In yesterday's New York Times, health writer Tara Parker-Pope described her experience running a marathon in just under seven hours. She ran the New York City marathon on Sunday.
Parker-Pope said she finished the 26.2 mile race in 6 hours 58 minutes and 19 seconds, putting her time well above the current average for women marathoners, 4 hours 43 minutes.
Some veteran runners might say that slow runners like Parker-Pope should be excluded from races, because their loping paces lower the bar. A recent New York Times article confirmed this negativity, quoting one runner as saying that those finishing a marathon in more than six hours are "a joke."
But Parker-Pope asserts her right to run, as do many other runners who finish at the back of the pack. These runners say they still benefit from the training, the motivation of an upcoming race, and the exhilaration of finishing. In addition to these benefits, a simple calorie calculation shows that slower marathons are certainly worth the effort if weight loss is the runner's goal.
In fact, slower marathoners actually burn more calories than those runners who finish quickly. A calculation using Run the Planet shows that a 150 pound runner would burn 2,854 calories if he or she finished a marathon in three hours. That same runner would burn 3,871 calories if he or she finished in seven hours.
So, despite what a few veteran runners might say, it seems slower runners should not hesitate to train for and complete marathons. The experience of running a marathon, the fitness you'll attain in your training, and the overall calories burned should make it well worth your while.
Comments