Random Running Questions

LukFwd

HelenAnne wrote: »

Not looking for medical advice, just wondering - you know the old 'subtract your age from 220 to get your max heartrate' maxim?

How different in either direction have people found their maximum / resting etc heart rates are? is the '220 - etc' accurate for most of you?

I’m 42 so using the formula would give me a max of 178. My actual max (tested) is 193.

andy1981

goldsalmon33 wrote: »

This is a bit of a pain now, as I'm in wave 4 and hoping to finish under 4 hrs, So ideally I'd like to be in wave 2 but wave 3 would be ok too.
Looking at the KBC marathon website FAQ, it says you can only move down a wave but not up. Is there any solution?

This will not be popular - Move up to the wave with the pacer you want. I did it last year. Just follow the wave route. It'll be cold on the morning. Like last year I was wearing a top over my running top to throw away, that covered by race number and wave colour. It was my first marathon so I booked into wave 3 but decided I wanted to go with the 3.40 pacer in wave 2. Glad I did as I got sub 3.40 and wouldn't have without the pacers, they are amazing motivation. Again, sorry to all who I offend.!

cullenswood

andy1981 wrote: »

This will not be popular - Move up to the wave with the pacer you want. I did it last year. Just follow the wave route. It'll be cold on the morning. Like last year I was wearing a top over my running top to throw away, that covered by race number and wave colour. It was my first marathon so I booked into wave 3 but decided I wanted to go with the 3.40 pacer in wave 2. Glad I did as I got sub 3.40 and wouldn't have without the pacers, they are amazing motivation. Again, sorry to all who I offend.!

I think you possibly got lucky. I saw lots of people turned back from Wave 1 last year, they were quite vigilant in their checking of numbers that were not clearly on display.

Sacksian

HelenAnne wrote: »

Not looking for medical advice, just wondering - you know the old 'subtract your age from 220 to get your max heartrate' maxim?

How different in either direction have people found their maximum / resting etc heart rates are? is the '220 - etc' accurate for most of you?

It's really hard to test your max heart rate and I think most of the non-lab tests would not be completely reliable.

I had my maxhr tested on a treadmill when I was 39 so my theoretical max should have been 181, but it was 173. I may have left a couple of pulses on the treadmill but I think it's as close I'm ever going to get. I often see people my age with much higher heart rates but very few with a lower max! I think it's just genetics.

If you're going to do hr training, get a lactate test, rather than going by values in a book. The lactate test will give you HR ranges for a couple of useful thresholds in training. I got tested by Emmett Dunleavy - really professional guy does them out on the track in Irishtown.

andy1981

cullenswood wrote: »

I think you possibly got lucky. I saw lots of people turned back from Wave 1 last year, they were quite vigilant in their checking of numbers that were not clearly on display.

Maybe the Elites in Wave 1 are protected more!

HelenAnne

Sacksian wrote: »

It's really hard to test your max heart rate and I think most of the non-lab tests would not be completely reliable.

I had my maxhr tested on a treadmill when I was 39 so my theoretical max should have been 181, but it was 173. I may have left a couple of pulses on the treadmill but I think it's as close I'm ever going to get. I often see people my age with much higher heart rates but very few with a lower max! I think it's just genetics.

If you're going to do hr training, get a lactate test, rather than going by values in a book. The lactate test will give you HR ranges for a couple of useful thresholds in training. I got tested by Emmett Dunleavy - really professional guy does them out on the track in Irishtown.

Thanks! That all sounds really interesting. I'm not going to do HR training, it's just that I got my first watch with a HR monitor (my old one didn't have one) and am quite shocked by how high mine is (resting is normal enough, though a lot higher than my friends' but even without having run that hard since I got it it's already gone over what that formula would make my max. I'll just keep reminding myself it's genetics!

Pherekydes

It's also worth keeping in mind that watches with built-in monitors (i.e. they detect your pulse at your wrist) are less accurate than those which require a chest strap.

BeepBeep67

Sacksian wrote: »

It's really hard to test your max heart rate and I think most of the non-lab tests would not be completely reliable.

I had my maxhr tested on a treadmill when I was 39 so my theoretical max should have been 181, but it was 173. I may have left a couple of pulses on the treadmill but I think it's as close I'm ever going to get. I often see people my age with much higher heart rates but very few with a lower max! I think it's just genetics.

If you're going to do hr training, get a lactate test, rather than going by values in a book. The lactate test will give you HR ranges for a couple of useful thresholds in training. I got tested by Emmett Dunleavy - really professional guy does them out on the track in Irishtown.

Agree with getting a test done, or you can get a decent indication if you really push yourself in a 5k and go all out in the last 4/500.
My theretical is 168, lab 175 and at the end of a max 5k 182, so a big enough swing.

Murph_D

HelenAnne wrote: »

Not looking for medical advice, just wondering - you know the old 'subtract your age from 220 to get your max heartrate' maxim?

How different in either direction have people found their maximum / resting etc heart rates are? is the '220 - etc' accurate for most of you?

220-Age gives me 162.

I reckon my absolute max is about 196 based on own HR-strap readings. Max observed during LT test was about 190.

Bottom line: the 'rule of thumb' is useless. Having said that, I've done a few treadmill tests (medical and sports science guinea pig related) and the testers start to get nervous once I exceed 170. I always have to reassure them it can go a good bit higher!

Darren 83

So following a Jack Daniels plan for half marathon target is Bohermeen next year. I'm just doing three sessions a week about 30 miles a week would it benifits me to do 20min runs at the gym as a warm up for extra millage?

Butterbeans

Darren 83 wrote: »

So following a Jack Daniels plan for half marathon target is Bohermeen next year. I'm just doing three sessions a week about 30 miles a week would it benifits me to do 20min runs at the gym as a warm up for extra millage?

Bohermeen is a good course and well organised race. I presume you're building a base for the training programme as it's still over 5 months away.
An extra days running during the week may benefit you more than adding more mileage to the 3 days.
What's the breakdown of the 3 days you're currently running?

Darren 83

Today was 12x200s then next session is mile repeats with 400s thrown in then Sunday is M paced run.

It's an 18 week plan with two weeks extra in case I get sick and miss a bit.

Butterbeans

Darren 83 wrote: »

Today was 12x200s then next session is mile repeats with 400s thrown in then Sunday is M paced run.

It's an 18 week plan with two weeks extra in case I get sick and miss a bit.

That's 3 hard sessions in a week, if there's no easy running in there I'd certainly try and add some in on another day if possible. Does the plan give you specific sessions to do and then you add in other (easy) runs around it or how is it laid out?
On the duration of the plan, if you started it last week, then 18 weeks will only bring you up to beginning of February which leaves you primed 5 weeks before the race is even on (cant find date for Bohermeen 2020 but last years was 2nd Sunday in March). You'd be better off keeping running your 30 miles a week (maybe increasing it a mile or 2 a week) for October (no specific sessions, a good chunk of it easy) and start the plan in November.

Darren 83

It's three key sessions a week then easy runs to fill in the rest. I cycle to work as well about 9k total and in the gym three days a week.

On the plan I miss judged the length of it but will repeat a week or two.

skyblue46

Saw this on Twitter...it made my mind up for me

Imagine there is a legal shoe that makes you run your marathon significantly faster.

Now imagine this shoe would be sold by a company that directly & knowingly financially supports doping in running.

Would you buy the shoe and support doping?

Happy ethical Monday!

OOnegative

skyblue46 wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter...it made my mind up for me

Imagine there is a legal shoe that makes you run your marathon significantly faster.

Now imagine this shoe would be sold by a company that directly & knowingly financially supports doping in running.

Would you buy the shoe and support doping?

Happy ethical Monday!

Probably won’t like staying in my house so........

skyblue46

OOnegative wrote: »

skyblue46 wrote: »

Saw this on Twitter...it made my mind up for me

Imagine there is a legal shoe that makes you run your marathon significantly faster.

Now imagine this shoe would be sold by a company that directly & knowingly financially supports doping in running.

Would you buy the shoe and support doping?

Happy ethical Monday!

Probably won’t like staying in my house so........

Haha...I'll wear mine until they wear out. Cheapskateism before ethics!

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

Would you buy the shoe and support doping?

I actually thought that was why your coach doesn't wear Nike? Although I may be wrong.

skyblue46

Swashbuckler wrote: »

skyblue46 wrote:

Would you buy the shoe and support doping?

I actually thought that was why your coach doesn't wear Nike? Although I may be wrong.

I always assumed it was because of exploitation of cheap labour. That was for no particular reason beyond a hunch.

This case is despicable though. The CEO aware of testing testosterone patches on a child...beyond words

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

I always assumed it was because of exploitation of cheap labour. That was for no particular reason beyond a hunch.

He would bawk at my collection

OOnegative

Swashbuckler wrote: »

He would bawk at my collection

Feckin young lads with morals!!!

Whereisgalway

Would the knowledgeable people here rate a spartan beast run at all? 21km trail run over bog with obstacles. Was thinking of signing up for one

skyblue46

OOnegative wrote: »

Feckin young lads with morals!!!

I'm both happy with that comment and drowning in sarcasm :pac:

28064212

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Would the knowledgeable people here rate a spartan beast run at all? 21km trail run over bog with obstacles. Was thinking of signing up for one

Rate it in what way? As an objective achievement? Surely that depends on the time you complete it in?

deisedude

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Would the knowledgeable people here rate a spartan beast run at all? 21km trail run over bog with obstacles. Was thinking of signing up for one

If you want to do it for the craic then do it for the craic

If you think it will improve your half marathon time or whatever objective then I dont think it would

I've done tough mudder and hell and back before but wouldnt say it imptoved me as a runner. Too much stopping and starting to be comparable to a road race

The Davestator

deisedude wrote: »

If you want to do it for the craic then do it for the craic

If you think it will improve your half marathon time or whatever objective then I dont think it would

I've done tough mudder and hell and back before but wouldnt say it imptoved me as a runner. Too much stopping and starting to be comparable to a road race

Agree 100% with this - use your running fitness to do these other events for the joy of doing them rather than to improve your running. They are good fun and worth doing at least once IMO

goldsalmon33

Constantly getting a blister at the top of my second toe. Nail is blackish red under the top half of the nail and beginning to get tender... Shoes don't feel tight at all.... Thoughts?

boydkev

I am doing the DCM and through work they are offering the Flu Vaccine. Would it be a bad idea to get it in case there are side effects leading up to Dublin or have any impact on performance.

Cartman78

boydkev wrote: »

I am doing the DCM and through work they are offering the Flu Vaccine. Would it be a bad idea to get it in case there are side effects leading up to Dublin or have any impact on performance.

It's probably worth having a chat with your GP or pharmacist who will explain everything to you.

Side-effects vary from person to person....from zero effects to mild flu like symptoms for a few days

You can always get it after the marathon if you're worried.

Singer

boydkev wrote: »

I am doing the DCM and through work they are offering the Flu Vaccine. Would it be a bad idea to get it in case there are side effects leading up to Dublin or have any impact on performance.

I get mine after the marathon. No point in risking being under the weather for a few days.