Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Random Running Questions
Options
Comments
-
-
_Tombstone_ wrote: »
Funny you should mention that.
I was in touch with an AIMs measurer about this. And yes the course does have an AIMs cert, but it is the pre 2012 course that has a cert, and the course has not been remeasured since they changed the start/finish lines. It seems you pay for an AIMs cert for a number of years but they do not come back to check you run the race over the course that was officially measured each year. So basically; Moral of the story: AIMS cert is not worth the paper is written on
BTW if you don't believe me you can check the startfinish areas by comparing the traces of the 2011 Full and the 2012 Half (both races have always started and finished at the same point). As you can see the 2011 race started and finished at least 100m south of where it started and finished in 2012
Now it is quite possible that the full course was tweaked to make up the distance lost at the start (seems likely as I have never heard complaints about the full) but it seems a cert to me that the half course is short. I measured it as 12.94 miles.0 -
Funny you should mention that.
I was in touch with an AIMs measurer about this. And yes the course does have an AIMs cert, but it is the pre 2012 course that has a cert, and the course has not been remeasured since they changed the start/finish lines. It seems you pay for an AIMs cert for a number of years but they do not come back to check you run the race over the course that was officially measured each year. So basically; Moral of the story: AIMS cert is not worth the paper is written on
BTW if you don't believe me you can check the startfinish areas by comparing the traces of the 2011 Full and the 2012 Half (both races have always started and finished at the same point). As you can see the 2011 race started and finished at least 100m south of where it started and finished in 2012
Now it is quite possible that the full course was tweaked to make up the distance lost at the start (seems likely as I have never heard complaints about the full) but it seems a cert to me that the half course is short. I measured it as 12.94 miles.
I remember reading through a race report of the Half last year - I'm almost certain it was this race - and a 'senior' poster here had a link to his Garmin for it. A few minutes later the link was removed. In the short time it was up I remember being surprised that it was something around 12.9x. Not sure I have the time to trawl through the log right now.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apologies for this really lame basic question.
After 2 weeks of just running, the real work starts in the plan tomorrow and it says 5m fartlek. The explanation it gives for fartlek is, short bursts of up to 3 mins with a one third recovery easy jog.
Up until now the longer distance 'speedwork' i was doing was described as either a progression or alternation run (type A). Any short bursts of speedwork weeks were done in intervals of 5 (type
, so i would only be covering a short distance for about 30 mins.
Should a fartlek of 5m be done like type A or B? Im just a bit concerned that this plan being for intermediates (which Muler kindly adapted for my level) they might be covering the distance in 30 mins. Whereas as my 5m race speed is 48 mins and that might be a bit long for a type B approach.
I hope this makes sense to someone. I just really want to avoid getting annoyed with myself if it doesnt work out, when i can be better prepared heading out
0 -
Hannibal Smith wrote: »Apologies for this really lame basic question.
After 2 weeks of just running, the real work starts in the plan tomorrow and it says 5m fartlek. The explanation it gives for fartlek is, short bursts of up to 3 mins with a one third recovery easy jog.
Up until now the longer distance 'speedwork' i was doing was described as either a progression or alternation run (type A). Any short bursts of speedwork weeks were done in intervals of 5 (type, so i would only be covering a short distance for about 30 mins.
Should a fartlek of 5m be done like type A or B? Im just a bit concerned that this plan being for intermediates (which Muler kindly adapted for my level) they might be covering the distance in 30 mins. Whereas as my 5m race speed is 48 mins and that might be a bit long for a type B approach.
I hope this makes sense to someone. I just really want to avoid getting annoyed with myself if it doesnt work out, when i can be better prepared heading out
Morning Hanny Have you done fartlek before? Even if this has been adapted, it's still pretty hardcore. I worked up to 5 and 6 miles of fartlek over the winter and believe me, I needed to, 5 miles of fartlek is pretty tough :eek: What's the plan? I would have thought as a stimulation, fartlek was primarily a winter thing or an introduction to pacier stuff? I may be wrong. Could you change it, as you suggest, to 30 - even 20 minutes - to start with? 0 -
Hannibal Smith wrote: »Apologies for this really lame basic question.
After 2 weeks of just running, the real work starts in the plan tomorrow and it says 5m fartlek. The explanation it gives for fartlek is, short bursts of up to 3 mins with a one third recovery easy jog.
Up until now the longer distance 'speedwork' i was doing was described as either a progression or alternation run (type A). Any short bursts of speedwork weeks were done in intervals of 5 (type, so i would only be covering a short distance for about 30 mins.
Should a fartlek of 5m be done like type A or B? Im just a bit concerned that this plan being for intermediates (which Muler kindly adapted for my level) they might be covering the distance in 30 mins. Whereas as my 5m race speed is 48 mins and that might be a bit long for a type B approach.
I hope this makes sense to someone. I just really want to avoid getting annoyed with myself if it doesnt work out, when i can be better prepared heading out
Is that's the Cool Running 10K plan ? 5M fartlek would include the warm up and cool down. They give a good explanation of how to do the session here. It's fun! And apparently, according to a recent article in the Guardian, you can tell a real runner if you mention fartlek and they don't snigger
0 -
Advertisement
-
Morning Hanny Have you done fartlek before? Even if this has been adapted, it's still pretty hardcore. I worked up to 5 and 6 miles of fartlek over the winter and believe me, I needed to, 5 miles of fartlek is pretty tough :eek: What's the plan? I would have thought as a stimulation, fartlek was primarily a winter thing or an introduction to pacier stuff? I may be wrong. Could you change it, as you suggest, to 30 - even 20 minutes - to start with?
Morning DG, thanks for the quick response.
No, Ive never done fartlek before. Ive heard the word being thrown about on here, but never had to look into it until now.
I was a bit concerned like you say that 5m of bursts of speed was a bit much for me for now. Ive never done anything like that before, but didnt want to be a wuss either Its the cool runnings half marathon plan. The reason i picked the intermediate one is because the long runs suit me better, but perhaps the speed work is a bit too advanced. Certainly this one seems to be.
A 30 min one would suit me way better I think.0
Advertisement