Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Hey Ho Let's Go! Vegan removed from runner's world cover
Philomena Cunk
✭✭✭
So veagns are angry at removing the word vegan form the socks of the cover athlete!!
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I am disappointed with the stereotypical vegan bashing in this thread. Have some respect for people’s heart-felt beliefs! The vegan community is offended by the removal of the word “vegan” from the socks because it was an opportunity to showcase how fit and healthy you can be on a plant-based cruelty-free diet, which could help to show a wide audience that they can reduce their consumption of animal products without compromising their athletic achievements. The word was not removed from the US or Swedish editions of the magazine, so why was it removed from the UK one? It just doesn't make sense- it's not political or offensive.
I am a member of Vegan Runners, though I now run first claim for Cheddar running club. I came 8th in the Yorkshire marathon (my first marathon) this year in 3.08.28. I am not deficient in any nutrients, and nor are Scott Jurek/Rich Roll/Carl Lewis/Helen Fines (UK #2 fell running champion), Fiona Oakes (current world record holder- fastest female to compete a marathon on each continent, including the North Pole) and many other vegan athletes. I do think some people overreacted about the sock issue, but don’t think they deserve the derision they have received on this thread!
How can you run for Cheddar if you are vegan?
"The vegan community is offended by the removal of the word “vegan” from the socks"
Based on a poll of what sample size?
Nayan, Cheddar was a village long before the name became synonymous with a process of cheese production.
So far 1245 people signed a petition about this issue Dustin- so it is based on that sample number. http://www.change.org/p/runners-world-uk-recall-the-photoshopped-edition-of-runners-world-uk-and-reissue-without-the-word-vegan-removed-from-the-athlete-on-the-cover/responses/24514
I did not sign it as although I don't really get why they removed the word from her socks, there are much more important issues/events in the world to get upset about and I don't feel that strongly about this.
I think they are entitled to remove it on the grounds that it looks like guerrilla marketing for a line of socks that the lady is trying to market. I don't have any problem with their reply to that effect.
There could be any number of reasons for this, for example
1) they are entitled to charge her a fee if she wants to subvert her cover photo for her own advertising. She wanted to give everyone a taste of her cheesy feet, they asked 'where's the cheddar?'
2)their magazine caters for people of varying dietary mores. Appearing to advocate one particular lifestyle choice arguably risks alienating large swathes of their readership, and they are entitled to protect their brand. Publish and Edammed.
Jenny, you appear to be confusing the promotion of your 'lifestyle choice' with the real issue here. That is, the attempt to profit financially from being on the cover of runners world magazine.
I can understand the need for them to brie careful, but surely there's stiltons of copies that they'd sell.
Maybe, having photoshopped the sock logos, buyers will revert to type and just Leerdammer at the cover totty.
Yes, leering at models in RW issues is fun, though you have to block out the Halouminous colours that many are wearing.
Sorry...
I do love a good pun but these are too cheesy for me
I haven't read the article about the cover-girl Kenbro- is she trying to sell socks? You can buy them on Amazon so I didn't think it was something she was personally creating in order to profit from.
I totally agree that RW is not a vegan specialist magazine and that advocating one lifestyle choice would alienate their readership, but from the comments on that petition it sounds like they could have lost a thousand vegan subscribers. Which might be a drop in the ocean- I don't know what the current readership of RW is.
I only responded to the post in the first place (are there two posts on the same topic on here?) because I thought it unfair that some forum members were making sweeping statements about vegans being little Hitlers in the making/being deficient in nutrients and other misinformed stereotypes.
some forum members were making sweeping statements about vegans being little Hitlers in the making
That's definitely not what was said, I think you might need to go back and re-read the thread.
"Hitler was a vegetarian" does not equate to, "All vegans are like Hitler."
Hmmmm...
Quote from Philomena Cunk: "I find it a little odd that they changed it. Just a little odd. Whereas vegans find it highly offensive and disgusting (source facebook) Just shows you that Adolf was vegan (veggie) and being a vegan doesn't make you a nicer person"
Anyway, some vegans found it highly offensive and disgusting. Not all. Not all vegans are massively preachy and trying to convert everyone they meet into vegans in an aggressive way. So cut some of us some slack
Yes that was whey out of line
You've got to word things so Caerphilly on these forums...
I can't help thinking the reaction would've been less uppity if RW had done a better job in explaining their reasoning for photoshopping the socks. Looking at the article summaries on the cover nothing refers directly to the featured runner, so having VEGAN emblazoned in big letters doesn't really sit with the "generic runner" image. Bleating on about logos clearly doesn't wash when Nike and New Balance are getting exposure (whose logos, let's face it, look less incongruous than the socks.)
I like her shorts though. Very, erm, snug.
I like this woman. Do we need to start a new thread to display moral outrage at people who dare to bear tattoos, or will this one do?
Perhaps if RW had explained in advance instead of doing a feta compli ...
Sorry, I curd'nt resist.
Gouda help us.
It is a 100% fact that we will never know how many more millions of people would have lived if Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. That's a fact and nobody can deny it.
Or more could have died..... Maybe he'd have been even grumpier if he eat meat. I'm meat eater, and I'm a pretty grumpy soul.
Whoa there food nazi, Churchill was a manic depressive