Random Running Questions

6781

Not so much a running question more a rules of the road question. I'm running on country roads, no foot paths etc. So I'm running on the right hand side of the road and ahead of me is another road joining the road I'm running on, on my right hand side. I'm going straight on. So if a car is coming off this side road and turning left towards me onto the road I'm on, at the junction there is a yield right of way sign for the car nto a stop sign. The car driver is meant to yield, and wait for me to pass before pulling out, yeah? Or do I stop for the car? If I'm the driver I'd wait for the runner to pass but not everyone will do that.

28064212

6781 wrote: »

Not so much a running question more a rules of the road question. I'm running on country roads, no foot paths etc. So I'm running on the right hand side of the road and ahead of me is another road joining the road I'm running on, on my right hand side. I'm going straight on. So if a car is coming off this side road and turning left towards me onto the road I'm on, at the junction there is a yield right of way sign for the car nto a stop sign. The car driver is meant to yield, and wait for me to pass before pulling out, yeah? Or do I stop for the car? If I'm the driver I'd wait for the runner to pass but not everyone will do that.

Bolded part is correct. And in any incident, you would lose. Badly. So regardless of the rules of the road, you should always yield

davedanon

28064212 wrote: »

Bolded part is correct. And in any incident, you would lose. Badly. So regardless of the rules of the road, you should always yield

ahhh, it's a bit more nuanced than that, in my opinion. If every dickhead driver (and I speak as a car driver) gets it into his/her head that they have effective right of way over more vulnerable road users simply because of that fact, then it becomes a twat's charter. Obviously it's no use being right in the morgue, but there's a line to tread. When you know you have right of way you should always seek to enforce it, short of putting yourself in harm's way. Drivers are mostly idiots because they are cocooned in metal and have no ****ing clue what it's like for walkers/runners/cyclists when they flash by far too close at a speed above the speed limit in most cases. They need to be told when, why and how they are in the wrong in every instance. Otherwise they will continue to drive like cocks, and more, not fewer, people will get hurt.

RedRunner

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

Hello. I am a newbie to running. Currently 3 weeks in to the Couch to 5k Programme and I'm really enjoying it so far. My job is offering to sponsor people for the Run in the Dark race on November 11th. Timing wise, it's good, as I'd be finished the programme by about a week and should be able to manage it. (Famous last words!)

Would you recommend this race for someone who's never ran one before? I read the feedback on it from last year and it wasn't hectic it seems.

Not a brilliant course, a lot of congestion too, but having said that I think it is a good introduction for you as you will experience a great atmosphere and will be sure to get the bug to enter more races after that. The other option is to try any Park Run near you.

6781

28064212 wrote: »

Bolded part is correct. And in any incident, you would lose. Badly. So regardless of the rules of the road, you should always yield

Obviously not going to put my life at risk so I can say "but I had the right of way"

28064212

davedanon wrote: »

ahhh, it's a bit more nuanced than that, in my opinion. If every dickhead driver (and I speak as a car driver) gets it into his/her head that they have effective right of way over more vulnerable road users simply because of that fact, then it becomes a twat's charter. Obviously it's no use being right in the morgue, but there's a line to tread. When you know you have right of way you should always seek to enforce it, short of putting yourself in harm's way. Drivers are mostly idiots because they are cocooned in metal and have no ****ing clue what it's like for walkers/runners/cyclists when they flash by far too close at a speed above the speed limit in most cases. They need to be told when, why and how they are in the wrong in every instance. Otherwise they will continue to drive like cocks, and more, not fewer, people will get hurt.

But enforcing your right of way will do nothing to resolve it. A dickhead driver who thinks he has right of way and has to brake because of a runner who does have right of way doesn't start thinking "Oh that was silly, I should be more careful", they start thinking "Goddamn ****ing idiots, running out in front of me, next time they'll be lucky if I brake"

Louise40

Hi I posted a few months ago. I had noticed my runs getting slower and slower, no energy. Anyway ended up being diagnosed with severe anaemia 8.2 count, was put on iron supplements and told not to run for 8 wks. Back running for the last 3 weeks. Just doing 3 x3 mile runs and one 5 mile. I m going to do a 6 mile next week for my LR. This time last year I was 46 min for 10k and 1:47 for HM. I signed up today for dungarvan 10 mile in January. Just wanted to check when it would be ok to re start tempo runs and speed sessions? Gp says iron count is 11, to continue on supplements and continue to improve my diet. I figure it ll take 12 weeks to get my fitness back? Pre anaemia my runs had deteriorated. I kept at 25-30 mpw but all easy runs. Appreciate any advice. Just thrilled to be back on the road and feeling better!!

davedanon

28064212 wrote: »

But enforcing your right of way will do nothing to resolve it. A dickhead driver who thinks he has right of way and has to brake because of a runner who does have right of way doesn't start thinking "Oh that was silly, I should be more careful", they start thinking "Goddamn ****ing idiots, running out in front of me, next time they'll be lucky if I brake"

Unless you're dealing with a tool who can't/won't listen to reason, what other way is there to demonstrate to people that they are in the wrong? If I make a calculated gamble and run out in front of a car that's approaching a stop sign (slowly) and it doesn't stop at first, has to brake sharply, and its driver beeps the horn, makes a gesture, or whatever, then I'll be only too happy to explain why they're in the wrong. Just maybe, next time they'll remember that STOP means just that.

RayCun

davedanon wrote: »

Unless you're dealing with a tool who can't/won't listen to reason, what other way is there to demonstrate to people that they are in the wrong? If I make a calculated gamble and run out in front of a car that's approaching a stop sign (slowly) and it doesn't stop at first, has to brake sharply, and its driver beeps the horn, makes a gesture, or whatever, then I'll be only too happy to explain why they're in the wrong. Just maybe, next time they'll remember that STOP means just that.

I think I've read this post a dozen times in the last week because boards keeps telling me there are new posts in the thread

HelenAnne

Calorie burn question. You know the way they say ('they' being my GPS watch / running magazines etc) that a mile burns a certain number of calories depending on your weight (which I already think is unfair - why should my husband, for example, get to eat more cake after a run than me just because he's heavier? )? But do 'harder' miles burn more? I ask because I was SO WRECKED after the XC on Sunday - I certainly felt much more tired than if I'd just jogged the same distance on a nice smooth surface. So should (or can:)) I eat more after a hard effort like that than the mileage would suggest? (This is a hypothetical question because actually I ate nothing for hours and hours because I'd forgotten my money and so couldn't get anything to eat from the chocolate tent .)

Bungy Girl

HelenAnne wrote: »

Calorie burn question. You know the way they say ('they' being my GPS watch / running magazines etc) that a mile burns a certain number of calories depending on your weight (which I already think is unfair - why should my husband, for example, get to eat more cake after a run than me just because he's heavier? )? But do 'harder' miles burn more? I ask because I was SO WRECKED after the XC on Sunday - I certainly felt much more tired than if I'd just jogged the same distance on a nice smooth surface. So should (or can:)) I eat more after a hard effort like that than the mileage would suggest? (This is a hypothetical question because actually I ate nothing for hours and hours because I'd forgotten my money and so couldn't get anything to eat from the chocolate tent .)

I'm pretty sure a mile is a mile and there is no difference for an individual whether he/she runs or walks it slowly or at eyeballs out pace, his/her default amount of calories burned will apply. As far as I know though, and I am happy to be corrected on this if it's incorrect, the harder the workout the more positive the effect on the metabolism and therefore more calories can be burned at rest afterwards compared to after an easier workout. No idea how many though, probably not enough for a giant muffin. Either way your husband gets to eat more than you do :rolleyes:.

And, in all seriousness, if you forget your money again post race, please just ask as I think your fellow runners would completely understand and be happy to subsidise a snack rather than see you go hungry and keel over!!

28064212

The "formula" calorie figure (i.e. weight = x, distance = y, time = z, therefore calories = c) is very much a guess. For some people it will be accurate, for others it will be way off. A figure obtained from a GPS watch with a HRM will be more accurate, but is still only a guideline figure.

There's also a factor you've forgotten. Take, for example, two of my 5 mile workouts. One of them was an all-out PB race, the other was a recovery run. Yet both burned approximately 450 calories (according to my HRM). Why? Because for the recovery run, even though the distance was the same, I was running for a whole ten minutes longer, which is a significant amount of extra calorie-burning time

HelenAnne

Bungy Girl wrote: »

And, in all seriousness, if you forget your money again post race, please just ask as I think your fellow runners would completely understand and be happy to subsidise a snack rather than see you go hungry and keel over!!

Aw, thank you! I cadged 2 quid for a coffee, which tided me over, but didn't want to start asking people to subsidise me for KitKats etc! (I should have brought something to eat as I knew we wanted to stay to watch the men's race and would be out a while.)

HelenAnne

28064212 wrote: »

The "formula" calorie figure (i.e. weight = x, distance = y, time = z, therefore calories = c) is very much a guess. For some people it will be accurate, for others it will be way off. A figure obtained from a GPS watch with a HRM will be more accurate, but is still only a guideline figure.

There's also a factor you've forgotten. Take, for example, two of my 5 mile workouts. One of them was an all-out PB race, the other was a recovery run. Yet both burned approximately 450 calories (according to my HRM). Why? Because for the recovery run, even though the distance was the same, I was running for a whole ten minutes longer, which is a significant amount of extra calorie-burning time

I HAD forgotten that time-on-my-feet factor! Good point!

RayCun

I think the calorie burn estimates are based on your heart rate.

sideswipe

Looking to concentrate on some shorter distances after recovering from Berlin marathon. I really need to focus on speed for a while.

Probably a bit of a stupid question but- Is It better to train for a 5K after a marathon cycle or would training for a 10K be more compatible/beneficial, in relation to further improving marathon times in the future given my current fitness level coming off marathon training?

Krusty_Clown

sideswipe wrote: »

Looking to concentrate on some shorter distances after recovering from Berlin marathon. I really need to focus on speed for a while.

Probably a bit of a stupid question but- Is It better to train for a 5K after a marathon cycle or would training for a 10K be more compatible/beneficial, in relation to further improving marathon times in the future given my current fitness level coming off marathon training?

A 10k would be closer (in terms of pace and muscle usage) to a marathon than 5k, so I'd suggest that a 5k program would likely yield more benefits (and is diverse enough from marathon training that you will be more engaged). Best to take some weeks off first though (if you haven't already), and spend a couple of weeks just running easy, before hitting those 5k sessions. In other words recover, then build, so that you have a natural entry point into the 5k training, rather than a short sharp shock. You can still run a good 10k off of 5k training, or do something 10k specific after realizing gains in your 5k training.

sideswipe

Cheers KC. I've taken a full week off as I had a couple of niggles that needed addressing- doing some static bike, stretching, foam rolling etc. Back on the road this week with some easy running but chomping at the bit to get cracking at the shorter stuff. T'is amazing how you can convince yourself that fitness gains are running through your fingers if you're not running all the time!
How long would you recommend before starting into some sessions again? I know the one day per mile raced theory but not sure I could handle that!

Krusty_Clown

sideswipe wrote: »

Cheers KC. I've taken a full week off as I had a couple of niggles that needed addressing- doing some static bike, stretching, foam rolling etc. Back on the road this week with some easy running but chomping at the bit to get cracking at the shorter stuff. T'is amazing how you can convince yourself that fitness gains are running through your fingers if you're not running all the time!
How long would you recommend before starting into some sessions again? I know the one day per mile raced theory but not sure I could handle that!

I can only really answer for myself, but in the past, I have often tried to get back into it too soon, and carried the burden of niggles as a consequence. If you can manage to take a full week off, then think about doing a reverse taper, gradually increasing the number of days running and small amounts of quality, until you're back to full swing. If you find that you're largely niggle free, plan a fartlek session and if all goes well - without significant physical discomfort, you should be ready for full-on sessions. Often this will coincide with getting the hunger/motivation back.

Battery Kinzie

Ok so I have a half marathon coming up 6 weeks on Saturday. I had just started training and then got an injury from football so haven't ran much the last 2-3 weeks. In the mean time I've been doing some cycling, but hoping to be back running by Sunday. My time goal and all are out the window, and now I just want to get it done in a decent time(sub 2 hrs). I was following Hal Higdons novice 2 program, but I'll need to do a condensed version over the next few weeks, so whats the best way to do it? Obviously I'll taper in to it the next week, while continuing cycling, but in terms of long runs? I was thinking of:

8k Sunday week (the 18th)
11k(the 25th)
13k(the 1st Nov)
15k(the 8th)
18k(the 15th)


Is that building it up too quick? I'd keep the 3 midweek runs at 5k easy with the odd pace depending how I'm feeling and continue cycling for ~60 minutes on Saturday.


Cheers!

Ps. before I got injured the furthest I had run was 16k once with the odd 10k.

Dub13

Breaking runners in question. Got a new pair of runners had them out yesterday for the first time. My question is, I have a 10k race on Sunday and my plan has me down for 26k Sun so will be doing a few K before the race and maybe 14k after the race. Will it be to early to use the new runners..? Before then I will have the following road time on them.

Tue: 10k
Wen:10k
Thurs: 15k
Fri: 10k

So a total 45k in them before Sunday.

BeepBeep67

Dub13 wrote: »

Breaking runners in question. Got a new pair of runners had them out yesterday for the first time. My question is, I have a 10k race on Sunday and my plan has me down for 26k Sun so will be doing a few K before the race and maybe 14k after the race. Will it be to early to use the new runners..? Before then I will have the following road time on them.

Tue: 10k
Wen:10k
Thurs: 15k
Fri: 10k

So a total 45k in them before Sunday.

You'll know yourself after a few days, but most runners nowadays need very little breaking in, I once ran a half marathon sandwiched in between a couple of 4 mile runs with a pair straight out the box,

Dub13

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

You'll know yourself after a few days, but most runners nowadays need very little breaking in, I once ran a half marathon sandwiched in between a couple of 4 mile runs with a pair straight out the box,

Yea I suppose I will know after Fridays run, just wanted others opinion as I have normally had a good lead in time before a race.

Itziger

What do you do when you have inexplicably bad days? Do you just put it behind you?

Yesterday, after two good recent workouts, I went for an easy, even 'recovery' run that was supposed to be 12 or 14k. After 6 I stopped and walked a bit and then jogged home the remaining kilometre. I was wiped out, feeling faint almost. Beforehand and this morning, I feel fine. I don't understand how I felt that heavy and listless. I do think I was right to bail out on the run though, it was really getting me nowhere.

I'll see how the next few days go before panicking.

tailgunner

Same thing happened to me a few weekends back. After a streak of good runs I had a really bad one for no reason, and like you, was completely wiped out and feeling faint afterwards. Didn't feel 100% for a few days but was completely back to normal by the end of the week.

Still don't know what it was really, maybe I had a mild virus or something. So yeah, see how the next few days go and then try and put it behind you!

Krusty_Clown

Itziger wrote: »

What do you do when you have inexplicably bad days? Do you just put it behind you?

Yesterday, after two good recent workouts, I went for an easy, even 'recovery' run that was supposed to be 12 or 14k. After 6 I stopped and walked a bit and then jogged home the remaining kilometre. I was wiped out, feeling faint almost. Beforehand and this morning, I feel fine. I don't understand how I felt that heavy and listless. I do think I was right to bail out on the run though, it was really getting me nowhere.

I'll see how the next few days go before panicking.

Yeah, it happens. For me, I've noticed that it's often the day after - the day after a hard session or race. So if I did a hard workout on a Sunday, inexplicably I'd have a bad easy/recovery run on a Tuesday. I tpyically put it down to the body going through a recovery process the day after a hard session, and then being a little run-down the next day as a consequence. Usually it hits me 4 miles from home, so I've little choice other than to keep going and typically by the time I'm a mile from home (that's 1.6kms for you Bourgians!), I'm feeling right as rain again. I call them 'whiteys'.

Ososlo

yes had one last week. Out of the blue. Truly horrible. The days before were fine and the days after were fine. Inexplicable is the word.
Like you I felt like fainting and legs were heavy and was ridiculously hot and felt sick and had no energy. Presumed I was coming down with something but it never happened.
Agree it's best to bail as you know pretty much after a mile how a run is going to pan out.
I think it's just 'one of those things' and nothing to worry about unless it happens a few days in close succession. Maybe take it extra easy on your next run just in case.

davedanon

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Yeah, it happens. For me, I've noticed that it's often the day after - the day after a hard session or race. So if I did a hard workout on a Sunday, inexplicably I'd have a bad easy/recovery run on a Tuesday. I tpyically put it down to the body going through a recovery process the day after a hard session, and then being a little run-down the next day as a consequence. Usually it hits me 4 miles from home, so I've little choice other than to keep going and typically by the time I'm a mile from home (that's 1.6kms for you Bourgians!), I'm feeling right as rain again. I call them 'whiteys'.

Maybe it's your body telling you it wouldn't mind a day off every now and then, eh, Mr. runaway-1000-mile-challenge-leader?

Greenmachine

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

Ok so I have a half marathon coming up 6 weeks on Saturday. I had just started training and then got an injury from football so haven't ran much the last 2-3 weeks. In the mean time I've been doing some cycling, but hoping to be back running by Sunday. My time goal and all are out the window, and now I just want to get it done in a decent time(sub 2 hrs). I was following Hal Higdons novice 2 program, but I'll need to do a condensed version over the next few weeks, so whats the best way to do it? Obviously I'll taper in to it the next week, while continuing cycling, but in terms of long runs? I was thinking of:

8k Sunday week (the 18th)
11k(the 25th)
13k(the 1st Nov)
15k(the 8th)
18k(the 15th)


Is that building it up too quick? I'd keep the 3 midweek runs at 5k easy with the odd pace depending how I'm feeling and continue cycling for ~60 minutes on Saturday.


Cheers!

Ps. before I got injured the furthest I had run was 16k once with the odd 10k.

Sounds like you are running the Clontarf half. Will be running this myself.
Don't have anything to offer, I'm afraid, getting over a sinus infection at the moment, and am treating a 10k this Sunday a LSR run. This was supposed to be at planned half marathon pace. My miles half floored in the last 4 weeks. Going to get myself to the line on Sunday and hopefully across, and then come back here, for my own advice.

Krusty_Clown

davedanon wrote: »

Maybe it's your body telling you it wouldn't mind a day off every now and then, eh, Mr. runaway-1000-mile-challenge-leader?

A slow 6 miles IS a day off! Anyway, this body will be getting a couple of weeks of days off, real soon now.