Running Myths

I'll bite on one...

Testosterscone wrote: »

1. LSR stands for Long Slow Run

Long runs are valuable, even at an easy pace.

Most of your weekly mileage should be at an easy pace.

When you are increasing your mileage, the increase should be in easy miles.

"Long, easy run" is a contradiction in terms, when each week's long run is the longest run ever.

When relative beginners go too fast on their long runs, it is often at the cost of missing other runs, neglecting sessions with actual fast running, or getting injured.

So, for a lot of people, calling it a 'slow' run reinforces the message that it should be easy, and time on feet is the goal.

Of course, after a while, 15 or 20 miles is a smaller chunk of your week's training, and always running those miles at an easy pace will have less of a training effect, so instead of the 'LSR' you just talk about your 'long run', which is sometimes easy, sometimes progressive, sometimes incorporates faster intervals...

I'll bite as well. #3 is not a myth. In fact, static stretching has more disadvantages than advantages. All purely IMHO, obviously.

Testosterscone wrote: »

Not everyone is gonna agree with these (and that is what I am hoping #bringbackdebate) but some of the biggest running myths IMO

According to Google, a myth is a traditional story or a widely held but false belief or idea. I think that some of the points you've mentioned below while not strictly false, they can be grey areas.

Testosterscone wrote: »

1. LSR stands for Long Slow Run

This is not my remit anymore

Testosterscone wrote: »

2. "If the fire is hot enough it will burn anything"/ Runners can eat what ever as long as they are training hard enough

This is an interesting one and I guess it depends on what you're overall objective is and how you define training hard. I can train as hard as I am physically able to but if I don't have a good diet, I'll still gain weight, recover less quickly and have less energy.
My focus is on performing as well as I can, winning races if I can and trying to get my times faster. I know at the moment that if I lost body fat and became leaner I would run faster for less effort.
First of all I need to focus on calories in v's calories out. This is not a simple equation because not all calories are made equal but for my purposes I'm looking to have a calorie deficit on non training days and on training days I'll increase intake to ensure I have enough nutrients to train and recover.
The second thing I'm focused on is macro's and specifically my protein intake because when my diet has more protein I find I recover quicker and I feel fuller so I don't eat as much crap like sweets and chocolate
Lastly then I'm looking at nutrient timing. I've only lately become a convert to this but I find if I do a hard session in the gym or on the track and I have a protein shake straight after, then I recover way quicker. I'm less sore the next day and I'm not as fatigued.
Basically, what I'm saying is you can't outrun a bad diet

Testosterscone wrote: »

3. Static stretching is of no benefit

Many forms of yoga involve holding static stretches so I don't think you can say that it is of no benefit. I think stretching is a very individual thing though and
you have to find what works for you. I've found if my muscles are sore, I'm better off not stretching them.

Testosterscone wrote: »

4. You will eventually adapt to pace if you run it enough

I can run about 450 metres at Kipchoge's average marathon world record pace (69.19sec/400m)
If I ran that pace enough would I eventually adapt?? It wouldn't be possible for me to run that pace enough because physiologically my body couldn't cope.

Interestingly Kipchoge's average pace for 5k was 14:24.9 and the women's world record for 5k is 14:11.15 which makes me wonder what are the limitations to adaptation.

Testosterscone wrote: »

5. RICE (Rest Ice Compress Elevate) is the best course of action if you pick up an injury.

I think it depends on the injury. In my experience ice is good for joints but heat is better for soft tissue.

career move wrote: »

Many forms of yoga involve holding static stretches so I don't think you can say that it is of no benefit. I think stretching is a very individual thing though and
you have to find what works for you. I've found if my muscles are sore, I'm better off not stretching them.

Many people who do yoga have the most disconnected movement and find it hard to integrate their body,

HelenAnne wrote: »

I’ll bite too!! I love static stretching & don’t get injured very often ��

Pretty sure there's a lot who do no stretching can say the same

Testosterscone wrote: »

Thought you might alright ��

While it is true that most of the science doesn’t support injury prevention benefits of static stretching and that elongated muscles will lose power and stability the thing that is overlooked is

a) the role of antagonistic muscle in biomechanics influence
b) the fact that most of us don’t have optimal range of motion in our running gait

Muscle contractions are dependent on fchange of orce or length so loss of optimal length is gonna mean power is compromised so it will have an decrease in power output and performance

While there is no doubt that muscle restriction can cause dysfunctional movement, i'm not sure what impact static stretching will have,
a, releasing the restriction
B, correcting the dysfunction.

In my own experience I have seen areas of muscle restriction, with NO change in the area of restriction, but with an increase in the range of joint motion after static and dynamic stretching.

career move wrote: »

Many people who do yoga have the most coordinated range of motion and are both super dextrous and highly flexible

All depends on who is analyzing :D

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=impact+of+stretching+on+the+performance

Here is some of what the research says regarding stretching.

IvoryTower wrote: »

The rice thing is a funny one. I spoke to a physical therapist about this and she agreed that ice may not be the best thing to do but said if she didn't apply it to a footballer injured in a match she'd be worried about her job afterwards when they give out!

And this right there is why a myth like this continues,
Maybe if the physical therapist told them, that as a trained professional they were keeping up to date with the most relevant information to aid the recovery of the injury, this might change their (employer) point of view.

This is from the guy who coined the RICE term
www.drmirkin.com/fitness/why-ice-delays-recovery.html

Testosterscone wrote: »

The big issue with a lot of that research is that it is referring to acute impact on muscles.

This is why I believe that the myth gets perpetuated because the research is misinterpreted rather than the research being incorrect it becomes a case of confirmation bias.

This unfortunately is the problem with a lot of research,
research by its nature is carried out academically and is very one dimensional.

Testosterscone wrote: »

Not everyone is gonna agree with these (and that is what I am hoping #bringbackdebate) but some of the biggest running myths IMO

1. LSR stands for Long Slow Run

2. "If the fire is hot enough it will burn anything"/ Runners can eat what ever as long as they are training hard enough

3. Static stretching is of no benefit

4. You will eventually adapt to pace if you run it enough

5. RICE (Rest Ice Compress Elevate) is the best course of action if you pick up an injury

Rather than elaborate I will leave these open for discussion in the hope that it might start a debate going.

Great idea for thread... and there are so many more myths to follow on with as well

FWIW, Definitely agree 2,4 and 5 are myths, big style. I've spent years arguing with people about RICE, so I'm glad to see the old orthodoxy starting to crumble there.

Even though I've personally been stretch skeptic forever from an athletic POV, I still think 3 is far too broad a statement, so a myth as phrased. When you can observe a lot species stretching in the wild, it would seem that there is some fundamental biological benefit for a behavior that has evolved to be instinctive.

LSR is an interesting one. I've heard both definitions. Emphasising the slow part is probably good for runners who are inclined to to run all their training runs to the max, and haven't fully grasped the concept of running hard runs hard and easy runs easy in training. On the other hand if a runner is inclined to overly relax a key training session then a little mental cue of calling it a steady run might help (I've moved from the former to the latter over the years). But then I was doing the training long before I even picked up the term (probably here!).

Thomas Barr does static stretching. He’s done alright for himself.

https://www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/world-of-sport/irish-400m-hurdle-stars-thomas-and-jessie-barr-give-us-their-top-training-tips-2505

Dynamic before, static after.

Myth?