The A/R Off Topic Thread

Firedance

The Black Oil wrote: »

Picked up an injury, no running for a few weeks. Gutted.

there's a bench, hop on but you can't stay to long ok?

Krusty_Clown

The Black Oil wrote: »

Picked up an injury, no running for a few weeks. Gutted.

Me too, but hopefully one week will be enough to see me back on the roads. In the mean-time, I'm wondering what you are supposed to do when you're not running? What do you do with all this spare time? Are you supposed to catch-up on your domestic DIY? I was thinking of trying my hand at baking, but gotta watch the weight this week. Try to learn how to play a musical instrument? Learn the basics of a new language? Catch-up on my training log?

annapr

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Me too, but hopefully one week will be enough to see me back on the roads. In the mean-time, I'm wondering what you are supposed to do when you're not running? What do you do with all this spare time? Are you supposed to catch-up on your domestic DIY? I was thinking of trying my hand at baking, but gotta watch the weight this week. Try to learn how to play a musical instrument? Learn the basics of a new language? Catch-up on my training log?

That gives you about 2 extra days in your week! Go on, catch up on the log!

PS sorry to hear you are injured

davedanon

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

In the mean-time, I'm wondering what you are supposed to do when you're not running? What do you do with all this spare time?

I believe the accepted approach is to whinge, moan, drink too much, do other stupid stuff and annoy the sh*t out of your nearest and dearest while accomplishing virtually nothing of any use. Then re-commence training as all who know you sigh in relief.

aero2k

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Me too, but hopefully one week will be enough to see me back on the roads. In the mean-time, I'm wondering what you are supposed to do when you're not running? What do you do with all this spare time? Are you supposed to catch-up on your domestic DIY? I was thinking of trying my hand at baking, but gotta watch the weight this week. Try to learn how to play a musical instrument? Learn the basics of a new language? Catch-up on my training log?

Don't do what I did - start back at DIY after a 20 year absence! I want to get back to running, it's way less strenuous and time consuming, not to mention cheaper and less likely to cause injury.

RacoonQueen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOMXnf_6C1M

aero2k

Declaration: I know Ivor Cummins but I've no other connection to this other than being (slightly) interested in cardiovascular disease.

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/dcu-widowmaker-screening-tickets-24027733598

People with an interest in the Low carb high fat diet might find some of Ivor's work interesting.

Enduro

aero2k wrote: »

Declaration: I know Ivor Cummins but I've no other connection to this other than being (slightly) interested in cardiovascular disease.

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/dcu-widowmaker-screening-tickets-24027733598

People with an interest in the Low carb high fat diet might find some of Ivor's work interesting.

That looks very interesting alright! thanks for the info.

_Tombstone_

^

Vitamin D levels could predict risk of poor cardiovascular health

The risk of heart attack, stroke, heart failure and other cardiac events could be predicted by measuring levels of two vitamin D components, suggest researchers from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City, UT.

Wild Garlic

What a wonderful sight this evening. Greystones track packed with kids.
Got to witness the junior garlic make his track debut in the U6 100m.

wowzer

Wild Garlic wrote: »

What a wonderful sight this evening. Greystones track packed with kids.
Got to witness the junior garlic make his track debut in the U6 100m.

Pity there's no rave thread to post this on as this is a proper rave.

aero2k

Enduro wrote: »

That looks very interesting alright! thanks for the info.

I thought you might be interested alright. Ivor has a few good videos on youtube - long but well presented. PM me if you can't find them.

El Caballo

Rant: bollix, no rave thread.

Came accross this on running cork, John Walshe on the National marathon championships/Olympic trials in Limerick in 1976 with a few photos in the Facebook link at the bottom. Gas to see the old battered Nike Cortez as a running shoe and some incredibly quick times for a race with such a small field.

http://www.corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2016/04/guest-articlenational-marathon-of-1976.html?m=1

average_runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Me too, but hopefully one week will be enough to see me back on the roads. In the mean-time, I'm wondering what you are supposed to do when you're not running? What do you do with all this spare time? Are you supposed to catch-up on your domestic DIY? I was thinking of trying my hand at baking, but gotta watch the weight this week. Try to learn how to play a musical instrument? Learn the basics of a new language? Catch-up on my training log?

Cut the grass, clear the flower beds, open the beer and enjoy the football

Ah go on, do the last one, you earned it:)

adrian522

El Caballo wrote: »

Rant: bollix, no rave thread.

Came accross this on running cork, John Walshe on the National marathon championships/Olympic trials in Limerick in 1976 with a few photos in the Facebook link at the bottom. Gas to see the old battered Nike Cortez as a running shoe and some incredibly quick times for a race with such a small field.

http://www.corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2016/04/guest-articlenational-marathon-of-1976.html?m=1

Loving the entry fee.

Dubgal72

El Caballo wrote: »

Rant: bollix, no rave thread.

Came accross this on running cork, John Walshe on the National marathon championships/Olympic trials in Limerick in 1976 with a few photos in the Facebook link at the bottom. Gas to see the old battered Nike Cortez as a running shoe and some incredibly quick times for a race with such a small field.

http://www.corkrunning.blogspot.ie/2016/04/guest-articlenational-marathon-of-1976.html?m=1

That is brilliant, thanks ElC.
Quote
"A 14-man bunch went through 5km in 15:15 and at 10 miles, reached just under 50 minutes, this had been reduced to seven." :eek: :cool:

davedanon

Dubgal72 wrote: »

That is brilliant, thanks ElC.
Quote
"A 14-man bunch went through 5km in 15:15 and at 10 miles, reached just under 50 minutes, this had been reduced to seven." :eek: :cool:

Savage standards back in the day.

demfad

Dubgal72 wrote: »

That is brilliant, thanks ElC.
Quote
"A 14-man bunch went through 5km in 15:15 and at 10 miles, reached just under 50 minutes, this had been reduced to seven." :eek: :cool:

Yes, that struck me also. Those guys were blasting out serious training obviously. Each runner knows they have serious competition and each runner must adapt their training and racing even more. That level of competition really does produce a race to the top where only the best talent who is trained best will win or even be competitive on the day.

Kind of re-inforces Krusty's comment on the Years Of Experience thread about creating those conditions for oneself by seeking out the most competitive races.

Krusty_Clown

demfad wrote: »

Yes, that struck me also. Those guys were blasting out serious training obviously. Each runner knows they have serious competition and each runner must adapt their training and racing even more. That level of competition really does produce a race to the top where only the best talent who is trained best will win or even be competitive on the day.

Kind of re-inforces Krusty's comment on the Years Of Experience thread about creating those conditions for oneself by seeking out the most competitive races.

Really enjoyed the article. It did suggest that marathons (and access to marathons) was so rare at the time, that few of the participants would have trained for such a distance. So while 14 were well capable of hitting a staggering time for 5k, it's probably not surprising that there was a significant level of drop-ff by the 10 mile mark (albeit in a time that would be close to winning Ballycotton 10 mile most years).

The other thing that struck me looking at the photos, is how thin the runners are. Though I'm quite thin myself, by comparison I'd be quite heavy. The mass availability of poor quality food nowadays must have contributed massively to the decline of the long distance running standard. Nowadays, achievement at long distances seems limited to those at the upper levels, who can commit to nutritional/weight goals and/or very high mileage. Just a thought.

RayCun

didn't TRR ask one of the elites after Dublin marathon once how he could become a better runner, and was told to stop being such a fat bastard?

Who knows what he could have achieved if he'd only listened?

RacoonQueen

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Really enjoyed the article. It did suggest that marathons (and access to marathons) was so rare at the time, that few of the participants would have trained for such a distance. So while 14 were well capable of hitting a staggering time for 5k, it's probably not surprising that there was a significant level of drop-ff by the 10 mile mark (albeit in a time that would be close to winning Ballycotton 10 mile most years).

The other thing that struck me looking at the photos, is how thin the runners are. Though I'm quite thin myself, by comparison I'd be quite heavy. The mass availability of poor quality food nowadays must have contributed massively to the decline of the long distance running standard. Nowadays, achievement at long distances seems limited to those at the upper levels, who can commit to nutritional/weight goals and/or very high mileage. Just a thought.

We've discussed this a lot following Jim Mc's passing, I think one of the other things is partly down to the difference in lifestyles also. Jim, for example would have been doing physical labour daily, no driving to the supermarket or driving to work...they'd have been naturally stronger. Jim didn't agree with core work etc because he never did it, but he did, he did it in his job every day - a lot of people now commute to work mostly on their arses, spend their day in work, mostly on their arses - we're simply less fit and strong and it would take us a fair amount of time to transition to what they did. Just my thoughts on it - the active jobs, walking to work (jim often ran) all the while doing huge mileage and crazy training sessions.
Diet and junk food would be part of our effectively poor lifestyles compared to what they possibly had but so would the largely sedentary work and the general laziness in how we get around.

Chivito550

Just playing devil's advocate a little. People go on about the standards being so much higher in the 70s and 80s, yet we've won significantly more medals at major championships in the 90s, 00s and 10s. Is it a case that the standards in distance running have dropped, but the standards in sprints and middle distance have improved? If so, why? After all, the different lifestyles now compared to the 70s would still apply to people competing in those disciplines too.

28064212

Chivito550 wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate a little. People go on about the standards being so much higher in the 70s and 80s, yet we've won significantly more medals at major championships in the 90s, 00s and 10s. Is it a case that the standards in distance running have dropped, but the standards in sprints and middle distance have improved? If so, why? After all, the different lifestyles now compared to the 70s would still apply to people competing in those disciplines too.

IMO, people are making a mistake conflating elite and "everybody else" when comparing cross-generations. I don't think there's any doubt that average runners' weights have increased. But I also don't think there's any significant weight differences between the likes of e.g. Treacy and McNamara, compared to the likes of Pollock and Clohissey.

I will say this though: last year, I ran the Athlone 3/4 marathon. Among the other runners was Eliud Too, the 2014 DCM winner from Kenya. And !!! It was the first time I'd ever seen an elite Kenyan athlete in the flesh, and it was a revelation. His bicep was barely thicker than my wrist! He was tiny, all long limbs and not an ounce of fat anywhere. It was a definite eye-opener in terms of the commitment needed

demfad

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Really enjoyed the article. It did suggest that marathons (and access to marathons) was so rare at the time, that few of the participants would have trained for such a distance. So while 14 were well capable of hitting a staggering time for 5k, it's probably not surprising that there was a significant level of drop-ff by the 10 mile mark (albeit in a time that would be close to winning Ballycotton 10 mile most years).

The other thing that struck me looking at the photos, is how thin the runners are. Though I'm quite thin myself, by comparison I'd be quite heavy. The mass availability of poor quality food nowadays must have contributed massively to the decline of the long distance running standard. Nowadays, achievement at long distances seems limited to those at the upper levels, who can commit to nutritional/weight goals and/or very high mileage. Just a thought.

Would be interesting to see the final times. I suppose one explanation for the thinness (of runner) and the depth of field would be that all these top guys were Lydiard men. Regardlss of their preferred distance, In their conditioning phase every season, many would have been knocking out 100 mile weeks at various sub threshold paces (not counting recovery runs) including the 22 hard hilly miler every weekend. They were never far from and no strangers to marathon condition. The national champs was one annual marathon at least to aim for and previous iterations had all seemed to be serious battles also (although the Limerick race seemed to be more competitive due to Olympic selection.)

The other lads who shared the authors car however, did seem to be actual marathon novices (bar one) but there is no suggestion that this was typical of the stronger part of the field. The field did seem to be stacked with marathon heavy weights. The Boston winner only finished third that day and the reigning national champion was pushed out to 8th. Looked like just a very hard high quality marathon race.

On the nutrition front the boyos in that car hit the greasy spoon for the recovery meal but for sure at the competitive end food was probably simpler. I would assume though that the current crop would have the nutrition and weight pretty sorted.

I'd imagine if a similar trial race was to occur now the standard would be lower and not as deep. I'm not sure diet and weight could explain it all. Just not as many elite competitors with relatively poorer training. I would also take RC's point as very significant: these guys were hardened and strong from many years of a more active life than the local athletes of today. This is clearly the case in non-western marathon powers today. These guys have had a generally more physical life. That base of strength is already there.

Edit: You make a strong case for the oul' diet Krusty. Glad that George Forman is being used.

KielyUnusual

demfad wrote: »

Would be interesting to see the final times. I suppose one explanation for the thinness (of runner) and the depth of field would be that all these top guys were Lydiard men. Regardlss of their preferred distance, In their conditioning phase every season, many would have been knocking out 100 mile weeks at various sub threshold paces (not counting recovery runs) including the 22 hard hilly miler every weekend. They were never far from and no strangers to marathon condition. The national champs was one annual marathon at least to aim for and previous iterations had all seemed to be serious battles also (although the Limerick race seemed to be more competitive due to Olympic selection.)

The other lads who shared the authors car however, did seem to be actual marathon novices (bar one) but there is no suggestion that this was typical of the stronger part of the field. The field did seem to be stacked with marathon heavy weights. The Boston winner only finished third that day and the reigning national champion was pushed out to 8th. Looked like just a very hard high quality marathon race.

On the nutrition front the boyos in that car hit the greasy spoon for the recovery meal but for sure at the competitive end food was probably simpler. I would assume though that the current crop would have the nutrition and weight pretty sorted.

I'd imagine if a similar trial race was to occur now the standard would be lower and not as deep. I'm not sure diet and weight could explain it all. Just not as many elite competitors with relatively poorer training. I would also take RC's point as very significant: these guys were hardened and strong from many years of a more active life than the local athletes of today. This is clearly the case in non-western marathon powers today. These guys have had a generally more physical life. That base of strength is already there.

In fairness, I think if you ran that race today you would have a winner that would be quicker (Pollock) and a ream of runners that would come in around Jim's time (2.14). I don't think the standard is much lower today and I imagine if you saw times for the rest of the field, they would stack up pretty well too.

RayCun

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/olympian-linda-byrne-has-won-her-biggest-battle-yet-1.2609446

great to see her back running

Dubgal72

RayCun wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/olympian-linda-byrne-has-won-her-biggest-battle-yet-1.2609446

great to see her back running

Sounds like she has been to the depths alright. Hope she finds inner peace, it looks like she is on the right path.

demfad

KielyUnusual wrote: »

In fairness, I think if you ran that race today you would have a winner that would be quicker (Pollock) and a ream of runners that would come in around Jim's time (2.14). I don't think the standard is much lower today and I imagine if you saw times for the rest of the field, they would stack up pretty well too.

Fair enough. Would be great to see a race like that again with all the best lads in the field.

Krusty_Clown

Chivito550 wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate a little. People go on about the standards being so much higher in the 70s and 80s, yet we've won significantly more medals at major championships in the 90s, 00s and 10s. Is it a case that the standards in distance running have dropped, but the standards in sprints and middle distance have improved? If so, why? After all, the different lifestyles now compared to the 70s would still apply to people competing in those disciplines too.

I was referring more specifically to the general population rather than those competing internationally (sub-elite, I guess you'd call them, though they would have been known as 'runners' back when this race was run). But yeah, it certainly seems like longer distance standards have worsened since the 70s/80s.

While we have achieved more international success at sprint/middle-distance disciplines, this is likely down to participation levels, accessibility, and dedication (full-time commitment). I realize that these are still minority events in the general 'athletics' classification, but I'd imagine we still have far more competitors competing internationally in the 90s and subsequent decades, than we did in the 70s and 80s?

On a completely unrelated note, somebody passed on this fantastic race from 1988. Well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kogrn8GfVC4

Krusty_Clown

demfad wrote: »

Edit: You make a strong case for the oul' diet. Glad that George Forman is being used.

Would you believe I have never used 'The George'! It sits in the kitchen at my workplace, where it is used to grill slices of aubergine. I should have kept it in it's box and deposited it in the shrine, dedicated to the memory of that day I beat demfad.