The Running Thread Vol 2

[RobM77]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

There was a doctor on a day time tv show a few months back saying that the human body isn't designed to run long distances - and if doing so it's better to use a run/walk method if you want to preserve your joints for later life.

And the longer I've been with my local club the more I'm noticing that older regular runners who do long distances are picking up injuries that go on for some time.

I don't have a medical background and I know not everyone is the same - but this is influencing my thinking a bit.

Grumbledoak is correct - humans evolved for running and we can outrun pretty much anything given sufficient distance. The dodgy word in that doctor’s statement is ‘designed’ - we are far from perfect and we function and look nothing like we would if we were designed. Evolution is not design. Despite humans being so well suited to it, running is a harsh thing to do and yes, injuries are common. In some ways we don’t help ourselves - for example although shoes do us a lot of good, and few serious experts advocate barefoot running, shoes do permit us to heelstrike, which is disastrous for the joints and avoids proper use of our evolutionary masterpiece for running, the ankle and achilles tendon.

After struggling with injury due to really bad technique, I went to see a gait specialist, and the results have been amazing. I’ve had a few niggles, mainly caused by permanent nerve damage in my left leg from an incident 8 years ago (not running related), but I can now run regularly and reasonably quickly without issues. However, I do run for sport, not for fitness. Cycling or swimming, if done correctly, are much better for fitness and health - if done correctiy. If done correctly!!

[johnwilliams77]

I better stop running then if it is making me feel great, great socially, sleep is better, weight is perfect and I have no injuries as I have done everything I can to prevent them but one DR thinks it’s bad so I’ll stop...

[Smitters]

So, like last year, here are my stats for 2018 (2017 in brackets)

1,349 km against a goal of 1,609 km. (1,164.2 km)
145 hours 42 mins (121 hours 26 mins)
Climbed 25,252m (13,349m)
Did 140 runs (118 runs)

Average run time: 1 hour 2 mins (same)
Average run distance: 9.64 km (9.86 km)
Average run climb: 180.45m (113.12m)
Average pace: 6.26 per km (6.16 per km)

Quite interesting really. My goals were:

2018 Goals for Smitters

Smitters said:

Run 1,610 km

A miss - but then we had a baby in September and that really derailed things.

Smitters said:

Climb 15,000m

Upped the goal to 100,000 ft or 32,808m, but as above, the baby derailing hit the gain as well as the distance.

Smitters said:

Average 3.0 or more runs per week - stretch of ave 3.5

A miss again. Even with WU and CD entries, I averaged 2.7 runs per week.

Smitters said:

Go sub 20 at parkrun

Done - 19.50. 19.30 is a stretch for later this year. Missed the 19.30 as I never hammered parkrun again.

Smitters said:

Have a running adventure

I didn't really. I loved my big race (Race to the Tower) but never really got "out there". One for 2019 I hope.

Smitters said:

As ever, long terms goals are sub 20, sub 40, sub 1.30, sub 3, Comrades and a stretch of sub 24/100. However, I would settle for running every other day in beautiful surroundings for the rest of my life.

TLDR - missed my goals, don't care, roll on 2019 and a fresh approach.

So, objectively, I missed most of my goals and I don't give a crap. That just tells me they were the wrong goals. I'm going to give a bit more thought into what I'm really aiming at this year and I wouldn't be surprised if these stats are a lot stronger, despite not tracking most of them as goals in themselves.

What I can say is this - I have run lifetime PBs at 800m and 5km, raced more in races (competer not completer mentality), come within a gnats of a lifetime half marathon pb in a training run (was a proper race, I just ran to the start line and was wearing all my ultra kit as a test day). Although I started the year injured and was reduced to short runs and long walks, I still posted my biggest distances and climbs ever too, so I've improved my consistency some, which is really important. A big part in this was gym work, to pre-hab and rehab properly. It's more complicated of course, so I will have to go and unpick what I did right this year from what I didn't, keep the good stuff and bin or modify the bad stuff.

I've also made running a stronger theme in my life in 2018. As an Event Director, I finally got a junior parkrun going after nine months of effort. We're 40 events in and stronger than ever. I took a Leadership in Running Fitness course with UKA and will be co-hosting a beginner's running group at my office starting this week. I joined my local club and have raced XC for them this winter, which has been utterly fantastic and a great way to meet other runners when going to club sessions just isn't realistic while the kids are small.

Roll on 2019.

[RobM77]

johnwilliams77 said:

I better stop running then if it is making me feel great, great socially, sleep is better, weight is perfect and I have no injuries as I have done everything I can to prevent them but one DR thinks it’s bad so I’ll stop...

That's great. Remember statistics don't apply to you personally. Running merely has a greater chance of injury than some other sports, even when both are done correctly.

ETA: Are you comparing running with doing another sport instead, or running with doing no sport at all? Obviously in the latter comparison something is better than nothing.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 7th January 11:33

[johnwilliams77]

RobM77 said:

That's great. Remember statistics don't apply to you personally. Running merely has a greater chance of injury than some other sports, even when both are done correctly.

ETA: Are you comparing running with doing another sport instead, or running with doing no sport at all? Obviously in the latter comparison something is better than nothing.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 7th January 11:33

I am trying to point out that someone saying ‘running is bad for you’ is silly and miss leading. I realise more runners have injuries and I have niggles also, but do my best not to turn them into something serious.

[egor110]

johnwilliams77 said:

RobM77 said:

That's great. Remember statistics don't apply to you personally. Running merely has a greater chance of injury than some other sports, even when both are done correctly.

ETA: Are you comparing running with doing another sport instead, or running with doing no sport at all? Obviously in the latter comparison something is better than nothing.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 7th January 11:33

I am trying to point out that someone saying ‘running is bad for you’ is silly and miss leading. I realise more runners have injuries and I have niggles also, but do my best not to turn them into something serious.

More runners have injuries compared to what ?

If we stopped running we'd pick up injuries because doing nothing we'd tighten up and that would lead to injuries .

Cycling is supposed to be be better because it's non impact but there are loads of cyclists with knee/back problems and i'm sure we could find the same with any sport.

[Scabutz]

egor110 said:

More runners have injuries compared to what ?

If we stopped running we'd pick up injuries because doing nothing we'd tighten up and that would lead to injuries .

Cycling is supposed to be be better because it's non impact but there are loads of cyclists with knee/back problems and i'm sure we could find the same with any sport.

Indeed. I do a lot of swimming. Supposed to be very low impact, but if you do even a decent amount then shoulder problems can happen quite easily.

[RobM77]

Scabutz said:

egor110 said:

More runners have injuries compared to what ?

If we stopped running we'd pick up injuries because doing nothing we'd tighten up and that would lead to injuries .

Cycling is supposed to be be better because it's non impact but there are loads of cyclists with knee/back problems and i'm sure we could find the same with any sport.

Indeed. I do a lot of swimming. Supposed to be very low impact, but if you do even a decent amount then shoulder problems can happen quite easily.

That's almost certainly due to poor technique, which is why I added and repeated a caveat three times "if done properly". TI solves that issue (see the swimming thread). Similarly, cycling can produce knee and hip problems, most notably if the seat position isn't set correctly. Running is inherently a high impact sport. I run more than anything else, and it's an amazing way to keep fit and I love it, so I'm not knocking it, but yes, it's got a strong association with joint problems when compared to other sports.

[smn159]

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I've done about 1500 miles in 3 years since I started running but I'm now starting to lean towards the view that just running all the time isn't the best way to stay healthy.

I don't think I'll give it up but I'll cut down the mileage and start to make more use of my rowing machine, bicycle and local public swimming pool.

Cross training is a good idea, but less than 10 miles a week isn't really a huge amount and, assuming that you are running consistently each week and not neglecting your core strength and stretching, shouldn't carry a significant injury risk.

[Crasher242]

egor110 said:

johnwilliams77 said:

RobM77 said:

That's great. Remember statistics don't apply to you personally. Running merely has a greater chance of injury than some other sports, even when both are done correctly.

ETA: Are you comparing running with doing another sport instead, or running with doing no sport at all? Obviously in the latter comparison something is better than nothing.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 7th January 11:33

I am trying to point out that someone saying ‘running is bad for you’ is silly and miss leading. I realise more runners have injuries and I have niggles also, but do my best not to turn them into something serious.

More runners have injuries compared to what ?

If we stopped running we'd pick up injuries because doing nothing we'd tighten up and that would lead to injuries .

Cycling is supposed to be be better because it's non impact but there are loads of cyclists with knee/back problems and i'm sure we could find the same with any sport.

As an "ex" cyclist and new runner (i.e. only started running in 2018) i can sort of vouch for knee/back problems from my cycling days - although i know a lot of cyclists who never went and got a proper bike fit so really only had themselves to blame for the back/knee injuries.
I "popped" my left knee about 6 years ago towards the end of the 10k cycling time-trail season for my old club (i was on for a PB and got a bit reckless trying to push for it) - it finished me off as a competitive cyclist and i just lost interest after that. But am really surprised with my running that i have endured no real pain or issue with it thus far - looking forward to progressing from 5k to 10k this year.

[RobM77]

smn159 said:

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I've done about 1500 miles in 3 years since I started running but I'm now starting to lean towards the view that just running all the time isn't the best way to stay healthy.

I don't think I'll give it up but I'll cut down the mileage and start to make more use of my rowing machine, bicycle and local public swimming pool.

Cross training is a good idea, but less than 10 miles a week isn't really a huge amount and, assuming that you are running consistently each week and not neglecting your core strength and stretching, shouldn't carry a significant injury risk.

I've printed off a "Runner's World" gym routine that's freely available on the web and do it 2-3 times a week and have found it works very well for me. Many of the exercises are similar to ones given to me by running coaches over the years.

Technique is the other biggie - as mentioned earlier, I had several sessions with a gait specialist and he transformed my running - prior to that I'd had repeated pretty serious knee problems (at one stage I couldn't even walk up the stairs), and it was all just down to technique.

[tenohfive]

smn159 said:

RaymondVanDerDon said:

I've done about 1500 miles in 3 years since I started running but I'm now starting to lean towards the view that just running all the time isn't the best way to stay healthy.

I don't think I'll give it up but I'll cut down the mileage and start to make more use of my rowing machine, bicycle and local public swimming pool.

Cross training is a good idea, but less than 10 miles a week isn't really a huge amount and, assuming that you are running consistently each week and not neglecting your core strength and stretching, shouldn't carry a significant injury risk.

Spot on. 10 miles a week shouldn't carry any injury risk if you're doing things sensibly. But then, information on what's sensible isn't readily available and there is still plenty of bad advice that's 30+ years out of date that gets trotted out.

I wish I'd known the following before I started running - whilst none of these ideas are really debated, the importance placed on them is my own:

1. Lower body and core strength work is key for resilience. 20 minutes of weights work (doable at home with just a barbell) once a week minimum develops the muscles that support your muscles and does a lot for injury resistance.
1a. If you need to miss a run to fit the strength work in a given week then do - you'll get more benefit (strength work also helps your form, power etc as well as resilience.)
2. Warm up properly. The lunge matrix/leg swings routine takes 5 minutes before a run. Followed by 10 minutes of easy running to start (unless it's an easy run anyway) before any intensity is added.
3. Run most of your runs at low intensity. 80/20% is a number often trotted out. If you're a low mileage runner this is less important - but the benefits go beyond injury prevention.
4. Build up mileage slowly - I like the 10% a week increase as a guide figure.
5. Niggles are normal, they don't need to stop you - but a good physio will give you suitable stretches or specific strengthening work and put your mind at rest until you've learned your own body and what's normal or not. Use them.

I don't do silly mileage - I wish life gave me the time for 100 mile weeks, but I'm towards the front of the pack at most ultras so I get some training in. I've been injury free since I incorporated points 1-2. They've been game changers for me. I've picked up niggles but nothing that's affected my running, and only then when I've neglected strength work over several months.
N of 1 and all that but it's advice I feel confident offering to anyone getting into running, particularly those working towards a goal (first HM/marathon/ultra etc) where there is more of a pressure to run than just for the love of it.

[Smitters]

tenohfive said:

Smart stuff

Couldn't agree more with this.

On the intensity (pt 3), I would add, avoid the "grey zone". This is the effort level where you're going too fast for it to be easy, but too slow for it to be a fast workout. Often, runners end up training mostly in the grey zone because they feel like they're doing some work, building up a sweat. Doing the vast majority of your running at easy pace pays dividends for both longevity and fitness.

[craig r]

Smitters said:

Couldn't agree more with this.

On the intensity (pt 3), I would add, avoid the "grey zone". This is the effort level where you're going too fast for it to be easy, but too slow for it to be a fast workout. Often, runners end up training mostly in the grey zone because they feel like they're doing some work, building up a sweat. Doing the vast majority of your running at easy pace pays dividends for both longevity and fitness.

I've wondered about this recently after reading somewhere on the internet that 'to race fast, you must first train slow' or words to that effect. And I think I am guilty 'grey zone' training, but I find it hard to pace myself, it's either blowing out of my arse (and not going fast) or walking (going even slower)

I tried to do a treadmill session in 'zone 2' (according to my TomTom watch) and it was barely more than a brisk walk. I'm not so sure how that will help my 5k/10k times, or sprint tri results as I don't feel like it's actually doing anything. It could just be that I am massively unfit (likely!) and need to do some more / a lot more training

[Mothersruin]

The theory is that Zone 2 running will become faster, but apparently it's a very slow process to build it up.

I know an old Army mate that did it - took him abut a year to see a decent difference.

[tenohfive]

For a new runner doing low mileage I feel the intensity target is less of an issue as the injury risk is mitigated by that low mileage. I've probably said on here before that I feel like it can be compared to gears in a car. When you first start doing aerobic fitness activities (in this case running) everything is hard. You've got two gears - walk and run (and the latter is hard work.)
As time goes on and you build an aerobic base you develop the option to run easy or run hard - you've developed an extra gear. That's when it's worth considering intensity. After that you get more gears - and those improvements come surprisingly quickly. That's when the risk of grey zone training becomes much higher. You're not in top gear, but you're not in a low enough gear either when you're in the grey zone.

For newcomers I think that HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) is the quickest route to build an aerobic base (those extra gears I've talked about.) For the recovery sections of a HIIT session then walking is perfect. Your recovery in HIIT is supposed to be sufficient to allow you to run every effort session as hard as the first.

If I knew someone unfit getting into running I'd be recommending some sort of HIIT session (either fartlek, or an interval session based on lampposts) plus Parkrun each week as a good starter for 10.

[Smitters]

craig r said:

I've wondered about this recently after reading somewhere on the internet that 'to race fast, you must first train slow' or words to that effect. And I think I am guilty 'grey zone' training, but I find it hard to pace myself, it's either blowing out of my arse (and not going fast) or walking (going even slower)

I tried to do a treadmill session in 'zone 2' (according to my TomTom watch) and it was barely more than a brisk walk. I'm not so sure how that will help my 5k/10k times, or sprint tri results as I don't feel like it's actually doing anything. It could just be that I am massively unfit (likely!) and need to do some more / a lot more training

There's certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence for it. It's worked for me, which is why I tend to bring it up. It had a double benefit of keeping me mostly uninjured while increasing fitness, but yes, it's months and months. It takes some imagination not to turn the whole thing into a tedious plodfest.

An alternate analogy is that to build a tall, stable pyramid, you need a wide base, built by lots of slow running. To build the height, you need the intense stuff that really gets your heart going, as above, like lamp post sprints. To labour the analogy, without the wide base, it's hard to support great height with any stability or longevity. They go hand in hand.

I have personally found that speed can come quite quickly once I've spend some time building the base. The other subtlety with going hard is knowing how hard is "hard". Mostly, and this is true of many people, not just those new to intense training, is you either start too fast and suffer or fade, or start to easy and have energy to spare come the end.

My example is Jan-July 2018.

I started 2018 injured, with shin splints, but would have been in around 23 1/2 minute parkrun shape. I did around three runs per week, and everything was easy/zone2/conversational except for 13 "effort" sessions (which varied from parkruns shoving a buggy to intervals) and two big races, a marathon and an ultra.

The effort sessions started in April and I stuck with one a week most weeks. I'd done seven efforts and took my local parkrun time to 21.18. I then took a couple of weeks off and put in another six, then PBd parkrun with 19.50. Given my main training aim to mid-June was a 50 mile ultra, I was pretty pleased with a parkrun pb five weeks later.

[C0ffin D0dger]

I'm after an event recommendation for popping my half marathon cherry, aim to be "ready" early May though could be a little sooner if needs be. Want to do something road based around the West Midlands and preferably not too hilly, I'll build up to those if the first attempt goes well

I had looked at my most local event the Worcester Half and Full marathon which starts / finishes at the rugby ground but from what I've read it has quite a bit of climbing. Next is the Tewkesbury Half but the route is putting me off, not because of any inclines but because it's ran on open roads and knowing the area well I wouldn't chose to run on much of the route normally due to it being on fairly busy roads. The reviews I've read aren't favourable either.

Prepared to travel a bit if needs be. Are there many half marathon events on closed roads? Could imagine it might be difficult to close off that much road. The Draycote Water (Nr. Rugby) Half looks interesting.

Thanks.

[RobM77]

Smitters said:

craig r said:

I've wondered about this recently after reading somewhere on the internet that 'to race fast, you must first train slow' or words to that effect. And I think I am guilty 'grey zone' training, but I find it hard to pace myself, it's either blowing out of my arse (and not going fast) or walking (going even slower)

I tried to do a treadmill session in 'zone 2' (according to my TomTom watch) and it was barely more than a brisk walk. I'm not so sure how that will help my 5k/10k times, or sprint tri results as I don't feel like it's actually doing anything. It could just be that I am massively unfit (likely!) and need to do some more / a lot more training

There's certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence for it. It's worked for me, which is why I tend to bring it up. It had a double benefit of keeping me mostly uninjured while increasing fitness, but yes, it's months and months. It takes some imagination not to turn the whole thing into a tedious plodfest.

An alternate analogy is that to build a tall, stable pyramid, you need a wide base, built by lots of slow running. To build the height, you need the intense stuff that really gets your heart going, as above, like lamp post sprints. To labour the analogy, without the wide base, it's hard to support great height with any stability or longevity. They go hand in hand.

I have personally found that speed can come quite quickly once I've spend some time building the base. The other subtlety with going hard is knowing how hard is "hard". Mostly, and this is true of many people, not just those new to intense training, is you either start too fast and suffer or fade, or start to easy and have energy to spare come the end.

My example is Jan-July 2018.

I started 2018 injured, with shin splints, but would have been in around 23 1/2 minute parkrun shape. I did around three runs per week, and everything was easy/zone2/conversational except for 13 "effort" sessions (which varied from parkruns shoving a buggy to intervals) and two big races, a marathon and an ultra.

The effort sessions started in April and I stuck with one a week most weeks. I'd done seven efforts and took my local parkrun time to 21.18. I then took a couple of weeks off and put in another six, then PBd parkrun with 19.50. Given my main training aim to mid-June was a 50 mile ultra, I was pretty pleased with a parkrun pb five weeks later.

I'd be interested in opinions, but my wife recommended a training plan to me that sounds similar to these ideas that you've described above; she is a doctor and keen runner and a keen advocate of the "Furman Institute's" training methods (http://www2.furman.edu/sites/first/Pages/default.aspx - the details are somewhere on there). Basically you start with your current race pace and from that calculate a 'short tempo' pace (fast-ish, IIRC it's about 10-15s per km off race pace for me), long tempo (relaxed jog looking at the scenery), and various interval paces for 400m, 800m etc. Each week I have three key runs: a long LT run, a shorter ST run, and an intervals session. I don't like following rigid plans (I'm in this for fun!), so I've just taken the basic spirit of it, but I'm very steadily building things up and getting slowly faster and faster. Every so often I recalculate (or I'm supposed to - I just guess to be honest). I had a long period away from running due to injury ten years ago, but re-started running regularly a year or two ago, and since then my paces have all improved by 30s/km.

[craig r]

C0ffin D0dger said:

I'm after an event recommendation for popping my half marathon cherry, aim to be "ready" early May though could be a little sooner if needs be. Want to do something road based around the West Midlands and preferably not too hilly, I'll build up to those if the first attempt goes well

I had looked at my most local event the Worcester Half and Full marathon which starts / finishes at the rugby ground but from what I've read it has quite a bit of climbing. Next is the Tewkesbury Half but the route is putting me off, not because of any inclines but because it's ran on open roads and knowing the area well I wouldn't chose to run on much of the route normally due to it being on fairly busy roads. The reviews I've read aren't favourable either.

Prepared to travel a bit if needs be. Are there many half marathon events on closed roads? Could imagine it might be difficult to close off that much road. The Draycote Water (Nr. Rugby) Half looks interesting.

Thanks.

How much 'earlier' is earlier?

I'm doing my first half in Coventry in a little over 10 weeks. No idea how 'ready' I will be though!

And following on from the building an aerobic base points made earlier I tried 'lamp post intervals' yesterday evening. It was only for about 30 minutes but it felt like it went quite quickly, which is way better then slogging around the racecourse for 30 minutes.