What is up with this in awe of distance thing (Page 3)

Originally posted by rjrankin83

Originally posted by DanielG Wow, people have to be competitive even about being competitive? How about just finding your happy place and working it.

Agree just complete the distances you enjoy and be done with it. As far as the televised portion of the argument: I think the longer distances (IM,marathon,ect) are televised over shorter course races because people can't relate to the distance. People see a 5k and think "I can do that" paying no attention to just how difficult it is to do it at 13:xx. The average SportsCenter viewer see's 26.2 miles and doesn't differentiate a 2:15 from a 3 hour just says "holy crap that's a long way". Just my unwanted .02

Next time you talk to someone who doesn't know about triathlons, tell them you did a 1:55 Oly and a 8 hour HIM.  I bet they won't know the difference.

Likewise, we recently got a new coworker that paddles 6 man/woman canoe.  We were talking at lunch and our first question to her was if she did the famous 42 mile race from Molokai to Oahu.  She did, and we were all impressed.  We didn't bother asking her how long it took her team or what place they finished in.  I mean...why would we care? 

Actually, I'm in awe of the work they put in, how disciplined they've become at such a young age, and how naturally gifted they are, especially as runners.....it's cool that it happens to be triathlon because I enjoy working out with them, but that's not what makes me proud of them.  But yeah, I see the point you're trying to make.

I understand what you're saying.  The point I'm trying to make is that I'm an average age grouper and to be the fastest little age grouper I can be, there's no way I'm ever putting in as much time per week in s/b/r as I would to be the best age grouper I can be for IM.  I would venture to say that anyone on this board who is just the average joe triathlete is going to put in a much smaller weekly training volume for a 60-90 minute race as they are for a 10-15+ hour race.

The reason I brought up coaching is because Johnny implied that if I find long endurance work tougher on my body than short speed work that I must be doing something wrong.  Well, not even implied.

Let me put it this way.  If I'm training for a sprint tri and my Saturday workout is a 5K at 100% effort, like maybe a race, I'll go all out as hard as I can go; and if I compare that to a 15+ mile run which is let's say 25% slower, at an effort that feels easy, and assuming I built up to that distance slowly over weeks, the 15 miles will still leave my body hurting more.  And will leave it hurting for longer.  And will make me feel more physically tired.

Longer endurance is tougher on my body than shorter speed.  I just don't know why Johnny has to imply (as usual) that it must be because I'm training wrong.  Different bodies are suited for different things.  Don't know why that's so hard to believe. 

And to your original point, people in general--athletes and non athletes alike, not just people on this board--are just going to be more in awe of a 10-15 hour race than one that's little over an hour because most people can imagine themselves racing for an hour; most people cannot imagine themselves racing for 15 hours.

The omission of a time on the 3,800m was the point. That's how many make the comparison between the various distances. It's harder to just complete the farther of any distances chosen when completion is the only thing for both. And generally it's harder to put up a really fast time in a shorter event than to just complete a longer one, even a much longer one. The work put in is glossed over (perhaps unintentionally) and only the event itself is looked at.

Originally posted by blbriley

Originally posted by Jason N

Originally posted by zed707

Originally posted by lisac957

Originally posted by dmiller5 What does everyone seem to think that the longer the race is, the better it is.

Where is "everyone" saying that?

You beat me to it-- I don't know where "everyone" came from. LOTS of love here on BT for the shorter courses. The recent poll was dominated by sprint distance events.

I totally get where you're coming from, but you can't deny that longer races get more coverage, more attention, and more praise than shorter ones.  The NYC marathon gets race coverage on national TV.  The Boston marathon winners get mentioned on Sportscenter.  Kona gets coverage on national TV as well.  When someone attempts to swim across a channel, or an ocean, or whatever...it gets attention.  When some guy jumps out of a hot air balloon from near the edges of space, it's on TV.

It's not to say that longer races or events actually are better, or that shorter races don't require as much training.  It's just human nature for people who don't truely understand the sport that longer or farther is more worthy of praise...or more impressive.

Usain Bolt disagrees with you.

Probably, but something to note is that the event he's most noted for is in the exact opposite direction.

We're getting closer to something we can agree on.....but I have to say, I'm seldom in awe of anything that people do.  In fact, you could go with "almost never" and be pretty close to the mark.  I have 5 kids, only two do triathlon, and as accomplished as my son is at such a young age, and his sister is becoming, neither is the best athlete of my children. If "awe" is the right word then, like I said, I'm in awe of their spirit, determination, and the gifts they've been blessed with.....it doesn't matter what the vessel is, my best athlete is a barrel racer and basketball/volleyball player....I'm not in awe of what she can do with a horse or a ball. 

I'm not in awe of triathletes.....I couldn't care less how many times people swim/bike/run for a long time.  It's not that difficult to do a triathlon.  It's difficult to be really fast, but if there is any "awe" involved there it has to do with the fact that you need help to be REALLY fast....you need some true physical gifts.  I'm in awe of that.

You have beaten up on me a little through the years but I'll stop being a little girl and taking it personally 

I understand what you're saying.  My intensity level for short distance will never be like that of a pro or even like that of the top amateurs.

I have just found over the years that higher volume + lower intensity leads to more fatigue, soreness and injury than does lower volume + higher intensity.  I don't feel that is a training plan flaw.  I also don't feel that it's a function of me working harder on one than the other, or enjoying one more than the other.  I conclude that my body just responds better to one than the other likely due mainly to genetic factors.

So some people are different than others?
Who knew?  

Yep, that is my point.  Some people are built to handle longer distance training very well and some are built to handle it not as well.  The right training plan may help; however, some people's bodies will break down faster than others even with all training factors being equal.