feat. If doing that makes you a "real runner", I would say the criteria for "real runner" should be re-evaluated. Perhaps running to that extent for such an achievement is more a sign of being a "compulsive/driven runner" rather than a "real runner."

Some runners are going to put in the work as best they can, but because of talent, age (as you accurately detail), a lack of mental toughness, or just the sheer inability to endure physical discomfort while racing, they're going to face some limitations or perceived limitations. Nevertheless, those same "real" runners continue to chip away to earn that 16-minute 5k (or 60-minute 10k, as you say), anyway, because of the innumerable benefits that come with such pursuits. And a lot of runners, and I include myself in this criteria, are going to need to drink EPO-laced rocket fuel for breakfast if they think they can achieve their goals through 65- mile weeks. Sometimes it just takes more work, and the threshold of "too much work" is totally subjective.

Though you may not have been to suggest this, you're implying in this post that being a "compulsive/driven" runner and "real runner" are somehow mutually exclusive.

Max, I think you're going out of bounds on this one; this post comes dangerously close to trivializing the deeply personal reasons why each of us runs. Sometimes, you have a lot of great things to contribute to the "running" dialogue around here (pun horribly intended), and you seem to have a lot of intelligent things to say.

But, in my own totally subjective opinion, please be careful to see that your sermons on the mount or external introspections aren't offending or alienating your running comrades, because I know you're not trying to do so.

See you out there,

PR

MAX said...

I disagree about talent. Talent is prevelant in every type of activity.

Coaches and managers try their best to attract, harness and then cultivate the best talent to win, maximize performance, profits, etc.

However, people are very complicated. Just because someone is talented at something does not mean that they will want to do it or be subserviant to the activity.

A case in point is our very own Scott Munro. The kid is as talented as anyone on the GRC team but can't stand racing.

He still loves to run and supports the sport as much as anyone. Does this make him less of runner because he chooses not to exploit his god given talent? I think not.

As for the excuse comment, that is not applicable here. I am competitive to a point but do not in any way let running races effect my ego or self worth. I enjoy the road race scene, promoting running and simply seeing people enjoy the sport.

Heck, even being injured and battling through rehab has brought me knew knowledge and respect for running and fitness, as a whole.

I think if I was ultra competitive and took my times and such more seriously, I might get faster but ultimatley, might end up enjoying all of the great aspects of the sport less.

MAX said...

Pat, Dane, Jake and all. I make these posts partly to throw some random thought of mine out there for discussion, partly to get you guys to contribute/debate/throw your own tidbits out there and simply because I love to discuss all matters.

Never take my posts personally or out of context and even if they relfect some bias of mine, it is mine only and not intended to offend. You guys should share your own opinions and insights for the good of the order.

KLIM said...

Max - talent only gets you so far. Without hard work you, as Pre would say, "sacrifice the gift". Hard work, above all else, gets you to where you really can and SHOULD be.

Back "in the day" when I drank cheap brandy and smoked Camels all winter in my darkly lit apartment while cursing at stuffed animals in my closet who I thought were "conspriring to kill me", I would run only 30-40 miles per week. I could still run decent times while under this regiment, but something told me I was "wasting" what I could potentially do. I likely felt then like you do now; I wasn't running what I was capable of because I didn't want to do the right thing...the right thing = training (properly).

I decided to dust the Cheetos off my chest, kill the stuffed animals who were plotting a coup in my closet and double my effort in training.

Max, also don't knock people who want to give running their all. It is quite admirable to put a lot of work into something in order to get better...whether it be running or (insert something funny here). Mr. Patrick Reaves runs a great deal. My guess is he wouldn't do it if he didn't enjoy it and/or didn't see the fruits of his labor. I believe in the past 10 months he has PR'd in every distance from 2 miles to marathon. That (running PRs), in my opinion, is what racing (not running) is all about at the end of the day. That is definitely a definition of a true runner.

Peter said...

Max writes:
"However, people are very complicated. Just because someone is talented at something does not mean that they will want to do it or be subserviant to the activity.

A case in point is our very own Scott Munro. The kid is as talented as anyone on the GRC team but can't stand racing.

He still loves to run and supports the sport as much as anyone. Does this make him less of runner because he chooses not to exploit his god given talent? I think not."

I think this is a bit out of context. From what I gleaned from talking to Scott, he does love racing, he just can't stand the injuries that seem to come with it. He was injury plagued all throughout college, and would now rather run in a healthy way that his body can sustain than go back down the road of injury.

But you make it sound like he didn't "exploit his god given talent". When he was still in HS, he achieved a running feat greater than most of us probably ever have (except LT who made it there twice) by qualifying for Footlocker Cross Country Nationals. You have to run like hell to get there.

Dane said...

Well, crap. I run about 60 miles a week and I haven't even gotten close to a 16 minute 5k. Thank goodness I now know I am only a jogger!