Platypus' Beginners Guide to Running

Still recovering from Saturdays run it seems, did a class at the gym involving lunges and squats this morning and legs definitely still feel heavy.

10.6 miles and 1868ft of elevation. Really hard at points and there were parts where I had to walk (the 2nd mile was 550ft).

Going to keep it simple this week and next and mainly focus on mileage as have another run planned which will be well over 2200ft if things go to plan on Saturday 20th.
 
Itchytrigg said:
Well when you put it like that! I know you get a lot of miles in just never crossed my mind how quickly it can all mount up. I looked at mine again this morning...the toes and heals have pretty much worn of all tread too and I'm probably at about 600 miles on them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was very surprised. In my mind these were like new shoes, only had them a few months and had plenty of weeks without training. In my head I started adding up some recent training and though maybe 400-500 but was shocked to see near 600.


The new shoes feel great, already my feet feel better after a very had interval session. I will have to wait a week or so to see if the niggling pains really disappear entirely.
 
PermaBanned said:
That's a pretty ridiculous level of shoe wear. If you're not getting enough cushioning then you should only really have to replace the insole. Shoes themselves should easily last at least 2000 miles.
Click to expand...

What, 300-500 miles is the distance quoted everywhere, and it has some solid scientific backing.

You can run on old shoes that have warn down and lost there cushioning in the same way that many runners go completely barefoot. Your body, mechanics, and footstrike can all adapt to help absorb shock, usually adding more compliance to your leg. That can lead to new injuries while your body adapts to new running impacts.

Then there are more subtle questions about comfort and speed/efficiency. Even if it is overall harmless to run with old shoes because your body adapts, having really sore feet is not conductive to good training. Also, the increased leg compliance reduces running economy so you are going to run slower.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/13/4/248.abstract
Between 250 and 500 miles the shoes retained less than 60% of their initial shock absorption capacity.
Click to expand...

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-2-287-09413-2_11
. By having investigated a range of 13 shoes it could be demonstrated that mechanical degradation leads to significant changes in the ability of sole materials to absorb energy.
Click to expand...


If you run in really old shoes you are basically joining the minimalist shoe/barefoot kind of movement. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, some positive reports on running bare foot. But the shoe has a different purpose, pure protective from the dirt and gravel rather than reducing impacts that new shoes achieve.
 
Well my current shoes have done around 1700 miles and there's definately no bounce left in them. I don't notice any correlation between shoe age and running speeds though. I'm often slower on brand new shoes as they feel too bouncy and give me less confidence. i guess my body adapted to using worn out shoes.

Also there's no way i could afford to replace shoes every 500 miles!
 
If you are used to running on completely dead shoes then yeah you may get slower on a new shoe with cushioning but you could always look at a racing/track pair.

I experienced the opposite this morning, did intervals with my new shoes and it felt so much better pounding it out that I broke my 800m record, and then broke it again on my next lap. Last week i went out to do 5-6 laps but stopped after 4 because my feet were hurting. Went out today to do 5 but ended up doing 6 because I felt so good.


The cost is alarming, which Is why i made my original comment.
But I think you have to put it in relative terms. It costs no more than gym membership for example. Also I'm about to book my marathon race, the entry fee is the cost of a pair of shoes and I will need 2 nights in a hotel which is another 2 pairs of shoes, then gas money to drive there and back is another pair. A nice diner out after the race is another half pair, my test 10K race is half a pair. Then there is that gels, sports drinks and protein powder that aren't cheap for good quality, another pair of shoes.

I probably need 2.5 pairs of running shoes to train and race the marathon, so that is a lot less than the rest of the costs and I haven't even needed to fly anywhere.


What I might do is keep my eyes open for some deals. I've also hard that some cheap branded shoes can be OK for light running, so might get a $40 pair for the easy 8 milers where I am going slow enough not o get much impact.
 
Easy 6.5mi in today at 7:54, getting back into the swing of things pretty quickly.

Shall get myself down to a local shop soon with my current shoes to see what they recommend, I've never felt an issue with them but the wear is certainly more to the outside toe and heel on both feet.

I just looked up when I bought them, it was Oct 2014 so have had at least 8-900 miles on them...I do remember when I got them how bouncy I thought they were, I think that's long gone now!
 
This evenings run was a little easier on the legs, a lot flatter than Saturday so 5.8 miles in 41 minutes. I'm happy with that, evening with the foam roller tomorrow and then a long run on Thursday evening.
 
Itchytrigg said:
Easy 6.5mi in today at 7:54, getting back into the swing of things pretty quickly.

Shall get myself down to a local shop soon with my current shoes to see what they recommend, I've never felt an issue with them but the wear is certainly more to the outside toe and heel on both feet.

I just looked up when I bought them, it was Oct 2014 so have had at least 8-900 miles on them...I do remember when I got them how bouncy I thought they were, I think that's long gone now!
Click to expand...

I like the way you say 7:54 is easy!:D


I did 6x860m intervals with very fast times for me, broke a record with 3:20 on 1 lap. All laps under 3:30 which I've never done before. Then I just ran fast for fun, the only time in the week I really just run and ignore pace and heart rate, so it is mostly comfortable unlike a tempo, but faster than necessary to get any physiological benefit.

Total 12.3 miles, 1:33:35, 7:36 per mile.

That is about where I reached at the peak of my last cycle, so I have about 10 weeks to make progress. I still don't have the endurance I used to have but I do think my pace over long runs is about 20 seconds a mile faster which would be my goal pace (Around 3:17marathon), but keeping that pace for 26miles is a pipe dream right now.
 
So, First run back.
5km, tried to keep it slow, stay on grass as much as I can.

started out 4:45/km, ended up at 4:30 by third k
slowed it back down to 4:41/km average, 23:36.9

it's a slow 5 for me, but I'm really not wanting to get hurt again :p

One point of note was at the start of my run, there was a 'tightness'
like a band from the top of my inside ankle bone, to my big toe.

I was worried this was the 'possible tendon damage' the doc had mentioned, but it went away by ~1k so let's hope it was just 'easing in'
 
D.P. said:
I like the way you say 7:54 is easy!:D

<snip>

Total 12.3 miles, 1:33:35, 7:36 per mile.
Click to expand...

I like the way you say that, then knock out 12.3 @ 7:36 lol!

Tuesday's are my "easy" run day and my pace should be about 8, with the lower mileage recently it perhaps wasn't as easy as it could have been but I feel comfortable enough with that pace and I could just about hold a conversation if allowed to say one word at a time! So not quite an easy run, but give it a week or so and it should be :)
 
GiraffePencils said:
So, First run back.
5km, tried to keep it slow, stay on grass as much as I can.

started out 4:45/km, ended up at 4:30 by third k
slowed it back down to 4:41/km average, 23:36.9

it's a slow 5 for me, but I'm really not wanting to get hurt again :p

One point of note was at the start of my run, there was a 'tightness'
like a band from the top of my inside ankle bone, to my big toe.

I was worried this was the 'possible tendon damage' the doc had mentioned, but it went away by ~1k so let's hope it was just 'easing in'
Click to expand...

Good to hear you got out and that's a respectable time given you should be recovering and taking it easy.
 
Itchytrigg said:
I like the way you say that, then knock out 12.3 @ 7:36 lol!

Tuesday's are my "easy" run day and my pace should be about 8, with the lower mileage recently it perhaps wasn't as easy as it could have been but I feel comfortable enough with that pace and I could just about hold a conversation if allowed to say one word at a time! So not quite an easy run, but give it a week or so and it should be :)
Click to expand...

My run wasn't easy at all though, it was a bloody hard set of intervals following by some pseudo lactate threshold miles.

My easy runs are 8:10-8:30 a mile which are still too fast really. I read that Ryan Hall (fastest ever American in marathon) runs his slow runs at 8-8:30 a mile. 8:20 pace feels easy enough to me and my heart rate roughly reflects that but if people run marathon at sub sub 5 minute miles for 26 miles and do easy runs at over 8, that is plenty of reasons to slow down IMO. I've also been browsing forums for people doing sub 2:50 and sub 2:40 marathons seeing what their training is like. Their easy runs also seem to be around 8-8:30 a mile, when they are doing 120-150 miles a week and do intervals at 4:45 a mile! The thing is with running faster easy runs is they absolutely no benefit compared to running slower, in fact there is some evidence of a be a reduction in training efficacy, all the while increasing injury risk and recovery time. This only changes when you start going really fast, e.g. intervals and possibly Lactate threshold, then the fast speed has some known benefits. It is the intermediate speeds between stupidly easy and very hard that many say should be excluded , the polar training principle. Make easy runs really easy, hard runs really hard. The only advantage in running easy runs faster is you can cover more miles in the time. I I did the bulk of my 75 miles a week at 10/00 a mile it would all take much longer, but i don't think it would have any negative consequences on my marathon results and would reduce injury risk.



I consciously pushed today's run to be slower taking on such advice but I still ended up at 8:10 a mile for 10.4 miles. It didn't feel hard but tired slowly at the end. Tomorrow is my long run and I intend to do at least 18m. The question is, if I ran today 10 miles at 8:45 a mile instead of 8:10 would I be able to comfortably run 20 miles tomorrow instead of 18m?
 
Last edited:
MoDe said:
Giving the GP path a go first. If that's no good I will be sure to check out the South Gossy one.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd exactly recommended it, they're perfectly nice people but the 40 minute appointments feel a bit rushed. If I have to go back for the same issue with my leg I think I'll go somewhere else for a second opinion, not entirely convinced it is shin splints but as long as the general stretches and massage they suggested work I'm not complaining.
 
Today did some cruise intervals for lunch 5.5miles. 3x1 mile repeats in the 6:20-6:40 range with 1/2 mile "easy" breaks between at 8-8:30. Could/should have had a longer slower warm up, and 3rd repeat was hard but held 6:40.
 
Need some thoughts on a watch. Have the Garmin Forerunner 15 at the moment which works well, but birthday incoming with no other ideas I like the idea of an upgrade. Any one have experience with the Garmin Vivoactive and/or the Forerunner 220?

Both look similar on running functionality, the 220 built in heart rate I'm not bothered about as I have a heart rate strap anyway, but I think it looks nicer than the vivo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom