Discussion: Definition of Endurance Sport

I'm writing an article on endurance sport for a local lifestyle magazine aimed at a general audience. I'll be featuring several local endurance athletes in different sports, and in the introduction, I'm considering whether I should attempt to define "endurance sport". My googling has produced several types of definitions:

1) Very specific, but not necessarily what everyone would agree with, e.g. endurance sport involves intense effort over 4 or more hours.

2) Relative, e.g. for a 100 meter specialist, a 5K run is an endurance event, but a marathon runner would feel differently.

3) Overly scientific, e.g. endurance sport is prolonged effort in the aerobic zone where the mitochondria blah blah blah...

I'm thinking now that it may not be worth attempting to define the term in the article, since I'm providing lots of examples anyway. But before I abandon the idea totally, perhaps Attackpointers have some thoughts on an appropriate definition for this audience...?

An endurance sport is one where some competitors DNF because they get too tired.

I think endurance sports are any sport where competitors must train for cardio specifically, and where the action of doing something repetatively over time is the main action (i.e. running, cycle, paddle)

ultra-endurance is any sport where the distance/time is greater than normal activities (i.e. greater than olympic distance) (running > 42km, mountain bike > 45km, etc).

Good question...

Very hard to define. No matter how you try to define it you'll always be left with someone pointing out that you forgot to consider one sport or another. Although when I think endurance sports I generally think within my own boundries of interest; running, cycling, etc. However, arguments could be made that boxers have a well developed aerobic core in order to bounce around the ring for 12 rounds all while enduring the trading of punches. Some have and could continue to make the point of nascar drivers enduring the ~1000 left hand turns in a race (although I wish they wouldn't).

But that right there opens the conversation up to, what is endurance? For example the late Göran Kropp, who in my opinion exemplifies the word endurance, used to drive a race car around in circles for some incomprehensible number of hours as one of his self testing adventure challenges.

Although I think defining endurance sports is about as easy as predicting New England weather, I've sometimes defined it as an even that starts off fun, but then at some point in the middle you find yourself saying "I hate this sport, why do I do this?", but then about 10minutes after it's completion you find yourself loving it again.

Nielsen: "I've sometimes defined it as an even that starts off fun, but then at some point in the middle you find yourself saying 'I hate this sport, why do I do this?', but then about 10minutes after it's completion you find yourself loving it again."

ha ha, i couldn't agree more.

I like JJ's definition, although I'd put it more positively: An endurance sport is one where proper preparation focuses on increasing duration rather than intensity.

i think a sport qualifies as an endurance sport when you do it for a long period of time and its very physically demanding almost the whole time

so what's a "long period of time"? An hour? Five hours? 24 hours?

and what's "very physically demanding?" I think eating hot dogs really fast is very physically demanding. Not sure I'd call it an endurance sport.

Not so easy to define.

We could think of it as anything that is not sprinting or going the top level of intensity. To exhibit endurance one has to dole out the right energy level and cope during the time it takes to finish. The sport could be just about anything.

i agree with ebucley and further add that in an endurance sport, the ability of the sports person to prepare for endurance is a key factor in succeeding on a competition. Any sport can be distorted into endurance, as well as classified as endurance depending on perspective. If you stick to the formal competitions, you'll find that a certain balance or optimisation in the athlete has to have to achieve results. Endurance sports are the ones where athletes endurance contributes greatly to their success. Rogaining, cycling (tour de france), marathon and ultra marathon running, triathlons, they all fit the description.
On the other hand 100m flat, Orienteering sprints, time trials, footbal, downhill mtbo, could all use some endurance in it (even for training purposes) but they are not as decisive in competition.

Endurance sports are the ones where you try to explain them to 'normal' people and they look at you as if you've got a screw loose.

Not sure if you want to add a spin to your article.

But for a "general" audience of North Americans, I've often found that you can spin orienteering, and some other endurance sports, to appeal to couch potatoes by emphasizing the large amount of time participants may take to complete the event, and the leisurely pace they can maintain while doing so.

After all, look at all those MS, diabetes and cancer walks: thousands of non-athletic people walking miles...and paying for the privilege. Somewhere down inside each of those people is the desire to get some exercise for an extended period of time.

When I write my articles about orienteering and endurance sport, I like to try to appeal to those people.

endurance kicks in after you run out of glycogen

We could think of it as anything that is not sprinting or going the top level of intensity.

Well, that would rule out the Tour de France, as the Green Jersey is the second biggest prize in the race.

I've put out plenty of redline efforts in longer events. You try to avoid it, but sometimes you can't.

i think it depends on the person. if you are used to running for only 20 mins a day then a sport that requires you to run for a couple of hours may seem like an endurance sport but for someone who can easily run for a couple of hours it may not.

Thanks, folks. It's always interesting to read insights from this group, and I'll undoubtedly borrow some ideas for my article. I'm glad that the first respondent didn't just write, "You twit - here is the obvious answer to a really simple question!"

Our local triathlon club thinks of their shortest 55-minute events as endurance sport, and their top athletes train over 20 hrs/week to race that distance. On the other hand, I've got friends who do 6-10 day adventure races, and they don't consider an hour's physical activity to be more than a warm-up. However, they seldom train more than 20 hrs/week.

I'm thinking that the concept of endurance is largely individual and relative. Maybe it depends on the event where you personally do your highest intensity. A 10K run is a high intensity sprint by my standards, since I can't go much faster when I run 1K. I need to be out for at least a few hours before it feels like endurance training, and my best performances relative to teammates have been on the 3rd day of long adventure races. (Too bad THAT situation doesn't come up very often.)

There are also scientific definitions for endurance sport (more than one), and I suspect they are useful to those who require a scientific definition, but are still somewhat arbitrary.

After interviewing a bunch of local endurance athletes, I'd have to say that most of them agree with the definition in Neilsen's final paragraph! And yes, Göran Kropp was an amazing example.

Good luck coming up with anything that will please even most people.

I think there might be consensus that it is, in fact, 'all relative' (a phrase I often use to infuriate my wife ;-) )

I try to explain it as any activity that pushes/tests your 'limits' without ever 'HAVING' to sustain either A) prolonged (of course.. subjective) periods of anaerobic/balistic activity or B) anaerobic threshold for more than 20% (pick a number) of the activity....

Then spend 20 minutes clarifying and critiquing my own statement.

If you can nail this down the next group assignment will be to explain to me what adventure racing is ... I've been having the same debate there for over 10 years ;-)

I've always considered endurance sports to be sustained physical activity relying primarily on aerobic energy system, rather than anaerobic energy system. My background (before ultra-triathlon and adventure racing) was sprinting and then rowing (7min to 1hr long races), so even though I do really long stuff now, I always considered the 800m as a cutoff for what I'd view as endurance. Interesting how people's views all differ. http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/training/energ...

I wasn't being flip, I really think that the key is DNF due to fatigue. People drop out of shorter races because of cramps, muscle pulls, etc., but if stopping because you couldn't endure long enough is a possibility, then it's an endurance sport. Nobody gives up on a 5K because they just can't go on. If bonking is a concern, it's an endurance event. So most orienteering doesn't qualify, but some long events and Goat races (and Rogaines, obviously) do.

I perhaps could have said it better Eric, but I think you misunderstood my intended meaning. I wouldn't rule out Tour de France at all. The point is that in an endurance race, one is not going all out for the entire race. Sprinting at the end generally means your not sprinting before then. After an endurance portion, an all out effort at the end of an endurance race or even during portions of it is a normal tactic. Though it often doesn't feel that way, if one hadn't done the endurance part, a redline effort, a fresh sprint, would result in something faster.

I'll second JJ's definition for accuracy and simplicity.

An endurance sport is one that will impress your couch potato colleagues at work the next day, no matter how poorly you did.

Colleague: "What did you do this weekend?"
You: "I ran a marathon"
Colleague: "How long did it take you?"
You: "Six hours"
Colleague: "Wow, that's incredible!"

as opposed to:

Colleague: "What did you do this weekend?"
You: "I ran a 5K"
Colleague: "How long did it take you?"
You: "15 minutes"
Colleague: "Is that good?"

Well, building on that theme, should we ask "What is the goal of an endurance sport?" And how does it differ from standard race-distance goals? What do people seek at a rogaine that they do not find running a classic orienteering course?

Do participants in endurance sports wish to amaze themselves and others with the quantity of the sport? Or with their performance times? Or with some combination of the two?

I frequently face this dilemma when considering which rogaine division to subject me and my partner to: 6hrs, 12hrs...or 24? Do we really have to experience more pain to feel like we've received our "moneys worth?" Why aren't the 6hr divisions at most rogaines larger and more competitive when longer time divisions are available? After all, it is six hours of exercise!

With respect, if you have to ask why people want to do longer distances, then it's probably not your thing. (Although I'm sure most of us would agree that a 6 hr rogaine is very much an endurance event.) I'm heading out later today to a 36-hr adventure race, so I shouldn't be on Attackpoint right now, but when I have time, I'll try to summarize the common threads from my interviews with seven athletes in different endurance sports. For sure, it has nothing to do with impressing other people, since that is much easier to do by buying a nice car or plasma TV. One of the recurring themes was that people definitely do this stuff for themselves.

Oh, and in my magazine article, I went with Neilsen's definition (yes, the quote is attributed!).

I like JJ's 'possibility of bonking' criteria as well....

I liked it too, but thought it might be hard to inspire the general public about endurance sport with that definition. Besides, the readers enjoy a laugh!