
Why Do Rich People Love Endurance Sports? (2017) - shrikant
https://www.outsideonline.com/2229791/why-are-most-endurance-athletes-rich/
======
imgabe
The title should be "Why are the people who love endurance sports rich?"

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 _everywhere_.

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.

I'm going to guess that the majority of people who are competitive at _any_
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.

~~~
schrodinger
My favorite professor used to describe this statistical error as a major cause
behind racism.

E.g. it may be true that most criminals in an area are of a certain race; that
says nothing about the probability of a single person of that race being a
criminal. Same with Islamaphobia–even if most acts of terrorism were performed
by Muslims (which isn’t even true!), that’d say nothing about the likelihood
that a randomly chosen Muslim person you meet is a terrorist.

Edit: changed likelihood to probability

~~~
alexis_fr
That’s what I believed. Until my daughter got raped.

~~~
mj_olnir
As someone who has also lived through that nightmare - I'm deeply sorry for
your daughter.

However, you have to remember that this is an anecdote - you don't want to
throw people into boxes they don't fit.

------
pjc50
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".

There are extreme examples like [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2019/jan/07/need-to-sign...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2019/jan/07/need-to-sign-on-youll-have-to-walk-24-miles-to-jobcentre) ,
but of course we've all heard of the conditions in Amazon warehouses.

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.

~~~
krupan
I worked construction one summer during college and my running habit died very
quickly after starting that job. Getting paid to work out isn't too bad of a
deal, but it is nice to be able to make a choice on the matter.

------
macco
I would propose a different hypothesis: Rich people love endurance sports
because it is easy to get better at them.

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.

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.

~~~
gameswithgo
endurance is also more trainable than short term power. So one will get more
from being persistent for years at marathon running than they would at the 100
yard dash.

Also, you lose endurance ability slower as you age than short term power. So
you can still be pretty good at marathon in your 50s, while you would be
useless at the 100 yard dash or hitting home runs.

~~~
cujo
> So one will get more from being persistent for years at marathon running
> than they would at the 100 yard dash

Need a source on this.

> So you can still be pretty good at marathon in your 50s, while you would be
> useless at the 100 yard dash or hitting home runs.

But not relative to your peers, which is what everyone compares to unless
you're top 3 overall in any given race.

I have a gut feeling, the next fitness trend will be running faster vs running
farther.

~~~
stevenwoo
Off the top of my head from exercise and physiology 101 - everyone without a
mitochondria disorder and other disabilities simply gets better at endurance
sports to the limit of their ability, resistance to injury at the particular
sport and time invested - which can take years. The limit on ability for short
term power to weight (sprinting) is much easier to reach because most people
do not have that much sprint ability, there's a component that can be
attributed to genetics for any ability but the human body is generally made
for endurance sports and getting better at it (the adaptations such as
increased blood plasma, better ability to utilize O2, increased mitochondrial
density, increased capillary density, heart stroke volume, etc) and only some
of us are cut out to really excel for sprinting events (there are some
adaptations for sprint that work against endurance and vice versa ala muscle
adaptation, also the main energy pathway for sprinting is anaerobic which can
be trained but it's much quicker to find your personal limits at a particular
sport ).

------
Buldak
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.

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.

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.)

[1][https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-
soc...](https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-social-
class-85221)

~~~
vinbreau
Running requires a safe neighborhood. I've lived in enough bad neighborhoods
where my wife would never feel safe running in. When we did move to a better
neighborhood and saw runners, my wife was surprised. Many poor people do not
live in places conducive to running.

~~~
charlatan
> Running requires a safe neighborhood.

I (a man) feel uncomfortable walking, let alone running, in any neighborhood,
safe or not. A man walking/running in a more upper-middle class neighborhood
(or manicured gated community) always attracts attention and someone's bound
to call the cops on you "just to be on the safe side" :) Safer to whiz by in
your car and lift weights in your garage.

~~~
sveme
Something's wrong with a society if that is the case. You can't imagine how
much this statement shocks me. Not doubting it in any way, just a considerable
shock.

~~~
debatem1
This is definitely true. You do not want to be poor and male and running at
night when the police come by, or poor and female and running in a truly bad
neighborhood. I've spent time in the back of a police cruiser because they
thought I was breaking into cars when they saw me jogging at night.

~~~
paganel
I was interviewed by police because they thought I was trying to steal my own
car, as stupid as that may seem, and the only reason for that was because I
was wearing a hood at night in a rich neighborhood.

------
have_faith
Endurance sports by definition require time, something that is not in
abundance when you are poor and working long hours.

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.

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.

~~~
fredley
I agree with the time aspect, but not the money. Running has possibly one of
the lowest barriers to entry, money-wise, of any sport. You need a pair of
trainers, but unless you're running pretty seriously any comfortable pair will
do. That's it. A good pair of running shoes costs $100, and it's all you need
to compete at all but the highest levels. Compared to swimming, cycling, or
literally any sport that requires equipment to play, the costs are tiny.

~~~
realityking
It's not quite that cheap. Most marathons have a significant sign-up fee
(~$100). If you're serious about running a marathon you'll probably average
about 80km/week in training. Running shoes last about 1000km so you need a new
pair 4 times a year.

That said, iff you run two marathons a year and don't care which ones you do
you can probably do it for < $1k a year.

~~~
bluedino
When I was in Chicago during the marathon last year, they had a segment on the
local news station about the average cost for a participant. Travel to
Chicago, hotel, meals shoes, entry fees, it was like $3,000 USD. that doesn't
include training up to that point and qualifying at another marathon, etc etc

~~~
boyband6666
Yeah the $3k figure I can believe, but then again Chicago is one of the World
Marathon Majors. There will be another marathon aroudn Chicago that'll be
<$300 all in.

------
WalterBright
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.

I've lifted weights for years, and it does not have this effect.

Running, to me, is not "lost time". It's very productive time.

~~~
tjr225
It is "meditational" for me as well. Running is my favorite place to think and
to relax, but I think this is more due to independence and solitude.

If I want to spend an hour running six miles, nobody would deny me that.

------
trevyn
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.

Certain activities, including physical exertion, driving, and flying, force
conscious attention to the present moment, and easily produce a “flow state”.

Of course, you can also produce that state with meditation, sex, and many
other activities, but it typically requires more skill and intention.

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 _rarer_ in many wealthy people.

------
davidw
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.

Personally... I like to be outside and doing something active, and I love to
explore and see new places.

[https://photos.app.goo.gl/KtG9qFJRXDBnW5XT7](https://photos.app.goo.gl/KtG9qFJRXDBnW5XT7)

~~~
ubermonkey
I'm a pretty serious cyclist, too.

Now, I'm not rich but I'm definitely comfortably to the right on the curve, so
to speak. However, I've noticed something in the groups I ride with: the vast
middle of the faster, strong riders are on equipment that's all about the same
level, give or take a few things.

It's usually mid-grade frames from major brands sporting Ultegra or Force, so
probably a $3,000US bike.

This is true if the rider is, like me, a middle-aged person with significant
disposable income, or a genuine millionaire, or a just-out-of-school teacher.
Some of these bikes were doubtless purchased used, but still.

A _few_ folks upgrade; the most common bump is carbon wheels, followed by
electronic shifting. Both make a difference, but neither are required to ride
at the level we're riding at. And yeah, the very serious or very rich do
splash out for nicer gear, but there are always outliers.

It's not entirely on point, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

~~~
jdietrich
In the UK, there tends to be an inverse correlation between the shininess of
your bike and your performance. The young Cat A riders with one eye on a
professional contract mostly ride 15-year-old aluminium race bikes or cheap
off-brand carbon bikes; the weekend plodders are often on brand new Pinarellos
or Cervelos. There's also a difference in clothing - it's almost a badge of
honour to wear faded and threadbare kit, because it shows that you really put
the hours in.

No amount of go-faster equipment will substitute for youth and training, but
the middle-aged amateurs with pro-grade gear like to dream and help to sustain
the cycling economy by doing so.

~~~
davidw
Back in the 90ies, I stayed in the same hotel as a pro team who were racing in
the Giro d'Italia. It was interesting to see their bikes: except for the GC
guy, they were 'workhorses' \- good components, and steel frames that, taken
together, where not exactly featherweight.

A nice bike certainly helps, but it's all about your fitness and strength.

~~~
gerbilly
Rotating weight is the most important to minimize.

If you can shave off 500g in your wheelset, it makes much more difference than
shaving 500g off the frame or other 'static' component.

~~~
jdietrich
In a punchy crit with constant accelerations, absolutely. For sustained
efforts like time trials, it makes essentially no difference. Once you're up
to speed, it's all aerodynamics, gravity and rolling resistance. Ondřej
Sosenka actually used a weighted back wheel for his successful hour record
ride, with the logic that it would act as a flywheel in the later parts of the
hour and smooth out his ragged pedalling. Of course he did test positive for
methamphetamine in 2008, which may have had something to do with breaking the
hour record.

~~~
gerbilly
It's interesting you mention rolling resistance because in mountain biking,
cross country anyway, where there will be climbing on loose surfaces, you have
to trade off rolling resistance of the rear tire against traction.

If you over-inflate your tires, you'll have less traction.

There's also the fact that during a tough climb on a trail with obstacles
(roots rocks) you can't just power your way up, you have to maintain constant
awareness of where the contact patch of your rear wheel is at all times, and
modulate the power such that you deliver the most power where you have the
most traction.

Fail to do that on a rock or root and you'll blow the climb.

------
deaps
I'm going to be completely honest here - the story hits the nail on the head
for me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
MarkLowenstein
I'm very interested in that gap you refer to. Was there something you were
used to as a mechanic that you weren't getting in your new career?

~~~
deaps
I think in auto mechanics, I accomplished _things_ each day. Many beginnings
and many ends. There was the mental challenges, similar to what I face these
days, but those _things_ came to completion much more frequently. It was
rewarding.

Now my current job is absolutely rewarding as well. I’m actually recognized a
lot for my troubleshooting ability, but normally a typical project from start
to end could be four months - or more - if it includes a lot of documentation
to pass off to an operations team. I definitely do more designing,
documentation, and transitioning of those systems than I do troubleshooting,
however these days.

Keep in mind, I’m _not_ complaining - just explaining. I love my job and am
challenged. I think it just misses some of the more frequent gratifying
completion of tasks (which cycling fills).

Hope that explains a bit more.

------
themodelplumber
> “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.”

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.

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.

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."

~~~
jessaustin
What does "reflexivity" mean in this context?

~~~
themodelplumber
Reflexivity is a bit of an overburdened term in sociology, but in this case I
think "depth of self-reflection" would be a reasonable stand-in definition.

Essentially, the relatively shallow externality of "pain, suffering" becomes a
sort of pornography of self-improvement. In other words, it has all of the
outward signs of self-improvement activity with none of the critical inward-
turning, truly reflective contextualization.

In my own practice this is frequently seen in prioritization of e.g. income
and careerism and socially-prioritized-labeled-experiences. The people who
say, "I have circumnavigated the globe, I've climbed the tallest peak on every
continent, I drank the mythical Peruvian tea, I am a triathlete, I was at the
top of our sales floor so long that they did away with the award." When
there's no real "me" and "who I am," in there, just a bunch of externalities
that "all of us can honor and appreciate and sit in awe of," in a list.

------
ken
> "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"

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 _need_ $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
(!!).

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.

~~~
boyband6666
I'm doing Boston this year, it's a flight from the UK. In total It'll be
$2000.

... my race to qualify was £40 entry, petrol (£25?) and £3 parking (I only put
4 hours on the meter from when I arrived to give myself even more incentive).

So as is so often the case, a range in an article is uninformative - it tells
us nothing about the normal experience and leaves us all extrapolating from
our own experiences!

------
hn_throwaway_99
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.)

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.

~~~
Buldak
Long hours are intrinsic to endurance sports, though. An avid cyclist or
runner will easily spend ten hours or more training each week. By contrast, I
doubt many people put that much into beer league softball or pick up
basketball. (It's also not clear to me that rich people have less time than
middle class or poor people.)

~~~
nradov
Rich people tend to travel a lot and have schedules which vary from week to
week, which does make it hard to reliably show up for team practice. But they
can do endurance sports on their own schedule.

------
b_tterc_p
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.

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.

Not mentioned: social signaling.

~~~
mieses
The first few sentences are silly. Biking and running are on opposite ends of
the tinkering with gear spectrum.

~~~
baddox
Cycling tends to have more expensive gear, but have you ever heard runners
geek out about shoes, socks, chafing remedies, mobile hydration solutions,
“gels,” etc.? Definitely not _opposite_ ends of the spectrum.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>but have you ever heard runners geek out about shoes, socks, chafing
remedies, mobile hydration solutions, “gels,” etc.

But pretty much all that is optional and the rate of performance return for
investment is minuscule in running compared to biking.

If you shop around you can get good enough running shoes for $50. After that
you need shorts, underwear that won't chafe a couple shirts (and possibly a
sports bra). For under $100 you can have everything you need to train for and
complete a marathon.

~~~
baddox
Absolutely. You can get a bike for free as well. But not many people who are
very interested in either sport do that.

------
gadders
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]:

>>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.

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.

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.

[1] [https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-
soc...](https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-social-
class-85221)

------
ken
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.

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.

~~~
adimitrov
> Worst case, you have to wear a cast for a while, while still going to work
> and earning a salary.

It took me a while to parse that… then it struck me: right, you don't
naturally get paid leave of absence for illness or injury in the US. In
Germany, the minimum by law is 6 weeks at 100% wage, and another 76 weeks at
70% wage (there are some special cases and whatnot, but they don't apply to
poorer households.) Additionally, the first 6 weeks may be prolonged by your
contract if you're working a job (usually industrial labour, e.g. car
manufacturing) where the union has negotiated better terms.

It's interesting to think about the situation in Europe: injuring yourself is
not as much of an issue here, and few neigbourhoods are really that unsafe to
walk or run in. Even if they are, public transport will quickly and reliably
get you somewhere safe.

Yet, I still think (I have no numbers) that running (and certainly cycling and
swimming) is a sport for well-to-dos — definitely at least middle class.

But the reverse isn't true: middle class folks don't necessarily do endurance
sports. Tons of vocational workers (plumbers, electricians, woodworkers etc.)
are comfortably middle class here, but they don't do endurance sports much. I
think it has more to do with the physical labour aspect of your own job, and
maybe also that of your colleagues. You may have an easy job, but if your peer
group doesn't, endurance sports may still be frowned upon.

Just a theory; I'd like to see comparative numbers between US and EU.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>It took me a while to parse that… then it struck me: right, you don't
naturally get paid leave of absence for illness or injury in the US. In
Germany, the minimum by law is 6 weeks at 100% wage, and another 76 weeks at
70% wage (there are some special cases and whatnot, but they don't apply to
poorer households.) Additionally, the first 6 weeks may be prolonged by your
contract if you're working a job (usually industrial labour, e.g. car
manufacturing) where the union has negotiated better terms.

Blue collar folk with money tend do have more dangerous hobbies than white
collar workers. Motorsports, boxing/mma. When you crash a bike you're wearing
a helmet. When someone fouls you in backetball you're not.

Catastrophic injuries that leave you unable to do physical work while
recovering are very rare in endurance sports until you get in to the more
extreme end of the spectrum (e.g. a 5k that's basically an obstacle course in
a mud bog) and even then they're somewhat rare. Why someone who works on their
feet most of the time and regularly carries heavy things may not want to pound
their knees into dust doing a couple marathons a year has nothing to do with
healthcare.

>You may have an easy job, but if your peer group doesn't, endurance sports
may still be frowned upon.

This seems to correlate with my unscientific observation but I don't think
it's specifically "frowned upon".

------
hestefisk
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’.

~~~
purplethinking
Exercise is anything but relaxing (except for perhaps afterwards). More likely
it's mostly a status indicator. People want to be "a person who runs
marathons", or be a very fit person, because in their mind it gives status.

~~~
rusk
_> Exercise is anything but relaxing_

I think you need to "relax" your definition of "relaxing"!

For somebody who crunches numbers all day, it's very "relaxing" to go out and
do something that stresses another part of your being. The overworked part
gets to take the time off while the underworked part gets a run-out.

------
habosa
The lead says that running requires "time and money". The former is true, the
latter is bogus.

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.

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.

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

~~~
chrisfosterelli
I see what you're saying, but you also have to acknowledge what the article is
saying. You could also "cycle" by finding a used, broken $90 bike. You could
do "obstacle courses" by setting up abandoned garbage in a field for $0.

For all three of the sports, this is not representative of most of what the
average invested long-distance athlete spends or how they interact with the
sport. For example, if you run alot you're definitely going through more shoes
than 1 pair a year to not risk injury, so increase that to $400-$500 / yr. Set
aside $100-$500/yr for races. Don't forget $100-$200/night for the hotels, and
a few hundred for travel and food. A good watch to help you improve your
training is $400-$700. You don't want to chafe so get good running equipment
and keep it up-to-date ($300/yr). When you become competitive, you might want
to push yourself further with group training sessions or coaching
($50-500/mo). Your nutrition will be very important when you run far so
account for $300-$1000/yr in extra groceries, nutrition items, sports drinks,
gels, etc.

Now with just these we're easily over $10K/yr total costs, for just running. I
won't even dig into cycling.

I totally agree running is low cost and low barrier to get into. But as you
start investing more time in it, joining the local community, participating in
races, making friends in the sport, and setting more aggressive goals, you
find the costs do go up.

Yes, this is obviously an extreme example, but so was yours. I hope you can
see how the average somewhat-invested runner easily spends close to what the
article quotes.

~~~
megaman8
but it doesn't have to be that way. even here in SF, we have DSG races that
only cost 5$ for a 5K or 10K. Sure there's no timing chip or free bananas or
trophies, but you get your time and a chance to compete against others.

As for shoes, I've been running 5-10 miles per week in the same pair for over
2 years and haven't worn them out yet. Yes, Nike/special performance ones do
wear out much faster and fall apart in less then 1000 miles. But, if you get a
cheaper pair from target or other department stores, they'll last a lot
longer.

~~~
chrisfosterelli
> but it doesn't have to be that way

Of course, as I mentioned it's a really extreme example used to demonstrate
that, even being frugal on 9/10 of those, you still hit the amount mentioned
in the article.

> same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet

I think it's important to understand that "needs replacement" is not the same
as "falling apart". It's essentially an industry-wide recommendation to
replace running shoes between 500km-800km.

At that point, my shoes always look functional, and I have pairs I've
continued to use for years for other, non-running activities, but they without
a doubt feel "dead" and aren't providing proper support for long runs. The
shoes might work fine, and at 10mi a week you might not even ever notice a
problem until they start actually falling apart, but you are increasing your
risk of injury.

------
adrianmonk
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.

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.

------
noelwelsh
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.

~~~
olalonde
This should be the top comment. Pretty much all endurance sports are
individual sports and vice versa. They also don't require a lot of technique
and are straightforward to learn. Picking up a team sport or sport with more
technique involved (e.g. badminton, skateboarding, etc.) is definitely not as
straightforward when you are middle aged.

------
bcx
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_

Some of the people with free time and money spend it on endurance activities.
Some of them spend it on watching TV.

For tri-athetes: (back of envelope math, 120K a year is top 5% of income in US
- source: [http://graphics.wsj.com/what-
percent/](http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/))

Population of US is around 325 Million. 5% is 16.25 Million.

(Total membership in the USA Triathlon organization: 116K in 2015)
[https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Triathlon/PDF/About-
Mult...](https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA_Triathlon/PDF/About-
Multisport/2015-Membership-
Report_lowres.pdf?la=en&hash=1C1F62C80432F8DFA8769CF79D3B664C65C59CE9))

116000/16250000 = ~0.7%

Conclusion less than 1% of rich people love triathlons.

~~~
stcredzero
Rich people historically do things to distinguish themselves from people who
are not rich. If you ever watch a historical movie, or go to a Scottish
festival, you'll sometimes see women wearing these blouses with really long,
open, flappy sleeves, where the opening is so big, you could literally fit a
watermelon up the sleeve. The purpose? Just to show the owner could afford
that much cloth.

If a sport can be played by middle class people, rich people will either
gravitate to their own subgroups in the sport, or take up a sport that middle
class people can't afford. It's just people doing what people do with tribal
markers.

------
bluedino
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'.

------
arcticbull
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.

------
danschumann
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.

------
chrisan
Hmm the salaries listed don't make me think "rich people". When I think of
Rich People, the sports are Equestrian, Mountain Expeditions, Sailing.

~~~
lm28469
Well, there is "rich" and "rich". For Tech workers salaries are a lot for most
people. I'm in my early 20s and make more than my dad ever made.

After a quick google search I found these links, no idea of how serious they
are though. I'm sure someone making 30k a year thinks people earning 50k / 75k
/ 126k (nbrs from the article) are "rich".

[https://www.truthdig.com/articles/more-than-half-of-u-s-
wage...](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/more-than-half-of-u-s-wage-earners-
make-under-30000-a-year-according-to-a-shocking-new-report/)

[https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-22/middle-class-
destr...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-22/middle-class-
destroyed-50-all-american-workers-make-less-30533-year)

------
boyband6666
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

------
paulie_a
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.

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.

~~~
nradov
Running with proper form doesn't damage your knees. That's a total myth.

Any vigorous exercise will "damage" your muscles slightly but the recovery
process is quick and leaves you stronger than before

~~~
paulie_a
Yes I'm sure routinely cycling for 24-32 hours in a row is great for long term
health.

------
bmj
Having spent time among bike racers and triathletes, there is another factor
the article doesn't mention: lots of toys.

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.

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.

------
mtw
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.

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)

------
RPLong
This author began with a hypothesis, and then engaged in motivated reasoning
in order to confirm it.

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.

Endurance sports have always been sports of the people. Buy a pair of shoes or
swimming trunks, a cheap Walmart bicycle and join us.

~~~
Drew_
None of the best runners in the world are poor.

~~~
gwern
Likely true, but I don't think that's what OP or anyone else is thinking of...

------
czbond
I believe you can intuit someones strengths, weaknesses, and personality by
the hobbies they pursue.

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.

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.

edit: added piece about inability to control career in endurance.

------
RickJWagner
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.)

My own theory is that it's because I'm not a great athlete. I can work at
something a long time, though.

------
justinator
I am going with, "because they're fun".

------
dayvid
At least in America, endurance sports are terribly overpriced.

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.

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.

~~~
csnewb
The San Francisco Marathon (for 2019) costs $233 to register for the full
marathon, and about $143 for the half. It's definitely overpriced here.

~~~
michaelt
Is picking one of the most famous marathons a representative sample of the
entire industry?

I mean, presumably for every New York Marathon and Boston Marathon, there are
100 less famous events that can't command such a high price?

~~~
wwv25
San Francisco marathon isn't generally regarded as an elite event, let alone
"famous". Most metropolitan road races are around this price point. Especially
pricier the closer you register to race-date.

But to your point, there are many smaller races that are cheaper. But often
these are less organized, fewer road closures, less exciting, fewer perks; you
get what you pay for.

------
jniedrauer
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.

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.

------
zimpenfish
> 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.

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.)

~~~
michaelt
Yeah, the New York Times article at [1] lists the things that go into that
number, including: $578 on extra clothes and shoes, $235 on entering other
races as practice, a $130 gym membership, and $210 of sports massages.

This wasn't someone trying to keep their costs to an absolute minimum.

[1]
[https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/the-1600-marathon/](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/the-1600-marathon/)

------
toasterlovin
A lot of human behavior starts to make sense once you're familiar with the
idea of costly signaling:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle)

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.

------
leecarraher
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.

------
jedberg
> 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.

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.

------
kazinator
Rich people live in nice neighborhoods that are great for running outside, not
to mention safe.

They are also globally mobile. Winter too harsh in one place for running
outside? Hop on a jet, go to a sunny, warm place.

In the words of Fran Lebowitz, the poor person "generally summers where he
winters" or something like that [ _Social Studies_ , 1981]

------
flashman
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.

------
formichunter
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.

~~~
lispm
Sounds great!

I think the article is talking about people who do participate in and train
for competitions and races.

------
golemotron
It could just be low time preference.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference)

Running a marathon is a lot like investing, even in a career.

------
foxhop
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?

------
chiefalchemist
Because they can.

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.

Yup. Because they can.

------
gerbilly
I wonder how many people would run marathons if they had to do it in secret?

See also: [https://goo.gl/images/o1L8J7](https://goo.gl/images/o1L8J7)

------
americanjetset
>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.

Wat.

What marathons are they signing up for?

~~~
mattkrause
The big races are a few hundred dollars to enter. Figure about that again in
qualifiers or other races during training. If you're traveling, you'll need
gas money and possibly a hotel. Say $400-500 in entry fees.

You'll probably also go through 3-4(?) pairs of running shoes, which are
probably around $75-100 each, for a total of $300.

You might want some extra work-out clothes. Most of these could be cheap, but
you'll probably want something fairly fancy for the race day itself--running
26 miles in a heavy cotton shirt sounds miserable. A few hundred dollars
doesn't seem crazy, depending on what you already own. You could economize
here--or you could go crazy.

You might want some kind of coaching, or possibly a gym membership to mix up
your training (e.g., swim when hurt). This seems to depend on a lot on where
you live, but $50/month doesn't seem nuts for NYC. Over a year, that's $600.

That should put you in the ballpark.

~~~
zimpenfish
> running 26 miles in a heavy cotton shirt sounds miserable

Nah, it's fine. You wouldn't want to do it in heat or humidity, mind, but I've
done it in London several times.

> You'll probably also go through 3-4(?) pairs of running shoes

Bloody hell, what are you running on? Acid-impregnanted sandpaper? A good pair
of shoes will last you at least a year, if not two (or more).

~~~
notacoward
A good pair of shoes will only last a year or two if you hardly run at all or
don't care about the risk of even more expensive injury. For example, I run
about 900 miles per year. A pair of shoes typically lasts 300-400 miles before
the sole is worn enough to affect my gait or the uppers are worn enough to be
providing inadequate support/cushioning. That means two or three pairs a year
for me. Every marathoner or ultra-marathoner I know runs even more than me, so
three to four pairs a year sounds perfectly reasonable. We're not all young
and invulnerable running occasionally on the most forgiving surfaces in the
mildest climate.

You're over-generalizing from a small non-representative sample, or maybe
you're just oblivious how much your friends are spending. You must be very
proud of how little you spend, but it's really not that helpful to pretend
that your experience negates others'.

~~~
johnminter
I suspect that the useful lifetime of running shoes depends upon the runner's
weight. As a heavier runner/walker trying to control my weight, I found the
500 mi/pair to be reasonable when running.

I could walk longer in them w/o problems. I'm currently rehabbing a strained
hip and walking 35-40 mi/week and need to replace shoes about every 750 mi. I
suspect a lightweight runner could get a longer useful life from the same
shoe. Like many others, I have found the uneven wear patterns on my shoes
reflect issues with my foot strike that I have improved but not eliminated.

~~~
notacoward
Lighter is probably better, to be sure. Less mechanical stress per step.
Faster generally means less steps per mile, and being lighter often means
being faster too so it's a double bonus. Maybe I could wear shoes twice as
long if I lost twenty pounds. But I think we all know by now that weight is
more affected by diet than exercise, so there are a lot of us "Clydesdales"
out there.

P.S. For any who don't know, "Clydesdale" is a real running term at least in
the US. Many races let men over a certain weight (e.g. 185 pounds) register in
that division instead of their normal age group, with its own leaderboard etc.
"Athena" or "filly" are slightly less common equivalents for women.

~~~
johnminter
I'm definitely a Clydesdale. We just called it "old, fat, and slow" :)

------
dsfyu404ed
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.

------
Alex3917
IMHO endurance sports are objectively the best sports:

\- Lowest chance of short term injuries.

\- Mostly low impact (less true for running, but true for sports like rowing
and nordic skiing.)

\- Best for improving cardiovascular health, which is the biggest cause of
death

\- Best for losing weight

\- Most fair and least influenced by random chance

\- 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).

\- Least commercialized and corrupted by the NCAA, pro leagues, tv ratings,
etc.

Perhaps the people smart enough to choose the best sports are the ones who are
also smart enough to get wealthy.

~~~
arcticbull
The best/only way to lose weight is diet (and I don't mean "a diet" but
changing what goes into your mouth). Exercise of any variety is _marginally_
helpful at best in isolation. It's great for all sorts of other things, but
losing weight, not so much. Even the American Heart Association [1] kind of
beats around the bush saying "maximum benefits" start at 5 hours per week
(spread out 1h per day 5 days per week) and they go out of their way not to
use the words "lose weight" but rather "less weight gain."

The adage about losing weight through "diet and exercise" is half lie. [2]

Don't get me wrong, you should exercise anyways, but don't expect to lose
weight. That's on your diet.

[1] [https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-
basi...](https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/aha-
recs-for-physical-activity-in-adults)

[2] [https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-
loss-m...](https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-
burn-calories)

~~~
tayo42
Exercise surprisingly, to me at least, doesn't burn much calories for how much
work goes into. A whole day of snowboarding can barely break 1k burned. or
~100 calories for a mile of walking.

Our food has to much calories in it i think. its to easy to eat crap or put
some toppings on or have a snack and you suddenly added hundreds of calories
to your day.

~~~
arcticbull
Yeah, it's all metabolic -- sugar metabolism specifically.

When you eat refined sugars, they go directly into your blood stream, causing
your blood sugar to spike. Your body deals with this by producing Insulin.
This triggers your body to remove glucose from your blood by turning it into
fat (and protein, and glycogen), and store it for later. It also suppresses
your body's ability to release stored fat. [3] Each time you eat sugar, you
body becomes physically incapable of burning fat. The more this happens, the
more your body gets used to high levels of insulin (insulin resistance) which
turns into Type II and eventually metabolic syndrome. [1, 2] The vast majority
of Type II cases are dietary issues.

Your body has a well-defined hierarchy of what gets consumed first: (0)
alcohol (1) carbohydrates (2) fats then last (3) proteins. [4] If you want to
burn fat, you can't have carbs or alcohol around in meaningful quantities. Of
the energy stores, dietary carbs are the only ones you don't need to survive
-- your brain and red blood cells, I believe are the only part of you that
requires them to live, and the liver/kidneys can synthesize all the glucose
they need. [5] The rest of your body, including muscles, can operate solely on
lipid metabolism. [6] In theory, anyways.

This, though, is the science behind Atkins and other fat/protein/ketosis based
diets.

[1]
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/c...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-
and-blood-sugar/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome)

[3] [https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-
microscopic/...](https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-
microscopic/fat-cell2.htm)

[4] [https://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/metabolism-and-
energetics/](https://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/metabolism-and-energetics/)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis)

[6] [https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-sheridan/carbohydrates-
an...](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-sheridan/carbohydrates-and-
energy_b_6823546.html)

------
lowracle
It's crazy how sociologist and psychologist are trying to find a reason why we
do something we were originally built to do.

------
C1sc0cat
Not quite sure that's true for cycling the latest TDF winner started at a
cycle club in working class wales.

------
ssm008
This all sounds like confabulation. This is pure costly signaling with reasons
invented afterwards.

------
nostrebored
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.

~~~
_RPM
> 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

You're joking right? Have you ever talked to or a seen a real labor worker?

~~~
perfmode
I think they’re calling attention to the sedentary lifestyle

~~~
nostrebored
Yes, exactly. Working a desk job is cushy in many ways, but long term sitting
is terrible for you and it will be reflected in your muscle tone, posture,
etc.

------
mac01021
I wonder how golf compares.

------
davidroberts
The endurance sport of poor people is called survival.

------
cgag
they can stay frail looking while getting athlete status without a vanity or
meathead penalty

------
jimhefferon
> masochistic events

Enough for me.

