dizzy <di... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:

Many more are not. It's a silly, arbitrary distance, for some reason
glorified due to some myth (true or not is irrelevant).

Actually its a significant distance where at least 80% of people
deplete their blood sugar and feel awful by mile 18-22.

Many more are not. It's a silly, arbitrary distance, for some reason
glorified due to some myth (true or not is irrelevant).

All distances are arbitrary. Why, for example, 400 meters instead of 500?

But please tell us why it is silly.

Many more are not. It's a silly, arbitrary distance, for some reason
glorified due to some myth (true or not is irrelevant).

All distances are arbitrary. Why, for example, 400 meters instead of
500?

But please tell us why it is silly.

Many reasons. One is that, for no apparent reason, it's just THE goal,
THE "thing to do" for so many.

Read any of those inspirational stories in runner's world. They all say
something like "and now she's doing marathons". Gee, no one gets off
the couch and gets really fit, but stops at the "measly" 10?

Many more are not. It's a silly, arbitrary distance, for some reason
glorified due to some myth (true or not is irrelevant).

Actually its a significant distance where at least 80% of people
deplete their blood sugar and feel awful by mile 18-22.

One of the reasons why I think it's "silly".

Michelle wrote:

I commend you on your restraint.

Tell Dougie that his new nym isn't getting past my filters.

dizzy <dizzy at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:

Michelle wrote:

I commend you on your restraint.

Tell Dougie that his new nym isn't getting past my filters.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

dizzy <dizzy at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:

Many more are not. It's a silly, arbitrary distance, for some reason
glorified due to some myth (true or not is irrelevant).

Actually its a significant distance where at least 80% of people
deplete their blood sugar and feel awful by mile 18-22.

One of the reasons why I think it's "silly".

I guess that to someone who gives up easily, anything requiring dedication
and hard work is silly.

Michelle wrote:

I commend you on your restraint.

Tell Dougie that his new nym isn't getting past my filters.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Testosterone levels surging?

Cindy...really just thinks that the Marathon...would be PAINFUL...and
am not sure there would be much ENJOYMENT in it~ at least at this
point in my running!

I'm in my seventh year, have trained pretty seriously (80 to 100 miles
per week) at times, enjoy racing 5, 10, 15k and half marathons - and I
agree, my marathon experiences have been painful and less enjoyable.
Nonetheless, because I'm an idiot, and live right on the NYC marathon
course, and feel irritated by not having run one even halfway decently
yet, I'll give it another go in 2010.

Michelle wrote:
I commend you on your restraint.

Tell Dougie that his new nym isn't getting past my filters.

In the old days when there were a bunch of people that one knew
running in the 2:40's and ( below at times ) ... it was hard to feel
very good even about going under 3.  Being 15 minutes behind a
sometimes training partner is a long way back.

I guess that to someone who gives up easily, anything requiring dedication
and hard work is silly.

I guess that to someone who gives up easily, anything requiring
dedication and hard work is silly.

I don't understand why you're sneering at people who choose not to
marathon.

I'm not sneering at them; I'm sneering only at Dizzy.

I'm not sneering at them; I'm sneering only at Dizzy.

That may have been your intent, but that's not what you
did.

You've made it clear that you don't like people
sneering at your running choices - have a thought for that.
I'm absolutely unclear on how dismissing non-marathoners as
lazy is responsive to "marathon distance is silly," anyway.