I see a lot of people posting about "you don't have to be fast" and it reminded me of something I read in a running magazine last year that stuck with me. It was an elite woman (can't even remember who) that said whenever she runs large marathons she is always shocked at the people who run for 5-7 hours. She explained she did not mean that in a bad way. That her training never has her running even over 3 hours and she just has no idea if she is a strong enough athlete to run that long. That what those people are doing is basically an athletic feat in itself. I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist was how impressed she was with all of us middle of the packers/slower folk who endure/have the stamina/mental toughness etc.
Something about that little article always sticks in my head when I'm at a race feeling slow as speedy people come buzzing by me at turnarounds or on double loop courses. So instead of thinking "I'm not as fast as X person"...think "OH, yeah, well I'm gonna run twice as long as you." Now you've turned yourself from the slower person to the one who can run longer
To me, there are two types of impressive (and neither is necessarily more impressive than the other). My basis for my opinion is the following.
1. I believe in perception of effort. The harder you run the faster you go. But everyone's 75% is equal to everyone else's 75% when relating perception of effort.
2. I believe that time spent running is an important factor, more so than mileage.
3. Mileage is a function of perceived effort x time. If you run faster (effort), or longer (time), then you increase your mileage.
Scenario 1
We have two people standing next to each other. I tell them both to run at 75% effort for 90 minutes. They both complete the workout.
Person A - 75% effort at 90 minutes
Person B - 75% effort at 90 minutes
Which is more impressive? Based on the information given, they are equal.
Person A ran 10 miles
Person B ran 5 miles
Which is more impressive? Based on the information given, Person A is more impressive. Person A's 75% effort is faster than Person B's 75% effort.
Scenario 2
We have two people standing next to each other. I tell them both to run at 75% effort for 13.1 miles. They both complete the workout.
Person C - 75% effort for 13.1 miles
Person D - 75% effort for 13.1 miles
Which is more impressive? Based on the information given, they are equal.
Person C finished in 1:45
Person D finished in 3:00
Which is more impressive? Based on the information given, Person D is more impressive. Person D ran at the same effort level as Person C, yet did it for 71% longer in time than Person C.
So, to me there are two kinds of impressive.
1. It's impressive to me that Galen can run at 75% effort and that equals a 5:00 min/mile. It's impressive because when I run at 75% effort it equals a 8:00 min/mile. Galen is faster than me at the same effort level.
2. It's impressive to me that Person D ran at 75% effort for 3 hours. It's impressive because when I run at 75% effort it equals 1:45. Person D is able to maintain the same effort level as me, but for 71% longer in time.
Hopefully this helps make sense of my idea. So when someone says I ran a 15:00 min/mile for a half marathon, but I gave it everything I got. I come away impressed. That person's perception of effort was the same as mine, but yet they maintained that effort for significantly longer than me.
Look at it one other way. When someone goes out and runs a marathon in 5:00, for me to match the same physical feat (same effort X time) I would have to run 40 miles instead of 26.2 miles. I don't believe I could run 40 miles in 5:00.
So I come away impressed by anyone that's running no matter what. Everyone one of you impresses me!