it seems to me that if you want to say that oprah or the hoard running marathons are slowing down the sport you really should look only at the top times. how are those changing? are the top marathon runners the US is sending to international competitions getting better or worse? i would imagine if you go from 250 fairly elite, good runners to thousands of runners of all skill levels the average time will decrease. the article just keeps talking about the average american time -- is this any american who runs a marathon or just the top group for whom the marathon is an actual competition? perhaps the trend down still holds, perhaps not, but just make sure you are comparing apples with apples, not potatoes.

Edward McClelland... I'm 53. I just finished my first one.. and let's see.... that makes one more than you if my math is correct.

I'm one of those "No pain, no pain" kind of guys who thought he'd never start a marathon, let alone finish. My prodding and much younger wife convinced me to run it and I was at the finish line waiting on her. We spent the better part of the year gently training just to see if we could do it. We prevailed. Next one will be faster, now that we know how the stresses are accomodated.

And if you do finally finish one in the spring, we will still have beat YOU by more than a year. Slacker.

We didn't wuss out puking on the sidelines because we didn't know our limits. No one picked my weak kneed ass up off the pavement because I couldn't go on any more. I'm not writing articles lambasting a pudgy black woman who seeks to inspire her following to attempt something greater in their lives than staring at a TV. (Rock on, Oprah!)

Sure, while I may suck as an Olympic candidate, if gives me some comfort to suspect that you probably suck at calculus.

To me, it's a run, not a race. The race is between me and me, and yes, there were hundreds who finished in front of and behind me, and while I will NEVER finish one in under 3 hours, I'll shave a few minutes off each one I run.

Hundreds of generations of ancestors behind me, and to my knowledge, none of them ran a marathon. My entire high school graduating class of 400? Probably 10 of them have.

It's bad enough that I only run 5 miles 4 days a week and none of the "cool kids" will talk to me. And since I run (jog, really) less than an 8-minute mile, the second level of "cool kids" say "I don't know why you even bother." Now it turns out that I could run MARATHONS and the "cool kids" would still wish I'd stayed home and watched CSI: Coshocton.

It's really hard not to feel weighed down by that snobbishness coming from fellow sports enthusiasts. Fortunately, I've managed to grow past that 8th grade mentality. Good luck to you!

REGARDING: "I'm ready to do my part. My bum knee just carried me through a half-marathon. Next spring, I'm going the full distance -- and I'm going to do it in the spirit of the first running boom, in under three and a half hours. I may even wear a cotton T-shirt and a sweatband."

Let me save you the pain, McClellan, and tell you what to look forward to:

1) a glorious 5 miles

2) the next 3 miles will be OK

3) a painful miles 9-10

4) The 5+ hour crew WILL pass your walking ass at mile 10

4) ...and if you defy my expectations and are still in the game after mile 10, you're going to (a) have bloody nipples and underarm chafing ever from that damn cotton t-shirt and (b) have many frustrating months/years ahead with that 'bum knee.'

How do I know? Because I passed people like you when I ran my first marathon (at 4:20!!). So, don't be an idiot (oops - too late (calling Oprah fat - how classy is that) !). Completing a marathon safely requires humility, not hubris.

I'm going to write a book entitled, "How Oprah ruined everything."

It will be a book about gardening, but people will buy it, eh?

The point of the article says that anyone who is not talented should not participate in sports. Or I guess if your not good at something, don't attempt to do it.

I guess it's relative, but it seems to me that all American runners should stop running because they can't compete with the Etheopians.

Caucasian Americans should stop trying to compete in professional sports, because black players are innately superior.

Ergo, if you are not the best in the world don't do it!

What prattle!

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.