Marathon Slowing Pace Trend

[allie]

this was an article posted on facebook by USATF this morning:

"In 1980, the median finishing time for male runners in United States marathons was 3 hours 32 minutes 17 seconds, a pace of about eight minutes per mile. In 2008, the median finishing time was 4:16, a pace of 9:46.What do you think of the increasing... popularity of the 26.2 distance and the slowing trend?"

and the article sparking the debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?_r=2&hpw

lots of heated comments followed. what do you think?

[Jon Allen]

It has definitely become more popular among the average population as opposed to the 1970's when the runners were almost exclusively "elite", high-mileage runners.  Hence the slowing times. 

I think general participation is a good thing- more people exercising, challenging themselves, etc.  On the other hand, I am concerned by the large number of people who go into it without sufficient preparation and by people who think they aren't "runners" unless they have finished a marathon.  I encourage people to participate in half marathon or shorter distances (which still get you plenty of health benefits) until they are adequately prepared for the full marathon.  And adequate preparation may still result in some 4-5+ hour marathons for some people- heck, I encourage many people to do the run-walk method.  But 8 hours?  That's walking pace, which means to me they weren't adequately prepared.

[Paul Petersen]

I'm also concerned about the large number of people dying lately during races. Yeah, some of these deaths are due to things like enlarged heart (ie - Ryan Shay), but many are probably related to the fact that many people running half marathons and marathons are dangerously under-trained and physically unprepared for the stress of the race.

Good interview and discussion on NPR the other day about this (also mentions the rise from 25,000 marathoners in the 70's up to >250,000 currently, which relates to this thread topic). You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113977729

[Sasha Pachev]

I agree with Jon and Paul. Participation is good, lack of preparation is bad.

5 K is a legitimate distance, not any less legitimate than the marathon. You do not need to run extreme distances to prove yourself as a runner.

Here is what I would like to see for the marathon. You are required to have run a half under 2:20 before you can enter. The course closes after 5 hours. I realize that some people would complain because they think it excludes them, but I do believe that while we should encourage participation we should also set reasonably challenging achievement standards that do not stretch.

One example of such a standard is Boston. Many of our bloggers would have been content with a PR much lower than their potential if Boston did not require that you qualify. Another example is Trials. Fukuoka also has a standard, I believe - 2:45 for men, but it is too far away and not widely known. We need more standards at all levels.

[Superfly]

Agree with the above. Don't try a marathon before a 10k... it is 26.2 miles and there really is no faking it.

[Blaine Hawkes]

I always find it interesting that as soon as a death happens on a marathon, there are always "special reports" on whether marathons are deadly. When I took up running, I had so many people concerned about my knees. It took me a year and a half of training before I did my first marathon. I wanted to make sure that when I ran one I was prepared for it. I did lots of 5 and 10Ks during the course of my training just to keep motivated and track my progress.

[Gary Culver]

A large factor in the dilution of marathon fields (slower average) is the explosion of charitable/fundraising organizations using marathons as a source of income.  The majority of these runners are novice or less (couch potatoes) and they enter simply to complete the distance and raise money for a cause.

My niece suffered a stroke at age 24 which left paralized for several hours and unable to walk for over a week.  She had to re-learn the names of her husband, children, parents, in-laws and basically everyone in her life.  After about a year of rehabilitation she was able to run a short distance.  Five years after her stroke she completed the RNR Arizona Marathon in 7:36 (walking the last 23 miles) and in the process raised over $4,000 for "Train to End Stroke/The American Heart Association"

Should we pass a "law" that excludes slow runners from marathons, which results in $Millions less raised to support organizations dedicated to funding research to fight cancer, heart attack, leukemia & stroke to name a few?

Or, shall we simply ask slower runners/walkers to start at the back of the pack and allow them 15 minutes of fame for completing a marathon while raising $Thousands for a worthy cause?

[Sasha Pachev]

Why can't they do it while racing a 5 K?

There is no revenue generated from running the remaining 23 miles, only pain and increased risk of damaging their own health from attempting to cover the distance they in all honesty are not fit to run. I propose that there are numerous other much more effective ways to generate revenue than to run a race distance you are not fit to run.

Some examples off the top of my head - pick up a second job, donate the income from it to your cause. Or, do not eat out for a month, reduce your meat consumption to twice a week, deposit your savings from it to a special savings account, at the end of the month donate the money to your favorite cause. Or, pay 10% of your paycheck to the cause(s) you consider most important, live off the remaining 90%. Or, pay off your credit card at the end of the month, contribute the interest you would have otherwise accumulated  to your  cause. Or, qualify for Boston, save the money to go, then do not go, and donate it to your cause instead. Or, figure out the smallest house you would be comfortable in, sell the one you have, buy a smaller one, contribute the difference in interest on monthly payments. Do the same thing for the car.  Or, cut your running expenses in half, donate the difference. There are many other ways, of course.

The problem, though, is all of the above suggestions require more discipline than the average person possesses. You also do not get a whole lot of recognition. But if you really care about the cause that much (the money and the mouth positioned at equal levels) you will do one or more of the above with no fuss.

[Matthew Rowley]

I don't have a problem with the slower runners being allowed in the Marathon, as long as the start in the back.  If they start in the back they don't affect the way I run the marathon.  The more people running the marathon the better, don't cap races just provide good support for the hollow field.  Figure a way to get everyone that wants run into the race then pick a time cap and shout then close the Aid stations. 


I do wish St George would let in everybody that is trying to qualify for Boston.  Everybody that has a previous BQ+15 marathon gets in.  If you are going to cap the field let the faster runners in first.

[Blaine Hawkes]

I would like to see study results on people who return to do other marathons after a first. Does a slower runner get hooked on the idea, increase their training and return again and again? If so, what is their time increase the following marathon? If you eliminated slower runners, do you eventually cannibalize the field?

What is it that creates that spark in an individual to return and push to do better? For instance, I ran TOU with a neighbor who had trained for marathons in the past, but never actually ran one. In the end, he ran the race faster than I did, but since then he feels he has completed what he set out to do and is finished. I on the other hand, have been hooked ever since my first 5K race.

[Sasha Pachev]

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is that along with the slowing down of the times we are also seeing an increase in marathon entry fees. I believe there are three main factors to it:

  a)  Your average runner does not come to race anymore. He comes to party. You have to pay for the party, not just the race.
  b)  Slower runners require the roads to be closed for longer, consume more drinks/food, use the porta-potty more, etc.
  c) The organizational complexity of a race increases exponentially with the increased number of participants, and with that come the extra costs per one runner.

a) and b) are directly correlated with the slower finishing times. b) is obvious. a) - the faster you get, the more you care about racing and the less about partying. The joy of achieving a good performance will compensate for the lack of a band at mile 23, or "free" ice-cream at the finish. Your mind becomes so focused on the race that the frills around it become rather irrelevant.

c) is somewhat connected, but not as much.