- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Oprah's time of 4:29:00 put her at the back of the midpack for what was typical of the time. It was quite respectable for a woman of 1) her age 2) utter lack of historical fitness, and 3) what is probably one of the busiest schedules in the country, if not the world.
I am a serious runner, and unlike some of my contemporaries, I did not begrudge Oprah her Runner's World cover. She did more than stagger across the finish line - she ran at her limit. She did not chat and snack her way through the race - in fact, she did not take a single walk break. She ran continuously. She deserved to feel proud for her accomplishment.
Race times started getting much slower as the number of TNT (Team In Training) and other 'runners for charity' used the group training, running for a cause concept to get involved with jogging -- and while this did happen after Oprah's Marine Corp Marathon finish, I think the two are pretty much unrelated. Oprah, after all, had a very personal mission - she was transforming her life before our eyes, going from a junk-food eating, non-exercising, obese woman tired of her own self-hatred to a woman who sought and found the strength she needed to make real, lasting changes in her life and health. She wasn't just trying to finish - she had a goal of less than 4:30, she trained for it and reached it - and as I said, it was a decent goal to have for a woman who, just 18 months before, was about 75 pounds overweight and a dedicated non-exerciser.
I am not the only runner of my ilk that find races a bit less fun to participate in. Sure, my placing is better - there are lots more slower women in the races, so I've gotten incrementally faster but place exponentially higher. The first 5 miles of any race are a much bigger pain now, if they don't have gated starts - you have to dodge a lot of 'we're walking 8 abreast for charity' folks. But I try never to let my annoyance show - there's nothing worse than a 'competitor' who takes themselves too seriously - those are the ones that say "what was your time' instead of 'congratulations' when I say I just finished my 50th marathon.
What I find discouraging about this change of marathoning from race to event status is the massive influx of unfit people crowding the course. It puzzles me why anyone would put in the long hours of training, the pain of blisters and shin splints and sore tendons etc, and everything else that goes with getting in touch with your body....and not actually take the opportunity to start eating right and getting * more * from the running/exercise regime they've started. They seem to be missing the larger point - which is not crosisng the finihs line, but improving yourself overall. Better fitness, better eating habits, less sedentary lifestyle, more energy, better heatlh. It seems to me that a running program, like any exercise program, should confer a benefit beyond geting to the end of the program; it's meant to effect deeper and broader positive changes.
The reason training and running a modern marathon fails to produce fitter, more competitive runners is the same reasons that most diets fail to produce thinner, more balanced individuals - diets are usually treated like the end itself (I want to weight x) vs. a means to an end (I want to eat a balanced healthy diet that leads me to a healthy weight).
When some of the bigger marathons got over 30,000, I decided to hit the trails. There are still plenty of ultra races out there where people are competing - against themselves, the clock, course records, the disbelief of their families and friends. The bar for 'wow, that's a long way, I could never do that' has simply been raised from the marathon distance to beyond.
