|
On March 16 2012 05:58 Snuggles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:55 dudeman001 wrote:
Fuck. In 5 months there's a qualifying marathon for the Boston marathon close to where I live. A SAFE Boston qualifying time is running at 6:17 mile pace.
Fuck. 6:17 mile pace? Run a mile in 6:17 my god that's insane. When I look at people who can run at that speed all I can picture in my mind is some Greek mythological god haha. It'd be cool to see what levels of endurance you would need to be able to run at that pace if there is even a way to visualize that on a graph.
To take the insanity up a couple steps further...for good college runners that's a nice, easy pace; and for the top elite runners that almost a slow trot/recovery pace.
The top runners can pretty much cruise 4:30-4:40 pace for a while no problems, and run a marathon around 4:45 - 4:50 pace.
13.1 miles @ 4:29 pace/mile
It'd be cool to see what levels of endurance you would need to be able to run at that pace if there is even a way to visualize that on a graph.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Like how would you quantify "endurance" on a graph?
|
On March 14 2012 22:13 Malinor wrote:
I need to buy some new running shoes and I wanted to get a pair of Vibrams this time, and I wonder which model to get. I run casually, mostly to support weight loss without wrecking my strength training too much (but who am I kidding, my strength training suffers endlessly already, but I will run anyway).
Basically, I do sprint intervalls 1-2x a week and 30-50minute runs 1-2x a week. Is there a big difference in which model I should get? The description on the website is mostly that every pair is extremely comfortable (shocking), but not even the "Sprint" has any indication in its description that it is actually good for sprinting.
I have the KSO's and I absolutely love them. I don't do as much running these days as I am more focused on lifting (training for bodybuilding). I've had them for about 3 years now and they are still in great shape. I wear them everyday to the gym to lift in and usually do a quick mile on the treadmill before each workout. Vibrams promote great natural form that most modern running shoes prevent you from doing. It's funny how just now people are figuring out that all these running injuries didn't happen as often in the past before the modern "running shoe" (approx 1970s). You can already see a shift in the industry as more companies are trying to follow in Vibram's footsteps (pun intended) by making more minimalist footwear. We didn't come out of the womb with shoes on for a reason  I believe they are only $85 compared to many of their models which are $100+.
|
On March 14 2012 22:13 Malinor wrote:
I need to buy some new running shoes and I wanted to get a pair of Vibrams this time, and I wonder which model to get. I run casually, mostly to support weight loss without wrecking my strength training too much (but who am I kidding, my strength training suffers endlessly already, but I will run anyway).
Basically, I do sprint intervalls 1-2x a week and 30-50minute runs 1-2x a week. Is there a big difference in which model I should get? The description on the website is mostly that every pair is extremely comfortable (shocking), but not even the "Sprint" has any indication in its description that it is actually good for sprinting.
The real question is why a pair of Vibrams?
If your familiar with your gait and know a minimalist shoe is for you and like the feel of a vibram then absolutely go for it.
However, I've seen lots of people get Vibrams and/or other minimalist shoes because they have heard it's a good thing, healthier, good for form, etc. and have injury issues because of it. There isn't really anything wrong with Vibram/minimalist but there hasn't been much supporting information that it's super good for you like it's hyped up to be.
|
On March 16 2012 10:04 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 22:13 Malinor wrote:
I need to buy some new running shoes and I wanted to get a pair of Vibrams this time, and I wonder which model to get. I run casually, mostly to support weight loss without wrecking my strength training too much (but who am I kidding, my strength training suffers endlessly already, but I will run anyway).
Basically, I do sprint intervalls 1-2x a week and 30-50minute runs 1-2x a week. Is there a big difference in which model I should get? The description on the website is mostly that every pair is extremely comfortable (shocking), but not even the "Sprint" has any indication in its description that it is actually good for sprinting. The real question is why a pair of Vibrams? If your familiar with your gait and know a minimalist shoe is for you and like the feel of a vibram then absolutely go for it. However, I've seen lots of people get Vibrams and/or other minimalist shoes because they have heard it's a good thing, healthier, good for form, etc. and have injury issues because of it. There isn't really anything wrong with Vibram/minimalist but there hasn't been much supporting information that it's super good for you like it's hyped up to be.
Those injuries are probably due to people who don't ease into it. There's a lot of muscles in the foot that just aren't used when running in modern running shoes and it takes a while to adjust. There may or may not be any supporting information about them in terms of hard research but this is how you can look at it: humans have been running ever since we were created/evolved or whatever you believe. Basically, we've been running for pretty much our whole history. It's only been since the 1970s since shoes were made with all kinds of support. Since then, running injuries have increased and many of the worlds best runners still run barefoot. That may not be the cause but it's something to think about.
Also, it just makes sense biologically as to why it's better to let the foot do its thing rather than try and "support" it. Your foot has all those muscles for a reason. When you stop I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself well in this post as I'm tired and its late but I'll try and find an article that can explain it better than me.
Born to Run by Christopher McDougall might be a good book to check it if you are more interested in this subject. I actually haven't read it yet but I plan to sometime.
|
On March 16 2012 12:06 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 10:04 L_Master wrote:On March 14 2012 22:13 Malinor wrote:
I need to buy some new running shoes and I wanted to get a pair of Vibrams this time, and I wonder which model to get. I run casually, mostly to support weight loss without wrecking my strength training too much (but who am I kidding, my strength training suffers endlessly already, but I will run anyway).
Basically, I do sprint intervalls 1-2x a week and 30-50minute runs 1-2x a week. Is there a big difference in which model I should get? The description on the website is mostly that every pair is extremely comfortable (shocking), but not even the "Sprint" has any indication in its description that it is actually good for sprinting. The real question is why a pair of Vibrams? If your familiar with your gait and know a minimalist shoe is for you and like the feel of a vibram then absolutely go for it. However, I've seen lots of people get Vibrams and/or other minimalist shoes because they have heard it's a good thing, healthier, good for form, etc. and have injury issues because of it. There isn't really anything wrong with Vibram/minimalist but there hasn't been much supporting information that it's super good for you like it's hyped up to be. Those injuries are probably due to people who don't ease into it. There's a lot of muscles in the foot that just aren't used when running in modern running shoes and it takes a while to adjust.
This may well have been a part of it, though a few certainly did ease in more gradually.
Since then, running injuries have increased
I don't have any data on this, and though you mention it may not be the cause its worth pointing out that there could easily be many more factors at play here, things like: more people running today, profile/fitness of typical runner, surface types, etc. Really hard to make a call one way or the other without a bunch of really concrete, well analyzed data.
and many of the worlds best runners still run barefoot.
This I definitely dispute. Certainly no one (amongst elites) races barefoot. I don't know of any off the top of my head that train barefoot and I certainly have never seen an elite runner in any video or mentioned in any articles running workouts without shoes.
What I would believe though is that there are some who incorporate some barefoot drills/stride work for mechanics sake as running in shoes definitely can change subtly the mechanics of running.
Also, it just makes sense biologically as to why it's better to let the foot do its thing rather than try and "support" it. Your foot has all those muscles for a reason. When you stop I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself well in this post as I'm tired and its late but I'll try and find an article that can explain it better than me.
This is the argument that is the most common for those who heavily advocate barefoot running. I'm NOT saying it is wrong. However, I just don't think there is enough supporting evidence to go ahead and say "Yes, this is indeed the case."
To play devil's advocate here are some complications of the top of my head that one could throw at the biological/evolutionist perspective:
- Runners today are generally much, much more overweight than people in more ancestral times were; and thus we are not built to run around with high amounts of extra weight
- The types of surfaces of today are much different than those of ancestral times. Our ancestors ran/walked on grass, or at the hardest, dirt. Nowadays a large number of people have to, or choose to, run on surfaces such as asphalt and concrete which are drastically harder surfaces than grass, or even hard packed dirt.
- Evolution is good, but who is to say it's perfect and can't be improved on. Mayhaps many people are built to run barefoot just fine, but let's not forget that there is variation in a population. Those individuals "not built to run" might not have survived to contribute to the gene pool back in ancestral times because they couldn't run/walk barefoot w/o getting injured. It's possible shoes can solve these problems
I again want to emphasize that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Vibrams/minimalist shoes. However, if you have a good shoe that you have been running in for some time injury free it would be silly to change. You've found something that works for you, don't change it and risk the injury as finding running shoes that work for ones body isn't easy, especially if one is German Fernandez prone to injury.
Vibrams aren't going to make you faster, so if your not having injury/comfort issues there is only one other reason worth considering changing: you like the way they feel when you run better. If you have been wearing shoe X and you try and Vibrams and they feel fantastic to you and your having a blast running around in them...well that seems like a good reason to give them a try.
Maybe this post is less about Vibrams/Minimalism than it is about my opinion that if you have found a shoe that works; don't change the recipe unless you find something you really, really like better.
|
It doesn't have to be Vibrams actually. Though I find the concept intriguing. But the longer I shop around the internet, the more I feel that I am joining a cult, and then there is always the possibility that you are just falling for a marketing strategy more than anything. And I would hate that.
For some reason I had the impression that a lot of people in here were using these kind of shoes and the verdict would be unanimously positive. Good that I checked again.
I have been using Brooks Adrenaline since eight years or so, though I haven't bought a brand new pair in a couple of years, so they are basically totally worn out by now. I have never had an injury in those, and given that I have never been below 100kg during that time (I was around 106-108kg when I run my Marathon in 2005), that is probably a reason not to switch.
My concern is mainly that I am now running more midfoot (actually don't know how I run back then, I just now made a conscious effort), and I sometimes find it not so comfortable running like that in shoes with heavy padding. It makes it basically harder to not somehow land heel first, especially when you are tired, though I don't think that is necessarily so bad as it is sometimes said. But this was basically my thought process for maybe giving minimalistic shoes a try.
|
I definitely agree that you should definitely do what works for you. That applies to more than just choice of running shoes. With any given activity, you will find a HUGE range of techniques that people have been very successful with so you can't look at any one person and copy them because they are successful. You just have to find what works with you mentally as well as physically.
On the topic of running surfaces, I think the prevalence of hard surfaces is probably what has lead to many shoes being made the way they are these days. No matter what way you look at it, it's not good for running. Nothing is ever going to be quite as good as running on natural surfaces, at least, in my opinion. The feeling of running barefoot on grass is so awesome yet hardly any of us get to do this very often.
I think I probably was wrong in saying many of the world's best runners run barefoot. One possible reason for this is the sample size of each population (barefoot vs not barefoot) is very skewed toward "not barefoot" so of course with a larger pool of people running with shoes, there will be a larger number of them being top runners. What I meant by that statement was that it is possible to be a very good runner with barefoot/minimalist shoes and run huge distances no problem. See: Tarahumara Indians
I can't imagine running 120 miles at one time. Heck, I don't know if I'll run a marathon in my life. My roommate who trains for triathlons ran one recently and he struggled a lot toward the end.
|
Hit 70+ miles for the first 7 weeks of the year then had two at 35 (conference meet and recovery week) and I jumped right back up to 70 last week. Looking to hit 70-75 this week. Feeling sooo good on my long tempo/threshold (had a nice 8.5 miler in 6:05 with last 6 sub 6 min pace) runs but feeling slow/sluggish on the speed work. Hopefully it will come in time.
So happy for the 70 degree weather, makes running much more bearable. Got about 2 weeks until first outdoor meet; hopefully some mid 15's are in the cards for the 5k this track season.
Hope everyone is enjoying the nice weather and getting in the miles!
|
On March 17 2012 03:20 BilltownRunner wrote:
Hit 70+ miles for the first 7 weeks of the year then had two at 35 (conference meet and recovery week) and I jumped right back up to 70 last week. Looking to hit 70-75 this week. Feeling sooo good on my long tempo/threshold (had a nice 8.5 miler in 6:05 with last 6 sub 6 min pace) runs but feeling slow/sluggish on the speed work. Hopefully it will come in time.
So happy for the 70 degree weather, makes running much more bearable. Got about 2 weeks until first outdoor meet; hopefully some mid 15's are in the cards for the 5k this track season.
Hope everyone is enjoying the nice weather and getting in the miles!
Nice update. Looks like your rounding into shape for a good season especially as the speed work starts settling in and coming round. What's your goal for 5K on the track this year (can't remember your PR's off hand)?
Your training sounds about the same as mine, only faster. Been about the same mileage of 70-75 for past 12 weeks, though I recently had 2 weeks at only 30 or so due to a nasty, week-long illness. Because of that and really needing to commit to eating properly I decided to go ahead and delay my "season" a little bit. Gonna do base work till end of March then start throwing in the speed stuff to focus on sub 5.
Overall I feel pretty strong, especially on longer runs/tempos. Done a couple 3.5 mile tempos @ about 6:15 pace, and a good 9 mile tempo a last week at about 6:50 that felt fantastic. Those times need to drop a little bit to have a realistic shot at sub 5 but I think if I really commit to nailing my eating and lean up that will give a good boost.
If anybody has input on good 800/1500/mile workouts besides the classic 8-10x400m w/1 min recovery I'd definitely be interested to hear what's worked well for you all in the past as I've never really trained for short stuff before.
|
On March 17 2012 03:44 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 03:20 BilltownRunner wrote:
Hit 70+ miles for the first 7 weeks of the year then had two at 35 (conference meet and recovery week) and I jumped right back up to 70 last week. Looking to hit 70-75 this week. Feeling sooo good on my long tempo/threshold (had a nice 8.5 miler in 6:05 with last 6 sub 6 min pace) runs but feeling slow/sluggish on the speed work. Hopefully it will come in time.
So happy for the 70 degree weather, makes running much more bearable. Got about 2 weeks until first outdoor meet; hopefully some mid 15's are in the cards for the 5k this track season.
Hope everyone is enjoying the nice weather and getting in the miles! Nice update. Looks like your rounding into shape for a good season especially as the speed work starts settling in and coming round. What's your goal for 5K on the track this year (can't remember your PR's off hand)? Your training sounds about the same as mine, only faster. Been about the same mileage of 70-75 for past 12 weeks, though I recently had 2 weeks at only 30 or so due to a nasty, week-long illness. Because of that and really needing to commit to eating properly I decided to go ahead and delay my "season" a little bit. Gonna do base work till end of March then start throwing in the speed stuff to focus on sub 5. Overall I feel pretty strong, especially on longer runs/tempos. Done a couple 3.5 mile tempos @ about 6:15 pace, and a good 9 mile tempo a last week at about 6:50 that felt fantastic. Those times need to drop a little bit to have a realistic shot at sub 5 but I think if I really commit to nailing my eating and lean up that will give a good boost. If anybody has input on good 800/1500/mile workouts besides the classic 8-10x400m w/1 min recovery I'd definitely be interested to hear what's worked well for you all in the past as I've never really trained for short stuff before.
Do you ever do any workouts at your goal mile race pace? You can do different distances or even go by time with a short rest like tempo (~1 minute). Maybe try working your way up to 2x800 at race pace with 1 minute rest and/or 4 minutes race pace.
I knew some great milers that did real speed workouts. Ten 400s is not real speed like some people say. I'm talking about 100m-400m all out with long recovery periods between intervals. You can still get in your miles too if you do a short easy run (20-30 minutes) as your warmup and a short easy run as a cooldown (20 minutes). Also consider doing a shorter easy run in the morning if you do this kind of workout in the evening if you're worried about hitting mileage goals.
|
On March 16 2012 07:50 L_Master wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Like how would you quantify "endurance" on a graph?
It's just a curious thought. What I mean is if there was a way to take that pace measurement and try to tag on what levels of endurance you would need. I highly doubt endurance could actually be put down as a solid relaible attribute of any kind. For people less knowledgeable about running like me it'd be a better way to understand how elite these guys are even though that video kind of speaks for itself lol.
I dunno, if something like that was ever to be created I bet it'd be like some kind of rating. Like if you want to run 6:17/mile you need to at around 321, 4:45/mile 541 etc. Just a thought hehe.
|
On March 17 2012 03:44 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 03:20 BilltownRunner wrote:
Hit 70+ miles for the first 7 weeks of the year then had two at 35 (conference meet and recovery week) and I jumped right back up to 70 last week. Looking to hit 70-75 this week. Feeling sooo good on my long tempo/threshold (had a nice 8.5 miler in 6:05 with last 6 sub 6 min pace) runs but feeling slow/sluggish on the speed work. Hopefully it will come in time.
So happy for the 70 degree weather, makes running much more bearable. Got about 2 weeks until first outdoor meet; hopefully some mid 15's are in the cards for the 5k this track season.
Hope everyone is enjoying the nice weather and getting in the miles! Nice update. Looks like your rounding into shape for a good season especially as the speed work starts settling in and coming round. What's your goal for 5K on the track this year (can't remember your PR's off hand)? Your training sounds about the same as mine, only faster. Been about the same mileage of 70-75 for past 12 weeks, though I recently had 2 weeks at only 30 or so due to a nasty, week-long illness. Because of that and really needing to commit to eating properly I decided to go ahead and delay my "season" a little bit. Gonna do base work till end of March then start throwing in the speed stuff to focus on sub 5. Overall I feel pretty strong, especially on longer runs/tempos. Done a couple 3.5 mile tempos @ about 6:15 pace, and a good 9 mile tempo a last week at about 6:50 that felt fantastic. Those times need to drop a little bit to have a realistic shot at sub 5 but I think if I really commit to nailing my eating and lean up that will give a good boost. If anybody has input on good 800/1500/mile workouts besides the classic 8-10x400m w/1 min recovery I'd definitely be interested to hear what's worked well for you all in the past as I've never really trained for short stuff before.
I was a 4/800 guy in hs when I ran and we used to do a ton of 500/300s. We would do them on different days, 500s for strength and 300s for speed. These workouts also help out a ton when you are racing 800s, because thats pretty much how our team ran our races. We didn't have any strong kickers with lots of speed ( I was our fastest @ at a 51 400 ), so we had to make our moves with 300 to go.
On 500 days, we would do 5 500s in 75, which generally meant you really needed to go through the 400 in like 59. I think we would take 3minute breaks in between. On 300m days we would do 6-8 300s in 40-42 with a 100m walk in between. All of this had a 2mi warm up / cool up surronding it. The key is to do the 500s @ race pace and the 300s @ a little faster than race pace.
I find it curious that as an 800/1500 guy your doing such high mileage, as long as you are just basing for the track season it probably wont' be too bad though. As Coe said, long slow distances produce long slow runners
Edit: I just talked to my brother who is coaching now and he slightly disagrees with me now on the mileage. Since he's in the game and I'm not I'll take his word for it.
|
On March 19 2012 06:19 berated- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 03:44 L_Master wrote:On March 17 2012 03:20 BilltownRunner wrote:
Hit 70+ miles for the first 7 weeks of the year then had two at 35 (conference meet and recovery week) and I jumped right back up to 70 last week. Looking to hit 70-75 this week. Feeling sooo good on my long tempo/threshold (had a nice 8.5 miler in 6:05 with last 6 sub 6 min pace) runs but feeling slow/sluggish on the speed work. Hopefully it will come in time.
So happy for the 70 degree weather, makes running much more bearable. Got about 2 weeks until first outdoor meet; hopefully some mid 15's are in the cards for the 5k this track season.
Hope everyone is enjoying the nice weather and getting in the miles! Nice update. Looks like your rounding into shape for a good season especially as the speed work starts settling in and coming round. What's your goal for 5K on the track this year (can't remember your PR's off hand)? Your training sounds about the same as mine, only faster. Been about the same mileage of 70-75 for past 12 weeks, though I recently had 2 weeks at only 30 or so due to a nasty, week-long illness. Because of that and really needing to commit to eating properly I decided to go ahead and delay my "season" a little bit. Gonna do base work till end of March then start throwing in the speed stuff to focus on sub 5. Overall I feel pretty strong, especially on longer runs/tempos. Done a couple 3.5 mile tempos @ about 6:15 pace, and a good 9 mile tempo a last week at about 6:50 that felt fantastic. Those times need to drop a little bit to have a realistic shot at sub 5 but I think if I really commit to nailing my eating and lean up that will give a good boost. If anybody has input on good 800/1500/mile workouts besides the classic 8-10x400m w/1 min recovery I'd definitely be interested to hear what's worked well for you all in the past as I've never really trained for short stuff before. I was a 4/800 guy in hs when I ran and we used to do a ton of 500/300s. We would do them on different days, 500s for strength and 300s for speed. These workouts also help out a ton when you are racing 800s, because thats pretty much how our team ran our races. We didn't have any strong kickers with lots of speed ( I was our fastest @ at a 51 400 ), so we had to make our moves with 300 to go. On 500 days, we would do 5 500s in 75, which generally meant you really needed to go through the 400 in like 59. I think we would take 3minute breaks in between. On 300m days we would do 6-8 300s in 40-42 with a 100m walk in between. All of this had a 2mi warm up / cool up surronding it. The key is to do the 500s @ race pace and the 300s @ a little faster than race pace. I find it curious that as an 800/1500 guy your doing such high mileage, as long as you are just basing for the track season it probably wont' be too bad though. As Coe said, long slow distances produce long slow runners Edit: I just talked to my brother who is coaching now and he slightly disagrees with me now on the mileage. Since he's in the game and I'm not I'll take his word for it.
Thanks for the input. Good to here and see some decent idea's of what to do for workouts as that's the part I don't have much idea about. But I think it will be fun to play around with the faster races and get used to some faster running.
It's also worth noting I'm not an 800/1500 guy, in fact I don't really know what I am yet but I certainly don't have much in way of speed (13.5 ish best 100m, low 62 400m) though that may improve if I end up getting nice and lean from good eating, but I dunno.
Milers seem to do decent amounts of mileage, low end seems to be 50-60 mpw, with come guys who like to get up around 100 mpw, at least at times. In fact even Coe did that sort of mileage during some of his base training.
|
For all of the runners out there I offer some solid and sound research offered. I cannot provide the article link or the article itself due to copyright issues but I can provide my OWN hand written abstract, thoughts and interperatation on the issue. I am not a doctor; (yet) and any changes in your lifestyle should first be talked about with your health care provider first and foremost. I do not take credit for the information in this post only the interperatation of the information provided to me. The abstract as follows:
Affect of Extra-cellular Heat Shock Protein and Skeletal Muscle DAMP’s on Cardiac Myocyte Function
The Experiment performed analyzes Skeletal Muscle (Fast and Slow Twitch) homogenates and heat stressed fast twitch fibers affect on Cardiac Myocyte function and weather their respective damage associated molecular patterns (DAMP) are related in pro-inflammatory signalling via transcription factors NF-KB and AP-1. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (350-474g; Charles River) were kept in pairs on a 12h dark/light cycle at 21 degrees C and at 50% relative humidity. Animals were anaesthetized with Isofluorane (2-5% with 1L O2/min) and heat stressed via heating pads initially set to 50C degrees; temperature being recorded rectally. Subjects were stressed to 41.5C degrees core temperature, and then maintained for 15 minutes before returned to their cages. Muscle homogenates were prepared by homogenizing skeletal muscle in 15 volumes of 600mM NaCl, 15 mM Tris, pH 7.5 @ 4C degrees. Subjects were anaesthetized with Isofluorine (2-5% with 1L O2/min) and injected with heparin (1000 Units) via the tail vein 5 minutes before heart removal and followed by storage in ice cold saline(.85%NaCl). Hearts were Cannulated and perfused with 3-5ml Saline solution before finally being moved to a 3-way Langendorff apparatus. Hearts were set to 320BPM and allowed a 15 minute equilibration time; afterwards being conditioned and stored in liquid nitrogen -70C degrees. Samples were unfrozen and added to 15 respective volumes of homogenate in four controls; 1) No treatment (N), 2)Soleus muscle homogenate (SM), 3)White Gastrocnemius Homegenate (WG) 4) White gastrocnemius muscle homogenate from heat stressed animal (WGHS); from previously prepared soloution and then analyzed for protein content and AP-1 and NF-KB activation via Western Blotting, SDS-PAGE and Electrophoresis.The results as a function of time using linear regression were as follow: T=15min after perfusion with skeletal homogenate there was a significant difference(P<.05) in Cardiac Myocyte contractility between WGHS, N and WG groups but not between WGHS and SM groups. T= 30 min all treatments showed a significant decrease in Cardiac Myocyte contractility and at 60 minutes only the SM group showed significant difference; indicating that heat stress has an affect on cardiac contractility but has different effects pending the fiber type. Both NF-KB and AP-1 activation factors were found to have negligible significance between controls.
WHAT THIS MEANS IN ENGLISH
Heat stress protein provide intracellular protection but when they become eHSP's(Extracellular Heat stress protein) then they have ligand binding capability namely for our purpose to TLR4 receptors in the heart which greatly reduce the hearts contractility in acute periods of time(after exercise). According to the study, in rats, the slow twitch muscle fibers which are greatly recruited during aerobic exercises offer the greatest effect and longevity to making your heart work harder. One of the problems, not all, that lead to congenital heart disease is stress on the hearts muscle cells. The more stress these cells are palced under and the more damage procurred another class of cells called satelite cells are called in to negate the damage. This is bad because we only have a limited number of satelite cells over the span of our life. How this information applies to you is that, if holdings are true in rats and both humans, then aerobic exercise which cascades DAMP's to have a relaxing effect on the heart, decreases stress and in extent leads to a better conservation of satelite cells leading not only to lives with more longevity but also healthier hearts.
REMEMBER that nothing is proven in humans yet and this information is vague at best, but I hope it gets a lot of you out there who are running, thinking about running, or even thinking about stopping to run a little more encouragement to keep doing what your doing!
Good Luck!
Thermo~~
|
*Added a section to the OP for training logs. If you log your running online in an accessible form feel free to post your log up and I will add them to the OP.*
Added because it's useful if your looking for advice as people can easily pinpoint good/bad things in training, and it's nice if your looking for idea as you can see what other runners out there are doing.
If your looking for a great place to log runs, it's here: http://www.runningahead.com/. RA is really simple to use, and whether you just like to log distance, time, and a grunt about how you feel; or use 50,000 stats and write essays about each run you can pretty much log however you would like.
|
Howdy,
Looks like an awesome thread. I normally frequent the lifting thread (well the general thread I guess), but today I started C25K to train for my tough mudder coming up in October as well as another tool to drop weight. It was quite a different experience, that was for sure.
I don't know if I'll like lifting more than running, but I can see why people love it.
Got two questions...
Will I be fine if I eat the same way before I run as I do when I lift, such as the macros and such, or is there anything else I need to know besides more carbs pre-workout?
Is there a way to discriminate who really knows what they're talking about compared to some joe smoh? I would prefer to just ask a simple question if that is possible. I know when it comes to lifting, you can ask how to/how much they squat or deadlift and you can immediately tell who really knows what they are talking about.
Thanks, Cheers TL Runners :D
|
On March 21 2012 07:50 Catch wrote:
Howdy,
Looks like an awesome thread. I normally frequent the lifting thread (well the general thread I guess), but today I started C25K to train for my tough mudder coming up in October as well as another tool to drop weight. It was quite a different experience, that was for sure.
Well, welcome to the running section and good luck with your running endeavors!
Got two questions...
Will I be fine if I eat the same way before I run as I do when I lift, such as the macros and such, or is there anything else I need to know besides more carbs pre-workout?
Honestly, other than having a clean diet and not being silly low on carbs eating is pretty flexible and different things work for different people. Eating gets a little more complicated when you start worrying about good multiple hour long runs or races, but still nothing that is rocket science.
I would generally recommend not eating within 60-90 minutes of a run, as the food in your stomach often doesn't fell good and more importantly a significant number of people run into...uh...GI problems when they do this. I assure you that's never fun. You'll kinda have to play around and see what works for you but as a general rule I would say you just want to feel like you have solid energy when you head out to run and aren't feeling sluggish/hungry.
Is there a way to discriminate who really knows what they're talking about compared to some joe smoh? I know when it comes to lifting, you can ask how to/how much they squat or deadlift and you can immediately tell who really knows what they are talking about.
It's probably harder to do with running as their is a much greater variety of what works. Some people can be successful with very hard workouts and relatively lesser mileage, whereas others are very much strength oriented guys that thrive off high mileage endurance based work with lots of tempos, marathon pace efforts, etc. thrown in. Because of the individuality of runners, event specific training, and speed/endurance responses you can get some pretty drastic different opinions about training.
Yes, faster runners are more likely to know what they are talking about than slower runs, but in running there is alot more natural variance. I don't know too many people that can go into a gym there first time and clean 205, or bench 225. It's much more common for a runner with good natural speed and some decent aerobic capability to run respectable times like sub 18 5K and sub 5 mile by just going out and jogging a few times a week with a few shitty workouts thrown in.
I would prefer to just ask a simple question if that is possible.
Yea, that's definitely fine.
|
On March 16 2012 17:48 Malinor wrote:It doesn't have to be Vibrams actually. Though I find the concept intriguing. But the longer I shop around the internet, the more I feel that I am joining a cult, and then there is always the possibility that you are just falling for a marketing strategy more than anything. And I would hate that. For some reason I had the impression that a lot of people in here were using these kind of shoes and the verdict would be unanimously positive. Good that I checked again. I have been using Brooks Adrenaline since eight years or so, though I haven't bought a brand new pair in a couple of years, so they are basically totally worn out by now. I have never had an injury in those, and given that I have never been below 100kg during that time (I was around 106-108kg when I run my Marathon in 2005), that is probably a reason not to switch. My concern is mainly that I am now running more midfoot (actually don't know how I run back then, I just now made a conscious effort), and I sometimes find it not so comfortable running like that in shoes with heavy padding. It makes it basically harder to not somehow land heel first, especially when you are tired, though I don't think that is necessarily so bad as it is sometimes said. But this was basically my thought process for maybe giving minimalistic shoes a try.
Some people think they'll put on the Vibrams on and instantly be running like their ancestors in Africa 100,000 years ago (or w/e time period it was). They also forget that if they are running on concrete surfaces they need that cushioning that the shoe provides otherwise they will turn up with a stress fracture. Yes, there are people who can run amazing times with Vibrams, IIRC there was some chick in the NCAA who went under 15 for 5k (or something like that, I just remember it was a top time for the distance she was running). I'm willing to bet that she'd have dropped a couple secs from her time if she had run with proper footwear.
To conclude, yes I think the idea of minimalistic running is a clever marketing ploy to sell sandals for running.
|
Hey, I was hoping to run a marathon on the 17th of may. It will be my first one and I was wondering if you guys thought about 9 weeks would be sufficient amount of time to train. I ran 10 km yesterday for the first time in a long time and feel fine today so I thought it would be fun to train for something much longer. I was hoping someone could suggest a good program that they have used or that they know of.
Another thing I would like help on is shoes. I am going to a running store friday so I assume they will help me but how much should I expect to pay and if there is a clear no or clear yes on shoes, let me know.
Any advice you have on marathons would help because I don't know anyone that has ran one.
Thank you.
|
I will be running my first 10k next Saturday. I trained only 6 weeks in advance, and this has been the first time Ive ever trained cardiovascular wise. I have always lifted weights, and have done light cardio such as walking and the elliptical. When I started I could do no more than a mile and 1/2. But I have made great progress and now able to run a 10k at a moderate pace. I will post my results here once I finish the race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
