Soldato
Phnom_Penh said:
Care to explain how you reached that conclusion?
branddaly said:
It is a good idea - it is - isn't it?
Have you taught yourself to run distance?
- Thread starter matt100
- Start date
Care to explain how you reached that conclusion?
It is a good idea - it is - isn't it?
Depending where you run (road, flat, across fields, tracks etc) will depend on what type of trainer you need. I do mostly road running so went for a lot of padding and ended up useing Nike Air Peguses (£60) Lots of good trainers arround though but imho you HAVE to go into a proper sports shop and try them out to see which is good and exactly what size. (FirstSport shops etc are useless, they don't sell a single pair of running shoes!)
I believe your only ment to use a pair of running shoes for upto arround 600-1000 miles before getting a new pair.
I believe your only ment to use a pair of running shoes for upto arround 600-1000 miles before getting a new pair.
Soldato
Ukadder said:
Indeed - I have 6 pairs on the go at the moment. 3 pairs of road shoes that get rotated, 1 pair waiting to come out of the box and two pairs of trail shoes for off road.
I stop using a shoe for running around the 600 mile mark - which means that, at the moment, my shoes only last about 2 months
Soldato
The Lore of Running by Tim Noakes.firstborn said:
Simple thing is, the body was never meant to run on two legs.
Running can cause things such as shinsplints and stress fractures in the short term, but majorly it has been linked to the onset of osteoperosis and osteoarthuritis in the long term. It has also been shown to cause damage to ligaments and bursae, which will cause arthuritic type pain in later life. Imo its better to use a different type of exercise.
Associate
um.. Football - risk of being kicked.
Gymnastics - risk of pulling something/impact injury
Rock climbing - risk of falling
Sailing risk of being smack in the head by a boom/drowning.
You knwow I can't think of a single exercise where there isn't a risk. The human body wears out when it gets older, same as a car. If you are going with the two legs arguement, we're not really designed well for walking either.
If you want to stay safe, don't do any exercise.
Gymnastics - risk of pulling something/impact injury
Rock climbing - risk of falling
Sailing risk of being smack in the head by a boom/drowning.
You knwow I can't think of a single exercise where there isn't a risk. The human body wears out when it gets older, same as a car. If you are going with the two legs arguement, we're not really designed well for walking either.
If you want to stay safe, don't do any exercise.
Soldato
Thats probably the dumbest remark I've ever heardbranddaly said:
. Running injuries occur just by running. All types of excercise involve risk, but few actually cause damage just by doing them.
Associate
Phnom_Penh said:Thats probably the dumbest remark I've ever heard
Apart from all the ones that involve running. Which is almost all of them. Even those that don't cause impact stress on the body, like swimming, still result in wear and tear on the body, especially if you don't prepare correctly. Must running injuries can be avoided. So no I don't think its a dumb remark.
Soldato
Out of the ones you listed, one. Swimming doesn't cause wear and tear in the same way running does, as it is slower, and your legs aren't taking impact stress in the same way they do when you run. The impact stress caused by running is the key factor in this. Things such as osteoperosis and osteoarthuritis are unavoidable with running. I think it is a dumb remark. In the same context as it, "all life involves risk, so why live?"branddaly said:
You also seem to be confusing exercise and sport.
Soldato
Phnom_Penh said:
I think you need to re-read the relevant chapters in the Lore of Running. There may be some evidence that elite runners who put in a huge amount of miles have an increased risk of osteoarthritis. But your sweeping statement of "Things such as osteoperosis and osteoarthuritis are unavoidable with running." is plain wrong in my opinion. Taking part in any activity increases the risk of something. But it is not a certainty as you seem to imply.
Other conditions you mention come down to preparation and bad training regimes which come with any sport/exercise and a lot of these can be prevented.
I believe, and evidence would suggest (ref. Lore of Running), that the benefits of running far outweigh the risks.
Man of Honour
Soldato
Is it me or do you happen to look akin to Anthony Hopkins in that picture?
Man of Honour
Phnom_Penh said:
Hope not - he's about 30 years older than me
Associate
Phnom_Penh said:
Such a supportive comment. Not.
If you bother to go beyond the picture, which for his age, and the improvement he has already made is great, (and he looks nothing like hopkins, in age or physique) there is actually some good recommendations in the text. The only different recommendation I may have for the beginner is to use a Heart Rate monitor start with your heart rate at 130 bpm. It doesn't matter if thats running or walking, if you do a fair distance (several Kilometer) and build up either the distance or the speed each session you'll eventually find that you can run with the same heart rate both faster and futher.
Man of Honour
branddaly said:
No need to defend me, Anthony Hopkins is quite dishy for his age so my mum says. I'm 5 years older now than when I wrote that so I do look more like him even more. Funny, when I was a lad I got compared to Marc Bolan and Donny Osmond.
The text is nothing more than a few of my experiences and not to be taken seriously. If new runners can take something from it then brilliant.
Man of Honour
matt100 said:
It all depends on you.
At my slowest jog I still go into my anaerobic zone. For me to go into my aerobic zone I would have to brisk walk.
Only you can do the timings -
eg you are around 30 yrs old.
220 - 30 = 190.
Therefore your minimum aerobic zone = 114
and your max aerobic zone = 152
So by those calculations (which are nowhere near perfect) means if you go above 152 you end up building muscles and not fat burning.
There is a much better formula which takes into account your resting heart rate (before you get out of bed).
Lets say your resting heart rate is 75 bpm.
220 - 30 (age) - 75 (RHR) = 115
115 * 60% (min aerobic) + 75 (RHR) = 144 bpm
115 * 80% (max aerobic) + 75 (RHR) = 167 bpm
Big difference of 15 bpm between the two formulas.
So to answer your original question you would be better working yourself less but for longer if you want to lose weight and get fit.
Soldato
dmpoole said:
All sensible stuff though - I forgot to vaseline up for singapore marathon, won't be forgetting to do that again!
Soldato
Went to Sweatshop in Notts today, and they were great. I went in, told them what my problem was and they sorted me out. They actually got me to take my socks off, and had a look at the bruising on my toes, and also how I stand. Their remedy was to get me a trainer 1/2 size larger, and with some support, because my feed were starting to roll in (I think it's called pronation). Ended up with a pair of Nike Althea, which are extremely comfortable and feel very supported. Looking forward to their first proper test tomorrowfirstborn said:
Brilliant shop, and brilliant staff. Thanks for the recommendation. I won't even bother with high street sports shops next time.
Soldato
#Chri5# said:Just back from my first outing in my new Nikes. No blisters tonight
Two seconds under thirty minutes for approx 4.5km which means 9km/hr pace. Last run in my old trainers (now related to gardening!) was 5.8km in 40 minutes so similar pace which is pleasing. It was so cold out there tonight, my face was stinging when I got in, so I've just put on some after sun lotion
I did the same route again last night and was about 40 seconds quicker.
Is running twice a week going to be enough to see a good improvement? My target date is the 1st April and I want to be around 10km in an hour by then.
I also play squash once a week and usually do a MTB ride or go walking at the weekend. Last Saturday, I did a 25km MTB ride which had some puff 'n' pant inducing hills.
Man of Honour
#Chri5# said:
I'd definitely get it up to 3 runs a week.
10k is 6 miles which means 10 minute miling for an hour.
10 minute miling isn't exactly quick and its the speed I normally run at over distance.
Throw your watch away or start it 5 mins after you start and don't get obsessed with beating your time but instead run the same route and when you get to your finish try and add 5 minutes of running on. If the finish is your home then run 2.5 mins past it and 2.5 mins coming back. Do this for your 3 runs that week.
The following week, yes you've guessed, run another 5 minutes further.
Before long you will easily be able to run for one hour.
To be honest I reckon if you run at your pace for one hour you will be very close to 10k (6.2 miles).
Are you sure the distance you ran is 2.5k? It could be longer. You can use Google Earth to plot your distance and its quite accurate.
I start from Bailey Rd in Blurton, run down to the britannia Stadium, onto Stanley Matthews Way, down to Trentham Rd, down to the Canal by Trentham Hotel, along the canal, up by the new bridge by the Britannia and back home. I always estimated for years that it was 5.75 miles long and I was spot on when I mapped it with Google Earth.
Funny story from last week - people and distances.
I got to the main Stanley Matthews gate and I was breathing a bit heavy and a couple walking their dog made a comment. I asked them how far they had done and they said 6 miles. I asked where from and they said 'top of Central Drive'. Now Central drive can basically be seen from where we were and I told them they had walked a max of 1.5 miles there and back. Of course they wouldn't have it and truly believed they had gone 6 miles.
One skill you will pick up over the next few weeks is distances and a mile is a lot longer than what the average person thinks it is.