The title should be "Why are the people who love endurance sports rich?"<p>There's no evidence presented that a majority or even a significant percentage of people who are rich love endurance sports, only that most of the people who love endurance sports are rich. Is there a name for this sort of statistical error? Because it's <i>everywhere</i>.<p>Let's pretend there's 10,000,000 "rich people" and 100,000 "people who love endurance sports". Easily 100% of the people who love endurance sports could be rich while it's still an insignificant percentage of rich people as a whole.<p>I'm going to guess that the majority of people who are competitive at <i>any</i> hobby are pretty well off, simply because people who are poor do not have the time or resources to practice enough to become competitive at leisure activities.
My first thought on reading the title, and not dispelled by reading the article, was "poverty is an endurance sport you're not allowed to quit".<p>There are extreme examples like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/07/need-to-sign-on-youll-have-to-walk-24-miles-to-jobcentre" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/07/need-to-sign...</a> , but of course we've all heard of the conditions in Amazon warehouses.<p>Less extreme examples which are "just working class / not rich" are all the retail jobs which involve standing most of the day, shelf-stacking, anything in hospitality, anything in construction, and so on.
I run and bike, and I've wondered about this too. Running seems like it should be the most affordable sport, but in America, at least, runners tend to be affluent. Perhaps wealthy areas are more hospitable to running, but I don't think that explains much.<p>I remember reading an article in the New Yorker about a retreat where people would go to participate in extended fasts. It struck me you need to come from abundance for the idea of recreational starvation to be appealing, and I think something similar could be said for sports like running, where punishment and self-denial are nearly an aim in themselves.<p>Another article I'm reminded of is "How the Other Half Lifts"[1]. There the author muses on cultural differences between strength and endurance sports. He suggests that upper middle class Americans favor endurance sports as a way to demonstrate "moral character, self-control, and self-development, rather than physical dominance." (My impression is that weight lifting has enjoyed something of a renaissance in recent years, though.)<p>[1]<a href="https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-social-class-85221" rel="nofollow">https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-soc...</a>
I would propose a different hypothesis: Rich people love endurance sports because it is easy to get better at them.<p>Let me explain: If I am 30 made a big exit and now need a new hobby it is pretty easy to make steady progress in marathon running. I will probably not become a world-class marathon runner, but top 100 of a big event is in my reach. Still hard but possible.<p>If start with basketball, soccer or track and field I will probably not be competitive on a local level. Every sport with difficult techniques will be very much harder to learn.
Endurance sports by definition require time, something that is not in abundance when you are poor and working long hours.<p>You also may think that long distance running is simple and pure and has a low barrier to entry. But take a look at the money that has gone into the shoes, clothes, specialist accessories and bags, travelling to races, paying entry fees, and so on that a dedicated runner spends their money on.<p>I also think that the more someone focuses on money the more they generally feel like they have something to prove. Endurance sports are a, relatively, accessible way of demonstrating excellence in something.
I was happy to discover that after a while (a year or so) running improved my thinking. I have my best ideas when running, and do most of my programming that way. I return to my desk and type it in.<p>I've lifted weights for years, and it does not have this effect.<p>Running, to me, is not "lost time". It's very productive time.
My personal experience with rich people (including several billionaires) is that there is typically a lot of pressure for their time and attention, both externally and within their own brains.<p>Certain activities, including physical exertion, driving, and flying, force conscious attention to the present moment, and easily produce a “flow state”.<p>Of course, you can also produce that state with meditation, sex, and many other activities, but it typically requires more skill and intention.<p>My interpretation is that endurance sports are a straightforward way to induce pleasurable states of being for an extended duration, and these pleasurable states of being are actually statistically <i>rarer</i> in many wealthy people.
I've loved bike riding since before I had that much money. Also, as a data point, in Italy bike racing was traditionally a pretty blue-collar sport, and I think that goes for other European countries as well.<p>Personally... I like to be outside and doing something active, and I love to explore and see new places.<p><a href="https://photos.app.goo.gl/KtG9qFJRXDBnW5XT7" rel="nofollow">https://photos.app.goo.gl/KtG9qFJRXDBnW5XT7</a>
I'm going to be completely honest here - the story hits the nail on the head for me.<p>I was a mechanic in my younger years. I was content. I was lower middle class, but I didn't care. Yeah, it was dirty, it was tiring, it was hard on the body, but it was rewarding.<p>Once we had our first child, I refocused on a long-lost passion of mine and have been a network engineer for about seven years now...While I also love this job, and do find it rewarding, I got into cycling about six years ago.<p>I've always realized that I upped the 'profitability' of my career by over four-fold - and I know that I did it for the sake of my son and my wife. But I never realized that cycling actually filled a gap that I left for myself.<p>I'm completely fine with cycling filling that gap. My family lives a better life now, and I absolutely love cycling. The article definitely hit home with me - word after word, sentence after sentence, I can relate to the whole thing.
> “By flooding the consciousness with gnawing unpleasantness, pain provides a temporary relief from the burdens of self-awareness,” write the researchers. “When leaving marks and wounds, pain helps consumers create the story of a fulfilled life. In a context of decreased physicality, [obstacle course races] play a major role in selling pain to the saturated selves of knowledge workers, who use pain as a way to simultaneously escape reflexivity and craft their life narrative.”<p>Yikes, if generally true :-) I work on reflexivity a lot with coaching clients. However it takes a lot of craft to work around to it for some, and even then it can feel like selling something really dangerous.<p>Modern culture seems to offer endless options for a breadth-first search for anything. In contrast, depth is seen as risky in a variety of ways, from social risk (never go deep in polite company!) to e.g. intellectual FOMO.<p>We make it really easy to ignore the self, to ignore "my condition" in favor of pursuing what is "healthy" or "impressive" for "our condition."
> "our sports are not cheap: According to the New York Times, the total cost of running a marathon—arguably the least gear-intensive and costly of all endurance sports—can easily be north of $1,600"<p>I've run a few marathons, and I think that's nuts. It's only expensive if you want it to be. You don't <i>need</i> $580 worth of new clothes, $235 in intermediate races, a $130 gym membership, $210 worth of massages, $95 in transportation/lodging (if you run a local one), and $165 in celebration food (!!).<p>Wear clothes you already have (if you're at all athletic to begin with), get a training book from the library, and spend $100 for an entry fee and $100 for a good new pair of shoes or two. There, I just saved you $1500 off your next marathon.
I'm curious if there is a similar divide between individual sports and team sports. Virtually all the endurance sports discussed in this article are individual sports (with the possible exception of obstacle course races, but even then you aren't actively, directly engaged against another team like you are in sports like basketball, soccer, football, baseball, etc.)<p>My hypothesis is that getting an actual team (or teams) together to practice is something that is easier for people who are longer on time, shorter on money, while individual sports can be indulged by people with more money but where it is more difficult to synchronize schedules for team practice.
The first half of the article was silly. Only people with disposable income participate in expensive sporting events. It didnt really differentiate for just running for yourself and running in pricey events, but it could easily have just pointed to having free time.<p>The second half was also pretty silly. That endurance sports are escapism from a mundane reality with no sense of objectives. Sure... that’s fine. But that’s also how all other hobbies work. You do it because you find it engaging and meaningful to pursue. Extended theorizing about the joys of painful struggle seem unwarranted.<p>Not mentioned: social signaling.
It's funny, but there does seem to be a class divide between endurance sports and strength sports. Dan Duane wrote an article about it in the Pacific Standard[1]:<p>>>Sociologists, it turns out, have studied these covert athletic biases. Carl Stempel, for example, writing in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, argues that upper middle class Americans avoid “excessive displays of strength,” viewing the bodybuilder look as vulgar overcompensation for wounded manhood. The so-called dominant classes, Stempel writes—especially those like my friends and myself, richer in fancy degrees than in actual dollars—tend to express dominance through strenuous aerobic sports that display moral character, self-control, and self-development, rather than physical dominance. By chasing pure strength, in other words, packing on all that muscle, I had violated the unspoken prejudices—and dearly held self-definitions—of my social group.<p>Both can be good for you in different ways, but there seems to be this assumption that you can't be muscular and intelligent at the same time. Strength sports are blue collar, endurance sports are white collar.<p>For me, I prefer strength sports. Beyond just not enjoying cardio, I find being strong much more useful in daily life. My wife has never asked me to run 5 miles, but I frequently get asked by friends and neighbours to move heavy objects.<p>[1] <a href="https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-social-class-85221" rel="nofollow">https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-soc...</a>
I'm surprised that the word "injury" doesn't appear once in this article. Many people I know who do physical work avoid forms of entertainment which could put their livelihood at risk.<p>When you sit at a desk all day, you don't really worry about breaking your leg. Worst case, you have to wear a cast for a while, while still going to work and earning a salary.
Flip it: I like to think that endurance sports are popular with hard working white collar workers because it is a means of coping with stress and long work hours. I work in consulting and the majority of people I work with use swimming, running and cycling as a way of relaxing / managing stress / unwinding. Hence ‘enduranxe’.
The lead says that running requires "time and money". The former is true, the latter is bogus.<p>Running is my main form of exercise. I think it costs me $100 a year or so (one pair of shoes). I run outside, on public streets into a public park. I don't bring along special energy bars or use a Garmin fitness tracker.<p>I'm not saying this to try and sound superior in any way, just that running can be very enjoyable and inexpensive. You don't have to "train" for anything, you can just run. You can get faster, or not. It doesn't really matter, just sweat and don't get hurt.<p>Oh and if you want to run a marathon, you don't have to pay anyone for the privelege. I wanted to run a half marathon without registering for one so as a joke I set up my own, if you want to register please pay me the $0 fee: havetheruns.com
Another possible explanation is that there's something about some people's personality that drives them to do both. Neither one is easy. Both require dedication and hard work. The willingness to tough it out and do what it takes can apply to both.<p>Along the same lines, it might be a personality trait where the person is prone to excess in certain ways. The article says the aim of a high-income is to live comfortably, but I think you can live much more comfortably putting in less work and getting a moderate income. Higher-income is something that happens when you want to go beyond comfortable. Similarly, you can stay in shape without running a marathon. A marathon (or other endurance activity) appeals to people who are looking for more than just the practical benefits.
I joke that endurance events, particularly cycling, are the perfect sport for middle age when you have more money than time. It's relatively low skill and you're mostly competing against yourself---which both help when you don't have much time to train. No new movement patterns to learn and no worries about letting down team mates. But most importantly you can participate in the sport with just your credit card and mouse clicking finger. Putting in more hours will probably have more effect on your performance, but buying that sweet new gear is perhaps more achievable.
Another proposed title: "Why you need to be rich and have a white collar job to have time for leisure activities"
Subtext: _less than 1% of rich people are active triathletes_<p>Some of the people with free time and money spend it on endurance activities. Some of them spend it on watching TV.<p>For tri-athetes:
(back of envelope math, 120K a year is top 5% of income in US - source: <a href="http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/" rel="nofollow">http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/</a>)<p>Population of US is around 325 Million. 5% is 16.25 Million.<p>(Total membership in the USA Triathlon organization: 116K in 2015) <a href="https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Triathlon/PDF/About-Multisport/2015-Membership-Report_lowres.pdf?la=en&hash=1C1F62C80432F8DFA8769CF79D3B664C65C59CE9" rel="nofollow">https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Triathlon/PDF/About-Mult...</a>)<p>116000/16250000 = ~0.7%<p>Conclusion less than 1% of rich people love triathlons.
What about personality attributes that a marathon runner and successful
person might have in common? Dedication, preserverance, the desire to
conquer things and rack up a big 'accomplishment'.
The quote they include: "by flooding the consciousness with gnawing unpleasantness, pain provides a temporary relief from the burdens of self-awareness" -- between the pain and the endorphins, that's why I do it. Helps de-stress, unwind, keeps me feeling happier, and the pain keeps my mind off existential angst haha.
I bet the type of people who like to engage in prolonged endurance activities of the physical nature also like prolonged endurance activities of the financial nature. Most people get rich over a long, hard period of time.
Hmm the salaries listed don't make me think "rich people". When I think of Rich People, the sports are Equestrian, Mountain Expeditions, Sailing.
There are a lot of reasons I like running, but the one that hasn't been entionet yet is that races have a defned beginning, end, and outcome.<p>I work doing analysis, which is never truely independent of the last one. Projects go on for a long time, and at the end of a week you're never truely sure you've moved forward - just like in code you occasionally have to trash it and start again. Or your paper gets rejected - back to the drawing board.<p>On top of that, so much of my work is so ephemeral - will anything really change as a result of the analyses I do? How much of a decision is driven by them? I love my work and take pride in it, but I'm also realistic that there are a lot of other factors in play.<p>When I run however, I know what I have to do, and at the end, I've done it. Training session of 6x3 minutes? After 3 reps, I'm half way there. That certainty is gratifying, and not like the rest of my working life.<p>After that we can talk about the health, the movement which feels good rather than sitting in a chair absolutely all the time, and so on.
I've never understood the near and actual addiction people have to endurance sports. Most are not healthy, marathons make for a great Facebook or dating profile, while damaging your body. yesterday I was talking to a guy that is doing a 24 hour bike ride with limited ten minute stops, I kept my mouth shut but seriously wanted to ask if he thought that was in any way healthy. He was telling me about a 32 hour ride he did previously. There is no way that is great for long term health. I guess damaging your kidneys and ending up in a wheel chair because your knees are destroyed is worth it, because bragging rights.<p>I'm not saying having some endurance in various physical activities is a bad thing, but there is a trend of people taking it to extreme levels for show. Besides the physical downsides over time there is probably a mental health component that should be addressed.
Having spent time among bike racers and triathletes, there is another factor the article doesn't mention: lots of toys.<p>Serious cyclists love to spend money on equipment, and the market is often designed around forced obsolescence. While there are stories of cyclists doing great things on sub-standard equipment, the "marginal gains" that top-flight gear provide make it difficult for the cyclist with just average or below-average equipment to do well.<p>I am, of course, talking about competition here--plenty of long distance cyclists (randonneurs) ride 1600km on "sub-standard" equipment. Just browse a gallery of the Paris-Brest-Paris brevet to see.
It might be anecdotal, but I run and bike because I've never been good in most popular team sports, such as basketball, soccer etc. On the other hand, running, biking or swimming do not require social skills, dexterity or other skills associated with the more popular spots. As long as you know how to run, it's just a matter of stubbornness/discipline. Plus running is a blessing for those who prefer peaceful activities. You get to run alone in the woods.<p>Friends who are programmers or who have white-collar jobs are in similar cases (were good/great in school but were last in sports classes)
This author began with a hypothesis, and then engaged in motivated reasoning in order to confirm it.<p>All we need to do is look at who the best distance runners in the world are: Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans -- these are not people with above-average annual incomes or large net worth. By deliberately excluding the entire continent of Africa from the scope of analysis, the author talks himself into a baseless and silly theory.<p>Endurance sports have always been sports of the people. Buy a pair of shoes or swimming trunks, a cheap Walmart bicycle and join us.
I believe you can intuit someones strengths, weaknesses, and personality by the hobbies they pursue.<p>Endurance sports are often long, rather repetitive, and can be intentionally made painful - they attract types who feel they need to accomplish. However, in my experience, it is usually as a relief from career or work to free the mind. In my experience, from a 'startup perspective', they tend to be the high performing employees of a company. Also are drawn to B2B SaaS. I've also noticed people tend to get into endurance sports when either they need a relief from career, or feel like they have no control over advancing career.<p>Action sports people (like myself) prefer constantly changing environments, controlled risk, and the rush to augment the intensity of life. People that pursue these seem to be controlling for a mundane day to day life, or pursue additional endorphin rushes to stack in life.<p>edit: added piece about inability to control career in endurance.
I'm a tech worker, and I consider my greatest sporting accomplishments to be 'endurance type' events. (I ran a marathon, have bowled a sanctioned 300 game.)<p>My own theory is that it's because I'm not a great athlete. I can work at something a long time, though.
At least in America, endurance sports are terribly overpriced.<p>I lived in Japan for two years and entered 6 half-marathons as an English teacher on small salary. Each race for $40-50 and came with a free t-shirt promoting the town the event took place in. Many people from the community (not just the wealthy) took part.<p>When I returned to America, I was excited to join races in America. Every long distance race was $100+. I haven't raced in a single half-marathon since. I can't justify spending that much money to run in the street. It turns more into an ego/selfie-experience than a celebration of running.
I've always loved being outdoors and surviving by my own hands. But since I've become a programmer, I have some disposable income. I find now that I'm climbing higher and taking on more ambitious projects. Being able to afford good equipment makes a pretty big difference. Mountaineering might not be a typical endurance sport, but in this case, there is definitely a financial barrier to entry.<p>I couldn't have done it before I became a programmer. But there's not a psychological component to that. I loved the outdoors when I was destitute too.
> According to the New York Times, the total cost of running a marathon—arguably the least gear-intensive and costly of all endurance sports—can easily be north of $1,600.<p>I know people who run upwards of 50 marathons a year (some who are 100+) and they ain't paying out $1600+ for each one. Most of them wouldn't even count as "affluent", never mind "rich". A lot of them don't spend hours a week training, either (but then none of them are going to win many races since they're 4-6h types.)
A lot of human behavior starts to make sense once you're familiar with the idea of costly signaling:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle</a><p>Competing in endurance sports, owning expensive cars, and being able to speak intelligently about art or literature are all signals about your personality, wealth, class, and/or intelligence which are hard to fake.
I've always measured rich people sports by the cost spectrum of equipment available. Football, usually provided by some team or organization or school, soccer, is shoes and a ball, maybe a goal, but not necessarily. Then there is tennis, or cycling, where you can spend about as much as you want to buy some perceivable edge over others. Running is an outlier, but the article does suggest the sheer time it take to train is a barrier for many.
> One hypothesis is that endurance sports offer something that most modern-day knowledge economy jobs do not: the chance to pursue a clear and measurable goal with a direct line back to the work they have put in.<p>I can buy that. I love working in the yard, because when I'm done, I can see the fruits of my labor physically manifested in front of me. I can even see partial results when I'm 1/2 done.
Rich people live in nice neighborhoods that are great for running outside, not to mention safe.<p>They are also globally mobile. Winter too harsh in one place for running outside? Hop on a jet, go to a sunny, warm place.<p>In the words of Fran Lebowitz, the poor person "generally summers where he winters" or something like that [<i>Social Studies</i>, 1981]
This might be a good place to ask: does anyone remember that study showing which sports were enjoyed (as spectators or as players) by which income brackets? E.g. golf had fans with high average income, while basketball fans had a lower income, and the former had a much smaller gap between the 10th and 90th percentiles as well.
I vehemently disagree with this assessment on the pursuit of pain and the associated high cost. I can only speak as a runner, which I've been since high school cross country, but the "cost" is two pairs of shoes a year at about $70/pair. My running clothes, depending on weather, come to a couple hundred dollars per season and I've used the same clothes for 4 years now. As for the "pursuit of pain", I run to clear my head, get out and see nature, and organize all my problems or TODO's into a progress plan. I run to relieve stress, even though there are occasional injuries, I don't pursue them but it is a price/risk. I think the article centers too much on it's premise without looking very far into the data. To give some background:
I run 14 mile runs.
I've done a 50 mile ultra marathon.
I benchpress over 330 pounds.
I run twice a week and lift three days a week every week without fail.
I make well over the what the article considers rich, too.
It could just be low time preference.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference</a><p>Running a marathon is a lot like investing, even in a career.
I often wonder if this is why I toil away in the soil. Why am I making my life harder than nessasary. Yes the food I produce cannot be bought off the shelf, but is that enough of a reason to put myself through the trouble?
Because they can.<p>That is, such interests require disposable time (to train), as well as disposable income (to travel to events). Add in, eating better, access to healthcare (for an injury), and perhaps even a gym membership.<p>Yup. Because they can.
I wonder how many people would run marathons if they had to do it in secret?<p>See also: <a href="https://goo.gl/images/o1L8J7" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/images/o1L8J7</a>
>According to the New York Times, the total cost of running a marathon—arguably the least gear-intensive and costly of all endurance sports—can easily be north of $1,600.<p>Wat.<p>What marathons are they signing up for?
Selection bias. The first paragraph nails it. All the psychological stuff the article goes on to hypothesize about is ancillary. Selection bias is the main driver.
IMHO endurance sports are objectively the best sports:<p>- Lowest chance of short term injuries.<p>- Mostly low impact (less true for running, but true for sports like rowing and nordic skiing.)<p>- Best for improving cardiovascular health, which is the biggest cause of death<p>- Best for losing weight<p>- Most fair and least influenced by random chance<p>- Perhaps the best at developing a person's character also, since hard work and training is more consistently rewarded than with other sports (although there is still a lot of randomness).<p>- Least commercialized and corrupted by the NCAA, pro leagues, tv ratings, etc.<p>Perhaps the people smart enough to choose the best sports are the ones who are also smart enough to get wealthy.
What an overly complicated analysis. Maybe it's just because white collar people are forced to sit at a desk all day,which is unhealthy and takes a very obvious toll on the appearance of your body -- so people try to counteract this by overcompensating on exercise outside of work.