I agree with the time aspect, but not the money. Running has possibly one of the lowest barriers to entry, money-wise, of any sport. You need a pair of trainers, but unless you're running pretty seriously any comfortable pair will do. That's it. A good pair of running shoes costs $100, and it's all you need to compete at all but the highest levels. Compared to swimming, cycling, or literally any sport that requires equipment to play, the costs are tiny.

Interesting re: running.

A couple of years back, one of my colleagues worked part time as he came from a wealthy family. Work was more of a hobby for him, like 1-2 days per week. For me, the money I made from work was something real. I needed to do it and did it 6 days weekly. Work days for me was much harder because I needed the work and money. My days were also much longer.

We both signed up for a marathon and he was able to improve much faster and run much faster in the end. I had to stop training because I injured my feet. Why? He had more rest days and then to recover and train. On the other hand, I already stood a lot during the day and injured my feet during one of my runs. I also had much less energy to train after working so much each day.

Running absolutely has one of the lowest barriers of entry, as a general sport. But specifically talking about endurance sports (which I assumed mean't running marathons and ultras etc) it becomes much harder to keep costs to a minimum. I'm sure there are people that run ultras in their 100$ shoes that they purchased last year but most are going through a lot of shoes and technical clothing just while training.

And travelling to the few and far between ultras there are compared to shorter local races that most running enthusiasts without a lot of savings and with limited ability to take time off work settle on.

> And travelling to the few and far between ultras

Depends where you are, I suppose. In South East England, there's fairly frequent 6h challenge races where you can ultra if you're quick enough and they're pretty cheap (~£40).

It's not quite that cheap. Most marathons have a significant sign-up fee (~$100). If you're serious about running a marathon you'll probably average about 80km/week in training. Running shoes last about 1000km so you need a new pair 4 times a year.

That said, iff you run two marathons a year and don't care which ones you do you can probably do it for < $1k a year.

Competing costs money in any sport, and yeah commercial races can be expensive but there are many many cheap races to be had too. I am based in the UK, and here's how you can get involved in running cheaply:

* Join Parkrun[1], free weekly timed 5k runs almost anywhere in the UK and in many other countries. Open to all abilities, and there are tail-walkers for all runs so you literally cannot finish last!

* More serious? Join a running club. Subscriptions will be ~£50 per year, include (lots!) of training, track access, free entry to many races throughout the year and reduced price entry to all others (via your included UK Athletics membership).

* Find cheap runs (non-commercial), e.g. those run by the Sri Chinmoy Marathon team, which only cost ~£5 to enter[2]. Many other such races around the country can be found via Run Britain[3].

Of course, all you need to run is a pair of trainers, weather-appropriate clothing (doesn't have to be running gear) and motivation to get out the door. The great thing about running is you can do it anywhere.

1: http://www.parkrun.com/

2: https://uk.srichinmoyraces.org/races/london

3: https://www.runbritain.com/races

OTOH, you can run a (unofficial) marathon anytime and anywhere. Why would you need an organized event?

I've run plenty and it cost me exactly $0 in fees.

I suspect for most people, it's because a full marathon is at the very limit of their abilities, and a rare event. Most runners will run exactly one; even runners who keep at it will run only one per year. They'll need course support (including the enthusiasm of onlookers and other runners) just to be able to complete it. And they'll want to celebrate it and commemorate it with all the rigamarole that accompanies an organized race: the shirt, the medal, the banana.

None of that's necessary, of course, but if you think of it as "150 dollars per year" invested in the sport, rather than "a really expensive day doing the same thing you have been doing", the fees don't seem like all that much.

For me, those fees are motivation: I don't want to fail or look stupid at something I paid to do. Stupid, I know, but it's kind of a dumb event anyway. I'd be in overall better shape if I didn't run 26 miles in October and then take two weeks off to recover.

As far as I know, you can even enter these events without paying a dime. You only don't get the t-shirt, medal, and the official time. But run you can, and get the cheering and everything. Definitely some that a poor person can do.

In theory you don't get the course support, though I doubt anybody is ever going to say "No race number, no Gatorade for you!"

I'd feel weird about it: they put a lot of effort into closing the roads, coordinating volunteers, getting the water ready, etc. But if I were broke I'd probably put that aside.

When I was in Chicago during the marathon last year, they had a segment on the local news station about the average cost for a participant. Travel to Chicago, hotel, meals shoes, entry fees, it was like $3,000 USD. that doesn't include training up to that point and qualifying at another marathon, etc etc

Yeah the $3k figure I can believe, but then again Chicago is one of the World Marathon Majors. There will be another marathon aroudn Chicago that'll be <$300 all in.

I don't know where they got that stat but it must be very inflated.

* entry fee < 200

* airfare < 500

* hotel x 2 days < 300

* food x 2 days < 100

So if you try hard you can break $1000. I don't count shoes because you use them for months, not one event.

One the other hand if you live in Chicago the cost goes down to entry fee (I think marathon entry fees are insanely high though), and if you're a member of a local running club you can often even get around that.

> If you're serious about running a marathon you'll probably average about 80km/week in training.

For my first marathon, my training was a half marathon the month previous and my training for that was zero (signed up 3 days before.) Now I'll concede it wasn't fast by any means (5h35) but you absolutely do not need to do 80km/week for marathon running if you're going to be in the 4h30-6h timeframe (and, indeed, most of the extreme runners I know don't do any training because they're averaging 50+ marathons a year and there's just no damn time for anything else.)

I think most people in reasonable, healthy shape can physically cross 42km. I don't mean at all to diminish it as an achievement to complete one in any time, but I think you are minimizing the effort many people put into training. The OP's amount is not an unreasonable weekly target for many people. IMO being "serious" as mentioned above is closer to a 2.5 to 3.5hr finish time.

> I don't mean at all to diminish it as an achievement to complete one in any time

Good.

> but

Oh dear.

> I think you are minimizing the effort many people put into training

Nah. Just pointing out that people who say "you must do 80km a week to run a marathon" are talking gibberish. If they added "sub-3", sure, I'd accept that as probably valid (although I know people who do sub-3 without 80km a week.)

Like I keep saying, it's all anecdata and there's no hard and fast rules yet people insist on pontificating as if there are.

> Oh dear.

I hope you are't honestly try to claim I'm diminishing an achievement while simultaneously talking about how easy it is to do.

> Just pointing out that people who say "you must do 80km a week to run a marathon" are talking gibberish

Literally nobody has said this.

You can use cheaper or older shoes for training, and you don't need to train 80k/week for the whole year if you are running two marathons. I'd say you can do it a lot cheaper than 1k if that's what's important to you.

You don't have to pay 100$ to run a marathon. If you have a pair of running shoes and a normal running belt (for water and a gel) that will do. You just have to put them on and there you go. I've done a couple of "Sunday marathons" (aka "long aerobic run") with two friends. They have costed me ~2$ for a gel.

Equipment wise, you don't need to pay 100$ for shoes. There are many <300$ shoes from the last season (last year model) on discount pretty much all year round for 60$-80$. I burn 3 pairs of shoes a year, and even though I could afford expensive shoes, I pretty much always end up finding the ones I want for 70$ somewhere online.

Running belts price varies (from $10 to "as much as you want to pay"), but they are a one time investment. I bought a nice neopren one once, and it will probably outlive my children. If you are running enough to be able to "just go and run a marathon", chances are that you already have a running belt to carry a mobile phone, keys, id, money, gels, water, etc. They are just insanely useful.

I run around 8 hours / week, and my expenses are around 300$ per year. Some years I've paid a bit more, e.g. got a heart rate monitor for 30$, running ear phones for 80$, headlight ~20$, I don't have a running watch yet.., nice running shorts and shirts (couple of 100$s), etc. I've also gone to some races, but I've never paid more than 15-20$ for them. You can do half-marathons and marathons for that money, and some of them are non-profit, so you could deduce that from your taxes if it was worth your time. Also, most races typically give you running tshirts, gloves, and what not as a "finisher" gift.

Honestly, factoring the time I've spent running during my lifetime, and the money I've spent over the last 10 years, it's by far the cheapest hobby I have.

EDIT: That might be a lie. My absolute cheapest hobby is actually swimming. Swim shorts for 20-30$, swim googles for 5-10$, and an annual membership on a masters team (120$/year for 6h of swimming / week, where I only actually end up using 2-4 h). Swim short and googles need replacing only every couple of years, so swimming costs me around 150$/year for about half or a quarter of the hours I spend running / week.

Swimming and running, compared with my other hobbies, are negligibly cheap. I go snowboarding for 2 weeks a year, and that cost me ~2000$ + maintaining my equipment (I basically end up spending ~300-600$ on snowboarding equipment / year). I go cycling with my gf every now and then but not enough to make a 2000$ road bike + equipment cheap. And well I have a motorbike because I want to and that also costs multiple 1000$s dollars per year, I don't even want to know how much.

So yeah, swimming, running, calisthenics, etc. are damn cheap sports. You don't need to spend 1000$s/year on these. If you are tight on money you can probably manage 20h of fun per week by spending ~300$ per year without issues. Obviously, if you want 1-on-1 crossfit training wearing fashionable clothes wearing a go pro and drinking avocado toast kale smoothies you are going to end up paying a lot, but that's not necessary at all.

Assuming you are not poor. Even the lowest price for shoes, you said is $60 and you go through 3 pairs. When I was poor, I was happy to get my one qair of shoes for the whole year at the $20-$30 range. Getting another pair for any special activity wouldn't make sense unless it was required for work.

Outside of that silly aside, running competitively requires running in competitions, and these range into the couple hundred dollar range per run. This is a tough barrier for someone on the low socio-economic ladder. Sure, a dedicated poor person can make it work, but that barrier is practically nil for someone well off.

Of course you can just go and run. No argument there. Training is "free" if you have the time. But most events cost money, and that is where the endurance activity becomes an endurance sport.

I have no idea how people manage to go through 3 pairs of shoes in one season. Maybe those are some kind of special ultra-lightweight running shoes that are designed to fall apart quickly?

8 years ago I bought random New Balance shoes for $65 (New Balance, model MT573 -- just looked up an exact email from Zappos). I've been using them exclusively as my only "gym" shoes for 7 years: I've ran half-marathon in them 2 years ago, I did weightlifting, crossfit, and tennis in them. I regularly exercise 3+ times a week (sometimes more), so I'd estimate that I've logged 1000-1500 miles (~1500-2250km) in them. Sure, they are a little worn out by now, but they are absolutely good to go. And I'm 200-220lbs (~90-100kg).

But long time ago when I was running in high school I've had some other random cheap shoes [1] that I've used for 4+ years. During that time I've been running regularly 3-4 times a week for 10km @ ~40-45min. In warm season I was running in random cotton shorts and a random oversized cotton t-shirt. In cold season I (everyone) was wearing long johns under the track suit and this was it. My father grew up in Seberia doing cross country skiing in way harsher weather wearing something similar.

So yeah ... in my experience running as a hobby is ridiculously cheap.

[1] This was in early 2000s in Ukraine, everyone was poor here, so I'm pretty sure those shoes couldn't cost more than ~$20, which was still a lot for my family.

> A good pair of running shoes costs $100,

For what it's worth, $100 spent as disposable income is not really affordable for a huge percentage of the economically-not-well population. In other words, $100 is a lot of money for a lot of people.

You can get a good pair of Champion-brand running shoes for $20 at Payless. I've run in them, and I've run in $150 Nikes and Mizunos. There's nothing wrong with the $20 Champions for most recreational runners.

To run, you need healthy joints. If you're poor, you probably have a chronic injury that was never treated by your thirties. Easily.

I'm in the US, countries with real healthcare might be different.

As well, it takes money to have somewhere close to your house that's safe to run through.

Once you have the basics covered, running is easy to get into and cheap. But if you don't have middle-class basics, it takes an investment,

I guess what counts as 'middle class basics' in the US counts as 'basics' in the UK. Sarcasm aside, I find it a bit bonkers that places might not be safe to run, although I do believe it.

Except for the shoes (2 pairs a year, around 100€ each), I run with mostly the same gear I've bought 10 years ago. I don't travel and don't pay any fees, I just run in the forest down my street, 40 km a week. From time to time, when I feel like it, I run a semi all by myself, for a grand cost of 0 €. It mostly takes time, about 1h30 to 2 hours a day (dressing, warming up, running, stretching, showering).

Running does generally have a low cost of entry, but how low depends a lot on conditions. I typically go through three pairs of regular shoes a year, plus a separate pair of winter shoes which are even more expensive (because Gore Tex). Since I run in snow and sub-freezing temperatures, I need a whole bunch of other gear - cap, gloves, tights, long-sleeved shirts, a jacket for the really cold days, etc. Multiple pairs of all-synthetic socks and underwear aren't free. Throw in a headlamp, various kinds of ankle/knee support, anti-friction stuff, belt/pouch to carry ID and money securely, probably other stuff I can't remember.

I probably have several hundred US dollars worth of running stuff on hand at any time. Sure, I could just throw on an old pair of shoes, but I'd freeze or injure myself right quick and that would end up being even more expensive. Running once in good conditions is cheap. Running continuously in all kinds of conditions is less so.

I can totally relate here. I remember that when I started running, "it's too cold", "it's too windy", "it's too dark", etc. were real issues. It was too dark and I didn't had enough experience running in the dark, and for me it was indeed too cold. If one can afford the equipment, good equipment does reduce many issues and if that means that you'll go running more for me it was money well spent.

After a few years as I had more experience, ran faster (and warmer), these issues mostly disappeared. Nowadays on winter I only run with shorts, a thin hard-shell, and thin shoes (sometimes five-fingers) with temps of -5C. Some days get much colder (e.g. -10 or -15 C) but when I've used some of the warm clothes I used in the first couple of years of running they've always felt too warm. The only thing that's still an issue is running in the dark. Independently of whether I know the trail, have a head-lamp, etc. I run slower in the dark than during the day, except on the track. So now when its dark, I always go to a running track to run. Most of them have lights on till late, and some schools, most universities, etc. have one and they let you use it for free.

Cold tolerance seems like a very individual thing. I've been up and down the scale a few times in terms of my weight, condition and speed. It doesn't seem to have made much difference to my comfort levels in the cold. I think the coldest run I've done in regular shorts/shirt/shoes was exactly freezing. Even then I wore a thin beanie and gloves. Without those, I would certainly have been quite uncomfortable and might have been at risk for worse. Hypothermia is a real thing. I've seen it, and don't want to experience it.

I guess it would be nice if I could run wearing less, but I honestly don't think it would be safe for me. Your mileage obviously does vary. ;) As it is, I have winter shirts, undershirts, and socks that are all different brands, and I am keenly aware of which ones are better at which temperatures. There's a bit of an art to wearing exactly the right level of gear for the conditions, and I've simply had to become good at it.

I have simple rules regarding weather:

1° it's more than 12-15°C outside : shorts and short sleeves

2° it's less than 12-15°C : long tights and long sleeves

3° it's less than 5°C : add cap, gloves and microfibre top to the previous set.

4° it's raining: I'm not made of sugar :)

5° it's heavily raining : I wear a cheap rain poncho, it's fine.

All my sport wear is the cheapest stuff from Decathlon, 5 euros shirts, etc. The rest of my gear probably cost me less than 150 euros and I've been using all the same gear (but socks and shorts) for 10 years, it doesn't wear out much.

I wear the exact same socks and shoes and short-sleeved running t-shirt whatever the weather is. I only use one sort of anti-friction stuff: 3M tegaderm. Exactly 1 square cm2 of it on each breast. A roll lasts a couple of years or so. I threw away a pair of shorts that hurt me at the thighs. I don't carry any money or phone or anything but my home key, in the small pocket all shorts and tights have. I don't carry water either, because I don't run more than 2 hours straight anyway, I drink before and after and that's fine.

I had a couple of injuries after turning 45 but it's nothing gear-related, really.

Not that dissimilar to my own rules.

Above 5C: normal/light gear

0 to 5C: add light beanie and gloves

-5 to 5C: add long-sleeved shirt (over compression T) and tights

-10 to -5C: jacket instead of shirt, warmer gloves

-15 to -10C: balaclava-style mask instead of beanie

Below -15C: just don't

I'll often go "down" a level if it's windy and/or moist, "up" half a level if it's an unusually short/fast run. The main thing is that as long as I wear the right gear I actually prefer winter running. It's quiet, it's scenic, and I have control over my heat level. What I really hate is the hot humid days of summer, which I can't do anything about.

A Goretex jacket is a godsend but I’ve never rated Goretex trainers. In conditions that need Goretex water will inevitably enter over the top anyway, and now you have buckets on your feet!

> In conditions that need Goretex water will inevitably enter over the top anyway

That sounds right for water, but definitely not true for snow. I don't run when it's deep on the ground, but even a little can splash onto the uppers and then soak through. It's like running through shallow puddles half the time, not fording a stream. I know from experience - maybe a thousand miles of running in New England winters over the last few years - that Gore Tex and similar barrier fabrics avoid that problem quite well.

Those same shoes usually come with high-traction soles (both materials and tread pattern) which are also essential in those conditions. And of course they're warmer. Winter running in summer shoes would be a recipe for freezing, blisters, or injury around here.

Not just are endurance sports relatively accessible, but the investment of time almost directly translates in to achievement. You can’t train your way to beating elite athletes but you can absolutely train your way to the top of your peer group, especially in the 40+ year old groups. With many of the ball or “skill” sports, there are some things you just might have.

It would also be remiss to not mention the health and longevity type benefits. Health and energy, after 60 to 90 minutes of cardio, I’m charged up for the rest of the day, with or without coffee

> But take a look at the money that has gone into the shoes, clothes, specialist accessories and bags, travelling to races, paying entry fees,

Taking one marathon I've done, shoes (which get used a lot) were £110 (because I have wide feet and have to buy Hoka/Altra); travel was £40 (train to the coast) + £4 (Brompton hire); accommodation was £90 (B&B); entry was £40; kit was about £40; £324 total. If I had a car, I could have swapped £134 of that for about £30 in petrol. The shoes and kit will last for at least a year and should be amortised.

You could probably do a marathon for £130 all told. Which is not nothing but it's a pretty low barrier to entry when you consider the cost of other sports.

> so on that a dedicated runner spends their money on

Anecdata: I know a lot of dedicated runners (50+ marathons/ultras a year, etc.) and almost none of them spend money on specialist accessories, bags, shoes, kit, etc.

I decided to have a look at the link from OP's article to see why the claimed cost ($1600) was so different to yours. Some of it was fairly reasonable...

- Race fee $86.40

- Extra food/coffee: $79.90

- Extra laundry: $25

- Transportation & lodging: $95

... some of it was very individual or easily avoidable on a budget...

- Gym membership: $130.50

- Pet car: $50

- Sports massages: $210

- Post-race celebrations: $163.46

... and the rest just seemed a bit excessive/unnecessary...

- Gear: $578.80

- "Running fuel": $19.90

> - Extra food/coffee: $79.90

A Mcdonalds breakfast will only cost you £5. Surprisingly common pre-race fuel for a lot of people I know who run marathons...

> - Gear: $578.80

Yeah, if you're buying an entire new set of gear for every marathon, I suppose it'll cost a lot. Although I'm struggling to see how you get to $578 (~£440) even splurging on expensive shoes and kit.

> A Mcdonalds breakfast will only cost you £5.

I think the $80 figure came from the total increase in the cost of groceries over the 18 week training period.

> I'm struggling to see how you get to $578

Me too. Apparently this was the cost of:

> two pairs of shoes, another pair of long winter tights, plus two new pairs of capri tights and two new pairs of shorts, a handful of new shirts, a new tank and visor to wear on race day ... a pair of ski mittens to wear over my regular running gloves during bitter cold training.

It didn't include a GPS watch, which she already possessed.

There’s got to be a running watch in there.

An excellent point. Although you can get a GPS running watch for about £70 in the UK[1] complete with wrist-based HRM (which is fine for most casual runners, I think.) And that'll last you a good few years, at least.

[1] https://www.decathlon.co.uk/onmove-500-gps-hr-watch-id_85290...

Plus, you absolutely don't need a running watch to run a marathon. That cost estimate is absurd.

that's the main reason I don't do them. I think paying 150$ to run 26 miles is a world class rip-off. Movies last 2 hours and cost 10$ to attend. I wouldn't mind paying 10$ for a half-marathon.