Emphasis on HIM not YOU....did you read my post and was there a mention of the runner having all the stuff you listed??????
tayken wrote:On the bright side...what doesn't kill him, can only make him stronger. A cliche', but true
Not necessarily true. The stress fracture in my left leg did not kill me but it definitely made me weaker. The enlarged heart from too much running did not kill me, but increased the risks of heart issues and forced me change how I view running. Landing on my right hip made me weaker. Compression fracture in my lower back not only made me weaker and lost a year from running, it has also severely impact my psychological view of running. Had a friend who had perfect training, was well on his way to qualify for Boston and it was not his day and was less than 5 minutes away. Never came close again and eventually stopped racing. Another friend trained for his first marathon to be run on the year of his 50th birthday. Hurricane Sandy and stopped doing any races.
I stopped road cycling for two decades after my third big crash in as many years. Completely lost my nerve.
It is a nice cliché that may be true at times but not necessarily.
No need to be so defensive. Was merely pointing out that this cliché one always hears from runners is not NECESSARILY TRUE. I provided my own example and several others that if we want to be picky, you missed.
If we really want to get technical about this as that is where you seem to want to go, you do not know whether this result and race will make "HIM" stronger. How does anyone in the general public really know how the trauma of wondering around the woods until your mental state is completely wrecked to the point you do not recognize someone you had been running with for hours? Does it make him stronger, does it not have any long term impact or does this weaken him physically or otherwise in the next few weeks, months or even years.
My personal belief is that there will be a price to be paid when someone abuses their body as "HIM" has done. It may not be years until that shows up but to be fair, it may be so small in his particularly instance it would not even be noticeable. I have been around some fairly high level athletes my entire life and do not lose sight of the fact that training is damage your body in a controlled way so that when it repairs itself, it is stronger. But how much accumulated damage can a body take. What happens the 6th time, the 1011th time and 10,216th time you have gone just that little too far?
For every Ed Whitlock or a Ken on this board, how many others end up literally running themselves into the ground? I have been to massage therapists and physio who tell me that my legs have a story about how much they have run. When I have told them I am substituting cycling for running and cutting back the events I am doing, the universal response is almost relief as they have told me many others do not do that but continue on as they did when first running. When a couple of ice packs, some tape and they were ready to go the next day. My friend's brother in law is an example of what the caregivers were talking about : he was an accomplished runner who ran Boston until knee surgery. Then excelled in the pool until shoulder surgery. Is now on a bike and they are waiting for whatever will come of that. Which all relates to my point, that by its very definition, a cliché is a trite overused platitude that consequently lacks any import and thus "not necessarily" true is almost a self evident statement, your semantical defense notwithstanding.