Overtired/Restless legs

ike

Not overly concerned about this but, the best way to describe it almost like an overtired/restless feeling in my legs, like I have'nt fully shook off my last run. Even on my rest day yesterday I still had that feeling in them. I've recently started slightly increasing my mileage and times so maybe thas a contributing factor. Its not an ache or pain and dosen't hamper my running

Should I perhaps go a get a proper sports massage every so often or wha? any ideas

tunney

or don't treat every session like a race. Times should only mattter in certain quality sessions.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

or don't treat every session like a race. Times should only mattter in certain quality sessions.

To me that sounds like a very misleading/false statement. Please expand on it.

tunney

Why does it sound misleading or false?

Times shouldn't matter in alot of running sessions. Specific speed sessions - yes. Timing every run and trying to beat your last time and get a PB, disaster. Read alot of the blogs on boards.ie - its how alot of people train.

cfitz

Each run shouldn't be about beating your previous time, agreed. And perhaps you could run to heart rate instead of time. But most of your training should not be just jogging - so how do you keep an eye on your pace (without using heart rate, or is that what you're proposing)?

I can think of arguments for not using a watch to force yourself to listen to your body more. But I think that's a separate discussion.

Peckham

I assume the confusion here is between "time" and "speed" - i.e. some sessions should be about trying to do 3 miles in xx minutes, or 1 mile reps or whatever, whereas some sessions are just about getting out for 45 minutes (or whatever) and plodding along at a comfortable pace. A balance between the two is the key.

cfitz

Peckham wrote: »

I assume the confusion here is between "time" and "speed" - i.e. some sessions should be about trying to do 3 miles in xx minutes, or 1 mile reps or whatever, whereas some sessions are just about getting out for 45 minutes (or whatever) and plodding along at a comfortable pace. A balance between the two is the key.

But I think only a VERY low proportion of your runs should be about just getting out for a X amount of time with no regard to pace.

Perhaps,

on morning runs when you are doing double days,
or on very long runs,
or if you are returning from a break

- then you might not be concerned about pace at all.

tunney

When running perceived effort and heart rate. Pace doesn't, in my opinion tell you much. It doesn't take into account conditions.

On a track - yip defo, specific times for distances but for anything else pace is pointless (much like speed when cycling).

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

When running perceived effort and heart rate. Pace doesn't, in my opinion tell you much. It doesn't take into account conditions.

On a track - yip defo, specific times for distances but for anything else pace is pointless (much like speed when cycling).

I'm not going to argue against monitoring heart rate as your guide for training rather than using a stopwatch.

So perhaps heart rate + perceived effort is a good formula.

I think your original post should have explicitly mentioned heart rate monitoring as I don't think it is very widely used (in the context of this forum's readers). That is why it was misleading in my opinion.