competitive / noncompetitive

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 7:09 PM GMT
    I borrowed the following book from the library. Out of all of the essays in it only one of them was worth reading; it was about competitive and noncompetitive runners.

    He defined competitive runners as either competing against others or competing with yourself; trying for a new PR/PB.

    Noncompetitive runners, what I would call joggers, just run for the fun, health and fitness benefits, etc.

    What was interesting is that he said that competitive runners can't keep running unless they have that competition. Without the competition and goals they lose interest and stop running.

    Are you a competitive or noncompetitive runner? Would you continue running if you didn't have goals?

    http://goo.gl/SWQmMZ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 7:11 PM GMT
    I'm a noncompetitive runner. The only goal I have is to keep running for the rest of my life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2013 9:29 PM GMT
    That definition seems right to me.

    I was competitive, putting myself through consistent 100 mile weeks and challenging workouts, and it worked...I went from being happy with a 3:03 marathon to 2:35 in 14 months.

    I had a really bad season the following Spring, for a variety of reasons...I was also working long hours so didn't sleep enough, every race was very windy (culminating in the 2007 Nor'Easter Boston - 15-20 mph headwinds on a point-to-point is not fun). So I didn't get that extrinsic reward (smashing PRs). That definitely crippled my motivation.

    Now I run non-competitively, mostly because I like how running fitness allows me to do almost everything well. So the air's a bit thin at 14,000 feet? No problem. 20-mile hike with a backpack? Easy. Century ride even though i haven't ridden in months? Sure! Incidentally, this is why crossfit makes me so incredulous with its cardio-hating ways. With very few exceptions, running is the very best all-around training for life that you can do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 1:25 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidWith very few exceptions, running is the very best all-around training for life that you can do.

    I agree.

    There are people here who are anti running saying it causes injuries but I think they were competitive runners or running too fast or too often. Competitive runners are more likely to get injuries.

    You don't have to run for an hour every day. 30 minutes every other day is fine. And run slow. I do 20 minutes of stationary bicycling on my off days at a pace that gives me the same heart rate that I go for when running.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2013 4:07 AM GMT
    Well, then I disagree... icon_smile.gif

    It was specifically the hard, competitive training for running that made me into a good all-around athlete (but the benefits of 2 years of hard training have lasted for years). Now I'm starting to lose that because I've gone non-competitive
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 14, 2013 3:05 PM GMT
    I began running as a job application(police)had a running test in it. I started out chasing these minimum standards.

    Later, my goals switched to a more competitive regime of personal best, etc.

    But long term, I`ve become non-competitive, enjoying the run for its own sake, the outdoors, the health benefits, and how it makes me feel so much better than I did before.

    If I had to choose the very best, all round exercise it would be swimming with its greater range of rigour, all body workout, easier on the body, and suitable for everyone.

    But running and walking are certainly convenient, inexpensive, easy to do, and rigorous.