frank-in-toronto wrote:
> if a person has 15 or 20 pounds to lose, it's obvious where
> they should be putting their efforts. and for them, talking
> about shoe weight would just be social.
Hick-meister,
For someone so quick and strident to defend the slow runner (1), you
sure are on a high horse about body fat. Hey, congrats for being slim
yourself since that's important to you. (2) Just remember that, while
probably none of us here at rec.running (except maybe TBR) wants to be
a big fat slob, losing that last 5 or 10 or 15 pounds may not be a top
3 priority for all of us, let alone the general population - nor is
that a sign of moral rot, any more than your failure thus far to get
fired up about running a sub-3 marathon. (3)
And one last time: why don't you actually try the experiment. Go out
for a run with 1 lb weights on each ankle or in hiking boots, then
without the weights but with a backpack which you weigh down to various
degrees. C'mon Frank, as a Canadian, you must spend many days each
year out in the forest, and thereby come into contact with backpackers
carrying 30-50-70 pounds on their backs who nonetheless insist on
keeping their shoe/boot weights down - and they're not even racing a
clock nor each other. You calling all of those big burly Canucks a
bunch of liars?
(1) which is fine with me - a runner about 50% slower (i.e. 67% as
fast) then the truly fast - but please do bear in mind that the _sport_
of running (racing) quite clearly considers speed not just a virtue but
rather _the_ central idea
(2) though one hopes you haven't achieved this via the "Kate Moss
diet"!
(3) and this _is_ wreck.RUNNING, not wreck.slim or wreck.supermodels or
wreck.does-my-ass-look-fat