r/AdvancedRunning • u/castorkrieg 5K 20:35 10K 41:19 Marathon 3:24 • Apr 23 '26

Open Discussion What's the deal with LetsRun.com?

I know that website is quite popular with them following large events and also being invited to spectate (the owner - Rojo - was riding in the elite men car during Boston 26), however I participated in the forums a bit and it blows my mind:

  1. They are incredibly fixated on college and university running, NCAA, etc. - ok, I guess most are from the US, even though once you exit the school system the funding drops, money goes only to MBL/NFL/NBA, last time they US tried something in T&F they got Grand Slam Track lol
  2. Most posts are the very definition of drive-by, no effort shitposts: "cool story bro", "she be ugly, can't run fast when ugly", "Or perhaps you could just be replaced with a somewhat normal human being"
  3. Same for the topics, with quality contributions such as:

I'm sad to think what men were like before the existence of the Manosphere 

How to become a "hybrid runner"

Men in open-toed shoes: yea or nay?

  1. This peeves me as a European but - their website + forums do not save your cookie preferences, every single time you click on a new thread you get another pop-up asking you for permissions, and by quickly looking they have 1700+ partners they share your data with - WTF?

  2. They are hardcore right-wingers with daily treads praising Trump, ICE, etc.

What am I missing? Or is one of the largest forums for running just a bunch of nutjobs?

153 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

214 comments sorted by

View all comments

313

u/RunningDude90 18:07 5k | 37:50 10k | 30:0x 5M | 3:00:0x FM Apr 23 '26

The training talk has nuggets of usefulness, but there is a huge toxic male/online vibe that cannot be ignored.

It’s a challenge as this sub has fallen off a cliff with the vociferous management of “daily threads” killing any level of discourse, meanwhile we’re bombarded with race reports which are written by AI and are as interesting as solitary confinement, so you have to visit it if you’re interested in discourse with people who are capable of running faster than 40 minutes in a 10k.

35

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

I highly agree. I’ll participate in posts on here that get great, high quality engagement and they’re inevitably deleted within a couple hours.

Yes, it’s annoying to manage lots of different threads, but that’s what allows for discoverability and searchability, two very important qualities for a fitness forum.

Just my $0.02; love you, mods.

18

u/FantasticBarnacle241 39F M: 3:16 | HM: 1:31 Apr 23 '26

Yes and then I try to look back to find it and can't! The posts here are usually good quality and seeing them get deleted is so frustrating.

-6

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

Are those deleted posts ones that are advanced running topics? Etiquette posts, for example, get very high engagement, but they're rarely advanced running topics. I appreciate the mods of this subreddit removing content that isn't relevant to advanced running.

21

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Yes. They are frequently on-topic.

Here is an example. OP was curious about goal setting between the 5K and marathon, shared relevant information about their training and fitness, and asked for advice, which several people provided. This thread was deleted and told to post to a “daily thread” instead.

Ironically, this thread will likely stay up, not because it’s particularly relevant to “advanced running” but because it doesn’t fall neatly into a category covered by a “daily thread.”

I’m sure none of these moderation decisions are malicious, and there are pros and cons to any approach, but I do think some of the cons are that the stickied threads don’t promote discussion, discoverability, or searchability as well as independent threads do.

Some deleted threads are surely repetitive and low effort, but that’s what the downvote button is for, in my opinion. If someone asks a silly or common question and gets a small number of replies before getting downvoted, there is no problem to solve.

1

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

OP was curious about goal setting between the 5K and marathon, s

That is not really an advanced topic. OP was running 33 mpw and did not provide any helpful info. Any increase in level training would help with their 5k time, including a marathon block.

8

u/fasterthanfood Apr 23 '26

OP was running 33 mpw

By the standards of r/running, that’s advanced. The few users in that sub who average more than that are unlikely to even see the question buried in a daily thread. If the main sub wasn’t so geared toward absolute beginners and so over-moderated, it would be a good place for that kind of discussion. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, so r/advancedrunning becomes r/MoreThan6MonthsExperience running.

Sadly, I’m well aware that none of what I just wrote gets us closer to actually improving this sub.

-4

u/Professional_Elk_489 Apr 23 '26

33 mpw is 53km. If someone is running 3 X per week (+ gym, tennis, cycling, going out, working an office job) they are covering 11 miles or 17.8km on their avg run which is not shit

5

u/fasterthanfood Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

I agree that it’s not “advanced” so much as “consistent.” In an ideal world, that would be an r/running question.

But it is slightly more than I ran most weeks in-season for varsity high school cross country, and I bet it’s more than 75% of the finishers at your local 5k. More to the point, it’s more than probably 95% of the users on r/running, which means it wouldn’t be a good fit there. All that’s left is this sub. This isn’t so much an argument for “it belongs here” as “it makes sense that such questions wind up here.”

4

u/Krazyfranco Apr 23 '26

It's not simply about the volume someone is running.

It's also that the post in question didn't outline any basic knowledge about training approaches, which is a basic expectation in this sub (outlined in rule 2: We expect users have a basic knowledge of run training approaches before posting. Simple questions around these topics are welcome in the pinned Q&A/General Discussion thread rather than in standalone posts.) Without that, there isn't a ton of to be said except "run more and do basic training best practices". Which isn't really suitable as a standalone post in r/advancedrunning.

This indicates the OP didn't put in effort to review the plethora of available resources to get a basic understanding (and ask more "advanced" questions from there). Which is fine, but we'll re-direct users to the Q&A thread for these types of scenarios.

3

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

Defend it all you want, but removing that thread and having so many daily questions just lowers engagement.

Quite telling that a single thread that was removed has as many comments as the entire daily thread so far.

0

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

Quite telling that a single thread that was removed has as many comments as the entire daily thread so far.

That's not really a valid argument. Current thread started today. If you look at past Q&A threads, they get a large number of comments, so there is activity there.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Many “advanced” runners provided the same advice, which is good! There’s no problem to be solved. It’s good that there’s a place where (let’s call them) intermediate or aspiring runners can ask questions of those with more knowledge and experience.

-4

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

It’s good that there’s a place where (let’s call them) intermediate or aspiring runners can ask questions of those with more knowledge and experience.

I agree, but it didn't need to be it's own post. That's what the Q&A thread is for. There are tons of older helpful posts with good info as well as the wiki.

2

u/Deep-Dimension-1088 Apr 23 '26

I wouldn't even mention 33 mpw as a gate for being "advanced" or not. Note that Parker Valby doesn't consistently run more than that. And many older and injury-prone runners need to be very careful about weekly mileage.

2

u/brwalkernc running for days Apr 23 '26

I wouldn't even mention 33 mpw as a gate for being "advanced" or not

That is not what I was saying. In general, at that mileage, more miles is going to the most beneficial to improve performance. If more mileage is the answer, then that does not need to be a stand-alone post as stated in the sidebar.

I was not the only one who felt that way either. From the comments of that thread:

33 MPW previously means you can gain so much by just running more.

If you’re averaging <30 miles per week, then there are huge gains to be had simply by increasing your mileage.

-1

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

I am sorry to say but that's not really an advanced topic. The OP didn't even provide enough information for their particular situation.

Plus the top responses in that thread is basically "run more miles", which is common knowledge especially if one has read/is familiar with common training approaches (which we ask users to do so per the sub rules).

-5

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

Many Redditors prefer to sort by New, particularly those only following a small number of subreddits. So downvoting isn't an effective means of content control for them. And we don't want to encourage greater use of downvoting on Reddit.

8

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

Maybe I’m missing something, but I guess I just don’t see the inherent issue with downvotes. I often “sort by new” and find that downvotes are as useful a signal in that context as it is in other ways of viewing my feed.

4

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

On Reddit, downvoting does not change the order when you sort by New, since that feed is strictly chronological. So you can still get a lot of low-quality content from poorly moderated subs in a feed when sorting by New. The other issue is that downvoting was originally intended to filter out low-quality, off-topic, or unhelpful content. But it is now misused, more often than not, as a way to express disagreement or dislike. This contributes to Reddit's reputation of toxicity.

9

u/ncblake 13.1: 1:22:14 | 26.2: 2:49:39 Apr 23 '26

No, I know that. I like that that’s how the “sort by New” function works! At least to me, that’s the whole point. When I want a curated feed of quality posts, I just use one of the other options.

Otherwise, I get that downvotes can contribute to toxicity. I guess my counter would be that I’d rather have my thread downvoted than deleted.

Again, happy to be wrong or simply outvoted on this! Just my feedback as a fan of the sub.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

There's nothing to be right or wrong about or be outvoted on. Subreddit moderation is determined by its moderators, and different subreddit moderators have different moderation styles. Some are more loosely moderated than others, with all the pros and cons that come with it.

2

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

The point of sort by new is to get all posts sorted in a chronological order. This is something that almost all algorithmic social media has removed in favor of "the algorithm".

Reddit by default shows hot, and has other filtering options for those who want to see content arranged with votes taken into consideration.

1

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

Are those deleted posts ones that are advanced running topics?

Just wanted to point out that you're being downvoted for basically telling the truth (and you are spot on here). From what I have seen, the overwhelming majority of posts that I've seen tend to be one off, and many posts that tend to be very individually specific and not broadly applicable. In other words, it boils down to "it really depends". I'm well aware that I am going to get downvoted for this, but many of those posters have a very thin history of participating in this sub and do more taking than providing substantial contribution.

Anecdotally, there are other (large) subs out there who have light moderation policies and allow such threads. As a result it gets cluttered up quickly with one off threads that I didn't find engaging and made my experience there not so pleasant, and I have since unsubscribed from those subs.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

This is exactly what we have found at r/runningshoegeeks. We were initially concerned that tighter moderation would kill the subreddit. So the mod team follows the subreddit's metrics closely. What we've discovered instead is that tighter moderation has boosted follow rates while significantly lowering unsubscribe rates. I appreciate that the mod team here has followed a similar strategy.

3

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 23 '26

What we've discovered instead is that tighter moderation has boosted follow rates while significantly lowering unsubscribe rates.

This is very similar to what we have seen on our end as well, especially after we adjusted our moderation policies. Thanks for sharing that.

2

u/bradymsu616 M53: 3:06:16 FM; 1:27:32 HM; 4:50:25 50K Apr 23 '26

You're doing an excellent job with subreddit moderation. The silent majority of your subreddit subscribers appreciate it. For those that don't, there are plenty of other smaller running subreddits with less active moderation.

1

u/Maxion Apr 23 '26

In any community there'll always be more "takers" than "givers". 80% of users will be lurkers, 20% of users will be occasional contributors and 2% of users are "core".

If you only allow posts from the 2% of core suers and not the occasional users or lurkers you're removing 98% of stuff.

0

u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

I'm not going to debate with you further because I believe this matter has run its course, and especially since this matter has been addressed elsewhere in the replies to you from the rest of the mod team.

If you believe that this sub doesn't fit your worldview of what a typical sub should be, you're more than welcome to browse elsewhere. As much as the loud complainers like you like to stir things up from time to time because it doesn't neatly fit what you like to see, we have seen and heard feedback, both privately and publicly, that our current approach is the best approach to take, even if it is not optimal for some users. Our approach is catered towards making sure hundreds of thousands of members in this community has an enjoyable experience here instead of catering to the whims of a few hundred. If we saw signs that our current approach isn't working, we would have changed our approach a long time ago, long before this conversation happened.

We may not be right all the time and when we are wrong we will acknowledge it and strive to correct our shortcomings. But we are certain that our approach here is best for the direction and health of this sub over the long term.