This magazine is very informative on how to prevent injuries, run faster and train for new types of races.
I bought the issue because I was told there was an article about beginning runners training for their first half marathon. The article was mentioned on the cover. It turned out to be a fluff piece giving reasons why it was better to run a half marathon than a full one for your first long race. I didn't find a lot more depth. Motivational, some general ideas, but I didn't come away with a lot of technical information.
Unlike every runner I have ever talked to, I don't like this magazine. I'm not saying it is poorly written or it has bad information, but I don't get motivated by it. Quite the opposite in fact. Every time I read it, I end up thinking too realistically.
Being realistic does not make great runners. It makes runners who will run three or four times a week, but never really push themselves over the hump. I think that the magazine is wonderful for people who want to run to stay in shape, but it is not for competitive runners.
I run a lot of miles a week, usually around 60 to 70. Guess what, it is impossible to do that if you pay attention to everything Runner's World tells you. I've read about cross training, listening to your body, and not pushing yourself too hard.
I'm sorry, but you can't run 70 miles a week and not be sore and tired a couple of days a week usually. So you have two choices. Listen to Runner's World and take those days off and be healthy, or train smart. Those bad days for running are the days that you gain the most. Everybody is tired from time to time.
Competitive runners will go for an easy 10 instead of taking the day off. You can listen to Runner's World, but you'll never fully realize your true talent. All I'm saying is give it a shot. Maybe training so hard will burn you out or injure you, but maybe you'll flourish under the strain. Don't finish your running career and wonder what you could have been.
Runner's World Magazine is excellent for beginning or wannabe runners. For those more serious about their craft, this magazine is found to be lacking. The first few issues might spark your interest, but soon one realizes that each issue is just a creative rehash of the same stuff that was in the last.
There are pieces on running your first race/marathon. Articles about how one person (re)discovered running and why it changed their life. And there is an article stating, in effect, that eating better will improve your running. Finally, there is an article about a certain type of interval training.
Runner's World had my solid interest about a year ago, when they were printing a "Victory Lap" Article every issue (this is a retrospective of a "Magic Moment in Running.) These days, there is maybe one 'Victory Lap' every six months. And I can only stand so many "Waddle on, Friends" or "The miracle is not that I finished... it is that I had the courage to start" quotes.
All told, this magazine is boring and redundant and repetitive and boring... It alienate the devoted runner, choosing instead to focus on the 10-20 mile/week runner. I suggest the official USA Track+Field publications for more exciting reading.
I've been reading Runner's World for several years now but I am going to stop. Month after month I'll look at the cover and get excited about an "article" they say is included in the issue, only to locate the "article" and find it is no more than either a fluff piece of information that must be targeted toward someone who has never ran so much as a city block in their life, or it is a three sentence answer to a reader's question that was sent in. Do these actually count as in depth pieces that warrant advertisement on the cover?
Furthermore, every issue is the same. There will be an article on losing five lbs. by the holidays/summer/race season - whatever month the issue happens to come out. There will be a shoe review (blah!). There will be a "Fifty Ways To Stay Motivated" piece - which is always the same commonsensical tips. And there will be a "Special Woman's Section" - which, when it shows up every single month, makes me wonder just how "special" it could really be.
Once in a while there will be a good recipe, or a decent (but way too short) article on a runner. However, you could save alot of money by only purchasing one issue of this magazine because, except for the pictures and graphics, all the articles will be pretty much the same month after month.
I've been running since I started college in 1972, so perhaps I am a bit of an old "you know what." However, in recent years, the magazine has become more of a fluff piece with less substance than it used to have. Perhaps I am nostalgic for the Sheehan columns, or maybe I just don't appreciate all of the "fashion" articles.
I could use a little less of the cluttered graphics, and a bit of a return to the clean sparkling style of old.
Of course, I realize that at 45 years of age, I am NOT in the "target demographics" however, I would appreciate a bit more for the older runner (not just the occasional "token" article).
This magazine covers nothing that you can't find online. If you like shoe guides, and the same story over and over again just in a different town then by all means go for it. The magazine maybe has one small section that is useful each month, so save your money because they always publish that article online. You don't need this magazine, and it wont teach you anything. Iv'e been a subscriber for over two years now, and it has failed to impress me. I play rugby and i used to run when I was in the military for descent distances, and this magazine covers nothing grand or new. It does have a calendar though if your having trouble finding an event to attend. Overall save your money.
Once you get past the fact that every single cover features some blond nobody runner in skimpy clothing and a perfectly airbrushed body, you arrive at a magazine that is mediocre at best for runners who are serious about the sport as something other than a fun kind of exercise.
For the beginning runner, it has some nice articles about motivation, etiquette, and recipes, a race calendar and shoe guide. But this is not a magazine that pays much attention at all to the elite racing scene or advanced training, which is frustrating. Every edition is a rehashing of the one before it. Running Times, produced by the same company, is a much better bet.
love the magazine but i was disappointed with the delivery initially. i got a two month old magazine for my first delivery. it finally caught up with what was avail in the stores but now I have paid for three magazines that i had already purchased in the store. i guess if you want a magazine you need to buy a subscription and then not buy the ones in the stores for a couple of months to wait for the back delivery.
As a runner knocking on the door of elite status, my first instinct is to bash Runner?s World, and in my opinion Runner?s World contains a lot of silly articles that belong in Cosmopolitan or Men?s Health. I am not going to say that there isn?t some interesting and important information. I particularly enjoy the section on nutrition. The problem is that Runner?s World could be so much more. Maybe, it is not fair to bash Runners World. After all, they are just selling magazines and if they cut out the fluff and put in more articles important to the sport; they may go broke. I understand compromises must be made to sell magazines, and I am not saying they haven?t done a lot to raise the popularity of the sport. But they could give so much more back to the sport.
Most people don?t realize that most of the high level runners in the U.S. are starving. Sure there are some athletes that make a good living, but there are tons of athletes working full time jobs trying to train, trying to get days off to race, trying to find sponsors. Maybe the average runner doesn?t care about the high level runners, but at least a magazine such as Runner?s World could give some press to the unsung running gladiators and let the average runner decide.
I challenge Runner?s World to live up to their name and sponsor a few high level runners. I have seen athletes running for Nike, Adidas, and Reebok, but I have never seen a high level athlete running for Runner?s World. Hmmm. I would also like to see the magazine do profiles on high level runners (not just Adam Goucher a month before the Olympic Trials, but athletes that are unsponsored, working day jobs, running 110 miles a week and running fast). Runner?s World could do this and still have plenty of space for their popular columns designed for the general running public.
If you are wondering, plenty of books and websites exist with training advice better than Runner?s World. So do the sport of running a favor and stay away from Runner?s World. After all, money talks???..
PS: I do like their website.