Dad gets 6 year old to run 26.2

I think most of the claims around the marathon doing some lifelong physical damage to the kid are rubbish and without any evidence, just variations on the "running is bad for your knees" nonsense.

The problem here is forcing the kid to do something they don't want to do, which potentially puts them off being physically active later in life and does then create problems. Also the making a media circus out of the kid by the parents.

The obvious joint and bone damage isn't obvious at all, and there isn't anything I've ever seen to show it happens, other than people repeatedly saying that it must happen. There's nothing to show that kids running longer distances, when not forced to, is doing them future bone and joint harm.

The risks around forcing the kid to do stuff they don't want to, and going past the point where they are capable or in a position to refuse, or know that they should refuse, at that time is real though, like with the example of the grandmother.

Nope, I think people shouldn't claim that kids are damaged by running long distances when there is no evidence to support that claim.

No need to force kids to do stuff though and there is now actually going to be useful data source on this kind of thing from parkrun. They have 18 years worth of running data, and just having a quick look at event 100 in Bushy in 2006 (because there were more people running it by then) and of the identifiable children in the junior categories at the time, including a couple in J10, only one of them seemed to have not subsequently run in more recent years up to pre pandemic at least. They would be a fantastic source of data to actually do a study on and find out what they were doing back in the day, find the kids who haven't run more recently and see why, see if the kids who are still running are impacted in anyway. Even if one of those J10's in 2006 was only 4 at the time (can't tell that from the public parkrun data) they would now be in their 20's and no reason why they couldn't be approached, and their parents, to find out what they did back in the day etc.

Other than there aren't examples of individuals who ran long distances as a kid and subsequently have joint/ bone issues being presented. This isn't the first kid to run/ walk a long way.

It's not about proving that it's possible for kids to run marathons and suffer no consequences, I did as did multiple hundreds of other kids at my school and other local schools over the years back in the '80's. It's about if there are any actual negative consequences, and nobody has anything to show that there is any damage done despite people claiming that it is a fact.

Should a 6 year old do a marathon? Not overly bothered about that really, for me it would be about if the kid is being forced to do something they have no interest or desire to do and if the parent is exploiting them which is the issue in this instance. Throwing around claims of lifelong injuries being caused and that running is somehow a dangerous thing to do is my problem.

I'm sure nobody would be getting angry about some kids doing a sponsored 8 hour long game of football, or skipping, or probably even if the kid had hiked up and down a mountain with their family that happened to take 8hrs. But somehow the activity of walking/ running for 8hrs whilst wearing a race number is seen as a hyper risky thing for kids to do. It does no good perpetuating those ideas in getting people to lead active lifestyles, if they think that walking/ running is bad for you somehow.

Yep, that is the area where I'd see the dangers for the future of the kids. Keeping the activities fun and not taking the competition too serious. It's about creating healthy habits and an interest in being active in whatever form that takes.

Although I think we do have an idea on the long term impact of sports on kids as there are plenty of professional sports people who were playing tennis, football or whatever from a very young age and those would have involved the kids playing for hours on end in the streets doing repetitive exercises with their bats and balls. Whilst those that reach to top of their games obviously picked up professional coaches from some point whilst still kids, there will have been thousands of other kids doing exactly the same as them at the same ages who just didn't get noticed or picked up.

We don't hear of those who didn't quite make it as having been permanently damaged from kicking a football against a wall for hours on end as a kid. Why is running the sport that is considered dangerous for kids to take part in?

Overly serious or competitive sport for young kids I think is going to create problems for later in life. Kids just being active in whatever they enjoy, not so much.

There isn't any risk from dehydration in a city marathon, or even just running around the course in a city after its packed up and most people have gone home already. Far more risk of drinking too much because people are bombarded with messages about dehydration, which doesn't happen.

Of course I'm not saying that getting a kid to do a marathon is good parenting, just that it's not actually dangerous to them... Other than they will potentially grow up to hate exercise and then become unhealthy due to poor lifestyle years later. That family sound like a bunch of idiots, but not that they are physically damaging their kids.

Humans are better designed for forward motion than for random movements around chasing a ball. Not suggesting multiple hours daily of running for kids, but seriously doubt that chasing a ball about suddenly makes exercise for kids safer than them going on a hike or run at whatever pace they choose.

The problem with this instance is the parent "forcing" the kid to do something. But letting the kid head out to run laps around a park until they get bored is no more dangerous to their development than them chasing a ball around the center of the park. But the lack of a ball makes the activity of movement seem risky to people for no good reason.