Some thoughts on running's third "great boom," making the case for radical pragmatism in training, doing the work that's in front of you, and a lot more.
Why must running apparel and gear be "fashionable" rather than mainly functional? I couldn't care less what others wear, and I value my runs as a time and space where it doesn't matter how I look. I fault brands and influencers for promoting the timeless myth for profit that women should look "cute" or "pretty" and men should look "cool" even in sport. (I am not faulting your newsletter in any way, which is great as always, just commenting on that article finding that running is trending more fashionable.) To those who say I should let others wear what they want and it's fun to be fashionable, I say we should push back against trends that promote consumerism and elevate appearance over function, long-lasting wear, and value.
It mustn't, but I don't think it's any different than everyday clothes, our houses, the cars we drive (more consumerism, I know, I know): they're personal choices and a way for someone to present/express themselves. I don't consider myself fashionable by any means but I do gravitate toward the brands I do because they're the right mix of function/quality/fashion/expression for me. They might not be for someone else, and that's OK. To each their own.
These days it's tablestakes to make something functional, so now the differentiator is making it appeal to different people. We're past the neons and blacks of olde. There is certainly a parallel rise of shifty, marketing-first brands that don't make quality stuff. But there is also a rise in quality brands pushing the envelope beyond the giants of Nike, New Balance, etc.
The happened with denim – used to just be a few brands like Levi's and Wrangler making men's jeans. Now we have stuff that appeals to all sorts of people and styles.
To jump in on this one, in some ways, yes, of course. Brands need to sell more stuff to stay in business. Some do this more responsibly than others, no doubt, but I believe it's on us as consumers to acknowledge when we don't need to buy the new thing.
I think the current running boom is also moving the needle for elite track and field. Just look at what’s happening in the 800m and 1500m, for example. This is due to a number of factors, but I believe the running boom has played a role in creating a healthier (for the most part) culture within the elite scene, and that’s reflected in the performances we’re seeing.
In this evolving landscape, shaped by content creators, influencers, casual runners, and other relatable figures, sometimes I wonder what role do elite athletes have left. And, from a media standpoint, what we are choosing to highlight and what we are choosing to ignore.
The danger I see is that we’re sometimes elevating the stories and performances of average runners to a level of universal significance, when really, they only have a personal meaning. We end up selling those stories for more than they are, while neglecting to give enough space to the elite athletes and their achievements. In doing so, elite athletes are left behind. And I think there’s an intrinsic value in their performances and feats, and the fact that they’re pushing the human limits.
I think we should be doing more to support those athletes, telling their stories and giving them better platforms to connect with people. Their voice, too, deserves to be heard.
That's a good point(s). I think in elite track & field its more intrinsic, some of it due to technology, and people literally just trying to keep up with everyone else. It may have also benefited, to some degree, with 4 straight years of Olympics, world champs, world champs, Olympics. Also a series like "Sprint" generates some wider interest.
In the media landscape, I think the erosion if not shuddering of many legacy publications (endemic and those that cover a wide swath of sports) has been a net negative on the elite side of the sport. They're not all dead, of course, and some new ones have emerged within the space, but for a long time when it came to actual coverage of the sport these magazines, websites, broadcast channels, etc., shone a big light on the sport's top stars. With the prevalence of social media, and along with it the need for elite athletes to become their own media companies, this space has become fractured and muddy. (Putting the stories of average runners with a big audience on par or above those of elite athletes—not saying this is good or bad, but it's what it is.) There's benefits to this from a relatability standpoint, but I agree that elite athletes across athletics (track, road, trail) have suffered from a visibility standpoint by and large. Agree wholeheartedly that more of their voices need to be heard.
The people I choose to run with enjoy the sense of community for safety, encouragement, camaraderie, and healthy competition, but at the same time we each have our individual goals and training plans. I'm so glad that running and I found one another in this time of diversity and inclusion.
Matt F. is right. Ironically, no matter how I get there, I often look back at a week or month of training (on Final Surge) and see his 80/20 rule in play in what I did, even though I didn't plan it that way.
Love it Karl. I think many people that are training with intention end up in that ballpark intuitively, even if they're not planning it that precisely. There are always exceptions and outliers, of course, but it's tough to do more than 20% of your total volume at any sort higher intensity in most cases.
Great reflections on the current running boom. I found The Guardian article interesting, and while it's likely true that women and Gen Zers are driving a good portion of the boom, the article does simplify things. We're seeing many contributing factors. This factor, especially — "more personalities have emerged amongst these various niches, allowing people to see more of themselves in someone else" — makes the sport appear more approachable and less exclusive. There's a lot of running content out there, but if it's encouraging more people to start running and feel they belong in the running community at large, it's certainly not a bad thing. (Happy birthday to Tahoe!)
Yeah the article felt incomplete to me. I say that as someone who pays attention to this stuff and also as a former editor of a running publication. RE: content, yes, although there is a lot of crap as well. But the stuff that inspires, encourages, and welcome people, nope, not a bad thing at all. (And he says thank you!)
Why must running apparel and gear be "fashionable" rather than mainly functional? I couldn't care less what others wear, and I value my runs as a time and space where it doesn't matter how I look. I fault brands and influencers for promoting the timeless myth for profit that women should look "cute" or "pretty" and men should look "cool" even in sport. (I am not faulting your newsletter in any way, which is great as always, just commenting on that article finding that running is trending more fashionable.) To those who say I should let others wear what they want and it's fun to be fashionable, I say we should push back against trends that promote consumerism and elevate appearance over function, long-lasting wear, and value.
It mustn't, but I don't think it's any different than everyday clothes, our houses, the cars we drive (more consumerism, I know, I know): they're personal choices and a way for someone to present/express themselves. I don't consider myself fashionable by any means but I do gravitate toward the brands I do because they're the right mix of function/quality/fashion/expression for me. They might not be for someone else, and that's OK. To each their own.
These days it's tablestakes to make something functional, so now the differentiator is making it appeal to different people. We're past the neons and blacks of olde. There is certainly a parallel rise of shifty, marketing-first brands that don't make quality stuff. But there is also a rise in quality brands pushing the envelope beyond the giants of Nike, New Balance, etc.
The happened with denim – used to just be a few brands like Levi's and Wrangler making men's jeans. Now we have stuff that appeals to all sorts of people and styles.
But at the end of the day, it's to get us to buy more stuff, often more than we need, and to be concerned about appearance, right?
To jump in on this one, in some ways, yes, of course. Brands need to sell more stuff to stay in business. Some do this more responsibly than others, no doubt, but I believe it's on us as consumers to acknowledge when we don't need to buy the new thing.
I think the current running boom is also moving the needle for elite track and field. Just look at what’s happening in the 800m and 1500m, for example. This is due to a number of factors, but I believe the running boom has played a role in creating a healthier (for the most part) culture within the elite scene, and that’s reflected in the performances we’re seeing.
In this evolving landscape, shaped by content creators, influencers, casual runners, and other relatable figures, sometimes I wonder what role do elite athletes have left. And, from a media standpoint, what we are choosing to highlight and what we are choosing to ignore.
The danger I see is that we’re sometimes elevating the stories and performances of average runners to a level of universal significance, when really, they only have a personal meaning. We end up selling those stories for more than they are, while neglecting to give enough space to the elite athletes and their achievements. In doing so, elite athletes are left behind. And I think there’s an intrinsic value in their performances and feats, and the fact that they’re pushing the human limits.
I think we should be doing more to support those athletes, telling their stories and giving them better platforms to connect with people. Their voice, too, deserves to be heard.
That's a good point(s). I think in elite track & field its more intrinsic, some of it due to technology, and people literally just trying to keep up with everyone else. It may have also benefited, to some degree, with 4 straight years of Olympics, world champs, world champs, Olympics. Also a series like "Sprint" generates some wider interest.
In the media landscape, I think the erosion if not shuddering of many legacy publications (endemic and those that cover a wide swath of sports) has been a net negative on the elite side of the sport. They're not all dead, of course, and some new ones have emerged within the space, but for a long time when it came to actual coverage of the sport these magazines, websites, broadcast channels, etc., shone a big light on the sport's top stars. With the prevalence of social media, and along with it the need for elite athletes to become their own media companies, this space has become fractured and muddy. (Putting the stories of average runners with a big audience on par or above those of elite athletes—not saying this is good or bad, but it's what it is.) There's benefits to this from a relatability standpoint, but I agree that elite athletes across athletics (track, road, trail) have suffered from a visibility standpoint by and large. Agree wholeheartedly that more of their voices need to be heard.
Running can be communal and individual at the same time
Sorry, that was an incomplete post.
The people I choose to run with enjoy the sense of community for safety, encouragement, camaraderie, and healthy competition, but at the same time we each have our individual goals and training plans. I'm so glad that running and I found one another in this time of diversity and inclusion.
💯
Matt F. is right. Ironically, no matter how I get there, I often look back at a week or month of training (on Final Surge) and see his 80/20 rule in play in what I did, even though I didn't plan it that way.
Love it Karl. I think many people that are training with intention end up in that ballpark intuitively, even if they're not planning it that precisely. There are always exceptions and outliers, of course, but it's tough to do more than 20% of your total volume at any sort higher intensity in most cases.
Great reflections on the current running boom. I found The Guardian article interesting, and while it's likely true that women and Gen Zers are driving a good portion of the boom, the article does simplify things. We're seeing many contributing factors. This factor, especially — "more personalities have emerged amongst these various niches, allowing people to see more of themselves in someone else" — makes the sport appear more approachable and less exclusive. There's a lot of running content out there, but if it's encouraging more people to start running and feel they belong in the running community at large, it's certainly not a bad thing. (Happy birthday to Tahoe!)
Yeah the article felt incomplete to me. I say that as someone who pays attention to this stuff and also as a former editor of a running publication. RE: content, yes, although there is a lot of crap as well. But the stuff that inspires, encourages, and welcome people, nope, not a bad thing at all. (And he says thank you!)