Running\training terms for dummies

Duanington

One for the more knowledgeable out there - I have a similar relationship with running terms as I do with rugby rules...i.e every time I think I have them sussed, I learn that I am wrong.

Note - my lack of knowledge doesn't always stop me using the terminology



1 - Strength, endurance, fitness - are these the same thing?? If not, what are the differences

1 (b) In my head, "strength" is the ability to engage your speed in a fatigued or tired state...would that be close?

2 - Speed -a measure of how quickly a person can move over a particular distance, right? What distance though? 100 metres? 1000 metres? 1 mile??

3 - Turnover - cadence? Same thing?

28064212

Duanington wrote: »

1 - Strength, endurance, fitness - are these the same thing?? If not, what are the differences

1 (b) In my head, "strength" is the ability to engage your speed in a fatigued or tired state...would that be close?

Those terms are pretty vague. Strength would be more a measure of how much you can lift. Endurance refers to the ability to hold a speed for longer, but depends on context. 400m is often referred to as an endurance sprint, and it is, compared to 100m/200m. Obviously, a 100 mile race needs a significantly different type of endurance. And fitness... means nothing in isolation.

Duanington wrote: »

2 - Speed -a measure of how quickly a person can move over a particular distance, right? What distance though? 100 metres? 1000 metres? 1 mile??

Not "over a particular distance". Over any distance. Run 1km in 5 minutes, your speed is 12km/h. Run 100m in 10s, your speed is 36km/h. Speed is distance over time, you can't calculate speed without both figures

Duanington wrote: »

3 - Turnover - cadence? Same thing?

Yes

Chivito550

Duanington wrote: »

One for the more knowledgeable out there - I have a similar relationship with running terms as I do with rugby rules...i.e every time I think I have them sussed, I learn that I am wrong.

Note - my lack of knowledge doesn't always stop me using the terminology



1 - Strength, endurance, fitness - are these the same thing?? If not, what are the differences

1 (b) In my head, "strength" is the ability to engage your speed in a fatigued or tired state...would that be close?

2 - Speed -a measure of how quickly a person can move over a particular distance, right? What distance though? 100 metres? 1000 metres? 1 mile??

3 - Turnover - cadence? Same thing?

1) These terms are quite vague really, particularly the term "fitness". You could be "fit" for a marathon, but not at all fit for a 400m, or visa versa. Specific fitness is what is importance. Soccer players would be fit for the specific demands of their sport, but they would not be fit in the way a 5000m runner would be. The same goes for the term "endurance". It's basically how well you last over a particular distance. So that could be how well you hold it together in the last 6 miles of a marathon, or the last 80m of a 400m.

2) Speed is all relative to the particular distance. A marathon runner would refer to a speed session as something like 10x400m off some stupidly short recovery, in fairly slow times (when taken in isolation), while a 400m runner would refer to a speed session as something like 6 x 60m from blocks, with a full slow walk back recovery. Mo Farah has blistering speed for a 5/10k runner, but he would be really slow by 400m standards. He has speed relative to his event, and that is what matters.

Duanington

Thanks Chivito - how about strength specific to long distance running?

If Mo has blistering speed - is it his strength that enables him to use it over those last couple of laps of a race?

Chartsengrafs

Hi Duanington,

Interesting questions. They are all open to interpretation. They are all relative. And as you perhaps alluded to in your reply to Chivito, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive terms - there is bound to be overlap with strength/endurance.

I might offer my reply in the context of long distance running as the odds are, that is the type of running that interests you.
These are just my interpretations:

Strength: To me, I think of that person you know who thrives on a hilly, or windy course. Whose form stays together and who you rarely see having a bad day.
Endurance: Again, it's all relative. Someone who can run a 20 minute 5k but a 48 minute 10k is lacking in endurance (in relative terms). Likewise a 1.25 half marathon runner who can't go quicker than say 3.30 in the marathon. But can you say someone who runs 1.25 for a half lacks endurance? Well, not really, as it takes endurance to run 13 miles (in any time!) let alone 1.25. But in my crude example, they lack endurance as a marathon runner.
Fitness: I've been sick for a few weeks, and am back training this week. If anyone asks, I'm not 'fit'. Again, I'm not fit in racing terms. But I'm very fit compared to the majority of my friends. And I'm in woeful shape compared to Krusty, Myles etc....
But also, I'm not 'fit' compared to where I was three weeks ago.

I guess I'm saying, don't get too bogged down in terms like those as they require context. And you'll develop your own interpretations.
Hope that helps.

Duanington

Apologies folks - I should have specified that my questions were specific to long distance running, yes.

demfad

Hi Duanington. Is it a compendium of all training terms or just defining the 3?


As has been mentioned I think the definition can be general or relative to the sport and endurance runners can work on both. Here's my take on a few of them.

General Strenght: Is the amount of force you can produce. To increase it you can improve the strenght of your muscle fibres and/or the amount of them you recruit for the task. In the running action you could regard it as the force a runner exerts every stride. This will change relative to runner and event.

General Power: This is Force/Time. In the running action it could be the Force you exert/foot contact time. This will change relative to runner, event, gradient and underfoot surface.

I'd define, strenght endurance as the ability to produce force while fatigued but that is often what people mean by running strenght.

If you look at the example of different runners thriving on different surfaces:

One runner might have a lot of strenght and output good force per stride but have poor foot contact times.
Another runner might not produce as much force but have excellent foot contact times and produce relatively powerful strides.

On the good surface his cadence should also be slightly better (less time with foot on ground) and the faster foot contact time will mean he will get a better elastic effect than his competitor.

In a mucky schlop of an XC race, fast foot contact times are impossible. Contact times and the elastic effects all go to pot. The most important part of the stride is now the force produced (runners strenght). The strong runner is fine, he puts a lot of force into every stride anyway. The efficient runner not so, he must now put in more force per stride to stay with his competitor or else run at a slower pace. If he choses to stay the pace, his lack of strenght will be exposed a little later in his lack of strenght endurance (for that force output over that distance.)

Edit:

Agree with Chartsengrafs re a runner being more 'endurance' or 'speed' for a particular distance and the implication that evryone might have a best distance. Also training might be considered 'speed' or 'endurance' based on the event.

(I think) Cavova would define speed and endurance runs within 10% of race pace either way as being relevent to the running pace of the event.
Anything faster or slower would be considered more general speed or endurance.

TFBubendorfer

demfad wrote: »

In a mucky schlop of an XC race, fast foot contact times are impossible. Contact times and the elastic effects all go to pot. The most important part of the stride is now the force produced (runners strenght). The strong runner is fine, he puts a lot of force into every stride anyway. The efficient runner not so, he must now put in more force per stride to stay with his competitor or else run at a slower pace. If he choses to stay the pace, his lack of strenght will be exposed a little later in his lack of strenght endurance (for that force output over that distance.)

I just realised why I'm so utterly useless at XC

demfad

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I just realised why I'm so utterly useless at XC

Me too! Has to be done though (once every 5 years)

El Caballo

Strange, I always feel like I run faster changing to quicker light strides in the mud just so I don't get bogged down and can usually outperform much faster road runners but I can't run up a hill to save my life.?

demfad

El Caballo wrote: »

Strange, I always feel like I run faster changing to quicker light strides in the mud just so I don't get bogged down and can usually outperform much faster road runners but I can't run up a hill to save my life.?

It guess it depends on the traction. If there is enough traction you can get a quick stride away before you 'sink'. If it's "schlop" and there is no traction you can't really. (you can try but its Scooby Doo time).

In any case, very hard to keep up a very fast cadence over an entire XC race if it's not your natural one I would have thought.

adrian522

Aerobic Threshold/Anerobic Threshold/Lactate Threshold

All the same thing or different things?

Chivito550

demfad wrote: »

Hi Duanington. Is it a compendium of all training terms or just defining the 3?


As has been mentioned I think the definition can be general or relative to the sport and endurance runners can work on both. Here's my take on a few of them.

General Strenght: Is the amount of force you can produce. To increase it you can improve the strenght of your muscle fibres and/or the amount of them you recruit for the task. In the running action you could regard it as the force a runner exerts every stride. This will change relative to runner and event.

General Power: This is Force/Time. In the running action it could be the Force you exert/foot contact time. This will change relative to runner, event, gradient and underfoot surface.

I'd define, strenght endurance as the ability to produce force while fatigued but that is often what people mean by running strenght.

If you look at the example of different runners thriving on different surfaces:

One runner might have a lot of strenght and output good force per stride but have poor foot contact times.
Another runner might not produce as much force but have excellent foot contact times and produce relatively powerful strides.

On the good surface his cadence should also be slightly better (less time with foot on ground) and the faster foot contact time will mean he will get a better elastic effect than his competitor.

In a mucky schlop of an XC race, fast foot contact times are impossible. Contact times and the elastic effects all go to pot. The most important part of the stride is now the force produced (runners strenght). The strong runner is fine, he puts a lot of force into every stride anyway. The efficient runner not so, he must now put in more force per stride to stay with his competitor or else run at a slower pace. If he choses to stay the pace, his lack of strenght will be exposed a little later in his lack of strenght endurance (for that force output over that distance.)

Edit:

Agree with Chartsengrafs re a runner being more 'endurance' or 'speed' for a particular distance and the implication that evryone might have a best distance. Also training might be considered 'speed' or 'endurance' based on the event.

(I think) Cavova would define speed and endurance runs within 10% of race pace either way as being relevent to the running pace of the event.
Anything faster or slower would be considered more general speed or endurance.

The thread says "running/training terms for dummies". You'd need a thesaurus to understand this post, unless you were clued in, in which case you are not a dummy.

Duanington

Chivito550 wrote: »

The thread says "running/training terms for dummies". You'd need a thesaurus to understand this post, unless you were clued in, in which case you are not a dummy.

I actually got most of it...maybe I'm not as much of a dummy as I think!

This:

I'd define, strenght endurance as the ability to produce force while fatigued but that is often what people mean by running strenght.

and this:

In a mucky schlop of an XC race, fast foot contact times are impossible. Contact times and the elastic effects all go to pot. The most important part of the stride is now the force produced (runners strenght). The strong runner is fine, he puts a lot of force into every stride anyway. The efficient runner not so, he must now put in more force per stride to stay with his competitor or else run at a slower pace. If he choses to stay the pace, his lack of strenght will be exposed a little later in his lack of strenght endurance (for that force output over that distance.)


are kind of what I was after

demfad

Chivito550 wrote: »

The thread says "running/training terms for dummies". You'd need a thesaurus to understand this post, unless you were clued in, in which case you are not a dummy.

Chartsengrafs isn't a word, its someone's username Chivito.

El Caballo

adrian522 wrote: »

Aerobic Threshold/Anerobic Threshold/Lactate Threshold

All the same thing or different things?

Different things

Aerobic threshold- roughly 2 hour pace(The point where Lactate levels start to rise above resting levels, working at max capacity of oxygen without going into debt)

The last two are still not set in stone, some people say they are the same, others not but they pretty much are. Roughly 1 hour pace and the point where your body is producing Lactate quicker than it can clear it.

adrian522

Thanks, I get confused when I see AT as a pace target.

In P&D they have LT sessions to be run at between Half Marathon and 10Mile pace (At least I think they do) but I guess that is not true LT pace either. I'd assume for most people it would be a bit slower than that.

Duanington

Lactate - what's the story? Why is it the bad guy that we want to "clear" so quickly?

And it is so nasty, why is it produced in the first place?

RayCun

demfad wrote: »

Chartsengrafs isn't a word, its someone's username Chivito.

sounds like an Asterix character

El Caballo

Adrian, pretty sure in reading that pfitz advocates one hour pace.

Duanington: There's no easy way to describe it.

Lactate is actually the good guy, it helps us to run when we are in oxygen debt, it's fuel for the muscles to keep going without sufficient oxygen to support the pace, as soon as we hit Aerobic threshold, we start producing it to keep the intensity higher and the harder you run, the more Lactate that needs to be produced to keep that intensity because our oxygen needs increase but we can't obtain enough so we need more and more Lactate to fuel our muscles. The more Lactate that is been produced, the more byproducts that get created from the chemical reaction and one of those byproducts is called hydrogen ions, these are what creates that burning sensation in your legs and make you stop. Some people will have higher tolerances for H ions like middle distance runners so they can tolerate more and have the benefit of been able to running at a higher intensity because they can produce more fuel from Lactate without needing to stop because of H ions.

RayCun

Duanington wrote: »

Lactate - what's the story? Why is it the bad guy that we want to "clear" so quickly?

And it is so nasty, why is it produced in the first place?

Easy pace running generates energy aerobically, using oxygen.
If you need more energy in a shorter time, it is produced without oxygen, anaerobically.
Lactate is a by-product of this process
Your body can clear the lactate at a certain rate, so you can tolerate a particular mix of aerobic and anaerobic production for quite a long time. This is your lactate threshold level, the level where you are clearing as much as you produce and your lactate level stays stable.
Too much lactate shuts down your muscles, because too much anaerobic effort will damage your muscles.

adrian522

El Caballo wrote: »

Adrian, pretty sure in reading that pfitz advocates one hour pace

This is what he has:

Lactate-threshold runs are tempo runs in which you run for at least 20 minutes at your lactate threshold pace. This coincides closely with your 15k to half marathon race pace. For most marathoners, this pace range corresponds with about 82 to 91 percent of maximal heart rate or 77 to 88 percent of heart rate reserve.

I figure I was likely running these too quickly last year, but maybe the book is aimed at faster runners than myself. One of the sessions has 7 miles at LT pace which for me would be running 1 hour race pace for close enough to 50 mins.

El Caballo

adrian522 wrote: »

This is what he has:



I figure I was likely running these too quickly last year, but maybe the book is aimed at faster runners than myself. One of the sessions has 7 miles at LT pace which for me would be running 1 hour race pace for close enough to 50 mins.

Really, it highlights a big problem with generic mileage plans in that factors change depending on ability level. Say, a 60 minute 10k runner picks up pfitz's book and is down to run 6 miles @LT. That would be 58 minutes at LT which isn't a workout, that's a flat out race. Time is by far the most important factor in measuring intensity and a tempo run should never be more than 40 minutes. If you use the plan again, take a look at the mileage for an LT run at both lowest miles and highest miles. Convert the lowest one to 20 minutes and the highest one to 40 minutes and calculate time for the miles in the rest of the plan based off that. That's much more reliable and takes your ability level into consideration.

dublin runner

6 miles at proper LT is a crazy session. I would hazard most don't do it at their real LT. That would basically be a 10k race, or close to it, for me.

Can we leave out the jargon btw? Any new runner looking at this would automatically switch off. If you cannot explain it using everyday simple language then this isn't the thread for you perhaps. The best coaches can explain it in simple terms but have the knowledge, experience and understanding to back it up.

Chivito550

dublin runner wrote: »

6 miles at proper LT is a crazy session. I would hazard most don't do it at their real LT. That would basically be a 10k race, or close to it, for me.

Can we leave out the jargon btw? Any new runner looking at this would automatically switch off. If you cannot explain it using everyday simple language then this isn't the thread for you perhaps. The best coaches can explain it in simple terms but have the knowledge, experience and understanding to back it up.

+1, and further backs up what I said above. If this is a thread where things get explained then it should be done in simple and clear English. Jargon is the type of thing used by people in the legal profession, or in offices where managers call meetings for the sake of meetings, with the purpose of organising a further meeting.

The best communicators in this world are the one's who can get the point across as quickly and as simply as possible. The posts on this thread bore me to tears and I'm an athletics fanatic!!

El Caballo

dublin runner wrote: »

6 miles at proper LT is a crazy session. I would hazard most don't do it at their real LT. That would basically be a 10k race, or close to it, for me.

Can we leave out the jargon btw? Any new runner looking at this would automatically switch off. If you cannot explain it using everyday simple language then this isn't the thread for you perhaps. The best coaches can explain it in simple terms but have the knowledge, experience and understanding to back it up.

I thought my answer was pretty much basic to be honest considering how complicated Lactate is.

dublin runner

H ions?

Read the title of the thread. Anyway, I don't want to derail. If I struggle with that type of training jargon God help a newbie.

I will leave you to it.

El Caballo

dublin runner wrote: »

H ions?

Read the title of the thread. Anyway, I don't want to derail. If I struggle with that type of training jargon God help a newbie.

I will leave you to it.

Don't know why I bother.

Duanington

All info appreciated folks - I'm possibly not quite the dummy I thought I was so perhaps I should have called it "running \training terms for people who like to talk about running, love actually running but don't fully understand a lot of the terms thrown around"

Dubgal72

dublin runner wrote: »

H ions?

Read the title of the thread.
t.

El Caballo wrote: »

The more Lactate that is been produced, the more byproducts that get created from the chemical reaction and one of those byproducts is called hydrogen ions, these are what creates that burning sensation in your legs and make you stop. Some people will have higher tolerances for H ions like middle distance runners so they can tolerate more and have the benefit of been able to running at a higher intensity because they can produce more fuel from Lactate without needing to stop because of H ions.

Read the post?

dublin runner

Dubgal72 wrote:

Read the post?

Yep, I can read. I double checked to make sure.

As I said, I don't want to derail so carry on.