Would we be running faster times if...

Woddle · 25-06-2011 02:58PM #1

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy

and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

ecoli · 25-06-2011 03:16PM

Woddle wrote: »

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

Biggest flaw with McMillan is people's interpretation of it. You run a 5k and plug in your time get a set of targets for your next race (say a 10k).

Mcmillans calculators race times are times you would be hitting if specifically training for that event therefore running a 5k race will not translate to a HM. It becomes close when the distances are closer only because the training is more suited to spefic training of each event.

Training should be done off percieved effort and feel but many have become so reliant on these gauges that they are unable to process what their body is telling them effectively

Think the 90s quality over quantity revolution is also a factor as peoples idea of high mileage has changed and only starting to come back to the high mileage way of thinking and realising if done correctly injury increase risk is not inevitable.

As Lydiard says "miles make champions"

menoscemo · 25-06-2011 03:41PM

I used to be like you with regards the Heart Rate. Now I wear the HR monitor but turn off the HR field on the watch. It is nice to get the HR stats after the race/run, but can only serve to worry you during it.

RacoonQueen · 25-06-2011 03:49PM

They'd probably be faster if we stopped wearing those ridiclously heavy shoes.

tunney · 26-06-2011 09:55AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

They'd probably be faster if we stopped wearing those ridiclously heavy shoes.

And accepted that just because we look skinny compared to "non runners" doesn't mean we are lean. Just means the non runners are getting fatter.

Also could help if we were a little more critical and a little less tony the tiger.

ecoli · 26-06-2011 10:17AM

tunney wrote: »

Also could help if we were a little more critical and a little less tony the tiger.

Only problem with that given the mind set of the general public these days where fitness is a "lifestyle choice" rather than a part of life need to get them involved before you can go all Army drill sergeant on them.

People are like fish you need to reel them in with the "nice" bait. Once you have them in the boat then you can beat them:D

tunney · 26-06-2011 10:26AM

ecoli wrote: »

Only problem with that given the mind set of the general public these days where fitness is a "lifestyle choice" rather than a part of life need to get them involved before you can go all Army drill sergeant on them.

People are like fish you need to reel them in with the "nice" bait. Once you have them in the boat then you can beat them:D

This is a discussion on "running faster times". Assumption being that people involved are already running.......

ecoli · 26-06-2011 11:36AM

tunney wrote: »

This is a discussion on "running faster times". Assumption being that people involved are already running.......

True but given we are talking about declining standards at entry to middle pack runners I think the attitude still applies. Person running 30 miles a week (just an example) will be more likely to up their mileage to competitive levels if they are encouraged at first rather than a barrage of criticism.

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

SnappyDresser · 26-06-2011 05:28PM

ecoli wrote: »

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

I would not agree that top level standards are improving. They are going backwards at an alarming rate. The top guys in the 80's in say marathon running are far better than what we have now. I mean they would hammer the top guys around now.

ecoli · 26-06-2011 05:57PM

i008787 wrote: »

I would not agree that top level standards are improving. They are going backwards at an alarming rate. The top guys in the 80's in say marathon running are far better than what we have now. I mean they would hammer the top guys around now.

Overall yes but in the last few years we have seen a significant improvement compared to the 15 years previously

When you look at the likes of Robinson,Rooney,O Lionaird, McCarthy,Cragg, Christie,Connolly, Kenneally.

We might not be back to them levels yet but there is a steady progression over the last 3 or so years

Referring back to the quality over quantity revolution which kicked in the start of the 90s

tunney · 26-06-2011 07:15PM

Just wondering where you got your sunglasses ecoli?

I used to have a lovely pair of Rudy's just like them. Cannot get the same lenses for Oakleys though, lots of lenses available but none of the same hue of pink around.

Hard Worker · 26-06-2011 07:49PM

ecoli wrote: »

True but given we are talking about declining standards at entry to middle pack runners I think the attitude still applies. Person running 30 miles a week (just an example) will be more likely to up their mileage to competitive levels if they are encouraged at first rather than a barrage of criticism.

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

DULLAHAN2 · 26-06-2011 08:02PM

Hard Worker wrote: »

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

Why is this? I imagine that 30 years ago there wasnt as much distractions as there is these days, When people took up running at an earlier age they kept it up. Would i be far off?

heffsarmy · 26-06-2011 08:14PM

I think science can make a difference when your an elite runner, with the advent off the Internet and the like, too many recreational runners get caught up in the science of running and will never push themselves to there limits, they like to run in there zones. I take alot of this information with a pinch of salt, if I had of if ran my last marathon according to McMillan I would have been 5minutes slower.

ecoli · 26-06-2011 08:54PM

As I said in my most recent post my reference was moreso to the last 15-20 years no doubt we are still off the standards of the 80s but we are not the only ones in terms of this. During the 90s there was a decline in running standards across most of the likes of Ireland/US/Aus/GB.
We are starting to improve though in comparison to 90s (maybe not so in middle distance but the longer definitely)

Just look to the last few years:

2 men under Treacy's HM record
More sub 14 5k runs this year than in the last 10
2 new 4 min milers in past 12 months
2 sub 2.18 marathon debuts this year

Again yes it is not the 80s (admittedly too young to remember thank god:D) but it is a step in the right direction towards getting back to "the good aul days"

RacoonQueen · 26-06-2011 09:13PM

Hard Worker wrote: »

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

DULLAHAN2 wrote: »

Why is this? I imagine that 30 years ago there wasnt as much distractions as there is these days, When people took up running at an earlier age they kept it up. Would i be far off?

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

tunney · 26-06-2011 09:27PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

Very hard to have hard evidence to back to the "soccer players these days" claims. Easier with running.

Hard Worker · 26-06-2011 09:44PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

Very difficult to compare quality in football these days to 20 or 30 years ago. It would be very much a persons individual opinion. However, League of Ireland players are far fitter nowadays.
When it comes to running, just get on with it. Can't understand why anyone would wear a heart monitor while racing. In my day

, when the gun went, we just raced to our limits, just trying to hang on to people or to break people.
A certain sporting body ( not athletics ) did a survey about 15 years ago to see why there was such a decline in their sport. The reason for the decline became very quickly apparent to them - the school bus. Again, in my day

, when you finished school, you played in the school yard or field for a couple of hours before heading home. Nowadays, when the school bell goes, you get the hell off the school property in case you trip up while messing in the yard, and end up sueing them.

Nwm2 · 26-06-2011 09:52PM

Woddle wrote: »

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

Different sport, but same topic. I got a PB the one and only time I didn't watch my power meter at my local cycling time trial. Guess I was holding myself back.

PhoenixParker · 26-06-2011 10:02PM

I think the argument about whether Irish standards are improving or falling is a bit moot. We're not the only people with access to heart rate monitors and McMillan's running calculator and world records are tumbling all the time.

That said the Irish record books make for depressing reading in terms of dates, particularly if you look at the juniors. The presence and absence of heart rate monitors and coaching tools isn't the problem there though.

In the middle of the results tables, are people not pushing themselves enough? No idea, but there's one pattern I've been wondering about. It goes something like this - someone is about to start on an 18week training program, so they take their PB for their most recent 10k, 10M or half, look it up and base their training plan on what McMillan tells them they can do a marathon in, i.e. pick the LSR pace, the easy run pace etc. accordingly.

Now if you're training for 18 weeks, then surely you should be anticipating at least a little bit of an increase in fitness and speed over that time, especially right at the start of your training program? If you went out and did all your training runs at the suggested paces for say 15mins* quicker, shouldn't you be able to keep up with the training plan?

Or is that just a recipe for injury?

*obviously the amount faster you'd choose to go would depend on how fast you already are.

airscotty · 26-06-2011 10:11PM

I dont really think its got anything to do with HR monitors/internet plans etc. I'd say its just that athletics is not glamerous in Ireland. People look up2 footballers more than top runners so thats what kids wanna do.

ecoli · 26-06-2011 10:31PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That said the Irish record books make for depressing reading in terms of dates, particularly if you look at the juniors. The presence and absence of heart rate monitors and coaching tools isn't the problem there though.

Dont think this tells the full story as compare the juniors to youths which have been almost constantly re written over the past few years but I take your point we should have some even coming close to these records

PhoenixParker wrote: »

In the middle of the results tables, are people not pushing themselves enough? No idea, but there's one pattern I've been wondering about. It goes something like this - someone is about to start on an 18week training program, so they take their PB for their most recent 10k, 10M or half, look it up and base their training plan on what McMillan tells them they can do a marathon in, i.e. pick the LSR pace, the easy run pace etc. accordingly.

Now if you're training for 18 weeks, then surely you should be anticipating at least a little bit of an increase in fitness and speed over that time, especially right at the start of your training program? If you went out and did all your training runs at the suggested paces for say 15mins* quicker, shouldn't you be able to keep up with the training plan?

Or is that just a recipe for injury?

*obviously the amount faster you'd choose to go would depend on how fast you already are.

Think this is one of the contributing factors however. People see training as a seasonal thing. 18 weeks is not enough time to train for a marathon. Also the notion of "generic plans" is a newer concept while good starting point could in fact be hindering many people. Most are designed to get an athlete safely to the start line in reasonable fitness rather than getting the best fitness out of people perhaps this is one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline in standards rather than just the calculators and HRMs

In terms of your question of faster I would opt for more rather than faster most would see more benefit from this and less of an increased injury risk than increased intensity

heffsarmy · 26-06-2011 10:34PM

The way I see it, people are lazy and like an easy way out, we have forget what hard work is all about and are relying on a magic formula...but the only magic formula that does work, is hard training. Look at the Africans they run there ass off and that's why there dominant.

ecoli · 26-06-2011 10:35PM

airscotty wrote: »

I dont really think its got anything to do with HR monitors/internet plans etc. I'd say its just that athletics is not glamerous in Ireland. People look up2 footballers more than top runners so thats what kids wanna do.

Doesnt really account for continued youth records. Its more juniors and senior standards where we seem to lack these days. Youth participation and standards are not in decline so i doubt it is the media role in relation to other sports that can account for the decline in Junior and Senior standards

thirtyfoot · 26-06-2011 11:39PM

Heffsarmy speaks sense. Its all about the easy option. There is only one way to get faster and that is hardwork. No fancy gizmos or gadgets that can be used as an excuse. I'd say yes people would be running faster. There is a place for science of course but the only way to succeed I believe is to work hard, find out what the mistakes are and what the good parts are and then ensure you continue to do the good parts and don't make the mistakes again.

As for the less glamour theory, maybe thats the problem, maybe we have too many kids interested in kissy lips, fancy trainers and less on really getting what a sport is about.

thirstywork2 · 27-06-2011 12:04AM

I don't think heart rate monitors or gadgets are to blame.
Alot stems from the schools spoting system,kids with sick notes and the kids would prefer to play nintendos or computers and eat rubbish.

I don't think the coaching standards are high enough,too many coaches think they know best without knocking their heads together.
More runners afraid to train in groups and alot of athletes training ont hir own which can't be good all the time.

Look at the likes of the americans now(alot based in colarado and oregon)
They are using anti gravity treadmills,ice rooms,heart rate and anything they can get their hands on and times are getting faster.

regarding road time I find most athletes running track don't want to do road and when they are doing cross country the same.
Some of the best road races aren't around anymore while more and more crap races form run by people who don't give a sh1t about the sport but want to make a few quid.

Ecoli while you are trying to put a positive spin on the currnet crop of athletes the truth is the standards aren't nearly as high.

I think Martin Fagan will break the Irish marathon record in Berlin this September.
Cragg broke the half marathon and ran one of the fastest Irish times for 5k lately.
Im also sure we can win European Junior medals this year.
On a positive note I think our sprinters are getting faster.

Pisco Sour · 27-06-2011 03:49AM

I have to say I find this whole 80s thing a bit of codswallop at times. Mark Carroll has run 13:03 for 5000m and 7:30 (unreal running) for 3000m, but is barely known to the Irish public. Had Carroll been around 15-20 years earlier he'd be seen as one of the greatest Irish distance runners of all time. Bit hard for the new crop of talent when they have to compete against a train of East Africans, something the guys of the 80s didnt have to worry about too much.

It was a bit like Coghlan and Kiernan criticizing Cragg in Beijing. Cragg has ran significantly faster than the legends of the 80s, but has to contend with Kenyans, Ethiopians, Tanzanians, Erithreans, and all of the above competing for Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Qatar and any other country that likes to buy success. In the 80s there were very few Africans competing.

Yes the standard overall of Irish middle and long distance running was much higher in the 80s, but people should keep the above points in mind. The competition at the top level is tougher these days.

Pisco Sour · 27-06-2011 03:53AM

heffsarmy wrote: »

The way I see it, people are lazy and like an easy way out, we have forget what hard work is all about and are relying on a magic formula...but the only magic formula that does work, is hard training. Look at the Africans they run there ass off and that's why there dominant.

It's part of the reason.

Living their entire lives at altitude has a lot to do with their dominance.

RacoonQueen · 27-06-2011 07:33AM

Hard Worker wrote: »

Very difficult to compare quality in football these days to 20 or 30 years ago. It would be very much a persons individual opinion. However, League of Ireland players are far fitter nowadays.
When it comes to running, just get on with it. Can't understand why anyone would wear a heart monitor while racing. In my day , when the gun went, we just raced to our limits, just trying to hang on to people or to break people.
A certain sporting body ( not athletics ) did a survey about 15 years ago to see why there was such a decline in their sport. The reason for the decline became very quickly apparent to them - the school bus. Again, in my day , when you finished school, you played in the school yard or field for a couple of hours before heading home. Nowadays, when the school bell goes, you get the hell off the school property in case you trip up while messing in the yard, and end up sueing them.

Well thats my point really. There is seemingly a decline in the volume of quality athletes coming through across a lot of sports, I use football as an example because I'm more familiar with it. Back in t'day (your day like I'm only a nipper :pac: ) kids would be out playing football until the sun went down, they'd play with any sort of ball, be it a tennis ball or something they made themselves out of rags. They'd always have a ball at their feet, even en route to school. Now, as you say kids aren't out playing anymore. Has athletics suffered from this as well? Are kids doing less training now in our sport than what they did then?

There's so much science behind sport now and how much kids (In fact this doesn't only apply to, young athletes but adults too) should be doing, does this contribute to the development or lack of development of young athletes? Have coaches pulled back on the amount/intensity of training they allow the younger athletes to do now that 'science' possibly says they shouldn't be training that much?

Long distance wise, is there the same emphasis now on running a 100 - 140 mile week as there was 30 years or so ago?

gerard65 · 27-06-2011 12:17PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Back in t'day (your day like I'm only a nipper :pac: ) kids would be out playing football until the sun went down, they'd play with any sort of ball, be it a tennis ball or something they made themselves out of rags. They'd always have a ball at their feet, even en route to school. Now, as you say kids aren't out playing anymore. Has athletics suffered from this as well? Are kids doing less training now in our sport than what they did then?

Very true. We did'nt have playstations, computers, multichannel, 24 hr TV. We did'nt have small enclosed playgrounds, the world was a playground. During the summer we'd be out from morning till mammy called us in. We played everything, races around the block, football, tennis, you never saw a fat kid, mammy cooked all our meals, we had very little money for junk foods. Compare that to todays kids. Ever been to a shopping centre on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, some kids can hardly walk their so fat and out of shape, one look at their parents and you'll know why.
Kids are way too mollycoddled, don't run in the playground - if they fall their parents will sue. Don't slap, just shove a burger in their mouths to shut them up.
Kids are been brought up soft, HTFU is an alien concept.

Raighne · 27-06-2011 01:29PM

04072511 wrote: »

It's part of the reason.

Living their entire lives at altitude has a lot to do with their dominance.

There seems to be a myriad of advantages that they hold compared to us. Another is they still grow up as children running barefoot and keep running barefoot until they get a good contract from a shoe sponsor. By this time it doesn't matter much as their running style is already ingrained.

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%. Add to this the already known studies showing that shock impact is reduced by 50%, or more, there's another substantial competitive advantage for the Africans here. This differential was less pronounced in the 50-70s because A) there were less African runners and

most runners still had experience with running barefoot in their early years and several runners such as Ron Hill, Herb Elliott and Percy Cerrutty's disciples trained substantially barefoot (Elliott almost every day) even when racing in spikes and minimalist footwear subsequently. When they used shoes, they were very unforgiving ones, that would not have encouraged poor form to the degree which the shoes the later generations have grown up with have.

This is undoubtedly one of a few reasons why fewer runners today can survive the high mileage weeks of good quality aerobic running necessary to excel at the highet level before breaking down.

Would we be running faster times if...

Comments