David Goggins and Scott Jurek were definitly not rich when then won their first important ultras. And according to their bio (didn't fact check it though), they trained AND had a job, which means either waking up very early, or going to bed very late.

I'd rather think that if you can run a 100K, you have the mind to overcome amazingly hard situations, and to keep trying, again and again, being in the game for a long time. Which increases your odds of success, so bigger probability to get rich in the end.

I know several ultra runners who are definitely not rich. If anything, they ought to spend their money more wisely and not on more and more gear.

I'd agree with this, but I don't even think it has to be that extreme. An endurance sport requires patience and overcoming a certain level of discomfort in pursuit of a goal.

I know people who stop pursuing whatever it is they want at the first signs of discomfort or adversity. They want the good things to just happen them, and they rarely do.

That's funny, I know people who pursue the path of least resistance and are quite well off actually, and good things do just happen to them (by virtue of their talent lets say, or other innate qualities). But that's just my own anecdata.

I do know some people like what you're talking about too, but then again I know some people who are big into endurance sports but aren't really go-getters in other spheres either ...

> I know some people who are big into endurance sports but aren't really go-getters in other spheres

Same. Although I suspect for a lot of them it's because go-getting in other spheres would impact on their ability to do the running and they're happy in their situations as they are.

David Goggins was (is) a Navy Seal, so he had a strong baseline/foundation.

Many, many years ago, I ran a fifty-miler. I was not, by US standards anything like rich, in fact I was in between two ill-paid jobs.

My running commitment amounted to something less than ten hours per week. Now according to Wikipedia, the American average for TV watching in 2017 was about 28 hours/week. I have no idea what it was in 1982, but at even half the rate, I spent less time running than my average fellow citizen spent in front of the tube.

>I spent less time running than my average fellow citizen spent in front of the tube

Time watching TV is not time spent sitting "in front of the tube". People cook, eat, clean the dishes, iron clothes, play with their kids, while the TV is on. If you are running, you can't be doing anything else.

Yes and no. People can cook, etc. while the TV is on. They certainly get in some time just plain watching.

Also, some of my running time amounted to commuting: knock 45 minutes off the 90 minute run. Running can be a social activity. Those who care to can run listening to their iPods (then, Walkmans). Etc.

Unless you're on a treadmill in front of a TV, or wearing headphones listening to the radio, TV, podcasts, etc.

I dont have cable at home, so the only time I watch broadcast TV is when i'm watching it on the TV at the gym while running.

Now imagine coming home from a day of hard physical labor on a roadwork crew when it's hot as hadeys outside and then consider how much you may feel like spending your free time running.

Not being rich isn't the same thing as being poor, or being blue collar. Most of us being knowledge workers, have advantages beyond earning power.

Nit (with sincere hope that you'll appreciate rather than feel picked upon):

Hades, not hadeys.

I don't know if its true that the median wealthy person has more leisure time available to them.

> According to the Census Bureau, the average wealthy household (defined by the IRS as the top 20% of income earners in the US) worked five times as many hours as the average poor household. The cause? Single-parent households and high unemployment among poor households. [0]

Although I imagine they may spend less time doing household chores or running errands

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/common-myths-about-rich-peop...

Counting work hours by household seems a bit weird.

I'm married, my wife and I work fairly typical 40-45 hour weeks. So, 80-90 for the household.

My son is single. He works the same 40-45 hours. But, by the metric above, my household works twice as much. Sure, we literally do, but we have twice the manpower and twice the income. And still have the same amount of leisure time per person.

Indeed it's an odd measure. But still, a factor 5? It can't be common for top-20% households to contain more than two full-time workers.

In a sibling comment, somebody linked to an article [0] that describes the wealth/free-time paradox. Basically, poor people are extremely underemployed (particularly young white males) and frequently stuck in part-time jobs (or unemployed completely). If a poor person is only able to find 10 hours/week employment, I'm at 4x that. If the poor person is single, my household is 8x because there's two of us.

0 - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-fre...

This.In ancient times rich people were pale and that suggested they didn't have to work. Poor people had tan. It's the same now - If you've got time you can train and have photos of you running marathons in different places in the world each month.

But rich people have less time because time is more valuable to them.

I'd say that rich people time is more "stretchable"

Time is a fixed quantity for poorer people. If you don't show up to your 8AM Walmart job on time, you'll get chewed out.

But if you're a senior VP, you can move meetings around to fit your schedule.

Not sure I follow.

First, the article doesn't appear to talking about actual rich people (billionaires, etc) but upper-middle-class white-collar people (i.e., they still have a day job and can't live off savings & interest). But, we can call them rich to keep it easy.

In a literal sense, rich people have more time, as they tend to live longer than poor people.

In the sense of day-to-day free time, I'd argue rich people have more. Both in absolute terms - they rarely have to work two jobs, though they might do occasional OT. And in their ability to time-shift work obligations. Take a software dev - typically they have flexible work hours, might have some ability to schedule their own meetings, and nobody blinks if they duck out early once a week for a long run/ride/whatever.

I'd say they have the same amount of time, the difference is how they choose to use it. Going away for a weekend is great use of their time if they enjoy it and also get a benefit (both physically and mentally) out of it. Doing the sport is valuable to them.

Isn't that debatable? Actually, it's debatable what your statement means. What's value? How much you make per time unit? Or, if you live pay check to pay check, maybe time is more valuable than when you're rich, because if you don't invest that time unit, you won't be able to pay rent?

It's pretty well studied that poor people in the US have more free time/leisure time than rich people. Ex:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-fre...

Related: Why Rich People work more hours... https://blogs.harvard.edu/michaellaw/2014/04/18/why-rich-peo...

Rich people can trade money for time, example: flying private.

And they trade money for time because their time is more valuable..