Random Running Questions

Firedance

aero2k wrote: »

Don't worry Firedance, if you do have to travel it's only physical health they check...

:D Well thanks, to which of my (many) weaknesses are you referring to now? I should be O.K. as long as there's no spelling test, or maths quiz....

TFBubendorfer

Firedance wrote: »

sorry I didn't mean everywhere but we don't have them here at all as far as I know, I just wondered why we don't have them.

While it would always be a good idea to get yourself checked out before doing anything as strenuous as running a race, no matter if a certificate is required or not, I'm pretty sure in reality it is mainly a box-ticking/litigation-avoiding exercise.

For the certificate I needed for Greece I went to my GP and she signed it straight away without doing any tests. Admittedly, I had done a very comprehensive set of cardio tests half a year earlier.

aero2k

Firedance wrote: »

:D Well thanks, to which of my (many) weaknesses are you referring to now? I should be O.K. as long as there's no spelling test, or maths quiz....

As always, my remarks say more about me than you...not sure I'd get a medical cert these days:D.

68 lost souls

Ok I have been off running since september due to various injuries, mainly culminating in severe shin splints. I stopped running completly but 10 days ago I jogged in a group and did 6 k broken into 4km and 2km each with strength work in the middle. Yesterday I was given the ok to get back and getting mileage into me.

What I am looking for is just advice on getting back into it, any sessions I should work on? I want ot take it easy and make sure I dont push too hard too early. Before injury I had done mostly 5k events at about 5:45/km and did 2 10kms very slowly (both as part of a triathlon).

Last time I started back running I did 1km 3 days a week first week and then added 500m a week up until I hit 5km. Back then I had been off all sport for 6 months but now I have been swimming and cycling so have some fitness.

Long and short of it was thinking about doing a very easy 5km jog on Saturday? Should I do something easier even than that?

adrian522

I would say not to set any strict targets at this stage. Try to get back to running 3 times per week. Ensure you are properly recovered before running again, and make sure the pace is genuinely easy (Conversation pace).

You'll probably need about 3-4 weeks of this before introducing any sort of intensity.

This is from recent personal experience coming back from injury . It may be wise to aim for a certain time rather than distance. e.g 20 min jog rather than a 3km run or whatever.

68 lost souls

Thanks for the feedback. I think the key thing for me to focus on is low intensity if I'm right? Maybe leave the arch in my pocket kind of thing for the first few week?

adrian522

I'd imagine so, you need to build an aerobic base before adding the high intensity stuff. Take it slowly for the first few weeks.

Battery Kinzie

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

Could possibly be that. I'll see how I get on over the next few weeks and if it's still niggly I'll head to the physio and see what they say. Cheers.

Ughhh, since the exchange which finished with this post, I went for a run on Sunday. Normally I'd do ~15k but I struggled and ended up cutting it to 10k. Lower left leg felt very weak after having acute pain in the calf for a few days (though nothing that affected my walking or sleeping). Haven't been out since but I've been foam rolling and stretching twice a day, but if anything it's gotten worse over last few days. Gonna stop foam rolling and head to the physio some time next week.

Any ideas of what it is? Thought it might be piriformis syndrome, but it's just my calf that's sore and nothing else. I mostly get acute pain in a specific area of my calf which I could nearly put my fingertip on, and it generally happens when I'm sitting or lying down. My walking isn't affected and I barely notice it when walking. When I start to run however it's sore and my leg in general feels week. Hopefully it's something a weeks rest and a good massage sorts out, but I've gotten myself worried while trying to pinpoint what it is, with some places saying it could be a month or two out.

aquinn

Battery Kinzie wrote: »

Ughhh, since the exchange which finished with this post, I went for a run on Sunday. Normally I'd do ~15k but I struggled and ended up cutting it to 10k. Lower left leg felt very weak after having acute pain in the calf for a few days (though nothing that affected my walking or sleeping). Haven't been out since but I've been foam rolling and stretching twice a day, but if anything it's gotten worse over last few days. Gonna stop foam rolling and head to the physio some time next week.

Any ideas of what it is? Thought it might be piriformis syndrome, but it's just my calf that's sore and nothing else. I mostly get acute pain in a specific area of my calf which I could nearly put my fingertip on, and it generally happens when I'm sitting or lying down. My walking isn't affected and I barely notice it when walking. When I start to run however it's sore and my leg in general feels week. Hopefully it's something a weeks rest and a good massage sorts out, but I've gotten myself worried while trying to pinpoint what it is, with some places saying it could be a month or two out.

No Dr Google or self-diagnosis. Book the appointment.

mel.b

Could anyone sugget what distance slow long runs I should be doing between now and the 10th April for a 10mile race? Today I did 10.30km, the previous two Sundays were 10km and I'm feeling a lot more confident and comfortable with that distance now. Next week I have a 5mile run Sunday (race 2 in the RunClare2016 series), March 26 is a 10km (race 3) and then 10 April is the 10mile.

Thanks

Itziger

mel.b wrote: »

Could anyone sugget what distance slow long runs I should be doing between now and the 10th April for a 10mile race? Today I did 10.30km, the previous two Sundays were 10km and I'm feeling a lot more confident and comfortable with that distance now. Next week I have a 5mile run Sunday (race 2 in the RunClare2016 series), March 26 is a 10km (race 3) and then 10 April is the 10mile.

Thanks

You have a 16k race coming up and your 'long' run is 10k.

I'm guessing you know the answer to your question.

If you do the two shorter races then you can do a long run maybe during the week. But if you want to do well in the 10 miler you'd want to be getting up to 15k soon. Try adding on 1.5 or 2k to the long runs per week - races notwithstanding. An alternative - you can see I'm thinking and typing at the same time - might be to run a few kms before and/or after the 10k race on the 26th.

mel.b

Itziger wrote: »

You have a 16k race coming up and your 'long' run is 10k.

I'm guessing you know the answer to your question.

If you do the two shorter races then you can do a long run maybe during the week. But if you want to do well in the 10 miler you'd want to be getting up to 15k soon. Try adding on 1.5 or 2k to the long runs per week - races notwithstanding. An alternative - you can see I'm thinking and typing at the same time - might be to run a few kms before and/or after the 10k race on the 26th.

Doing 'well' in the race is all relative LOL - my PB from my only 10k is just over 1:13, although I'm hoping I can take a few minutes off that for the next one in March. It will be my first 10mile event and if I can just run it all, then that will be an acheivement that I am proud of.

What I'm more wondering is for example, the week before the 10k, should I drop back or is it ok to do a 12-13km run the week before? Same with the week before the 10mile - what distance should I do. I presume I won't need to have run the full 10mile before the event, but what distance should I aim for?

Itziger

mel.b wrote: »

Doing 'well' in the race is all relative LOL - my PB from my only 10k is just over 1:13, although I'm hoping I can take a few minutes off that for the next one in March. It will be my first 10mile event and if I can just run it all, then that will be an acheivement that I am proud of.

What I'm more wondering is for example, the week before the 10k, should I drop back or is it ok to do a 12-13km run the week before? Same with the week before the 10mile - what distance should I do. I presume I won't need to have run the full 10mile before the event, but what distance should I aim for?

Don't dial back before the 10k race. You need time on your feet. Most people would look to get their longest run in 2 or 3 weeks before their race. If you could get up to 14 or 15k or so by March 19th (You have plenty time). The gaps between the 10k and the 10 mile races aren't ideal but it's what you're working with.

If you can manage to do more than the 10 miles in training, all the better.

Coffee Fulled Runner

Bit daft, but I was having a conversation with a friend the other day on what is a good local runner and a decent local runner when it comes to 10km races. I'd say to be a good local runner you should be doing it sub 34 and a decent local runner sub 38. His opinion was much slower. Just wondering what you guys think!

Gavlor

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »

Bit daft, but I was having a conversation with a friend the other day on what is a good local runner and a decent local runner when it comes to 10km races. I'd say to be a good local runner you should be doing it sub 34 and a decent local runner sub 38. His opinion was much slower. Just wondering what you guys think!

I'd say you're right

28064212

Gavlor wrote: »

I'd say you're right

About this part?

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »

Bit daft

Yep. "Good" and "decent" (and "local" for that matter) don't mean much, and everyone will have their own personal definitions

Gavlor

28064212 wrote: »

About this part?

Yep. "Good" and "decent" (and "local" for that matter) don't mean much, and everyone will have their own personal definitions

Good = good. Decent = above avg.

Local = Irish politics.

davedanon

If good is sub-34, and decent sub-38, does that mean a sub-40 10k is only mediocre?

Seems a little harsh to me.

Gavlor

davedanon wrote: »

If good is sub-34, and decent sub-38, does that mean a sub-40 10k is only mediocre?

Seems a little harsh to me.

It's average relative to a good sub 34

davedanon

Gavlor wrote: »

It's average relative to a good sub 34

So? 34 is poor compared to the world record. What point are you trying to make?

Gavlor

davedanon wrote: »

So? 34 is poor compared to the world record. What point are you trying to make?

That sub 34 is good for a local runner in an Irish town, as per the op's thoughts.

Take the recent dungarvan 10k as a point of reference. http://www.westwaterfordathletics.org/images/pdfs/Dungarvan10k_2016.pdf

A race in an Irish town.

The top 5 were sub 34.

Of that 5, 4 were local.

Therefore sub 34 is a good time for a local runner in an Irish town.

Sacksian

I think a total of 26 people achieved the 34 minutes good for a local runner standard in the National 10k championships last year, and the majority of that 26 were either current or ex internationals or had won individual medals at various national competitions in recent years.

From the Dungarvan 10k example...I think these are right..

Of that top 5, the winner was 4th in last year's National Novice.

2nd place was bronze in the National marathon championships.

3rd place has won his Senior County xc champs in recent years.

4th place is a sub 2:25 marathoner who finished 7th in the WORLD 50km in Doha.

And 5th is a masters xc international.

So, while they may be good local runners, it suggests that running under 34 minutes will have you featuring nationally too. Leevale won the team 10k title last year, with their 4th scorer running just outside 34 minutes.

I'm just adding this in case someone actually takes some of the above stuff about what constitutes a good or decent 10km time seriously.

Gavlor

Sacksian wrote: »

I think a total of 26 people achieved the 34 minutes good for a local runner standard in the National 10k championships last year, and the majority of that 26 were either current or ex internationals or had won individual medals at various national competitions in recent years.

From the Dungarvan 10k example...I think these are right..

Of that top 5, the winner was 4th in last year's National Novice.

2nd place was bronze in the National marathon championships.

3rd place has won his Senior County xc champs in recent years.

4th place is a sub 2:25 marathoner who finished 7th in the WORLD 50km in Doha.

And 5th is a masters xc international.

So, while they may be good local runners, it suggests that running under 34 minutes will have you featuring nationally too. Leevale won the team 10k title last year, with their 4th scorer running just outside 34 minutes.

I'm just adding this in case someone actually takes some of the above stuff about what constitutes a good or decent 10km time seriously.

All good points which lead me to think that sub 34 is a good 10k time for a local runner. What am I missing here? Are we afraid to actually say that as far as race times go, 50 minutes isnt a good time?

It may be good for an individual but not holistically.

I'm not a particularly good runner myself but I don't take offence to anybody pointing out what they consider to be good times as reflected in race results

davedanon

I think it's just a matter of degree. I'm also not a particularly brilliant runner, but calling a sub-34 10k runner merely 'good' just feels a bit harsh on those not quite as good. Maybe it's because I'm a bit older. I suppose the 25 year-old me might have been capable of running in the mid-30's, but at my age a 38min 10k is rated >80%, which is national level.

Gavlor

davedanon wrote: »

I think it's just a matter of degree. I'm also not a particularly brilliant runner, but calling a sub-34 10k runner merely 'good' just feels a bit harsh on those not quite as good. Maybe it's because I'm a bit older. I suppose the 25 year-old me might have been capable of running in the mid-30's, but at my age a 38min 10k is rated >80%, which is national level.

Very fair point re age brackets Dave. My point was referring to senior cat, I should have pointed that out.

RayCun

in soccer fora there is endless debate about what 'world-class' means - Ballon D'Or contender, team of the tournament in the world cup, good enough to play in the winning world cup team, good enough for one of the teams in the knockout stages, standout player for one of the teams in the knockout stages, blah blah blah, on and on, round and round and round, any time someone says "that player is world-class"

Everyone means something different by the term.

Everyone has a different idea of what 'good' means.
Is it weakly positive, so that anyone above average is good (and which average? average runner? average club member? average in a national competition? marathon or cross country? per age group?) and there are lots of levels above 'good'?
Is it strongly positive, and there are only 100 good runners in Ireland, and everyone else is 'okay', 'mediocre', 'doing their best', 'average to poor'?

Round and round we go...

Krusty_Clown

Worth pointing out that there's an underlying assumption that we in Ireland represent typical standards, so there's a belief that you can apply definitions of good and decent, based on our national results. In some other countries you'd be laughed at with those kinds of standards, so everything is relative. My own definitions of good and decent shift relative to my own progress. So currently good is sub 32 minutes, while decent is sub 35, whereas in the past, good would have been sub 40, while, decent would be sub-45.

Good for age? That's just old, lazy people making excuses, so they can avoid having to train hard. :eek: :pac:

BeepBeep67

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Worth pointing out that there's an underlying assumption that we in Ireland represent typical standards, so there's a belief that you can apply definitions of good and decent, based on our national results. In some other countries you'd be laughed at with those kinds of standards, so everything is relative. My own definitions of good and decent shift relative to my own progress. So currently good is sub 32 minutes, while decent is sub 35, whereas in the past, good would have been sub 40, while, decent would be sub-45.

Good for age? That's just old, lazy people making excuses, so they can avoid having to train hard. :eek: :pac:

GFA, you say!

Chivito550

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Good for age? That's just old, lazy people making excuses, so they can avoid having to train hard. :eek: :pac:

YES!! Too many people hide behind age-grade calculators. Great to hear the above coming from somebody who could do likewise, but chooses not to.

Chivito550

What is considered good is really a matter of opinion, and depends on where the runner is at. In terms of my own event, somebody running 46 seconds for 400m is not good by World Standards. That same person would be decent by European standards, top top class by Irish standards, and a Bolt like superstar down at your local Parkrun 400m!