Can running save you?

I recently listened to a podcast at Adharanand Finn's Way of the Runner site in which he interviews Allie Bailey, author of the book "There is No Wall".  Allie has her own podcast called "Running Won't Save You" and she discusses her running philosophy, epitomised by this statement, with Adharanand.  Bailey is insistent that running cannot save a person unless they have already made some fundamental change to their life and way of being. 

But at the same time, Bailey's philosophy, as she explains in discussion with Adharanand, include the idea of a 'most authentic self' that can be brought out during running challenges such as 100km or 100 mile ultras (or indeed 200+ mile ultras that she herself regularly runs).  

Much of Bailey's outlook is both bracing and refreshing.  She is a running coach and from what I've heard she deals in truth-telling and honesty about what one can achieve, and towards what aims one should strive.  This is in turn based on a fine-tuned assessment of what the runner's wants are in relation to established hierarchy of needs.  

So, a runner who espouses the need to run a hundred miler, now that they've cleared the 100km ultra distance is met with a skeptical response: WHY do you think you want to run the hundred mile distance?  Is it necessary?  Is it even doable for YOU, the specific runner of a certain age, capability and motivation level, not to mention experience.

A lot of ultra-runners are moving up the 'distance ladder' very quickly, going for example, in the space of two years from their first (50km) ultra to 100 miles.  

I've heard her talk about 100 mile finish-line mutterings of oddly motivated individuals asking recent finishers if their considering the next level (200 mile) distance after this one.  It's a form of madness for which Bailey has no time nor patience, and it is tied into the addictive idea that running can save you.

The constant upping and re-upping of the distance wager, for example, doesn't map onto being one's most authentic self, actualised and in the moment.  What saves you in that moment is your training and your readiness to take on that specific challenge.

But what has motivated you to take on that training in the first place: to becoming a runner like Bailey who was doing crazy distances even at the same time as she was smoking and drinking to excess?  There were clearly some underlying fundamental issues to work out for Bailey to become her most authentic self on the trail.  Once she did work out those issues she was able to become a better runner.  

A better runner who can now accept a DNF, and say to others that it's a hobby, and nobody is making you do this because it's not your job!  If you want to run a hundred miler, realise that it's only one day, one night out on the trail, an adventure and a potentially defining moment in your life, and that only you can do it, not some abstract idea of 'running'!

Bailey is, therefore, a pragmatist, and definitely not an idealist.  This comes through overwhelmingly in her discussion with Adharanand on the podcast. Not only is she a straight shooter, but she is very funny (as is Adharanand of course), and I laugh a lot when when I listen to the Running Won't Save You podcast.

It's not running that saves you, then, it's having a sense of humour (see Damian Hall here as well), and a sense of proportion.  Yes, there is an aesthetic component to the ethics of running as 'saving'.  You, and your sense of humour and your sense of proportion are the saving grace for the better runners I've known, often those in the mid-pack.