| |
Main
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:33:13
From: Beginning runner
Subject: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
I mentioned to a friend of mine (who happens to be a cardiologist) that
I've been running, and she congratulated me on taking care of my health.
I told her about my first 5K two weeks ago, and mentioned that I was
thinking of entering a 3 mile run on NY Eve; I said "If you don't have
anything to do NY Eve, how about going there to cheer me on at the
finish line?"
She asked for details, so I sent them to her. She said that it's in her
neighborhood, so she just may be there. About a half hour later, she
wrote back to tell me that she had registered for the 3 mile walk. So
then I just had to register for the run.
So, my next race will be 3 miles on NY Eve.
I'm thinking about an 8K on Feb 18th that's being run in conjunction
with the Lost Dutchman Marathon. 8K is 4.9 miles; I don't know whether
I can be ready for that by then, but I think that I can. The next
shortest event there is a 2 mile fun run/walk, and that doesn't appeal
to me.
Currently, my training runs are 5K, and I plan to keep them at that
distance until after the NY Eve race; I'll start adding distance after
that. If I add 5% each week, I'll be up to 7 K by race time, and if I
can do 7K in training, I should be able to do 8K in a race, right? If I
add 10% a week, I'd be up to 8K two weeks before race time, and can keep
it there until the race. But I doubt that I could add 10% a week every
week for a month.
Comments or suggestions?
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 16:51:12
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
On 2006-12-17, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> Comments or suggestions?
blah! mailed instead of posting by accident ... let's try again ...
You only need to increase the length of *one* of your weekly runs, so if you're
running 3x/week, then moving one of them to 8k is a 20% increase in total
training load (18/15 = 1.2) you've got enough time to do this.
But don't sweat the details, just pick one of your weekly runs and make it longer, but
keep it within the limits of what you can handle. Play it by ear, adjust as necessary.
You will be ready by the time the race comes up. You don't need to do the full distance
in training before the race, though you might find that you do that.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 09:56:11
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <slrneoatc0.l26.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> blah! mailed instead of posting by accident ... let's try again ...
I'm glad that I checked to see if you replied here as well as email; I
was about to email a reply. <g >
> But don't sweat the details, just pick one of your weekly runs and
> make it longer, but keep it within the limits of what you can handle.
> Play it by ear, adjust as necessary. You will be ready by the time
> the race comes up. You don't need to do the full distance in training
> before the race, though you might find that you do that.
Yes, I do adjust as necessary; as they say in the military, no operation
plan survives initial contact. If I find that my goals are too
ambitious, I'll adjust the goals; ditto if they're too easily reached.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:04:04
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
How do you know when a jogger is lying?
When they start with, "I mentioned to a friend of mine..."
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 07:50:45
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <4584cd24$0$15556$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race....
>
> Think so? That's a 60% increase.
>
> > However, the more miles/week you do, the easier and/or faster it will
> > be.
>
> I know; that's why I want to increase. <g>
>
> > I'm running a 50 miler in January, and my longest training run will
> > have been a 31 miler, and I average only ~10 miles/day. You don't
> > need to run x miles every day to race x miles.
>
> That's the same percentage, but scaled up ten times from what I'm
> thinking of. My concern is whether the ratio is still valid at the
> shorter distances, especially for someone still in the beginner stage.
>
> I'm very unsure of whether I'd be able to do it: Not sure that I could,
> and not sure that I couldn't.
You are filled with too much uncertainty and doubt. Reading in this
group should have provided even you with more confidence by now. People
often tripple their daily mileage on race day with no problem. You are
not running the day or two before the race so it's sort of like
catching up on the mileage.
However, the fact is that you are running 3.1 miles every other day and
that averages to 1.55 miles a day. Therefore, you could expect to be
comfortable only up to about 4.5 miles on race day. I don't think you
are running enough for 8K, especially given the tiny increments that
you feel are important. You either need to increase the run distance or
run more days per week for the proper base.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:47:27
From: D Stumpus
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
"Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote
> Currently, my training runs are 5K, and I plan to keep them at that
> distance until after the NY Eve race; I'll start adding distance after
> that. If I add 5% each week, I'll be up to 7 K by race time, and if I
> can do 7K in training, I should be able to do 8K in a race, right? If I
> add 10% a week, I'd be up to 8K two weeks before race time, and can keep
> it there until the race. But I doubt that I could add 10% a week every
> week for a month.
> Comments or suggestions?
If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race.... However,
the more miles/week you do, the easier and/or faster it will be.
I'm running a 50 miler in January, and my longest training run will have
been a 31 miler, and I average only ~10 miles/day. You don't need to run x
miles every day to race x miles.
-- Dan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 08:18:57
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <4584cd24$0$15556$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
> If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race....
Think so? That's a 60% increase.
> However, the more miles/week you do, the easier and/or faster it will
> be.
I know; that's why I want to increase. <g >
> I'm running a 50 miler in January, and my longest training run will
> have been a 31 miler, and I average only ~10 miles/day. You don't
> need to run x miles every day to race x miles.
That's the same percentage, but scaled up ten times from what I'm
thinking of. My concern is whether the ratio is still valid at the
shorter distances, especially for someone still in the beginner stage.
I'm very unsure of whether I'd be able to do it: Not sure that I could,
and not sure that I couldn't.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 09:50:09
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <beginning_runner-89C4C0.08185717122006@news.east.cox.net >,
Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> > If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race....
>
> Think so? That's a 60% increase.
In reviewing that, I may have given the wrong impression; I'm not trying
to be contrary, but just concerned that such an increase would be too
great in one swell foop. When I ran that 5K two weeks ago, it was only
a 25% increase over my training distance.
Anyway, based on a suggestion on another forum, I've tentatively come up
with this scenario. Think that it's reasonable?
Week 1 3.5 miles per day (3 days a week)
Week 2: 3.1
Week 3: 3.5
Week 4: 4.0
Week 5: 3.5
Week 6: 4.0
Week 7: 4.5
Week 8: 4.0 (two days, so I'll have some rest time before the race)
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 18:34:59
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
On 2006-12-17, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> In article <beginning_runner-89C4C0.08185717122006@news.east.cox.net>,
> Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> > If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race....
>>
>> Think so? That's a 60% increase.
>
> In reviewing that, I may have given the wrong impression; I'm not trying
> to be contrary, but just concerned that such an increase would be too
> great in one swell foop. When I ran that 5K two weeks ago, it was only
> a 25% increase over my training distance.
>
> Anyway, based on a suggestion on another forum, I've tentatively come up
> with this scenario. Think that it's reasonable?
That's OK as an average, but don't make all your runs the same length. Once you
increase length of your runs beyond the bare minimum, you should vary the length
of your runs. So increase the length of one of your runs. Start thinking in
terms of miles/week and not miles/day. I've added some propose breakdowns that
roughly add up to the same amount of miles in the week.
> Week 1 3.5 miles per day (3 days a week)
3/3/4
> Week 2: 3.1
3/3/3
> Week 3: 3.5
3/3/4
> Week 4: 4.0
3/3/5
> Week 5: 3.5
3/3/4
> Week 6: 4.0
3/3/5
> Week 7: 4.5
3/3/6 or 3/3/5 depending on how week 6 went.
> Week 8: 4.0 (two days, so I'll have some rest time before the race)
3/3 (no long run until the race!)
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 12:11:29
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <slrneob3ej.qe6.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> That's OK as an average, but don't make all your runs the same
> length. Once you increase length of your runs beyond the bare
> minimum, you should vary the length of your runs. So increase the
> length of one of your runs. Start thinking in terms of miles/week and
> not miles/day. I've added some propose breakdowns that roughly add up
> to the same amount of miles in the week.
Thanks. I'll give that a try.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 12:18:27
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <slrneob3ej.qe6.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> That's OK as an average, but don't make all your runs the same
> length. Once you increase length of your runs beyond the bare
> minimum, you should vary the length of your runs. So increase the
> length of one of your runs. Start thinking in terms of miles/week and
> not miles/day. I've added some propose breakdowns that roughly add up
> to the same amount of miles in the week.
Got another question: At what point should I start adding to that base,
and make my short run longer?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:32:40
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
On 2006-12-17, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> In article <slrneob3ej.qe6.abuse@panix3.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> That's OK as an average, but don't make all your runs the same
>> length. Once you increase length of your runs beyond the bare
>> minimum, you should vary the length of your runs. So increase the
>> length of one of your runs. Start thinking in terms of miles/week and
>> not miles/day. I've added some propose breakdowns that roughly add up
>> to the same amount of miles in the week.
>
> Got another question: At what point should I start adding to that base,
> and make my short run longer?
No hard rules, but I'd say once you're doing 6 consistently on the longest
run, work towards moving up the others. And once all runs are 1hr or more (and
the longest run is 90min-2hrs), you should look towards adding more runs.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:05:01
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <slrneob6qo.3dh.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> > Got another question: At what point should I start adding to that
> > base, and make my short run longer?
>
> No hard rules, but I'd say once you're doing 6 consistently on the
> longest run, work towards moving up the others. And once all runs are
> 1hr or more (and the longest run is 90min-2hrs), you should look
> towards adding more runs.
Thanks again. So, once I can do 3-3-6 consistently, then I can move up
to something like 3.5-3.5-6 and then after I can do that consistently,
make the long run longer?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:25:48
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
On 2006-12-17, Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
> In article <slrneob6qo.3dh.abuse@panix3.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > Got another question: At what point should I start adding to that
>> > base, and make my short run longer?
>>
>> No hard rules, but I'd say once you're doing 6 consistently on the
>> longest run, work towards moving up the others. And once all runs are
>> 1hr or more (and the longest run is 90min-2hrs), you should look
>> towards adding more runs.
>
> Thanks again. So, once I can do 3-3-6 consistently, then I can move up
> to something like 3.5-3.5-6 and then after I can do that consistently,
> make the long run longer?
yeah, something like that, e.g. 3.5/3.5/6, 3.5/3.5/7, etc until the short runs
are 1hr and the long run is 2hrs. Then add more runs if you want to go further.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:01:25
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <slrneob9uc.8ej.abuse@panix3.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> yeah, something like that, e.g. 3.5/3.5/6, 3.5/3.5/7, etc until the
> short runs are 1hr and the long run is 2hrs. Then add more runs if
> you want to go further.
OK. I think I got it. Thanks very much.
By the way, what is your opinion of the First Marathon program?
<http://www.1stmarathon.com/ >? (Anyone else with an opinion about them,
please chime in.)
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 19:38:14
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <beginning_runner-89C4C0.08185717122006@news.east.cox.net >,
Beginning runner <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote:
>In article <4584cd24$0$15556$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> "D Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> If you can run 5k on every workout, you can run 8k in a race....
>
>Think so? That's a 60% increase.
>
>> However, the more miles/week you do, the easier and/or faster it will
>> be.
>
>I know; that's why I want to increase. <g>
>
>> I'm running a 50 miler in January, and my longest training run will
>> have been a 31 miler, and I average only ~10 miles/day. You don't
>> need to run x miles every day to race x miles.
>
>That's the same percentage, but scaled up ten times from what I'm
>thinking of. My concern is whether the ratio is still valid at the
>shorter distances, especially for someone still in the beginner stage.
>
>I'm very unsure of whether I'd be able to do it: Not sure that I could,
>and not sure that I couldn't.
Though there have been some good answers, I'll throw a differently
shaped log on the fire.
The rule of thumb is that you can run a race up to about 50% longer
than your longest run. So if you get your planned 3.5 miler in,
running a 5 mile race should be ok.
This rule does apply down at shorter distances, if anything, better
than at long distances. (ex, for marathon the usual recommendation
is to get 3 20 milers in, which means only a 30% increase; 50% would
let people top out at 17.5 miles.)
There are caveats on doing that 50% jump. One is, you only do it
once. After the race, go back (actually below) what you were doing
before that big leap. At the shorter distances (10 miles and down,
again roughly speaking), not having run the distance in training
takes something off your race performance. Another is, with the
big jump, you're liable to spend the latter parts of the race
having to push harder mentally than you typically do for a run.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:06:41
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <12oj496dbi0cn90@corp.supernews.com >,
bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> There are caveats on doing that 50% jump. One is, you only do it
> once. After the race, go back (actually below) what you were doing
> before that big leap. At the shorter distances (10 miles and down,
> again roughly speaking), not having run the distance in training
> takes something off your race performance. Another is, with the big
> jump, you're liable to spend the latter parts of the race having to
> push harder mentally than you typically do for a run.
Thanks. When I ran the 5K race, the longest I had run before then was
2.4 miles. That was about a 30% increase. I actually had enough left
in me to do a 7 minute mile for the last few hundred feet; my average
pace for the run was the same as in my 2.4 mile training runs. And
afterwards, I kept my training distance at 5K.
I've received mixed advice about how I should increase my training; all
agree that there should be no more than 10% increase at a time. Some
people said that increasing it every week is too aggressive, and that I
should increase it only every third week or so. Some (e.g., Donovan)
suggested that I increase only one run a week, but increase it enough to
add 10% to the week's total. Other's said I should add 10% to each run
and not try for a long run yet; I need to build up a more solid base
before doing that.
Frankly, I feel more at ease with increasing each run a smaller amount
than one run the larger amount, so that's what I'm going to do for the
time being.
But the 8K run is still about two months away, so I have time to decide
whether or not to tackle it.
Thanks again.
--
"I'll do the best I can do because that's the best I can do!"
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:42:21
From: Sean
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Don't like it: some of the pages require Internet Explorer instead of
Mozilla Firefox!
On a more serious note, if you are interested in buying a training plan
for stepping up to the marathon (which I wouldn't suggest until you're
very comfortable with halves), you'd probably do better to find a local
running store that provides clinics. Or for just a program, there are
a number of $30 books that likely provide more expertise than this
$70/month website.
But then, I didn't spend very long browsing the site, because I'm
easily offended by IE developers!
Cheers,
-Sean.
Beginning runner a =E9crit :
> In article <slrneob9uc.8ej.abuse@panix3.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > yeah, something like that, e.g. 3.5/3.5/6, 3.5/3.5/7, etc until the
> > short runs are 1hr and the long run is 2hrs. Then add more runs if
> > you want to go further.
>
> OK. I think I got it. Thanks very much.
>
> By the way, what is your opinion of the First Marathon program?
> <http://www.1stmarathon.com/>? (Anyone else with an opinion about them,
> please chime in.)
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 22:01:36
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166395341.531702.230040@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Sean" <schester@uvic.ca > wrote:
> On a more serious note, if you are interested in buying a training
> plan for stepping up to the marathon (which I wouldn't suggest until
> you're very comfortable with halves), you'd probably do better to
> find a local running store that provides clinics.
Well, this program starts you out with 2 mile runs, and I'm routinely
doing three miles.
Couldn't find a local running store that has clinics. Some of them have
running clubs, but they're for experienced runners.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:11:06
From: Piedmont Donald
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
"Beginning runner" wrote:
> Couldn't find a local running store that has clinics. Some of them have
> running clubs, but they're for experienced runners.
Try looking at the national level for a local club:
http://rrca.org/clubs/
http://usatf.com/clubs/search/
You could do an 8K TODAY. You'd want to run a bit more slowly, but you
could easily do it.
The 10% rule is a guide. But it doesn't work very well at very low or
high mileages. Yes, you can easily increase 10% per week early on. I try
to add no less than 2 miles per week when ramping up. You could hold
yourself to a smaller increase and still get to your goal especially if
you make some of your runs longer than others as someone already
suggested.
If you still want to honor the 10% distance rule, increase your _time_ by
10% per week. You increased speed will carry you.
PD
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 21:59:48
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166395341.531702.230040@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Sean" <schester@uvic.ca > wrote:
> > By the way, what is your opinion of the First Marathon program?
> > <http://www.1stmarathon.com/>? (Anyone else with an opinion about
> > them, please chime in.)
> Don't like it: some of the pages require Internet Explorer instead of
> Mozilla Firefox!
I didn't care for it much either, but because of the layout. I didn't
find anything that requires IE, though. I use Safari.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 11:10:38
From: Sean
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
I looked at it more closely from work. (To be honest, I finally
navigated the site properly to find a training schedule.) Personally,
I don't much like it (independent of Internet browser preferences). It
attempts to take a 2-mile runner to a marathon in far too little time
at the sacrifice of sensible periodisation. It is true that one ought
to build up slowly, but it's also key to take regular easier weeks.
It's very common to take every third or fourth week easier in terms of
volume (and sometimes intensity, too). This program, however, never
backs off until the taper. Even if one can physiologically handle this
routine, it's very difficult psychologically to mount more mileage week
after week after week for months. One can't help but consider that as
hard as the current week is, things only become more difficult. Also,
much of the true gains are made during the cut-back weeks, during which
the body recovers and rebuilds.
It is too bad that there are no local clinics; although, you seem to
making good progress without them, anyway.
Most running clubs cater to a wide range of abilities. However, they
also typically do speedwork together, not easy runs. You probably
don't need to be terribly much more experienced to join a club
(although your local ones may, indeed, be more exclusive), but you do
need to be ready for regular speedwork.
With the clubs, there are typically a lot of experienced runners more
than willing to offer advice, too. (But then, who isn't willing?)
Cheers,
-Sean.
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <1166395341.531702.230040@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sean" <schester@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> > On a more serious note, if you are interested in buying a training
> > plan for stepping up to the marathon (which I wouldn't suggest until
> > you're very comfortable with halves), you'd probably do better to
> > find a local running store that provides clinics.
>
> Well, this program starts you out with 2 mile runs, and I'm routinely
> doing three miles.
>
> Couldn't find a local running store that has clinics. Some of them have
> running clubs, but they're for experienced runners.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:26:39
From: Dot
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Sean wrote:
> It attempts to take a 2-mile runner to a marathon in far too little time
> at the sacrifice of sensible periodisation. It is true that one ought
> to build up slowly, but it's also key to take regular easier weeks.
> It's very common to take every third or fourth week easier in terms of
> volume (and sometimes intensity, too). This program, however, never
> backs off until the taper.
FWIW, most of the online schedules that I've looked at don't include any
periodization. They're merely taking a person from point A to point B in
their training, with a certain assumption of background base building
(or input in some cases). I think RW's Smart Coach (their term) has some
cutback weeks in there, but it will build a pgm from anywhere to a
marathon in 4 months max. If that's a reasonable time span, the plans
that I've looked at aren't too bad, but it'll crank out a marathon in 4
months from minimal training - complete with speed work by pace, no
matter how slowly one runs. The pgms generated for unrealistic goals
(IMHO) are GIGO. I don't agree (not that my thoughts have any relevance)
with the concept of paced speed work for low-mileage runners (<10mpw),
but hr fartleks can certainly be used very safely even for those with
minimal training and what my beginner's pgm had. Just my opinion on
training. (Granted, I'm prone to prefer methods that don't require
precise measurements since my watch is usually under long sleeves and
the crunch of snow, when we have it, is louder than watch beeps. And I
really don't want to be dependent on looking at something other than
where I'm going while barrelling down a steep hillside.)
I'll occasionally look at some canned stuff just for comparison with my
home-spun outline, and distribution of workouts is fairly similar in a
very general sense. They don't do hills or trail specific stuff
obviously, but most don't - but easy, long, higher efforts are reasonable.
This is one reason - periodization, and other training principles - why
I tend to suggest a book or something more complete than ng soundbites
or online schedules if the person is serious about learning about
training and running. But that's just me.
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:26:05
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166469038.137282.212780@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Sean" <schester@uvic.ca > wrote:
> I looked at it more closely from work. (To be honest, I finally
> navigated the site properly to find a training schedule.)
> Personally, I don't much like it (independent of Internet browser
> preferences). It attempts to take a 2-mile runner to a marathon in
> far too little time at the sacrifice of sensible periodisation.
Thanks. I wrote them about a week and a half ago, and got an
autoresponder saying that he would be out of town until last Monday, and
that I'd get a reply after he got back. So far, no reply (unless it hit
the spam filter). Between that and your reply, I think that I'll pass
on them, at least for now.
> It is too bad that there are no local clinics; although, you seem to
> making good progress without them, anyway.
Yeah, but I'm missing the socialization that comes from being with a
club.
> Most running clubs cater to a wide range of abilities. However, they
> also typically do speedwork together, not easy runs. You probably
> don't need to be terribly much more experienced to join a club
> (although your local ones may, indeed, be more exclusive), but you do
> need to be ready for regular speedwork.
Every club I've enquired about seem to have their group runs a minimum
of five or six miles, and usually in hilly areas. I'm not up to that
yet.
> With the clubs, there are typically a lot of experienced runners more
> than willing to offer advice, too. (But then, who isn't willing?)
Between here and the live journal running community, I get plenty of
advice. Problem is in sorting it all out. <g >
Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 19:54:22
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Club running Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Change of topic and much deletia to make the change ...
In article <1166469038.137282.212780@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
Sean <schester@uvic.ca > wrote:
[snip]
>Most running clubs cater to a wide range of abilities. However, they
>also typically do speedwork together, not easy runs. You probably
>don't need to be terribly much more experienced to join a club
>(although your local ones may, indeed, be more exclusive), but you do
>need to be ready for regular speedwork.
'beginning runner' seems to have a bad bunch of clubs around her.
In general, though, my experience in the DC and Chicago area is
that running clubs do all sorts of runs together. Easy, long,
track, trail, .... Some clubs may favor one over the other.
Some clubs (I only know of one around here) are essentially
racing teams, such that you do need to be fast enough to join.
But almost all are all-comers.
Even with an advertised 'standard' run, most clubs are doing
other runs as well. The club I run with on Saturday mornings
has a 'standard' run of 5.5 miles -- yet I hadn't run that
route in almost 2 years, going shorter (often much shorter)
until this past weekend.
Most clubs are very happy to have a new person come out,
regardless of current training level, and regardless of speed.
If you encounter one that does care about those, you can move
on. Any reasonable club also is happy to let you come run
with them without joining, to check out whether you'd be a
happy club member.
>With the clubs, there are typically a lot of experienced runners more
>than willing to offer advice, too. (But then, who isn't willing?)
Surprisingly many people are bashful about offering advice.
Conversely, as we've seen here, some who are not at all bashful
about offering advice should be keeping their mouths shut.
In person club or online group, you have to think about whom
to trust.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:50:25
From: Sean
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Ah, perhaps it was only Firefox that didn't work well with one of the
links, then. Safari's very good: it seems to render any page well.
-Sean.
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <1166395341.531702.230040@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sean" <schester@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> > > By the way, what is your opinion of the First Marathon program?
> > > <http://www.1stmarathon.com/>? (Anyone else with an opinion about
> > > them, please chime in.)
>
> > Don't like it: some of the pages require Internet Explorer instead of
> > Mozilla Firefox!
>
> I didn't care for it much either, but because of the layout. I didn't
> find anything that requires IE, though. I use Safari.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:35:22
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Elflord wrote:
> That's OK as an average, but don't make all your runs the same length. Once you
> increase length of your runs beyond the bare minimum, you should vary the length
> of your runs. So increase the length of one of your runs. Start thinking in
> terms of miles/week and not miles/day. I've added some propose breakdowns that
> roughly add up to the same amount of miles in the week.
>
> > Week 1 3.5 miles per day (3 days a week)
>
> 3/3/4
>
> > Week 2: 3.1
>
> 3/3/3
>
> > Week 3: 3.5
>
> 3/3/4
>
> > Week 4: 4.0
>
> 3/3/5
>
> > Week 5: 3.5
>
> 3/3/4
>
> > Week 6: 4.0
>
> 3/3/5
>
> > Week 7: 4.5
>
> 3/3/6 or 3/3/5 depending on how week 6 went.
>
> > Week 8: 4.0 (two days, so I'll have some rest time before the race)
>
> 3/3 (no long run until the race!)
Any suggestions for me? :-)
My current goals are: 1) remain injury free and 2) run another 5K in
mid-March, hopefully at a better pace, but goal #1 is ultimately far
more important than performance. (I signed up for this March 5K mostly
because it just looked like a lot of fun; there's a big St Paddy's day
party afterwards!)
I am just completing the couch-to-5K program this week. I am now
running about 30 minutes/3x's per week, but for me 30 minutes is not 3
miles - at an easy pace it is closer to 2 miles.
However, I know I could complete a 5K tomorrow if I wanted, because I
ran one back in October in 37:59. My best 5K ever was 25:17 (eek,
nearly 10 years ago), so I know I can eventually do better, as long as
I can remain injury free long enough to build up a decent base. That is
the problem. The last several years, every time I attempt to get back
into running, I do too-much/too-soon, and wind up sidelined by another
injury. This time, I think things are going well because I have been
sticking to a very modest schedule, ramping up very slowly, and
stopping when the clock says to stop. Because if I listen to my body,
my body inevitably feels just fine - while running - and it isn't until
after I stop running that I realize I've overdone it. Also, I've been
very careful to stay away from the hills (too many around my house!)
and stick to dirt paths whenever I can.
Between now and March, I would really like to increase the frequency to
4x's per week - I seem to need the running for sanity's sake. Should I
work towards running 3 miles 3x's per week, with a long run each week,
OR stay at 2 miles (i.e., 30 minutes) 3x's per week with a long run? Or
something else...
Any and all suggestions welcome. A specific schedule to follow would be
great, but all the ones I see on the web start off assuming you are
already running 3 miles each day, and I'm not there yet. So I guess my
quesiton is, is my next step
1) continue increasing time to 45 minutes x3 (which would get me to 3
miles), before adding a 4th day?
or
2) go ahead and add a 4th day now, and continue at 30 minutes x4 for
awhile, then start adding time to the long day ?
or
3) something else?
jen
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:39:47
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166459722.743520.230760@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I am just completing the couch-to-5K program this week. I am now
> running about 30 minutes/3x's per week, but for me 30 minutes is not
> 3 miles - at an easy pace it is closer to 2 miles.
Congratulations! To recap what you may already recall, I finished the C
to 5K about a month ago; my 30 minute distance was a bit further than 2
miles, but not much further.
The next two weeks, I ran 33 minutes--about 2.4 miles. And then ran a
5K. Since then I've been running 5K's three days a week.
So you should be capable of running 5K now.
Based on last week, I still need to take two days off after running
three days out of five. I had planned to run every other day, but
that's not going to be for a while yet.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:07:31
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
tfactor wrote:
> It was more difficult for me to adjust to running more often than
> running farther. When I started, like you I found my joints, ligaments,
> and bones (I was coming back from a stress fracture) took a while to
> recover. I had to really ease into running back-to-back days. I was
> running comfortably every other day. Then I'd throw in consecutive days
> running and take two days off, then back to every other day. Eventually
> over the course of a few weeks I was able to run two days, then three or
> four days, in a row, without taking extra days off. All this without
> increasing the distance of my runs (but ending up with more mileage/week
> because of the occasional extra day of running).
Maybe every other day is the wiser strategy for awhile, at least until
this 5K in March.
jen
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:03:59
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Dot wrote:
> Have you looked at your form and gait for any issues?
I think my form and gait are fine. I don't look funny when I run. I've
done those barefeet-in-the-sand and sneaker-wear tests, and all say
there's nothing abnormal about my gait - no pronation issues. But, no,
I have never had my gait analyzed and this is something I am
considering having done with my next sneaker purchase, because despite
those tests, I suspect that my left foot turns inward. I was having
some plantar fasciitis recently, until I got an OTC orthotic insert.
There's a huge difference with that foot. I can feel the orthotic
keeping my left foot inline, keeping it from rolling inward. And this
is creating soreness around the ankle. It's not pain - just soreness
like you get when you're building muscle.
> Have you tried any
> running-specific cross-training for strengthening your muscles, joints,
> etc.?
Such as? (The answer is probably no, unless you count walking or yoga)
> Are you running on asphalt or trail?
Mostly asphalt, but I am trying to get to the trail as often as
possible.
> With those symptoms, I'd be
> more likely to run every other day (or at least not consecutive days),
> but that's me and how I started. YMMV. Do you get sore during a run?
No
> or
> just the recovery after?
Just after.
> This can suggest as to whether to do longer,
> less frequently or shorter, more frequently.
>
> Are you using walk breaks within the run at all to lessen the impact?
Sometimes, though not the last couple of weeks.
> That's how I typically build time - if I can't make it comfortably, walk
> during, and that will frequently increase the time running. Say, if
> you're getting tired at 25 min and sore the next day, insert a 30-60 sec
> walk break (experiment) about half way through. You may find that you
> can run 30+ min plus the short break - and not be as sore the next day.
> Over time you adapt, and next thing you know the walk break's gone.
>
> Just some thoughts that hopefully won't confuse you.
Not confused - thanks for the ideas. On the plus side, I may be sore
afterwards, but I'm not in pain.
jen
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:53:07
From: Dot
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
shinypenny wrote:
> Dot wrote:
>
>
>>Have you looked at your form and gait for any issues?
>
>
> I think my form and gait are fine. I don't look funny when I run. I've
> done those barefeet-in-the-sand and sneaker-wear tests, and all say
> there's nothing abnormal about my gait - no pronation issues.
ok, that's a start.
>
>>Have you tried any
>>running-specific cross-training for strengthening your muscles, joints,
>>etc.?
>
>
> Such as? (The answer is probably no, unless you count walking or yoga)
By running-specific, we usually think of something with most of the work
being done by one leg and in diagonal fashion (one leg in front of
other) - like in running. Jumping with 2 feet together is frequently
considered fairly running-specific also, like many plyo drills. Also be
sure to work the body in all 3 planes of direction, not just front/back,
like typical straight running.
Form drills are one type - high knees, butt kick, sideways running
(alternates ab/adductor), grapevine (karioka), skipping, backwards.
Others include lunges, single-leg balance squats. In class we do the
lunges as walking lunges with hand weights and vary between medium,
long, and short steps, which work various components. At home, I may do
standing lunges (small living room). This link has some drills I did for
rehab, but are still useful: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0125.htm
I noticed in one of your other posts you mention about piriformis, which
happened to be one of my issues along with weak hams. The only thing my
PT didn't have something to say about was my quads, I think. He gave me
a bunch of drills on a stability ball (which I really need to get back
to). Core drills can also help.
>
>
>
>>Are you running on asphalt or trail?
>
>
> Mostly asphalt, but I am trying to get to the trail as often as
> possible.
That should help.
>
>
>>With those symptoms, I'd be
>>more likely to run every other day (or at least not consecutive days),
>>but that's me and how I started. YMMV. Do you get sore during a run?
>
>
> No
>
>
>>or
>>just the recovery after?
>
>
> Just after.
To *me* (not a doctor, don't play one, but I listen to my body signal)
this suggests that you might be better adding a little time before
increasing frequency. You're already warmed up and moving, so I tend to
keep moving as long as no discomfort. If it doesn't feel right, stop. I
would be sure I'm comfortable with every other day running before adding
a 4th day. tfactor described the way he eased into 4 days/wk, and
that's somewhat how I did it, but I had to back down mileage (although
there were some confounding factors in there) to adapt to shorter
recovery times. (my non-long runs probably averaged near 1.5 hr)
>
>
> Not confused - thanks for the ideas. On the plus side, I may be sore
> afterwards, but I'm not in pain.
>
I would probably adapt to where you are in terms of frequency and
*maybe* walk or strength train (things like lunges and core) on the
non-running days, although this may interfere with your recovery.
The mental model I use for recovery is like slow-setting glue. If you
keep coming back and testing it, say in 24 hr when it takes 48 to set,
you likely interfere with the recovery / setting process. So there
really is a difference between running 1.5 hr every other day vs 45 min
every day - in multiple ways (some good, some not). Over time, the glue
becomes higher quality and sets faster. :)
Good luck and let us know how it progresses.
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:08:12
From: Dot
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Dot wrote:
> I noticed in one of your other posts you mention about piriformis, which
> happened to be one of my issues along with weak hams. The only thing my
> PT didn't have something to say about was my quads, I think. He gave me
> a bunch of drills on a stability ball (which I really need to get back
> to). Core drills can also help.
Here's the stability ball drills for hams and glutes:
http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/hamstring-exercises.html
(ironically this was just posted on another group)
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 16:17:41
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
h squared wrote:
> shinypenny wrote:
>
> > As I've mentioned before, cardiovascular recovery doesn't seem to be an
> > issue for me, but overstraining my ligaments & joints can be an issue.
> > I don't want to overtrain myself because that'll lead to injury as it
> > has in the past. So the question is, less mileage but more frequent? Or
> > more mileage but less frequent? Or maybe less frequent and less
> > mileage... but then were does that get me.
>
> just curious, what were you doing when you ended up injured in the past?
> was it something unrelated to mileage and frequency, like too many
> hills, or was it more relevant, like you started running 6 days a week
> and whammo- unhappy injured penny?
Good question, and unfortunately, I no longer have my logs. But, first
and foremost, I think that over-eagerness and ego got in the way, i.e.,
ramping up to previous levels and doing too much too soon. I also
think that hills played a major role, which is why I'm steering clear
of them for now.
> i know, sometimes it's hard to
> pinpoint what caused a problem- "well, i upped my weekly mileage from 10
> to 30 by adding a 10 mile long run, a day of hill running and a few
> track/interval workouts..." and the thought of me giving advice to
> people on how to stay injury free is laughable, trust me :( but i
> thought i'd inquire and maybe someone else will have something helpful
> to add? (if you have already given your running history, i'm sorry to
> ask something you've already divulged, i'm not entirely in the newsgroup
> loop yet).
I am 41. I started running around 14 years ago. Ran consistently for
about 6 years, 5 x's per week. I also did strength training 4x's per
week. Don't ask me how many miles I ran each week: I'd usually run for
time, 30-45 min each day, with a long run on the weekends. I've never
been terribly fast. I much preferred longer runs. My longest run
competitively was a 10-miler, longest in training was 13 miles. I don't
have a record of my 10-mile time, but I ran it at about a 10 min pace.
Best 5K was 25:17.
Then everything got derailed about 5 years ago when I injured myself.
That wasn't actually a running-related injury: I threw out my back
again, which has given me trouble on and off since the 1980s. But it
kept me sidelined for several months, and I had a bunch of personal
stuff (divorce) going on, which gave me an excuse to wallow and take up
smoking again. Yaddah yaddah....
Ever since, each time I try to get back into running, I get injured,
usually involving hip/butt/lower back. For example (most recent
example), at about 8-10 weeks in, I started having problems with
piriformis - trouble sitting, a literal pain in the butt and hip.This
deteriorated over time to a stress fracture in the pelvis, and of
course, lower back pain. This particular bout took me 9 months to get
over. I had to convert to telecommuting because my doc said sitting in
the car commuting was too much stress. Even after 9 months, when I
could once again sit for long periods, the simple act of walking down a
steep hill was very painful. (as I said, there are lots of hills around
my neighborhood).
I keep asking myself what did I do differently 14 years ago, to get
into running without any injury? And the answer is that I eased into it
very slowly, running and walking, which is what I've done this time.
Also I never ran on hills in the early years. I mostly ran on an indoor
rubber track. So this time I'm staying off the hills as much as
possible, which requires me to drive unless I want to run a boring back
and forth route I figured out...
I have this hunch that if I can just get past the initial 8-12 week
period without an injury, maybe just maybe I'll be okay...
jen
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:24:23
From: h squared
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
shinypenny wrote:
> Good question, and unfortunately, I no longer have my logs. But, first
> and foremost, I think that over-eagerness and ego got in the way, i.e.,
> ramping up to previous levels and doing too much too soon. I also
> think that hills played a major role, which is why I'm steering clear
> of them for now.
well it sounds like you are taking things cautiously now, so hopefully
that issue (over-eagerness) is conquered :) it's completely
understandable though- i smiled when you said you don't have any issues
with cardiovascular fitness, it's your joints, etc that give out first,
because i had just been meditating on that being my issue all last week,
wondering what kind of activity running is that it can leave one
completely trashed in body but still fresh and eager to do more in
spirit/energy.
i used to be able to run without any injury issues, but now i have to be
careful too. at first i didn't realize it, but after being sidelined a
few times, i learned to watch out for weird twinges, etc. (for me the
big killer is that every time i try to run faster than my normal pace
something goes askew. so just being aware is a helpful preventative (i
know this is probably obvious, but it took me a couple years to
learn...)). just things like paying attention to how i feel during and
after a run and not beating myself up for taking it easy until whatever
new pain i've developed has resolved have helped a lot, and it sounds
like you are already doing that (i should have learned it sooner, but i
don't like anyone telling me what to do, not even my own knee joint or
hamstring..)
i don't have any experience with piriformis or stress fractures, so i
don't have anything helpful to add for that, but it looks like dot had
something more useful to say, whew!
> I have this hunch that if I can just get past the initial 8-12 week
> period without an injury, maybe just maybe I'll be okay...
afaict, you are making good progress towards that. good luck :)
heather
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:24:33
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <1166459722.743520.230760@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I am just completing the couch-to-5K program this week. I am now
> > running about 30 minutes/3x's per week, but for me 30 minutes is not
> > 3 miles - at an easy pace it is closer to 2 miles.
>
> Congratulations! To recap what you may already recall, I finished the C
> to 5K about a month ago; my 30 minute distance was a bit further than 2
> miles, but not much further.
>
> The next two weeks, I ran 33 minutes--about 2.4 miles. And then ran a
> 5K. Since then I've been running 5K's three days a week.
>
> So you should be capable of running 5K now.
Right, I don't doubt that. Perhaps my question is, what if my priority
for now is to run more than 3x's a week? Versus running 3 miles each
time I run?
> Based on last week, I still need to take two days off after running
> three days out of five. I had planned to run every other day, but
> that's not going to be for a while yet.
I ran 4x's this past week, but only +/-2 miles each time at 28 min/28
min/28 min/31 min. I don't think I could run 3 miles 4x's a week just
yet. Too hard on my joints. For example since yesterday's run my ankles
are still tight and my hip bone has been aching.
As I've mentioned before, cardiovascular recovery doesn't seem to be an
issue for me, but overstraining my ligaments & joints can be an issue.
I don't want to overtrain myself because that'll lead to injury as it
has in the past. So the question is, less mileage but more frequent? Or
more mileage but less frequent? Or maybe less frequent and less
mileage... but then were does that get me.
Or maybe I'm overthinking. :-)
jen
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:26:21
From: tfactor
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
shinypenny wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, cardiovascular recovery doesn't seem to be an
> issue for me, but overstraining my ligaments & joints can be an issue.
> I don't want to overtrain myself because that'll lead to injury as it
> has in the past. So the question is, less mileage but more frequent? Or
> more mileage but less frequent? Or maybe less frequent and less
> mileage... but then were does that get me.
It was more difficult for me to adjust to running more often than
running farther. When I started, like you I found my joints, ligaments,
and bones (I was coming back from a stress fracture) took a while to
recover. I had to really ease into running back-to-back days. I was
running comfortably every other day. Then I'd throw in consecutive days
running and take two days off, then back to every other day. Eventually
over the course of a few weeks I was able to run two days, then three or
four days, in a row, without taking extra days off. All this without
increasing the distance of my runs (but ending up with more mileage/week
because of the occasional extra day of running).
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 23:26:46
From: Dot
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
shinypenny wrote:
>
> As I've mentioned before, cardiovascular recovery doesn't seem to be an
> issue for me, but overstraining my ligaments & joints can be an issue.
> I don't want to overtrain myself because that'll lead to injury as it
> has in the past. So the question is, less mileage but more frequent? Or
> more mileage but less frequent? Or maybe less frequent and less
> mileage... but then were does that get me.
A lot depends on your recovery rates which may depend on genetics, age,
past training or activity level, etc. We had an extended discussion on
this (with longer times) a week or so ago. I'm one of those that finds I
can do whatever on the days I run, as long as I'm running every other
day. When I run on consecutive days, my recovery process gets
interrupted, but I can do it if I back down on other stuff. Other people
are the opposite, they do better with many shorter runs, say running 30
min/day for 5 days, rather than 3 50 min runs.
For some people, it's rest-of-life issues that may suggest which is
better or what they're training for or ...
> I ran 4x's this past week, but only ±2 miles each time at 28 min/28
> min/28 min/31 min. I don't think I could run 3 miles 4x's a week just
> yet. Too hard on my joints. For example since yesterday's run my ankles
> are still tight and my hip bone has been aching.
Have you looked at your form and gait for any issues? Have you tried any
running-specific cross-training for strengthening your muscles, joints,
etc.? Are you running on asphalt or trail? With those symptoms, I'd be
more likely to run every other day (or at least not consecutive days),
but that's me and how I started. YMMV. Do you get sore during a run? or
just the recovery after? This can suggest as to whether to do longer,
less frequently or shorter, more frequently.
Are you using walk breaks within the run at all to lessen the impact?
That's how I typically build time - if I can't make it comfortably, walk
during, and that will frequently increase the time running. Say, if
you're getting tired at 25 min and sore the next day, insert a 30-60 sec
walk break (experiment) about half way through. You may find that you
can run 30+ min plus the short break - and not be as sore the next day.
Over time you adapt, and next thing you know the walk break's gone.
Just some thoughts that hopefully won't confuse you.
Dot
--
"If we reach all our goals, we are not setting them high enough."
- Matt Carpenter
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 16:09:42
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166480673.516064.91800@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Or maybe I'm overthinking. :-)
I've been accused of that myself. A good friend told me just last night
that it would ruin the fun of running for me. I told her that it's part
of the fun of running for me. She doesn't understand that, but she says
she can accept that it's true for me.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:49:14
From: h squared
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
shinypenny wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, cardiovascular recovery doesn't seem to be an
> issue for me, but overstraining my ligaments & joints can be an issue.
> I don't want to overtrain myself because that'll lead to injury as it
> has in the past. So the question is, less mileage but more frequent? Or
> more mileage but less frequent? Or maybe less frequent and less
> mileage... but then were does that get me.
just curious, what were you doing when you ended up injured in the past?
was it something unrelated to mileage and frequency, like too many
hills, or was it more relevant, like you started running 6 days a week
and whammo- unhappy injured penny? i know, sometimes it's hard to
pinpoint what caused a problem- "well, i upped my weekly mileage from 10
to 30 by adding a 10 mile long run, a day of hill running and a few
track/interval workouts..." and the thought of me giving advice to
people on how to stay injury free is laughable, trust me :( but i
thought i'd inquire and maybe someone else will have something helpful
to add? (if you have already given your running history, i'm sorry to
ask something you've already divulged, i'm not entirely in the newsgroup
loop yet).
heather
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:34:55
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
h squared wrote:
> well it sounds like you are taking things cautiously now, so hopefully
> that issue (over-eagerness) is conquered :) it's completely
> understandable though- i smiled when you said you don't have any issues
> with cardiovascular fitness, it's your joints, etc that give out first,
> because i had just been meditating on that being my issue all last week,
> wondering what kind of activity running is that it can leave one
> completely trashed in body but still fresh and eager to do more in
> spirit/energy.
You understand! :-)
I can't say I've conquered my overeagerness. It's more like it's
temporarily under control. I'm finding that using the timing function
on the ipod gizmo helps keep me under control. I set it for a certain
time, run out, when it tells me I'm halfway, I run back. This is safer
for me at present than running without a watch, like I used to. It
usually takes 15 minutes for the minor kinks to work themselves out,
then I feel great, and find myself running "just one more song" ...
which leads to another... and another. Like today. I could've run an
additional song or two, but I forced myself to stop when the 30 minutes
were over.
> i used to be able to run without any injury issues, but now i have to be
> careful too. at first i didn't realize it, but after being sidelined a
> few times, i learned to watch out for weird twinges, etc. (for me the
> big killer is that every time i try to run faster than my normal pace
> something goes askew. so just being aware is a helpful preventative (i
> know this is probably obvious, but it took me a couple years to
> learn...)).
Sometimes it's hard to tell which is a weird warning twinge, and which
is just normal soreness that'll go away a little further down the road.
Then there's the nagging twinge that tells you to stop and stretch. I
had one of those twinges today - had to stop 10 minutes in and stretch
my psoas, which I forgot to do beforehand. After I did that, I had a
great run.
jen
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 08:10:22
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
BR wrote:
>> ... overthinking ...
>
> I've been accused of that myself.
You, BR? No - say it ain't so!!
;-p
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 12:52:06
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166544622.066723.28670@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com >,
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> >> ... overthinking ...
> >
> > I've been accused of that myself.
>
> You, BR? No - say it ain't so!!
But if I say that, I'd be lying.
*chuckle*
Back in the late 1960s, there was a product called "Great Shakes"; the
instructions said to shake the powder with milk for two minutes. I'd
shake it while looking at the wall clock, and time it to exactly two
minutes. That's just the type of person I am, at least partially
because I have a very poor sense of elapsed time. I also have poor
spacial senses. I can't estimate distances or size easily or
accurately. When someone tells me that something is about as long as
two football fields, I can understand intellectually what he means, but
I can't picture it.
Maybe that comes from being lied to when men say "It's six inches."
<http://www.othermag.org/content/hedwig.jpg >
(Nah, but it did give me an excuse to drag out that joke.)
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 06:30:58
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Dot wrote:
> Here's the stability ball drills for hams and glutes:
I'm not wondering if it's more likely the issue has been tight
hamstrings, versus weak hamstrings. But I am doing all the stretches my
PT recommended to address that. I definetly have a propensity for very
tight hamstrings.
jen
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 06:21:35
From: shinypenny
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
Dot wrote:
> I noticed in one of your other posts you mention about piriformis, which
> happened to be one of my issues along with weak hams.
The PT suggested that it may not have been the running that was the
problem, but what I was doing immediately *after* my runs. I.e.,
sitting for hours in an office chair and then sitting in a car. Sitting
is the worst thing you can do - the body is not designed to sit in
chairs for hours. Especially those of us who, like me, have petite
frames and short legs that barely touch the ground in most standard
chairs. The first time I got into running, I was a stay-at-home mom and
not confined to daily cube-dwelling/commuting torture. So the PT may
have a point.
Before I started running this time, I walked for several months up and
down all the hills in my neighborhood, hoping to strengthen my
hamstrings and quads. I think all the walking has helped. My house sits
in the valley of a steep hill. It goes from 0 to 250 feet elevation in
a matter of two blocks (kind of SanFrancisco-like around here). Lots of
people use this particular hill to train on. I've seen people walking
up it backwards, and I assume this targets the hamstrings? And also
people running intervals up and down it. Could probably test your MHR
on it!
Thanks for the link - I'll try the exercises when I can dig out my
stability ball, one of these days after xmas (my usual exercise area is
taken over by a wrapping station right now).
jen
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 15:12:28
From: mc
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:21:35 -0800, shinypenny wrote:
> The PT suggested that it may not have been the running that was the
> problem, but what I was doing immediately *after* my runs. I.e., sitting
> for hours in an office chair and then sitting in a car. Sitting is the
> worst thing you can do - the body is not designed to sit in chairs for
> hours. Especially those of us who, like me, have petite frames and short
> legs that barely touch the ground in most standard chairs. The first time
> I got into running, I was a stay-at-home mom and not confined to daily
> cube-dwelling/commuting torture. So the PT may have a point.
I keep a second stability ball in my cube at work and use that to sit on
during the day rather than my office chair. That might help keep you from
getting too sore from non-movement on run days.
--
mc
I haven't lost my mind,
Its backed up on disk somewhere!
4Y
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:17:51
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
R. Grumb. wrote:
> you can run a race up to about 50% longer than your longest run
> [...]
> This rule does apply down at shorter distances, if anything, better
> than at long distances. (ex, for marathon the usual recommendation
> is to get 3 20 milers in, which means only a 30% increase; 50% would
> let people top out at 17.5 miles.)
Oh, I dunno. If I'd never made it further than 135 meters, I'd be a
little leery about racing the 200m.
And at the marathon distance, I understand the European "20 miler" has
long been 30 km, so they're looking at 40%. And the Hansons' "marathon
training for mortals" program
(http://www.runningtimes.com/rt/articles/print.asp?id=4447) - which I
understand, my own sub-stellar performance aside (though I adapted the
plan's principles rather than follow it slavishly), has worked really
well for a lot of runners - tops out at 16 miles.
I certainly agree that "the most common mainstream American
recommendation" is to top out around 20 miles if you want to run a
marathon well; but then, the same sources offering advice in the same
spirit will generally recommend long runs of 100% or more of the race
distance to perform comparably well in shorter races.
All that said, your 50% figure rings true in context: a relative
beginner looking to finish a race without primary emphasis on time
goals ought to be able to run something like 30 or 40 or 50 percent
longer in a race than the typical training run. And of course it'll be
a harder effort. Races are always a harder effort. If your training
is about the same effort as your racing, you're training too hard
and/or not racing hard enough.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:43:26
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: New Years Eve 3 miler
|
In article <1166645871.290850.190890@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com >,
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> If your training is about the same effort as your racing, you're
> training too hard and/or not racing hard enough.
I treated that first 5K as a training run; I was not trying to do better
than my training pace. My primary goal was to finish. New Year's Eve
will be different; I won't go all out, but I will attempt to do better
than my training pace.
--
"I'll do the best I can do because that's the best I can do!"
|
|
