|
The Runners thread
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 12-05-2013 11:38
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't even want to know what my joints and tendons would be like if sprinters actually have more injuries. 
|
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 12-05-2013 11:58
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3141
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
aas169 wrote:
yeah I'm quite happy with my 800 and 1500 atm, but since I'm terrible slow at a 100m (not under 14s yet  ) I think the 5000 will ultimately be my best distance
Best to concentrate on the longer distance, then. It's also better for injuries, sprinters have way more injuries
You are wrong! Injury frequency is the same for any distance! The reason why sprinters tend to be injured more easily than distance runners is, that there is a lot more work involved, since we have a completely different running style, higher kneelift and the lot. And all of that has to be trained and strengthened, both on the track and the weight room, with heavy weights. Oh and dont neglect the core work.
Long distance running is a completely different sport, as you dont force your feet into the ground as much, and the last time I checked it was counter productive carrying a lot of weight (even if its body mass) with you in a distance race...
As for you aas169:
I agree with Aquarius. You should focus on the middle distances (the 8's and 15's). A friend of mine is 16 as well and the runs 2.08 or 2.06 over 800 and he will break the irish under 18- record for the 400m either this summer or next year! Mind you he made a huge step on closing in on the record when he was 15! And I got to tell you, all middle distance runners are shit over the 100m. Your man as well. Its just not your nature. Mid-Distance guys are good for the 400 hundred, cause they can keep their speed longer (SPEED ENDURANCE).
ust be told (you to fcancellara!) a 100m time is no indicator for any other distance. I know what I am talking about, since the 100m are my weakest event, whereas my 200 are a lot stronger!
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 12-05-2013 20:58
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just had my first ever go at 1 mile! I'm a bit out of shape and this was my first go at the distance, but still clocked in at 6:05:16.
If I plan my race a bit better and get a little bit more training under my belt getting below 5:30 shouldn't be that much of a problem. Hopefully I can just stay injury free.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| fcancellara |
Posted on 25-05-2013 16:51
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5194
Joined: 18-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
I just totally crushed my old personal best on the 800 metres today:
2:25.59 -> 2:19.34 
Edited by fcancellara on 25-05-2013 17:05
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 25-05-2013 22:53
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
fcancellara wrote:
I just totally crushed my old personal best on the 800 metres today:
2:25.59 -> 2:19.34
Well done!
Do you know your split times (time at 400m)/do you think you were quicker in the last 400m?
|
| |
|
|
| fcancellara |
Posted on 25-05-2013 23:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5194
Joined: 18-08-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Oh, my split times, I believe it was like this:
200m: 0.32
400m: 1.07 (0.35)
600m: 1.42 (0.35)
800m: 2.19 (0.37)
The race was pretty constant thanks to a teammate who kept the lead in a constant pace, but the last 100m or so I was exhausted and I lost two or three seconds there.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 25-05-2013 23:25
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
fcancellara wrote:
but the last 100m or so I was exhausted and I lost two or three seconds there.
You better are if you beat your PB by 6 seconds
Congratulations.
|
| |
|
|
| golance123 |
Posted on 03-06-2013 19:55
|
Free Agent
Posts: 132
Joined: 17-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I found an article that could be of interest for all you running guys out there.
https://www.markal...aspx?AID=4
Not sure if you have heard of Mark Allen (who wrote the article), but he won the Ironman World Championship 6 times. I am entering my 9th season of cross country in the fall (junior in college). I have always been an average runner, and I never took summer base training seriously until a few years ago. I always just ran, but last year I got a heart rate monitor. Turns out, I have been training improperly for years, as I have done mostly anaerobic training. I used Allen's formula to come up with my aerobic heart rate, which is 171. I started training the other day with this new program. It is painfully slow to keep under 171 beats right now, around 9 minute pace, and even slower when it was 90 degrees the other day. However, I am trusting that over the next 12 weeks that I can improve my pace greatly at my aerobic rate. I am hoping to see a breakthrough in my running so I can smash my 8K PR of 30.10 and 5K PR of 18.12! |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 10:40
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 03-06-2013 22:52
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have a huge respect for Mark Allen, but I don't think you should take his advices or his plans for yourself. He's specialised in Iron Man events, which last 8 to 9 hours for the best guys (WR is 7h40 something I believe).
Such long efforts are of course done using aerobic systems, which is why they're so important for him.
You, on the other hand, are specialised on threshold efforts (using aerobic, but with a significant part of anaerobic systems at work). Your needs are not his.
Of course you also need anaerobic, and that should take most of your workout time.
Now, using a HR monitor is a smart thing to do, but the danger is to misinterpret the numbers it displays. Many factors can affect your heart beat, and you should always relate it to your speed (in min/km or min/mile, or km/h or mph, anything), to check if it makes sense.
Also, HB takes time to adapt to the effort. If you do series of 200 m to work your speed endurance or work on lactate, it'll be too short for your HB to be relevant.
To make a long story short, you should pass a MAS (max aerobic speed) test, and use your heart rate monitor there. It'll give you the most relevant figures you need to work properly. Also, your threshold, or frequency not to pass, is something you should feel rather than doing some weird calculation. If I calculated it according to his method, it'd be around 162 (180 - 30 + 5 + 7), which is actually in the middle of my critical high endurance zone (the number he's looking for is 170 these days in my case).
Last, he seems to excessively simplify the metabolism at work. You burn sugar (carbohydrates) even at rest, because of your brain (among others). And the part of sugar keeps increasing whereas the part of fat increases till about the number he indicated, and decreases fast past that number. But it's not all black & white, not 100 % fat till one point, then 100 % carbs. |
| |
|
|
| miggi133 |
Posted on 04-06-2013 22:10
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3141
Joined: 19-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
The Kid is back!!! Did my first session in over a month and a half today and i dont feel that tired.... My fitness seems to be close to my pre injury level, which is good... With a bit of speed endurance I can tackle my first races soon (hopefully)!
|
| |
|
|
| golance123 |
Posted on 09-06-2013 21:36
|
Free Agent
Posts: 132
Joined: 17-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
@Aquarius
I agree that he oversimplifies the burning of carbs and fats in training. However, during the first ten days of training I have already dropped my pace at my aerobic max from 9:40 per mile to 8:20 (running about 8K each run right now). It was painfully slow at first, but I am already seeing the benefits from this training. More importantly, I am enjoying running again and will hopefully avoid the nagging injuries that I have experienced in the last two years! |
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 11-06-2013 23:53
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hey I have a question about running in relation to cycling...
Enjoyed doing some solo endurance running over the past year or so. Usually a circuit of around 3-4km with some steep climbing portions, although occasionally throwing in 30 mins - 1 hour sessions.
Anyway I find the uphill aspect especially enjoyable, maybe since I'm ~56kg at ~183cm, which leads me to believe that (if I can find some decent climbs) cycling might be a more enjoyable alternative.
However, I'm not terribly keen on investing on a new road bike at this moment in time. My major question is this: what sort of running distances (over a somewhat hilly course) would equate to medium-mountain climbing efforts?
Then, I could gauge an idea of whether the level of endurance involved remains enjoyable, and so whether a bike would be a good investment, if you guys dig what I mean! |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 12-06-2013 11:17
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Distance is not really relevant, although the ratio would be 5:1 (cycling : running).
You'd better think in terms of effort length. Running makes you work 2 to 2.5 times more than road cycling. |
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 12-06-2013 11:30
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cheers, that will be a helpful figure.
Also, not shopped around yet, but anyone know what sort of cash would I be shelling out on a road bike? Just something fairly usable, not too fancy. And any recommended brands? |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 12-06-2013 20:45
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Most brands used by pros can be considered serious, and also do cheaper products.
It depends how much you're planning to ride, what your level actually is, and who you might be riding with. I'd still say that below 1000 € (£ 900), you probably won't get anything that'd I rank as decent. |
| |
|
|
| jph27 |
Posted on 12-06-2013 20:48
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7339
Joined: 20-03-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
I don't know, I got a brand new Trek 1.2 for £600. It's not carbon fibre, but its a pretty good starter bike. |
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 12-06-2013 21:30
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Okay, thanks for the input! |
| |
|
|
| felix_29 |
Posted on 12-06-2013 21:41
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3054
Joined: 08-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Wiggle has some good offers, for example this one:
https://www.wiggle...-105-2013/
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 12-06-2013 21:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
If you're not racing in competition, you don't need fancy stuff. Actually, the worse the bike, the better the training (uphill)  |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 12-06-2013 21:56
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Nah, what makes you progress is to sustain a certain level of power for a certain time.
To climb at the same speed with a heavy or bad bike compared to a fancy one, you'll need more power. But if you can only produce a certain power, a bad bike will only result in you climbing slower but not progressing more (nor less).
|
| |
|
