| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2006 05:51:07
From: stryped
Subject: Training update and question
|
x-no-archive:yes
Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
the outside? It seems like there would be.
Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:42:40
From: stryped
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
x-no-archive:yes
It wont work for me. I live in the country and just tried it and could
not get it to work.
Doug Freese wrote:
> "runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156439246.430927.57310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Sometimes (actually most times) if i am running on a road I will just
> > drive the distance later that night. I know my car isn't perfect, but
> > its cheaper and less time consuming that buying a wheel. Its definitly
> > cheaper than a GPS system (and you can't trust mapqwest for distance
> > either ~ hard lesson learned!)
>
>
> Try http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/ it's as accurate as a car, maybe
> better and saves gas. It's also easy to use for planning a run. I ran
> a route the other day just out of spontaneity and thought it was about 7
> miles. I don't use a watch and instinct suggested it was a bit longer.
> It's was 8.5 - I should have measured first. ;)
>
> -Doug
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:22:14
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> It wont work for me. I live in the country and just tried it and could
> not get it to work.
It looks like you're running on roads. You might try a calibrated bike
computer. I've had really poor luck with the online sources and just use
electronic maps (National Geographic usually) on my PC - or a gps or
footpod. Or you could scout some routes and landmarks with a car,
measuring partial distances as you go, and piece those together in your
runs.
I usually just run by approximate time and guess distances later. I just
run aerobically (at various "talk" test intensities) so true distance
and pace aren't issues for me. Some of my main routes I've run enough
times with gps and/or footpod that I've got a handle on the approximate
distances. Although I do prefer being able to get the data while I'm
running (footpod is my preferred means) so I don't have to fiddle around
when I'm logging my run.
> Doug Freese wrote:
>
>>"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1156439246.430927.57310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Sometimes (actually most times) if i am running on a road I will just
>>>drive the distance later that night. I know my car isn't perfect, but
>>>its cheaper and less time consuming that buying a wheel. Its definitly
>>>cheaper than a GPS system (and you can't trust mapqwest for distance
>>>either ~ hard lesson learned!)
>>
>>
>>Try http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/ it's as accurate as a car, maybe
>>better and saves gas. It's also easy to use for planning a run. I ran
>>a route the other day just out of spontaneity and thought it was about 7
>>miles. I don't use a watch and instinct suggested it was a bit longer.
>>It's was 8.5 - I should have measured first. ;)
>>
>>-Doug
>
>
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:07:26
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
> then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
> stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
> difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
> the outside? It seems like there would be.
>
> Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
> road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
Sometimes (actually most times) if i am running on a road I will just
drive the distance later that night. I know my car isn't perfect, but
its cheaper and less time consuming that buying a wheel. Its definitly
cheaper than a GPS system (and you can't trust mapqwest for distance
either ~ hard lesson learned!)
John
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:32:48
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156439246.430927.57310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> stryped wrote:
> > x-no-archive:yes
> >
> > Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
> > then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
> > stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
> > difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
> > the outside? It seems like there would be.
> >
> > Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
> > road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
>
> Sometimes (actually most times) if i am running on a road I will just
> drive the distance later that night. I know my car isn't perfect, but
> its cheaper and less time consuming that buying a wheel. Its definitly
> cheaper than a GPS system (and you can't trust mapqwest for distance
> either ~ hard lesson learned!)
>
> John
A calibrated bike pedometer is more accurate than a car, plus you can go on
most trails that are closed to cars.
-Tony
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:27:30
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156439246.430927.57310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes (actually most times) if i am running on a road I will just
> drive the distance later that night. I know my car isn't perfect, but
> its cheaper and less time consuming that buying a wheel. Its definitly
> cheaper than a GPS system (and you can't trust mapqwest for distance
> either ~ hard lesson learned!)
Try http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/ it's as accurate as a car, maybe
better and saves gas. It's also easy to use for planning a run. I ran
a route the other day just out of spontaneity and thought it was about 7
miles. I don't use a watch and instinct suggested it was a bit longer.
It's was 8.5 - I should have measured first. ;)
-Doug
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:03:25
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> This track doe snot have lanes.
>
a track w/o lanes? who the heck built that?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:21:26
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156439005.048189.33610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> stryped wrote:
>> x-no-archive:yes
>>
>> This track doe snot have lanes.
>>
>
> a track w/o lanes? who the heck built that?
Noah?
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 08:31:29
From: stryped
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
x-no-archive:yes
This track doe snot have lanes.
So 4 times around the inside is still a mile?
steve common wrote:
> "stryped" <stryped@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is there a great
> >difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
> >the outside? It seems like there would be.
>
> For each lane further out from the inside lane, add
>
> pi x 2 x lane width
>
> whatever the size of the track (as long as the curves are circular or near
> enough) for practical purposes you can take pi = 3.14, so if your lanes
> are 1 yard wide, each extra lane outwards costs you 3.14 x 2 x 1 = 6.28
> yards.
>
> So lane 6 of a six lane track is
>
> 5 x 3.14 x 2 x lane width => 31.2 x lane width
>
> longer than the inside of the inside lane. I think "standard" lanes are
> 1.25 meters - a little over 4 feet.
>
> >Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
> >road?
>
> A good one, really quite accurate if you take care to do it properly, is
> to use the "measure" tool of GoogleEarth (depending on where you live, the
> coverage may not be good enough). Other similar mapping tools exist. I use
> this one (requires you to have or to make scans of maps)
> http://phgiraud.free.fr/eMapZone/index.html
>
> You can also measure distances pretty accurately with a bike computer if
> you calibrate the thing correctly.
>
> > Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
>
> Not unless you can walk with an exact same stride length for the whole
> distance. They work by counting steps and multiplying by a fixed stride
> length. Stride length changes rather a lot depending on speed, grade,
> surface, etc...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:36:53
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"stryped" <stryped@hotmail.com > wrote:
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>This track doe snot have lanes.
As long as the track is pretty much a standard shape, the outside is
3.14 x 2 x track width
longer than the inside. If the track is 10 yards wide, that's nearly 63
yards further round if you run on the outside.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:13:43
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"stryped" <stryped@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Is there a great
>difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
>the outside? It seems like there would be.
For each lane further out from the inside lane, add
pi x 2 x lane width
whatever the size of the track (as long as the curves are circular or near
enough) for practical purposes you can take pi = 3.14, so if your lanes
are 1 yard wide, each extra lane outwards costs you 3.14 x 2 x 1 = 6.28
yards.
So lane 6 of a six lane track is
5 x 3.14 x 2 x lane width = > 31.2 x lane width
longer than the inside of the inside lane. I think "standard" lanes are
1.25 meters - a little over 4 feet.
>Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
>road?
A good one, really quite accurate if you take care to do it properly, is
to use the "measure" tool of GoogleEarth (depending on where you live, the
coverage may not be good enough). Other similar mapping tools exist. I use
this one (requires you to have or to make scans of maps)
http://phgiraud.free.fr/eMapZone/index.html
You can also measure distances pretty accurately with a bike computer if
you calibrate the thing correctly.
> Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
Not unless you can walk with an exact same stride length for the whole
distance. They work by counting steps and multiplying by a fixed stride
length. Stride length changes rather a lot depending on speed, grade,
surface, etc...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:20:26
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"steve common" <stevenZ.common@free.fr > wrote in message
news:vkfre253knpfiaet8t1onfg1rk0flhn0j4@4ax.com...
> "stryped" <stryped@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Is there a great
>>difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
>>the outside? It seems like there would be.
>
> For each lane further out from the inside lane, add
>
> pi x 2 x lane width
Apple or boysenberry?
-DF
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:32:44
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
steve common <stevenZ.common@free.fr > wrote:
> 5 x 3.14 x 2 x lane width => 31.2 x lane width
31.4, dimwit
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:04:53
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"stryped" <stryped@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156423866.972197.192150@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
> then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
> stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
> difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
> the outside? It seems like there would be.
>
> Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
> road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
If it helps your motivation then keep asking these questions. The best
advice I ever got (from a book I think) was to keep track of milage OR time,
but not both for most of your running. Since then I keep track of time only
for the most part, and it's worked out very well. No course measuring
needed, can wander when I run, and when I need to get an idea of my pace I
can go to a place where there's a measured mile or something. While lots of
people who post in here track miles and pace, it can be a bad idea because
until you learn not to, you tend to race every run.
As others have said regarding your mile time in relation to a 5k race. Only
more miles per week over a long period of time will bring your 5k pace
closer to your mile pace. Until then, just run more, and run a bit faster
one day per week if you want, but forget timing yourself for right now.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 06:36:01
From:
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
> then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
> stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
> difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
> the outside? It seems like there would be.
>From memory, it's 8 meters per lane per lap (for a 400 meter track).
So for an 8 lane track - well, you can do the maths!
> Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
> road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
I don't know about the pedometers. There are GPS devices (and others)
that are supposed to be accurate, but they have some failings (they
need line of sight to the satellite I believe, and don't work well if
you're running laps of a small circuit). If you really need accuracy
you need a measuring wheel. Or you could use an odometer fitted to a
bike, or you could do what I do and use a scale map and a measuring
device.
Edward
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:36:48
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> It wont work for me. I live in the country and just tried it and could
> not get it to work.
If you are breathing, you can count the number of breaths in a known
distance. The breath and step count are closely correlated to speed and
distance. If you practice and get good at it you can judge speed and
distance with no extra equipment. I used to be able to come within five
seconds of the clock time splits in a race.
I don't think this can work for you because you probably want to spend
money on something cool. How about a portable hourglass?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:11:32
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"Al Bundy" <MSfortune@mcpmail.com > wrote:
>I used to be able to come within five
>seconds
I'm having this framed
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 08:37:53
From:
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
stryped <stryped@hotmail.com > writes:
: x-no-archive:yes
: Jogged around the track for a half mile with my daughter last night
: then decided to run around the track for a mile again. I ran in 5:58. I
: stayed in the inside area. This got me wondering, Is there a great
: difference in length when one runs on the inside area of the track vs
: the outside? It seems like there would be.
This is simple math, but your question is not quite clear. Were your
running on the track itself, or on the grass inside the track? Assuming
you were on the track itself... Most tracks are divided into eight lanes,
each 1 meter wide. The track is measured for the inside lane (lane 1).
At that point, it will be 400 m. For each lane out, you add 6.283 m
so lane 2 is 406.283, lane 3 is 412.566, etc.
: Also, how would one determine the mileage they ran say on an unmarked
: road? Are those pedometers people walk with acurate?
Pedometers are notoriously inaccurate, and they have to be set (by you)
to your stride length. Change your stride, and you throw the ped off.
I can think of three relatively accurate methods of measuring your
run length.
1. Use a running GPS. There are a number of models on the market.
I am too cheap to use this method (yet).
2. Use your bike computer and ride the course to determine it's
length. Of course, this also assumes you have calibrated your bike
computer correctly.
3. Use a measuring topographical map program (like TOPO!) and
plot your course on the map. This assumes you can accurately plot
where you ran. This can be a problem, for instance, if you ran a
bunch of switchbacks.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:31:37
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
Tony S. wrote:
> A calibrated bike pedometer is more accurate than a car, plus you can go on
> most trails that are closed to cars.
>
> -Tony
after a really hard run do you really want to go back and ride the run?
But I do agree with you. I try to find trails that have been maped out
by other runners, but those are few and far between, especially here in
Idaho. Its just easier when you do a road run to drive it. And anyway
since we have 9 months of snow a year the trails are usually covered
and unrunnable (is that a word?) so I just drive it anyway.
John
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:08:15
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
runsrealfast wrote:
And anyway
> since we have 9 months of snow a year the trails are usually covered
> and unrunnable (is that a word?) so I just drive it anyway.
2 words: snowshoe running :)
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 20:46:49
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156451497.654491.53940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tony S. wrote:
>
> > A calibrated bike pedometer is more accurate than a car, plus you can go
on
> > most trails that are closed to cars.
> >
> > -Tony
>
> after a really hard run do you really want to go back and ride the run?
> But I do agree with you. I try to find trails that have been maped out
> by other runners, but those are few and far between, especially here in
> Idaho. Its just easier when you do a road run to drive it. And anyway
> since we have 9 months of snow a year the trails are usually covered
> and unrunnable (is that a word?) so I just drive it anyway.
>
> John
No, I wouldn't bother since I run on time anyway. But I'd argue that biking
as far as you run would add a bit of easy cross-training, whereas driving
the course just to measure it would be more of a waste of time and gas (at
least to me).
I have a polar s625x with footpod, which is fairly accurate for moderate
paced runs, but I don't bother to wear the footpod part very often because I
tend to run hilly courses, some with uneven footing, so time and effort are
far more important measures than miles for me. If I was into precise mileage
and I ran roads mostly, I would get a forerunner 205 probably.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:07:02
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
Dot wrote:
> runsrealfast wrote:
>
> And anyway
> > since we have 9 months of snow a year the trails are usually covered
> > and unrunnable (is that a word?) so I just drive it anyway.
>
> 2 words: snowshoe running :)
I've tried that and while its fun it just isn't the same. I don't know
why but I just can't get into it.
John
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 19:05:40
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
runsrealfast wrote:
> Dot wrote:
>
>>runsrealfast wrote:
>>
>>And anyway
>>
>>>since we have 9 months of snow a year the trails are usually covered
>>>and unrunnable (is that a word?) so I just drive it anyway.
>>
>>2 words: snowshoe running :)
>
>
> I've tried that and while its fun it just isn't the same. I don't know
> why but I just can't get into it.
>
It's not quite the same as regular running, but a lot depends on snow
conditions and equipment. I've really enjoyed it and gives me a
reasonably safe, low cost way to continue running all winter. But, even
more so than trails, you really need to forget about the idea of pace.
Time and intensity.
This was put together for total beginners to ss running (and will be
updated before winter, I hope - snow line's coming down in mtns) and not
sure if it is of any use to you.
http://home.att.net/~akrunning/SSRunFAQ/index.html#top
BTW, Bob Dion has some new cleats that are more durable than the
aluminum, but I haven't gotten them yet.
Dot
hoping I don't need my snorkel either driving or running this weekend
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:44:18
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
Dot wrote:
> It's not quite the same as regular running, but a lot depends on snow
> conditions and equipment. I've really enjoyed it and gives me a
> reasonably safe, low cost way to continue running all winter. But, even
> more so than trails, you really need to forget about the idea of pace.
> Time and intensity.
>
> This was put together for total beginners to ss running (and will be
> updated before winter, I hope - snow line's coming down in mtns) and not
> sure if it is of any use to you.
> http://home.att.net/~akrunning/SSRunFAQ/index.html#top
> BTW, Bob Dion has some new cleats that are more durable than the
> aluminum, but I haven't gotten them yet.
>
The snow should be falling here in the next month to 6 weeks. we'll see
if it sticks or not. Generally speaking there would be plenty of places
to snowshoe around here. But have you ever tried doing it in farm
fields? The ground will freeze so there would be a good foundation.
just wondering if you had gone that route.
John
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:41:19
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training update and question
|
runsrealfast wrote:
>
> The snow should be falling here in the next month to 6 weeks. we'll see
> if it sticks or not. Generally speaking there would be plenty of places
> to snowshoe around here. But have you ever tried doing it in farm
> fields? The ground will freeze so there would be a good foundation.
> just wondering if you had gone that route.
Yes. A lot depends on the snow conditions and how short they cut the
stubble on the last harvest. Unmown hay fields can be a real challenge
in light snow, since the stems support the snow - until you land on it.
OTOH, if you're training for a ss race with minimal snow, the grass ups
the challenge level and even makes it possible to ss without snow.
But on a harvested field (say 3 in stubble), it can be really nice and
not much more difficult than a trail, esp. if there's a decent amount of
snow, say 6 in or more. If snow is shallow elsewhere, running on the
fields with the added cushion can be nice.
I tend to use the fields more when the farm roads and trails are icy,
since the fields usually haven't been compacted through use. The earlier
snows fill in the gaps between the stems and makes it a fairly smooth
surface, relative to a summer hayfield (abandoned). The stubble provides
reasonable traction, but I may still use something like stabilicer
sports to be on safe side - or snowshoes if there's enough snow. That's
when I'll do my drills that most people do on tracks. It's too icy to
run elsewhere and it gives me something to amuse myself while running
back and forth in a 400-600m field. I'll try to stay in the tire tracks
of one of the farm vehicles to make it a little easier and reduce my impact.
I haven't tried it on vegetable fields since they're on the other side
of the road and don't have the grass for traction. They also may be
hilled (potatoes) or other idiosyncrasies.
I used to work at a research farm before I retired. Our dirt roads
connected with a local state park as well as a borough system of trails.
So I just used to head out the door after work and did whatever the
conditions of the day permitted - fields if it was too icy, farm roads
for short runs, single track in state park, or wider ski trails in the
borough system. Dang, that was convenient, since those fields are about
the only safe running place when icy or during breakup. I may check out
some picnic-area-type fields that are closer to me this winter. But
hopefully we'll get more snow.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
|
|
