Random Running Questions

HelenAnne

jameshayes wrote: »

Thanks gents! I'm not looking to start 400m running, I just wanted to have a guide for my pace - I'm currently in marathon training and it was one of my workouts, I'm not too sure if I enjoyed the 400m but I've read its great for you so I'll give it another go when it pop's up on the training plan again! :pac:

Did your plan have you running just one 400m? I don't know anything about the shorter distances, but I've found sets of 400m reps (like 8 or 10 400s, with a rest in between) pretty good for improving speed.

RayCun

jameshayes wrote: »

Thanks gents! I'm not looking to start 400m running, I just wanted to have a guide for my pace - I'm currently in marathon training and it was one of my workouts, I'm not too sure if I enjoyed the 400m but I've read its great for you so I'll give it another go when it pop's up on the training plan again! :pac:

HelenAnne wrote: »

Did your plan have you running just one 400m? I don't know anything about the shorter distances, but I've found sets of 400m reps (like 8 or 10 400s, with a rest in between) pretty good for improving speed.

The McMillan site listed above gives suggested paces for 400m, eg for a 50 minute 10k runner, do 8-9 reps in 1:42 to 1:48

Casey78

So I bought a fancy Garmin 225 (ebay second hand €90 bargin)with a heart rate sensor built into the wrist.
I've tried hr training before and always hated wearing the strap but liked the results I was getting.
Anyways my question is..I had thought Zone 2 was the right zone for long runs/easy runs.
The garmin has a screen telling you what zone you are in. What has me confused is the aerobic zone as they call it is zone 3 70% to 80% HRR.
I believed zone 2 was the aerobic zone.
See attached picture for the different zones.
So what zone should I be in for those lovely long easy runs?

Casey78

Actually this may be a better picture explaining garmins zones.

chickey2

Casey78 wrote: »

So I bought a fancy Garmin 225 (ebay second hand €90 bargin)with a heart rate sensor built into the wrist.
I've tried hr training before and always hated wearing the strap but liked the results I was getting.
Anyways my question is..I had thought Zone 2 was the right zone for long runs/easy runs.
The garmin has a screen telling you what zone you are in. What has me confused is the aerobic zone as they call it is zone 3 70% to 80% HRR.
I believed zone 2 was the aerobic zone.
See attached picture for the different zones.
So what zone should I be in for those lovely long easy runs?

I had issues with this too when I got my 225. If you go on to the garmin connect site you can set your own zones. Make sure to put in your resting and max HR and then set the %s as you want. I used pfitzingers target zones. My long runs would be in zone 2-3 (general aerobic - endurance) which are quite close according to pfitzinger (general aerobic = 62-75%HRR and endurance = 65-78%)

HigginsJ

When you know a race you are going to run is a flat course should you avoid hills in your training & try to run on a flat a stretch as possible? I am aiming to do a 5 miler in a few weeks that looks pretty flat but I have about 4 routes I can take around home and they all feature pretty significant rises & falls.

El Caballo

HigginsJ wrote: »

When you know a race you are going to run is a flat course should you avoid hills in your training & try to run on a flat a stretch as possible? I am aiming to do a 5 miler in a few weeks that looks pretty flat but I have about 4 routes I can take around home and they all feature pretty significant rises & falls.

Hills make champions. Even for track runners, a stable diet of hills are hugely beneficial.

Clearlier

El Caballo wrote: »

Hills make champions. Even for track runners, a stable diet of hills are hugely beneficial.

Completely agree but the odd run on terrain similar to the race would be a good idea too.

davedanon

El Caballo wrote: »

a stable diet of hills are hugely beneficial.

A stable diet... do you mean hay?

demfad

HigginsJ wrote: »

When you know a race you are going to run is a flat course should you avoid hills in your training & try to run on a flat a stretch as possible? I am aiming to do a 5 miler in a few weeks that looks pretty flat but I have about 4 routes I can take around home and they all feature pretty significant rises & falls.

I'd agree with what El Caballo and Clearlier said. Just to expand: the runs where the pace is most similar to race pace are the runs to run on flat ground (similar to the race). In flat races you are running with the same (relaxed ideally) rhythm throughout unlike hilly races or runs. Its good to practice this.

hot buttered scones

Hi all. I'm looking through marathon training plans at the moment and was looking for some feedback on genetic plan I found online:

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/images/asics/ASICS_TRAININGPLANS_Sub%203.30.pdf

It looks pretty straightforward to me. None of the workouts look too complicated and the highest mileage weeks would be in the range what I've been doing so far this year. My own thoughts are that while it may not be the best plan out there, it seems like a pretty standard plan. I need some recovery time, and this plan will give me couple of weeks of that before starting and also has some low mileage in the first weeks to ease into. Cons: Maybe I could do better with a plan like P+D 40-55 miles? Or will the linked plan get me to Dublin feeling fresher than a higher mileage plan?

For some background, I am a bit on the tired side at the moment. I think I peaked back in April and tried to ride the crest of that wave so to speak without giving due attention to recovering from a 25k race. Results and performance in both races and training have levelled off (if not dipped slightly). I'm eager to pick a decent plan for Dublin that doesn't leave me feeling burnt out by the end of August.

Itziger

I'm running a Half Marathon on Sunday 26th. I've been mainly doing the classic 1 midweek and 1 weekend sessions. Wednesday/Sunday, reps of 1km or 3x5k and some tempo. Almost all other stuff is easy with a bit of steady thrown in. Am getting 6 or 7 days of running in at about 85k a week.

So, here's the question: Do I continue with 2 sessions this week and mostly easy next week or do I ditch this week's Wed workout and do a big session on Saturday instead? The advantage of the latter being that I have an extra day's recovery. I'd be looking to do say 60minsE+40mins HM pace for last big workout.

demfad

Itziger wrote: »

I'm running a Half Marathon on Sunday 26th. I've been mainly doing the classic 1 midweek and 1 weekend sessions. Wednesday/Sunday, reps of 1km or 3x5k and some tempo. Almost all other stuff is easy with a bit of steady thrown in. Am getting 6 or 7 days of running in at about 85k a week.

So, here's the question: Do I continue with 2 sessions this week and mostly easy next week or do I ditch this week's Wed workout and do a big session on Saturday instead? The advantage of the latter being that I have an extra day's recovery. I'd be looking to do say 60minsE+40mins HM pace for last big workout.

I would say the last big workout is too close to the race for your body to fully adapt to it. I'd do it in the Wednesday slot (or Thursday), and stick a lesser session on the Sunday, maybe a cut down version of the 1km reps just to maintain that. If you wanted to do that on Monday you could with even less reps. Just do your usual routine of pre-race strides whenever you do them (1-2 days before and you should be good to go)
That way the big session will really sink in and you'll get a good taper too. The training you've done looks very good.

demfad

hot buttered scones wrote: »

Hi all. I'm looking through marathon training plans at the moment and was looking for some feedback on genetic plan I found online:

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/images/asics/ASICS_TRAININGPLANS_Sub%203.30.pdf

It looks pretty straightforward to me. None of the workouts look too complicated and the highest mileage weeks would be in the range what I've been doing so far this year. My own thoughts are that while it may not be the best plan out there, it seems like a pretty standard plan. I need some recovery time, and this plan will give me couple of weeks of that before starting and also has some low mileage in the first weeks to ease into. Cons: Maybe I could do better with a plan like P+D 40-55 miles? Or will the linked plan get me to Dublin feeling fresher than a higher mileage plan?

For some background, I am a bit on the tired side at the moment. I think I peaked back in April and tried to ride the crest of that wave so to speak without giving due attention to recovering from a 25k race. Results and performance in both races and training have levelled off (if not dipped slightly). I'm eager to pick a decent plan for Dublin that doesn't leave me feeling burnt out by the end of August.

It looks good and solid enough. Just use the first few weeks as recovery as you suggest. The key is making the weeks feel sustainable. The real fitness comes from the accumulation of many solid weeks rather than 1 big week or 1 big session. I got good advice (that I don't always take) to always err on the conservative/sustainable side in order to achieve this consistency.

Wild Garlic

Why is the 1500m not 1600m. Who made that call?
Why is it 110m hurdles for the men and 100m for the women?
Why is the women's shot lighter than the men's?
Would the 200m hurdles be a goer?
Is there such a thing as an indoor 400m track?
I can't remember any hammer throwing in the recent Diamond meets. Did I miss something, am I delusional?
Why is it called a "kick"? Would a "burst" or a "surge" not be more accurate?

UM1

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Why is the 1500m not 1600m. Who made that call?
Why is it 110m hurdles for the men and 100m for the women?
Why is the women's shot lighter than the men's?
Would the 200m hurdles be a goer?
Is there such a thing as an indoor 400m track?
I can't remember any hammer throwing in the recent Diamond meets. Did I miss something, am I delusional?
Why is it called a "kick"? Would a "burst" or a "surge" not be more accurate?

#1.cos its shorter,
#2.well burds are just dat bit weaker
#3 see above
#4 dunno
#5 Probably
#6 dont know and maybe
#7 I leave that one to the experts

El Caballo

Why is the 1500m not 1600m. Who made that call?

The French, the metric mile is 1500m because it used to be 3 laps of a 500m track.

Why is it 110m hurdles for the men and 100m for the women?

Women have a smaller stride length so running a 110h would require an extra row of hurdles, hurdle events are based around rhythm and stride.

Why is the women's shot lighter than the men's?

Dunno

Would the 200m hurdles be a goer?

No, running the bend at that speed would be a disaster but I'm sure there's a race out there that has that event.

Is there such a thing as an indoor 400m track?

Yep, rare though because of space problems.

I can't remember any hammer throwing in the recent Diamond meets. Did I miss something, am I delusional?

The hammer hasn't been on the diamond league circuit for years, not sure why but there was a non scoring diamond league hammer in Eugene this year

Why is it called a "kick"? Would a "burst" or a "surge" not be more accurate?

Give yourself a kick up the hole, I dunno.

walshb

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Why is the 1500m not 1600m. Who made that call?

Why 1600 and not 1609.344? Who made that call

Wild Garlic

walshb wrote: »

Why 1600 and not 1609.344? Who made that call

Fair enough. Just thought 1600 would be a more natural progression.
100/200/400/800/1600 or if you like 1/4 lap 1/2 lap 1 lap 2 laps 4 laps.

walshb

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Fair enough. Just thought 1600 would be a more natural progression.
100/200/400/800/1600 or if you like 1/4 lap 1/2 lap 1 lap 2 laps 4 laps.

I knew exactly what you meant. Just acting the maggot. Need a bit of banter here now and again!

Is an oval/circular 400 track the best shape to allow humans run a distance the fastest? Why not a straight line race? Surely MJ under decent conditions could run 400 faster in a straight line?

Wild Garlic

walshb wrote: »

I knew exactly what you meant. Just acting the maggot. Need a bit of banter here now and again!

Is an oval/circular 400 track the best shape to allow humans run a distance the fastest? Why not a straight line race? Surely MJ under decent conditions could run 400 faster in a straight line?[/QUOTE

Ha ok, hard to know with you somtimes
Straight line would obviously be faster with the added benefit of having no room for the field events.
No idea re oval/circular good question.

Why are track races all run "left handed" if you follow......

Maximus Alexander

walshb wrote: »

I knew exactly what you meant. Just acting the maggot. Need a bit of banter here now and again!

Is an oval/circular 400 track the best shape to allow humans run a distance the fastest? Why not a straight line race? Surely MJ under decent conditions could run 400 faster in a straight line?

Presumably because you couldn't lap a straight line track which would rule out any events above 400m? The oval is also more compact so you can build a stadium around it.

RayCun

There used to be clockwise and anticlockwise tracks, but the Olympics standardised on anti and everyone followed.

RayCun

And records are only valid on a standard track afaik, so why build a straight track or indoor 400

(That said, I know Coughlan ran a lot of indoor races on shorter tracks )

walshb

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Presumably because you couldn't lap a straight line track which would rule out any events above 400m? The oval is also more compact so you can build a stadium around it.

My question has nothing to do with ecomomics and suitablity. It's a more science based quetion. Would humans run faster in a straight line over say 400 under normal-ideal conditions compared to having to negotiate an oval track and its curves.

Sacksian

It's quicker running in a straight line.

There's actually a world-best for the 200 metres straight, held by Tyson Gay. This is quicker than his 200m pb, which probably indicates the scale of the advantage given how infrequently it's run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_metres_straight (apparently there was an official world record for it, until the 60s)

Wonder what Usain bolt would have done at his peak?!

ThisRegard

RayCun wrote: »

There used to be clockwise and anticlockwise tracks, but the Olympics standardised on anti and everyone followed.

Why? People seem to prefer running in a clockwise direction if you were to use Strava segments to base your analysis on.

RayCun

ThisRegard wrote: »

Why? People seem to prefer running in a clockwise direction if you were to use Strava segments to base your analysis on.

I've seen lots of complete bollocks said in response to that question, people being right-handed, hearts on the left, coriolis force in the northern hemisphere... :pac:

I don't know why anti was picked, that may have been the layout of the venue (Paris?) where the Olympics was held that time. But once the Olympics decided that every year they would run anti, everyone followed suit eventually. you can't really use a track in both directions for races, too much marking, position of stands etc. And when you know that the olympics is going to run one way, why would you set up to run in the other.

I think it's like driving on one side of the road or the other. It's not that one is better, but you have to decide which you're going to do and stick with it...

Chivito550

I've heard the "heart on the left side of your body, so the tracks run anti-clockwise" before. It makes perfect sense to me to be honest.

Regarding the hammer throw at DL, apparently it is down to safety, which is complete nonsense as they safely operate it at major championships and some IAAF World Challenge meets with absolutely no problems. I've spoken to a few hammer throwers at major champs about this and they are not happy at all with the IAAF marginalising them, and they have every right to feel pissed off. They are losing a lot in terms of marketability and endorsements.

You'd run faster for 400m in a straight line if you had a tailwind, slower if you had a headwind.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

You'd run faster for 400m in a straight line if you had a tailwind, slower if you had a headwind.

But all things equal, as in no headwind or tailwind. Let's say a vacuum. Surely the fact that you are running a curve and having to alter your body's movement would see you run slightly slower?

I mentioned similar as regards long jumping. Why not allow humans to simply jump as far as they can without throwing in the skill aspect of it with having to hit a board...It's called the long jump. Not the skill based long jump.