Random Running Questions

OOnegative wrote: »

True and plenty more like yourself have done the same, I was running 6 years before I eventually made it to the start line of a marathon because of injury/ bad training. I rushed trying to do my first one instead of getting consistent miles into my legs. If I could go back I would follow the advice I gave.

But we’re all different, you had no problems going straight into running one, possible the OP maybe wired the same way.

I did a marathon within my first 6 months of running. I thought I got away with it but I didn't really. I had a decent level of fitness from cycling and the boards plan along with mentors got me through most of it. My legs cramped up fairly badly from Mile 22 onwards. I simply didn't have enough base building miles done in advance.

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Can anyone recommend good 'winter' runners? My Brooks Ghost 13 seem to have zero grip, even on a wet day I'm cautious but with the current icy conditions they are lethal. I have a pair of Salomon trail runners but they're not comfortable on road so just looking for something I can run in on days like today where there's frost everywhere! Thanks.

Not "winter runners" but I was out on frosty, slippery paths and roads for most of my run this morning in New Balance Beacon 3s. No issues. A little slippage but I tend to glide into my stride. Noticeable better grip on dry parts. Even running through a lethal housing estate, I overtook a car crawling along the road.

Good thing about Beacons is they are very light but durable and good for daily runs, slow runs or a bit of tempo.

One thing I'd assume, heel strikers are at more of risk of slipping than midfoot strikers. I could be corrected on this? Landing on your midfoot is more surface area (and softer) than landing on your heel.

Huzzah! wrote: »

Whether you're a runner or not has nothing to do with how fast you are.

Missed this... In the unlikely event you spot this, what do you mean?

That there's some inherent, genetic disposition to running fast?

A year ago I could run a KM in about 5 mins, now I can run it under 3.30, so that has only come about by running and building up my cardio etc, so how do you disentangle running not related to your speed?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just curious as to what you mean.

wersal gummage wrote: »

Missed this... In the unlikely event you spot this, what do you mean?

That there's some inherent, genetic disposition to running fast?

A year ago I could run a KM in about 5 mins, now I can run it under 3.30, so that has only come about by running and building up my cardio etc, so how do you disentangle running not related to your speed?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just curious as to what you mean.

No problem. AhhHere answered you perfectly. You were saying that you're not a runner because you were slower than some family members and that you'd never be a runner by comparison to them. I would think if you've been running consistently for a year, then you are a runner.

I just meant don't say you're not a runner because there are people faster than you. There will always be someone faster than you. I don't think "being a runner" is anything to do with what paces you can hit. Maybe that's because I'm a back of the packer but I don't think so. I've been around here and running for long enough to know that runners come in all shapes and sizes, in all paces and from all walks of life.

AhhHere wrote: »

Not op but this usually means a runner comes in all levels of fitness, sizes and speeds.

Some people new to the sport believe they're not a runner because they're inexperienced, take walk breaks or compare themselves to others. But the reality is they are.

If you leave the house and start plodding, you're a runner.

This is more eloquent than me and encapsulates what I meant perfectly.

Thanks huzzah, aahere,

That makes perfect sense and I was reading the original comment through an entirely different lense.

Sorry, I don't mean for a moment to suggest that people are not runners if they don't run at a certain pace etc, totally get it that anyone who leaves their house and puts one front in foot of the other is running!

Another poster has suggested I could make big gains or improvements and might have potential, so I think (without reading back over the comments again) that what I meant was that I would not, given age, weight, lack of running history, ever be a serious, competitive runner to a level that I, very subjectively, would regard as being at a serious level...


So thanks again for your comment and I had not been clear at all that I was referring to my not being a reasonably serious/fast runner, rather than runner!


Edit, just to add, I'm happy with my running and progress and not caught up in times or speed etc, even if it may appear that way. I have tried to run 5k and 10k as fast as I can maybe twice in last 10 months, I run 4 times a week, so I almost never try to go out doing my fastest time!

partyguinness wrote: »

I didnt hear it but I am can pretty much guess he was ranting that runners have to breath...sorry I mean exhale 'plumes' of breath while running past other users.

So a runner's plume is worse than that of a walker, cyclist, someone pushing a pram, an old dear out on their mobility scooter?

Never mind the groups of people out walking standing around talking in groups of 5-6 and blocking the paths that we have to run around plus 9/10 in the age group at a higher risk.

Pat Kenny is a stain. He dislikes all things active. He usually bashes cyclists. I have definitely noticed more of the dramatic mouth covering and army rolls away from me when I'm running lately, despite a ridiculous wide berth.

Is there any version of a Tempo workout that the pace is slower than MP? As in if you head out for a controlled tempo and it's actually slower than MP is it really a tempo? Asking for a friend.

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Tempo is a very loose definition. You can do tempo running at 5k pace! You can also do steady tempo (way slower than MP). The term itself doesn't really matter does it? It more important to understand the reason for the pace you're running within the session?

I suppose my idea of a 'Tempo' is probably that little bit faster than Threshold pace. I know it's a loose term.....

OOnegative wrote: »

Thoughts on running on sand? Found a nice little lumpy route today that’s predominantly soft sand which would be good at building strength.

Sand is very hard on the Achilles, so be careful. Personally, I wouldn't do it.

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Sand is very hard on the Achilles, so be careful. Personally, I wouldn't do it.

Soft sand is a nightmare.

Hard sand isn’t too bad at all and can actually lend to an improvement in form. So wait until the tide is out!!

Slideways wrote: »

Tempo is slower than threshold.

If you did your long runs at 5:00/km and your 5k PB was 20:00 I would say your threshold would be approx 4:15 and tempo 4;30-4:40

That’s a loose guide and others are welcome to disagree

Tempo can mean a lot of things, including threshold.

OOnegative wrote: »

I’d run on soft sand more or less daily for 5 minutes, it wouldn’t be along a beach but in dunes where the sand is very very soft.

Hugely beneficial imo.
And if you can do it barefoot all the better, great for proprioception and neuroception, which will help develop smaller intirnstic stabilising muscles.

Ceepo wrote: »

Running on soft sand isn't necessary a bad thing, and is similar to running barefoot

And physios still talk with glowing eyes about the golden years when barefoot running was becoming popular for a while and their cash registers were bursting as a result!

While I totally agree that gradual adoption is key, the vast majority of runners just don't do gradual.