The runners' thread...

[windhoek]

I ran for 25 minutes this morning and what a difference running with the right technique makes for painless pleasure. Running with a shorter stride to ensure I avoided heel strike
- an inefficient and harmful technique I've employed as standard until now - felt weird and clunky for the first ten minutes or so, but once I began to settle into the shorter stride, everything just seemed to fall into place.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think I've got my new stride timed to perfection just yet, but if this morning's run is anything to by, I'll be running for far longer in no time and with a better posture as well as more enjoyment too once I really hit my, ahem, shorter stride

 

[fay spook]

I do it by time - if I run a 5k in approx/ 20 mins then I know a 20 min. brisk run is about 5k, and 40 mins approx 10k. I rarely run more than 5k.

If you do the same route, that works. Otherwise it gets harder to check progression or, with the typical age group here, regression. GPS devices are so useful once you get beyond 20 minute jogs. In the same way getting appropriate clobber.

As an aside on trainers, I've tried a few of the main brands and they've all been ok for me. I buy them from a specialist running shop where they check your gait etc. The current ones have been replaced by the manufacturer and they are being sold at half price on line. They work for me so I might click.

 

[fay spook]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think I've got my new stride timed to perfection just yet, but if this morning's run is anything to by, I'll be running for far longer in no time and with a better posture as well as more enjoyment too once I really hit my, ahem, shorter stride

That's great news. I know it's running for fun however keeping injury free means it carries on being fun. Also being self aware of good technique will help while away the running time and make you aware when you're getting tired - your neat style falls apart!

 

[windhoek]

I think you're right. I spent so much time thinking about my technique the 25 minutes practically flew past. It went by so fast, in fact, I even thought about carrying on for another 25 minutes, but thankfully better judgement got the better of me and I called it a day at that; I don't want to overdo things while I'm still finding my feet as it were.

 

[MVV]

Regarding good style and avoiding injury consider a shoe with not much or any drop (heel to toe)
It makes it easier to avoid heel strike and so reduces the chance of injury. Here is a cushioned version: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01BWTH9PG/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

 

[windhoek]

45 minute run on Monday, day off yesterday and 30 minutes run this morning. I planned on doing the same 45 minute run from Monday, but my calfs began to feel increasingly tight after 20 minutes so I bailed out to make sure I didn't injure myself. I feel ready for another run now lol.

 

[SteveG]

Ah, I just remembered I meant to ask, how do you know how far you've run? My Casio tells me how long I've been running but not how far. My Google phone probably has an app but I'm not keen on carrying a phone with me just to track speed and distance etc.

I use a GPS watch - one of a variety of Garmin's I have.

 

[andrew d]

I enjoy running but find it difficult to get in more then one or two runs a week if I am cycling 100 miles or so a week.
I occasionally try a Strava plan, 6 weeks to a faster 5km. You can choose the number of days a week running and it generates the plan accordingly.
My Garmin Forerunner 235 is great for recording data and monitoring progress.
Try to avoid one speed running as you won't get any faster. Build up leg strength with long slow runs and sprint/fartlek sessions. Heart rate monitors really do help. Above all just enjoy it!

 

[windhoek]

I went out for an hour's run this morning - my second such run this week - and on the whole, it was an enjoyable outing even though there were a few significant elevation changes along the way. In fact, I even managed a semi-sprint towards the end: the spirit was willing but the body was not lol

Not long after I finished I saw a guy run past whose legs were as sinewy as an old ship's rigging. I don't know if I'll ever get that in shape, but I can imagine it'll take a helluva lot of running if I ever do, like Forrest Gump amount of running!

Oh, I've abandoned the idea of using a water bottle when I'm running as I now know I can run for over an hour without water and feel fine during as well as after the run

 

[windhoek]

I just bought a pair of these Asics GT 2000 4 as the Skechers I bought recently feel as flat as a pancake beneath my feet and my knees and ankles are beginning to hurt again. Hopefully, a pair of proper running shoes will see me through for a few hundred miles or so because the Skechers managed less than 100 before the cushioning gave up.

 

[windhoek]

I just came across Jack Daniel's VDOT Running Calculator (VDOT is a measure of your current running ability; it assigns a score to all running performances and lets you equate a time in one distance against another), and according to my half marathon time of 1.51.xx in 1997, I could have ran a 10K that day in 50 minutes, give or take a few seconds either way. Apparently, I could have ran a full marathon in 3.49.52 that day if I had the actual ability, but legs me I assure you, I didn't.

I'm doing the Great Scottish Run 10K next Sunday (20 years, less hair and more weight later) and I'm aiming to do it in under 60 minutes. The 10K will only be my second distance-verified run, and although I think I can run 10K in under an hour, I really have no idea whether my estimates during training runs are accurate as I don't have a GPS watch or anything to go by. Anyway, I'll give it a go and with a bit of luck, I'll crack 60 minutes. With a lot of luck, however, I'll crack 50 minutes! With bad luck, I'll crack my metatarsel.

Click here to compare your time in one distance against another with the VDOT calculator. You can even, as the website says, compare your VDOT score from a recent 5k result to a friend's score who just ran a half marathon and see who would have won in an actual-virtual race!

 

[John Channing]

I took up running about 2 1/2 years ago as a proactive step to improve my health and fitness. In the past. although quite active through playing football, cycling, etc I never really enjoyed running, as I found it really hard work.

I do most of my training on a treadmill. I have a TV mounted on the wall with a Sky Mini box, so rather than sitting on the settee and watching TV, I run. I recently ran the Great North Run (half marathon) in 1h 54m hitting my target of breaking 2 hours. I am going to run it again next year, my new goal will be 1h45m. I think this is realistic as my 5k time is ~22min and my 10k ~47min - I just need to build my endurance for the last 5k.

I am probably going to do a few park runs in South London in the coming months. I want to get my 5k time below 20 minutes, but there is a real stretch goal for me.

 

[robs]

A personal best half marathon today (at the tender age of 51), beating my old PB of 8 years ago! (Though that was a split time in a full marathon, and dead flat course, whereas today was somewhat more hilly!).
Very happy (and a little sore) this evening.

The VDOT site says that's 3:23 marathon time...I think not!

 

[windhoek]

Well done guys! I'd like to do the half marathon again next year and maybe, one day, just maybe, a full marathon.

I think the VDOT calculator simply (albeit, the algorithm itself might be complex) adjusts times to correspond to an alternative distance. It makes no promises or knows of actual ability.

 

[cutting42]

I am going to run it again next year, my new goal will be 1h45m. I think this is realistic as my 5k time is ~22min and my 10k ~47min - I just need to build my endurance for the last 5k.

I think you are not too far off. My running buddy does 5k in around 20 and change (has run 19.59), 10k in 44min and his best half is 98 mins

 

[cutting42]

Did a 5k pb last week of 29.13 and am getting closer to that 10k sub 1 hr pace for the 8th October.

 

[windhoek]

Guys, I had an epiphany last night on how to improve my running technique and race times: train with a metronome.

I'd read that 180 strides per minute (SPM) is the ideal running pace, albeit, faster than that during training exercises such as 'lactate threshold' and 'VO2max' as well as on race day, but I thought if I could just know for sure what my typical running pace is, I can build on it accordingly and really dial-in my pace during specific training routines as well as have a strong and metronomically steady pace on race day.

I went out this morning with my Wittner MT-40 digital metronome and the result was all I'd hoped for and more. After a warm-up, I ran about 1.5 miles at 186BPM, which translates as 186SPM, and at a guess, I reckon 186SPM is about my 5K race pace. I then did the same run at 180SPM and it definitely felt much more like a brisk cruising pace. I never managed to time this run unfortunately as my finger didn't press the start button properly when I set off, but I'm sure it would have been slower as my SPM was slower. What I also realised is I've been cruising at less than 180SPM, probably 174SPM or thereabouts.

I didn't want to push myself too much as I'm supposed to be easing off a bit to make sure I can achieve 60 minutes or less on Sunday, but what's clear is that running with a metronome really allowed me to run at a specific tempo with great precision over a set distance. It also made me feel like a pro as the beeps were audible to passers-by.

Interestingly, the beeps were drowned out whenever a bus went past, but yet I managed to maintain my timing every time the beeps went dark, as it were. It remains to be seen how useful the metronome will be when I run routes with decent elevation changes; the route I ran this morning is essentially flat barring a few brief uphill sections, but if it turns out it's no use on hills, I can use it on my 1.5m doorstep loop with great efficacy all the same.

I'd be amazed if I'm the first person to think of running with a metronome; it might well be elite runners can dial-in to a specific pace just fine without one. Who knows, maybe I'll be able to dial-in to specific paces without one myself one day. But as I only started running three and a half months ago, I can see it being an incredibly useful tool for some time yet.

Fwiw, the metronome is about the side of a credit card with a height of about 8mm, so it fits in a pocket with ease. It also has a 2.5mm headphone socket so can be used silently, as it were - an option for race day, perhaps!

 

[SteveG]

A GPS watch is pretty useful when targetting something like your first sub 1-hour 10K as it's easy to either go out to hard early on and tire yourself, or go out too slow and not realise it until too late. I have mine set to show alert me at the end of each km on what the pace was for that, but also check regularly on both pace and HR, especially on longer runs.

My SPM tends to be in the 170 range - my 5K PB was at 177 but normally I'd be more like 171.

 

[windhoek]

Do GPS watches show SPM as well as pace and HR? I might have to get one myself as it sounds like they're very useful gadgets indeed.

 

[Yomanze]

I think it's good to run to a heart rate i.e. stick to between 152 - 166BPM (Aerobic Zone), and as you get fitter, you'll naturally speed up rather than sticking to a pace & over-exerting (or under-exerting) yourself. The Polar heart monitors (with the chest strap) are much more accurate than Fitbits etc.