Random Running Questions

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

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 later your body 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.

Yeh you'd definitely run quicker on a straight.

Interesting idea regarding the long jump. It would hugely alter the nature of the event for sure. Would require pretty advanced measuring systems though to pick up the exact point the jumper takes off from.

Pherekydes

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh you'd definitely run quicker on a straight.

Interesting idea regarding the long jump. It would hugely alter the nature of the event for sure. Would require pretty advanced measuring systems though to pick up the exact point the jumper takes off from.

They have this already. Every jump is shown on screen with the distance in cm how far behind (or in front) of the board the take-off point is.

Sacksian

Pherekydes wrote: »

They have this already. Every jump is shown on screen with the distance in cm how far behind (or in front) of the board the take-off point is.

That's called the effective distance (versus the official distance).

RayCun

Pherekydes wrote: »

They have this already. Every jump is shown on screen with the distance in cm how far behind (or in front) of the board the take-off point is.

You couldn't implement it at most levels of competition though.

All of the events have particular rules. There is no "how far can you throw a random object" competition. There is a competition for how far you can throw a javelin built to certain specifications, with rules on how you throw it, a sector it must land in, and a line that the throw is measured from. The 100m must be run from blocks. High jump you have to take off from one foot, and so on...

Chivito550

Pherekydes wrote: »

They have this already. Every jump is shown on screen with the distance in cm how far behind (or in front) of the board the take-off point is.

Yeh of course. I was more referring to 95% of meets around the world, including domestic ones, which would struggle to implement this type of measuring.

It would be an interesting idea as part of an end of season meet somewhere on the international circuit I think.

Speaking of long jump (and triple jump and throws), here’s an idea to make the events far more interesting, and stop the whole idea of get one jump in early and then just keep passing later jumps.

12 jumpers make the final as normal. Every jumper gets 2 jumps. Your best jump counts. The top 8 advance. The slate is wiped clean. Each of the 8 athletes get 2 jumps, your best of these 2 counts. The top 4 progress to the medal jumps. The slate is wiped clean, and each of the 4 athletes get 2 jumps, your best jump counts.

They did this in the Sochi Winter Olympics in the Aeriels freestyle skiing and I thought it was extremely exciting (except in that case it was just 1 jump each time, not 2). I suggested this to Dwight Phillips in Beijing last year during the media welcoming drinks. He admitted to me that he wouldn’t be keen on that as he himself was one of those guys who would get an early monstrous jump in, kill the competition, and then just cruise home. Haha.

Sacksian

@Raycun - I completely agree but, with the long jump, we don't have to speculate about just how far someone could jump if they didn't have to worry about the board, as we get the measurement of their official jump + the distance behind the board.

Krusty_Clown

Chivito550 wrote: »

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.

Is it about weight distribution, or the negative impact of centrifugal force on the heart? I don't imagine running around a track generates much centrifugal force. It is interesting that most 'wall of death' carnival sideshows (which are based on centrifugal force) seem to run anti-clockwise, with the heart closest to the axis/pivot point. Also true of Nascar, though F1 and MotoGP aren't quite so constrained. On the subject of weight distribution across left/right sides, while the heart is on the left, the liver is on the right and the right lung is heaver than the left. It problably comes down to whether you're left or right handed as those muscles with develop further and be heavier (ooh-err). Interesting topic. My guess is that it's more about tradition and consistency.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Speaking of long jump (and triple jump and throws), here’s an idea to make the events far more interesting, and stop the whole idea of get one jump in early and then just keep passing later jumps.

More interesting for the spectators, certainly, but does it find the best jumper?

Sacksian wrote: »

@Raycun - I completely agree but, with the long jump, we don't have to speculate about just how far someone could jump if they didn't have to worry about the board, as we get the measurement of their official jump + the distance behind the board.

yeah, we agree. Like the Tyson Gay straight 200m you posted earlier, it's interesting to know but not something to adopt as the official standard

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

More interesting for the spectators, certainly, but does it find the best jumper?

Could argue that consistency would be rewarded. Rather than a scorecard of:

FOUL - 8.60m - PASS - PASS - PASS - PASS

Carl Lewis did something like that in 1984.

I find field events tend to end in anti-climax for 2 reasons:

1) Athletes are getting tired by this point so the chances of a big jump/throw are much less than in the early rounds.

2) The leader going into the final round tends to jump last, and if the other guys can't overtake him, then his last jump is just a celebratory one.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Could argue that consistency would be rewarded. Rather than a scorecard of:

FOUL - 8.60m - PASS - PASS - PASS - PASS

Carl Lewis did something like that in 1984.

so an athlete with 6 sub 8m jumps would get the gold medal ahead of Lewis?

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

so an athlete with 6 sub 8m jumps would get the gold medal ahead of Lewis?

Where did I say that? Putting words into my mouth there.

A system like this (which won't ever happen anyway) would require an athlete to have 3 good jumps during the competition, and at various points of the competition, to win the gold. You need to jump well to make the top 8, you again need to jump well to make the top 4, and then you need to find something big (with just 2 available jumps) to win the gold.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Where did I say that? Putting words into my mouth there.

A system like this (which won't ever happen anyway) would require an athlete to have 3 good jumps during the competition, and at various points of the competition, to win the gold. You need to jump well to make the top 8, you again need to jump well to make the top 4, and then you need to find something big (with just 2 available jumps) to win the gold.

well, the limit case is that someone makes it to the top 8 with a sub 8 jump, and the top 4 with another sub 8, and a sub 8 is the best of the 8 jumps in the final stage.
The first bit already happens. It only takes two foul jumps in a row (and that happens a lot) to eliminate people from then on. So Lewis could jump his 8.5 early and then foul out of the top 4, leaving the field clear for someone to win with high 7.

eg, Mitchell Watt at 2012
x 7.97 x x 8.13 8.16
if that was
round 1 - x 7.97
round 2 - x x
he would never have made it to round 3
gold medal would have gone to Torneus

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh you'd definitely run quicker on a straight.

Interesting idea regarding the long jump. It would hugely alter the nature of the event for sure. Would require pretty advanced measuring systems though to pick up the exact point the jumper takes off from.

You could just have a take off area as they do with blind athletes. It's about 3 feet long and the measurement is made from the footprint in the powder. The skill required to hit the powder is negligible.

RayCun

Clearlier wrote: »

You could just have a take off area as they do with blind athletes. It's about 3 feet long and the measurement is made from the footprint in the powder. The skill required to hit the powder is negligible.

they do that for the kids too, sand in between the board and the pit and you measure from mark to mark.
So I guess it could be done...

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

well, the limit case is that someone makes it to the top 8 with a sub 8 jump, and the top 4 with another sub 8, and a sub 8 is the best of the 8 jumps in the final stage.
The first bit already happens. It only takes two foul jumps in a row (and that happens a lot) to eliminate people from then on. So Lewis could jump his 8.5 early and then foul out of the top 4, leaving the field clear for someone to win with high 7.

eg, Mitchell Watt at 2012
x 7.97 x x 8.13 8.16
if that was
round 1 - x 7.97
round 2 - x x
he would never have made it to round 3
gold medal would have gone to Torneus

I very much doubt athletes would be approaching the competition the same way if such a competition structure was in place so your example above is null and void.

cullenswood

Regarding the direction of the track, your heart is positioned between both lungs and the centre of your chest is it not? So that should rule out that argument.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

I very much doubt athletes would be approaching the competition the same way if such a competition structure was in place so your example above is null and void.

I think it would stop people passing on later jumps, but it wouldn't eliminate fouls. Yes, you've an incentive to get a safe jump in, but you also only get two chances at jumping far enough to beat your competitors. Even with the three initial jumps, you still get people fouling out without a measured jump, or with a first jump that is too short to get to the final and fouling out the next two. It's kind of built-in to the proposal - if you want every jump to mean something, it makes every foul more important too.

I see where you're coming from. After all, the slate is wiped clean after the qualifying day. And this would be more interesting for spectators. But the effect of wiping the slate more often would be that you would frequently wipe out the longest jumps on that day of competition, and give the medals to people who jumped shorter.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

I think it would stop people passing on later jumps, but it wouldn't eliminate fouls. Yes, you've an incentive to get a safe jump in, but you also only get two chances at jumping far enough to beat your competitors. Even with the three initial jumps, you still get people fouling out without a measured jump, or with a first jump that is too short to get to the final and fouling out the next two. It's kind of built-in to the proposal - if you want every jump to mean something, it makes every foul more important too.

I see where you're coming from. After all, the slate is wiped clean after the qualifying day. And this would be more interesting for spectators. But the effect of wiping the slate more often would be that you would frequently wipe out the longest jumps on that day of competition, and give the medals to people who jumped shorter.

It certainly wouldn’t be perfect, but I believe it would make the sport more exciting, which is definitely important for the marketability of the sport. Even something like all 12 getting 3 attempts. Top 6 get through to final 3 jumps. Slate is wiped clean, and everybody gets 3 jumps to decide the winners. More room for error, more chance of going big (many competitions at local level are only 3 jumps anyway), but also more chance for drama and excitement. Being honest, quite often I find the last 2 rounds of the horizontal jumps and throws to be dull and uneventful.

Something similar happens in sprints anyway. Semi finals and finals of the 100m and sprint hurdles are on the same evening, and quite often athletes run slower in the final than the semi. I remember the 2009 World final where Derval came 4th. Dawn Harper ran a time in the semi final that would have won the final, but bottled it in the final and came 7th or so. You could call the last 12 in a field final the "semi-final", followed immediately by the "final" if that sounds better. It means an athlete has to perform under pressure, rather than get an early jump in and sit on it.

RayCun

tbh, I'd guess most people who see long jump on tv are seeing the highlights anyway, and the order of jumps is less important to them. Or they are very interested in long jump, and wouldn't want a change to the current rules. There's a certain tension anyway to the decision to sit out or go again, like the decisions on which heights to jump.

anyway, not going to happen

Head to head racing is very different.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

tbh, I'd guess most people who see long jump on tv are seeing the highlights anyway, and the order of jumps is less important to them. Or they are very interested in long jump, and wouldn't want a change to the current rules. There's a certain tension anyway to the decision to sit out or go again, like the decisions on which heights to jump.

anyway, not going to happen

Head to head racing is very different.

I suppose. I guess I'm speaking as somebody who enjoys field events but thinks they can end up anti-climactic far too often.

For the record, there's not much I'd change about the format of HJ and PV. I think they are the most exciting of the field events given how the competition is structured, with athletes dropping out one by one, often leaving a head to head at the end. The big downside is that everyone finishes on a failure, even the winner usually.

Hoki

Hi, I'm not sure if this question is suited for here but I'll give it a go anyway. I use the runkeeper app to monitor my runs and cycles but for my last 3 activities the app stopped updating the distance travelled after the first 5 minute interval. For eg. after 5 mins it will tell me I've ran one km, however after 10 mins it will still say I've only done 1 km and so on every 5 mins.

I've been using the app for years without issue so it's frustrating that this is happening now. I tried deleting the app and re-installing it but the same issue. I have my location services and mobile data on when running/cycling so it should work, any ideas anyone?

cbmonstra

Hoki wrote: »

Hi, I'm not sure if this question is suited for here but I'll give it a go anyway. I use the runkeeper app to monitor my runs and cycles but for my last 3 activities the app stopped updating the distance travelled after the first 5 minute interval. For eg. after 5 mins it will tell me I've ran one km, however after 10 mins it will still say I've only done 1 km and so on every 5 mins.

I've been using the app for years without issue so it's frustrating that this is happening now. I tried deleting the app and re-installing it but the same issue. I have my location services and mobile data on when running/cycling so it should work, any ideas anyone?

I know that after an update on my android phone, it began optimising some apps, turning off my C25k app after 5 minutes of what it perceived as inactivity.

Had to take it off the list of optimised apps, and that resolved it for me. Might be a similar issue?

Lo_La

Hello quick question I am hoping to do my second half marathon in September. I did my first in April and followed HH novice 2 plan, it worked well but I found it a little boring. I will be doing the Athlone half in Sept and on their website they have a plan for breaking 2 hrs I would like to follow but just not sure of a cpl of things:
4 miles steady, approx.42mins, followed by 4x100 strides - does this mean at the end of the run go flat out for 100m at a time or is it just long strides? do you walk in between and how long for?
4 mile hilly run, with 4x50m reps, striding with high knee lift and fast arm action - does this mean you pick a 50m section of the hill and sprint up it 4 times and would you do all of these at once with a walk in between or jog back down and do it again straight away? Or would you space them out more over the 4 miles?
I can't link to the plan as i don't have enough posts!

Chivito550

Lo_La wrote: »

Hello quick question I am hoping to do my second half marathon in September. I did my first in April and followed HH novice 2 plan, it worked well but I found it a little boring. I will be doing the Athlone half in Sept and on their website they have a plan for breaking 2 hrs I would like to follow but just not sure of a cpl of things:
4 miles steady, approx.42mins, followed by 4x100 strides - does this mean at the end of the run go flat out for 100m at a time or is it just long strides? do you walk in between and how long for?
4 mile hilly run, with 4x50m reps, striding with high knee lift and fast arm action - does this mean you pick a 50m section of the hill and sprint up it 4 times and would you do all of these at once with a walk in between or jog back down and do it again straight away? Or would you space them out more over the 4 miles?
I can't link to the plan as i don't have enough posts!

I really don't see how doing 50m and 100m reps are needed to run sub 2 hours for the half marathon.

Lo_La

Chivito550 wrote: »

I really don't see how doing 50m and 100m reps are needed to run sub 2 hours for the half marathon.

Maybe they're not but the plan has a bit more variety to it, i'm sure if I follow the Hal Higdon one I could get the same results but I did get a bit bored with it the last time...

demfad

Lo_La wrote: »

Hello quick question I am hoping to do my second half marathon in September. I did my first in April and followed HH novice 2 plan, it worked well but I found it a little boring. I will be doing the Athlone half in Sept and on their website they have a plan for breaking 2 hrs I would like to follow but just not sure of a cpl of things:
4 miles steady, approx.42mins, followed by 4x100 strides - does this mean at the end of the run go flat out for 100m at a time or is it just long strides? do you walk in between and how long for?
4 mile hilly run, with 4x50m reps, striding with high knee lift and fast arm action - does this mean you pick a 50m section of the hill and sprint up it 4 times and would you do all of these at once with a walk in between or jog back down and do it again straight away? Or would you space them out more over the 4 miles?
I can't link to the plan as i don't have enough posts!

Hi Lolo

Generally you would do jog back between efforts or else double the effort recovery. The 100m strides would not be flat out but would be relaxed controlled, and fast. When you are relaxed only the muscles that should be working are working. Controlled means not flat out. If you run them relaxed and controlled, they will get faster after each session. But dont try and force the speed by compromising relaxation which defeats the purpose.
The idea is that the strides will feed into your other running. You could also try this on occasion after the strides: Rest for a few minutes and then try and run for 2-3 minutes at a medium pace with good technique (like you did the strides with). This will imbed the good running form further.

The idea of strides is to keep your technique good and relaxed. They are a tool. So if during your training you find that you are feeling very tight or hampered running. Throw in a few strides and it will loosen you out. The schedule tries to approximate when they are needed but use them as and when necessary.

The hills should be done controlled and relaxed. Run with the form that you would on the flat running fast. Once you don't go too hard you'll get great benefit from these. Dont force it and the rewards will come with consistancy.

Lo_La

demfad wrote: »

Hi Lolo

Generally you would do jog back between efforts or else double the effort recovery. The 100m strides would not be flat out but would be relaxed controlled, and fast. When you are relaxed only the muscles that should be working are working. Controlled means not flat out. If you run them relaxed and controlled, they will get faster after each session. But dont try and force the speed by compromising relaxation which defeats the purpose.
The idea is that the strides will feed into your other running. You could also try this on occasion after the strides: Rest for a few minutes and then try and run for 2-3 minutes at a medium pace with good technique (like you did the strides with). This will imbed the good running form further.

The idea of strides is to keep your technique good and relaxed. They are a tool. So if during your training you find that you are feeling very tight or hampered running. Throw in a few strides and it will loosen you out. The schedule tries to approximate when they are needed but use them as and when necessary.

The hills should be done controlled and relaxed. Run with the form that you would on the flat running fast. Once you don't go too hard you'll get great benefit from these. Dont force it and the rewards will come with consistancy.

Great thanks for the advice, so fast but not too fast ;-)

RayCun

Lo_La wrote: »

4 miles steady, approx.42mins, followed by 4x100 strides - does this mean at the end of the run go flat out for 100m at a time or is it just long strides? do you walk in between and how long for?
4 mile hilly run, with 4x50m reps, striding with high knee lift and fast arm action - does this mean you pick a 50m section of the hill and sprint up it 4 times and would you do all of these at once with a walk in between or jog back down and do it again straight away? Or would you space them out more over the 4 miles?

The 4x100 strides - do them towards the end of the run. Pick a stretch of road or flat field and accelerate for 2-5 seconds, hold a fast pace for about 10 seconds, and then slow down to a jog over about 5 seconds. Jog until your breathing gets back to normal and then go again, same thing.

One way of doing this is diagonals across a football pitch. Start at a corner flag and run diagonally across. Don't worry if you don't get all the way across. Then run down the side of the pitch (or across the top) to another corner and go again.

In the strides, you are trying to run with good form. Run fast, but not so fast that you are straining. Think about the elements of good form - running tall, arms relaxed and moving in synch with your legs, fast feet, knees coming high, feet landing below you. You could focus on one element in each 100m.

Hill sprints - same thing really, but you won't go so far uphill. You really have to lift your feet on these, and use your arms to drive yourself up.

Chivito550 wrote: »

I really don't see how doing 50m and 100m reps are needed to run sub 2 hours for the half marathon.

It's for strength and form

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

It's for strength and form

Interesting. But in what way does it help form? If somebody doesn't have good form, how is running a bit faster for 15-20 seconds supposed to change that. That person's form would surely still be poor, just at a faster pace and effort. I'm sure there's a reason, which is why I'm asking.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Interesting. But in what way does it help form? If somebody doesn't have good form, how is running a bit faster for 15-20 seconds supposed to change that. That person's form would surely still be poor, just a a faster pace. I'm sure there's a reason, which is why I'm asking.

if people do a lot of running at an easy pace (which they should do when training for a distance event) there is a tendency for some things to disappear from their stride. Like, since they're taking shorter strides, they run with straight legs, or their arms don't move as far so they eventually stop moving. Or just running bent over.
The strides are not just faster running, they are faster running with good form. Consciously running in a particular way at regular intervals will have a carry-over effect to when people aren't consciously thinking about how they are running.