• by Larry Dobrow , Featured Columnist, July 5, 2005

Unlike most of the 37,500 other participants, my journey through last year's New York City Marathon included a stretch of "quiet time" with the roadside paramedics. After a few minutes of decidedly non-erotic poking and probing, I was able to break free of their grasp, smuggling a dazed German dude out of the first-aid tent so that we could hobble the final 1.5 miles and regain a shred of the dignity we'd left spattered all over Central Park. Masochistic streak proudly intact, I'm hoping to revisit the experience this year.

And so it was with great anxiety and anticipation that I turned to the July issue of Runner's World for tips on how to not, like, die. While it didn't disappoint, I'm hesitant to group it among the top mainstream enthusiast mags (somewhat of an oxymoron, I know). The reason? Among runners, there are varying levels of enthusiast. You've got your 15-mile-per-week scrappers, your 30-mile-per-week movers and shakers, and your 60-mile-per-week mental patients. There's likely no single publication that can simultaneously appeal to each audience.

To Runner's World's credit, it almost pulls off that nifty trick. The July issue offers a glut of tips for runners at all levels of experience, everything from suggestions about how to avoid turning one's ankles to motivational techniques. There are a few inspirational paeans to real runners (running is a sarcasm-free zone, mister), like a primer on "gait-retraining," and the first cogent explanation I've seen as to why running on the beach is tougher than running on solid turf.

At the same time, the issue dumbs itself down way too often and suffers from a charisma imbalance. The cover story ("Get Fit Fast") feels about as revolutionary as a comparable piece in Self and the ranking of the 25 best running cities in the United States offers a meager 75 words on most of the picks. A feature supposedly offering healthy eating tips for travelers might be summarized in five words ("read the menu carefully, jackass"), while the "No Need for Speed" column yammers something or other about internal voices that convince runners to overtrain.

I can't speak for my fellow bright-eyed and bushy-tailed titans of track, but the voice I usually hear in my head when running says something like "milkshakes contain more calories than tap water? That's just a myth perpetuated by the liberal media."

Better are the pieces in which Runner's World assumes a certain sophistication among its readers. A Kenyan running travelogue of sorts redeems the mag's titular "Travel Issue" premise and the "Lab Rat" look at solutions designed to tame stinky shoes is actually critical - as opposed to the usual advertising disguised as product blurbs.

I also liked the quirky piece on a Mayo Clinic researcher who traded his office chair for a treadmill and the slightly goofy account of a rural Tennessee race dubbed "the RC Cola-Moon Pie 10-Mile Run." The mag could use more of the lighter tone that colors these stories.

But the issue's best (and, in the wake of the Vioxx and Bextra recalls, most timely) moment is an analysis of two supplements that purport to reduce knee pain. Aside from freaks with genetically enhanced super-patellas, there are few runners for whom this story won't provide food for thought. Speaking of food, where's that milkshake already?

Even if I'm unable to weasel my way into this year's NYC Marathon, I'll probably sign myself up for a subscription to Runner's World. Yeah, it falls short of being all things for all runners, but there's enough useful information inside for my purposes. Still, a little more charisma could go a long way here.