On June 20 2013 12:27 Komei wrote: It may seem sensible to you, but it is understood to be inefficient.
It is the fastest way to develop capillaries and increase the efficiency of fat metabolism.
A long run is a slower easy run. Hill repeats, speedwork, etc are a bit of a myth. Running faster isn't an issue of running mechanics or muscle strength. It is an issue of oxygen transport and utilization. Long term the best strategy to run faster is to develop the body to be better and batter at these two things. But it is a slow process. This is why interval training is used shortly before the racing season. Getting the body to be more effective at dealing with lactate is a better way to train on the short term. Things like HIIT give better short term improvement.
Marathon runners or TdF riders are often at an older age. They are actually over their theoretical physical peak. The reason is that years of conditioning the aerobic system is more important. Pro athletes get older faster than they peak out on max aerobic capacity.
In the end exercising has to be fun. So sacrificing performance for enjoyment is what we all do.
I'll keep my response relatively short because L_Master (as usual) provides an informed and thorough answer.
I do agree that base and preseason work should be mostly easy runs. But I still don't think it should be everything. Jack Daniels recommends adding in hill repeats/strides, long runs (different from easy runs due to extended duration of exercise and generally not slower than a regular easy run), and possibly other stride type activities during the preseason or if you have any type of base established. Anything with a decent amount of recovery that isn't prolonged or too intense has its benefits. I have had success in the past (summer training before XC season) doing 200 and 400m combo incline work at perceived current mile race pace effort with a moderate recovery. Not too many intervals, not too hard, and with enough rest so it's not too taxing. I see that as having more benefits than if I were to just do an easy run instead. Speed can be difficult for an endurance runner to develop but one can get a jump start on it by utilizing workouts like these and other hills with speed variations.
How can you say speed is a myth?
Of course marathoners can be successful when they are older. They do have more time under their belt working on aerobic endurance but they also cannot handle the speeds necessary to participate in things like 5ks and 3ks. Speed is gone long before aerobic endurance is.
I understand the different energy systems involved in athletic activities depending on how long and intense they are but there are indeed other factors involved. Successful runners need to be able to balance their endurance work and their speed work for an effective training plan.
You are incorrect in asserting that muscle strength and mechanics can't make you run faster. It's more obvious and important for sprinters and mid distance people though. Speed runners obviously need to be able to get out of blocks fast and be able to accelerate quickly to be successful. Muscular deficiencies in endurance runners exist and if corrected directly correlate to running faster. Look at someone who has a weak core, they often times run hunched over a bit. If they had a stronger core they could hold themselves upright and be faster.
Like muscular deficiencies, mechanics can directly allow you to run faster. If someone is under or over striding it can be corrected and let them run faster. Same goes if they have a terrible foot strike or flail their arms around when they run.
Running a 5k or any longer distance is almost entirely a matter of oxygen transport. If speedwork makes you feel like you can run a faster 5k then its all in your head.
Speed only comes in at a very high level. Anyone can run a 100 or 200 meter way faster than they run a 5k or 10k.
Also fast workouts are often near LT so they improve the anaerobic system which is a faster short term way to improve performance.
If you overstride then this isn't corrected by running faster. It may be true that when you go faster for that pace you will no longer overstride, but when you go back to your overstriding pace you again will overstride.
Reason for hill repeats is actually that it is a form of strength training. You can stimulate that system by going to the gym and lifting instead. You fix muscle deficiencies in the gym, not while racing a 5k during training.
I also question if running form improves by just running more and more. It may be true for an odd exception but in general doing more of the same just enforces a bad habit more.
Also, this was all in response to a question. The way you guys are derailing this isn't helpful. He asks if running is going to get easier.
On June 20 2013 21:36 Komei wrote: Running a 5k or any longer distance is almost entirely a matter of oxygen transport. If speedwork makes you feel like you can run a faster 5k then its all in your head.
Speed only comes in at a very high level. Anyone can run a 100 or 200 meter way faster than they run a 5k or 10k.
Also fast workouts are often near LT so they improve the anaerobic system which is a faster short term way to improve performance.
If you overstride then this isn't corrected by running faster. It may be true that when you go faster for that pace you will no longer overstride, but when you go back to your overstriding pace you again will overstride.
Reason for hill repeats is actually that it is a form of strength training. You can stimulate that system by going to the gym and lifting instead. You fix muscle deficiencies in the gym, not while racing a 5k during training.
I also question if running form improves by just running more and more. It may be true for an odd exception but in general doing more of the same just enforces a bad habit more.
Also, this was all in response to a question. The way you guys are derailing this isn't helpful. He asks if running is going to get easier.
Speed work does matter. Speed helps you to accelerate faster than someone off the line, or pass people quickly if need be, and out kick someone down the stretch. On top of those benefits I gotta quote my man Jack Danials. "...the type of training that best addresses speed also improves running economy...Running economy involves the amount of oxygen being consumed relative to the runner's body weight and the speed at which he or she is running." He goes on to state that repetition (speed) training (faster than lactate threshold pace) also "improves economy by helping the runner eliminate unnecessary arm and leg motion, recruit the most desirable motor units while running at or near race pace, and feel comfortable at faster speeds of running."
I never said issues of overstriding are fixed by running faster. You said that mechanics don't make you faster. I was giving an example of a correctable mechanic that by fixing it can indeed make you faster. You're right that hill training is a form of strength training but the same effect cannot be simulated in the gym. It's more of a combination deal because you get some strength benefits while running (law of specificity) and it's a lower impact workout because your feet don't travel as far to get to the ground.
If you have any muscle deficiencies they can and should be corrected regardless if you're in season or not. That's why so many programs have their own strength and mobility workouts built right in alongside the running. People also make their own to address their specific needs. They try to address common deficiencies in running form in order to improve it.
If you think I was saying that by running more your form improves I guess I think it does if you're a new runner. But form issues should be addressed as quickly as possible and I wouldn't recommend people just try to run more and ignore specific corrections to improve their running form.
It's okay to get derailed from the original question but if you're feeling defensive there is no need. I just wanted to challenge some of the things you said because I believe them to be oversimplifications or just wrong. We are all good people here and even any debates that we may have should not be viewed as attacks.
Komei, stop pulling stuff out nowhere. NOTHING in coaching supports your beliefs. To best of my knowledge nothing in exercise science supports this either; but if you know of some stuff that does feel free to bring so e of that into the discussion.
Realize that all coaches and elite athletes use both interval and SPRINT work. It is vital.
What you don't seem to grasp is the link between speed and endurance. It one runner runs for 400/800/1600 in 60, 2:04, 4:30 and another 59, 2:06, 4:48....the first runner has better endurance.
Another example is a nick symmonds who runs 47, 1:42, 3:36, 25 min 8k. Rupp on the other hand runs 50, 1:48, 3:35, 26:48. Symmonds wins at shorter distances because he is faster, but Rupp becomes faster at long distances because he has much better endurance. He can't beat symmonds at 800 though because he lacks the speed.
Their is also a limit to this endurance. Even the best 5k guys can only run a mile within about 6-7s per lap of their 400 speed. Look at Bekele, a guy with 50s speed at 400 that ran 3:31 for 1500...about 57s per lap. I assume you wouldn't contend rant guys like Haile and Bekele weren't among the most aerobically fit runners of all time?
So if a normal Joe has speed of just 60 or even 65s at 400, which is VERY common, then, unless they have better endurance than Bekele, they are limited to maybe 4:30-4:50 for the mile as a CAREER peak.
When you see high schoolers that leap down in a year or two to 4:3x or 4:2x miles and low 16, high 15 5ks they are always the ones that have speed in the mid 50snor better for 400. Its also why college coach's are MUCH more apt to grab kids with very fast 400/800 times that have weak mile and especially 5k times. You can take a fast guy and build him up aerobically to be a good runner. You can't make a low 60s 400 into a 4:20/15 low-mid guy at best. Give me a guy that can run 49-50/low 1:50 and I'll give you back a 14:xx in 2-4 years.
EDIT: Micronesia got his question answered, and this a thread for running discussion of all types. It isn't derailment especially as its a very relevant conversation.
What I said is a truism in endurance coaching. Also, nothing that you said has any relevance at all. Why are you talking about times doing a 400m sprint?
I also don't get what the whole 'talent detecting'-line tried to argue.
Also to the previous post, when you have to use acceleration off the starting line as an advantage of speedwork, you know you are drawing at straws.
Not to de-rail it further, but my previous post was regarding custom orthotic insoles, and got derailed into what shoes to purchase. Do any of you experienced runners have an opinion on custom orthotic insoles for general use while running?
I ask because I have a friend who uses Road Runner's custom-fit insole in all of his athletic gear (running, biking, basketball, soccer) and loves the way it feels. In particular, running on a uniform surface feels good apparently. Other examples of orthotics that I found on the internet include FitThotic among others and all look roughly interchangeable.
I am pretty stride neutral myself and am not looking to correct any imbalances in my stride with orthotics.
What I said is a true is a truism in endurance coaching.
First, let me make sure I understand you.
As I understand it you are basically saying that running fast is entirely about oxygen consumption and that speedwork as runners commonly call it (interval work), or "true" speed work in the form of sprint and mechanics work is unnecessary. The best training is simply a mixture of aerobic easy runs and tempo runs around/just under the lactate threshold?
If that isn't what you are saying you will have to correct me as I'm failing in my reading composition.
Assuming I'm right about what you are saying...you couldn't have made a more incorrect statement. No major coach today, whether its Salazar, Canova, Brother Calm O'Connell, Vigil, John Kellog, or even Hudson advocates anything remotely resembling what you suggest. Canova uses interval work heavily, often starting at speeds well over 110% of race pace. Salazar, whos runners just happen to be dominating the running scene right now with all kinds of medals (think Mo Farah, Galen Rupp, etc.) is FANATICAL in his use of sprint work, emphasis on biomechanics, and on intelligent progression of faster paces. Every single one of these coaches uses standard interval work heavily in their methodologies and clearly indiciates it is crucially important.
Even the "father of modern coaching", Arthur Lydiard, incorporate significant amounts of sprint work (in the form of hill bounds, sprinting, and sprinting designed to mechanically work on sprint speed and power), as well as interval and faster work.
I cannot think of even one reputable coach of top athletes that doesn't believe in doing work at faster paces, and most are realizing the importance of sprint work for distance runners and the results are clear.
I want to be clear though, that NONE of these coaches advocate against aerobic development though. We tried that in the 80s and US distance running sucked. Running 40-50mpw with a bunch of hard interval workouts is a terrible way to improve...unless you don't care about becoming as good as you can be long term and just want to be fast in the next 4 months. It IS indeed VITAL to ensure complete aerobic development to become a good runner. Any good coach today also incorporates this, and almost all good runners, especially at distance 1500m and longer, are doing near or over 100mpw on a regular basis. In other words, yes aerobic development, aka oxygen consumption, is of the utmost importance.
Where we disagree:
It is not the only thing that matters. Sprint speed matters. Ability to process lacate matters. Amount of oxygen needed to run a certain pace (running ecoonomy) matters. Simple example is that the runner with the highest VO2 max does not win the race. Runners with V02 mazes in the 60s beat runners with VO2 maxes in the 80s.
Why are you talking about times doing a 400m sprint
Because a 400m tell you runners raw speed...and thus how fast they are ultimately capable of becoming?
Sprint speed matters, because of economy. The closer you get top end speed the less efficient a runner is. Someone that can run 100m in 12 seconds will use less oxygen to run a 15s 100m than a person that can only run 100m in 15s at best. You can be able to take in and use all the oxygen on earth in one breath, but if you can only spin your legs fast enough to run 15s 100m you will never even be able to run a mile in faster than 4:01. Extreme example yes, but in the real world its 800m potential = (400m time + 3-4s) x 2, and for 1600m its the same but +6-7s. times 4. You can say whatever you want but I can show you this holds true for literally every elite runner. There does not exist a 4 minute miler that cannot run at least 53.xx for 400m. Not one. Ever.
That is speed side limitance. They could do all the aerobic condition in the world but will not break 4 unless they become physically faster. Or if they did they would be a runner that could run 12:30/25:40/sub 2 marathon. Since no runner in history has had endurance even resembling close to that...I think its pretty safe to say they are speed limited. Unless they get faster (basic speed) they will always use too much oxygen to run 4 minute pace.
Oh, I use 400m time because its the accepted sprint speed measure for runners. 100/200 times rely far to much on starting and technique to compare the basic speed of distance runners. 400 benefits almost negligibly from any aerobic conditioning.
On Interval Work:
Three major benefits 1) improves running economy. When you practice running at a faster pace or at race pace the body becomes more efficient at it. Just like any other skill on the planet. Less oxygen used to run pace X obviously means it is easier to run that pace. You do not get these same benefits running slower than race pace. 2) Energy Systems/Fiber Types - when you train at faster paces you increase the amount of fast twitch fibers you are recruiting, and this effects the change of these fiber types to fast twitch oxidative fibers. This results in more efficient oxygen ultilization. Running slower doesnt recruit the same fibers, and thus you don't develop and increase the oxidative characterics of as many of your muscle fibers as you otherwise could. 3)Mental Benefits - In addition to direct physiologic benefits already discussed, any good athelete can tell you faster training and interval work makes them fitter and race pace easier. This has tangible performance benefits and allows the runner to be more relaxed and efficient...spending less oxygen to run the given pace.
also don't get what the whole 'talent detecting'-line tried to argue.
You cannot take a runner with 60s 400m sprint ability and make him a 14:30 5k runner, unless of course you could somehow make him a high 1:50s marathon runner. You can easily take a kid that can run 50 point for 400m and make him a 14:30 runner. Given that no one ever has run even within 3:30 of 2 hours...I think I know which person I would rather have.
If speed is irrelevant, why would I, and just about all college coaches, ant the kid that runs faster over 400 than the one that is currently faster in the distance races he will he running? Answer: Speed matters, and its MUCH easier to coach endurance than improve basic speed. You can take a guy with speed and make him good. You cannot take a slow guy and turn him into a truly good runner.
In addition I will give some anecdotal examples of athletes I have worked with.
One is a guy who for about 6 years had worked up to about 80 miles per week. Did exclusively easy runs, LT tempo runs, and progression run (start easy, gradually finish up right under LT). He progressed in that time from 24:30 to 22:11 for 5k. Not much at all for a guy running that slow times and running that kind of mileage for that long.
When he developed an interested in actually becoming a better runner he came to me and after hearing his history I wanted to see his speed. He ran 16.3 for 100m and 74s for 400m.
The problem was obvious...lots of endurance but mechanically he didn't know how to move fast. We worked alot on sprint mechnics and adding snap to the stride. Each we we did 1-2 sets if rhythmic 200s, just trying to get fast and relaxed turnover. We also did some pure sprint work. Over the course of the next three months he went from running the 200s in 40 and clunky to mid 30s and relaxed, and his 100m improved from 16.3 to 14.6, and his 400 to 64.
Despite no anerobic work and less volume (we worked only on speed, though he did maintain about 40mpw and a weekly tempo) he improved to 18:57 in the 4k and from 6:10 to 5:31 in the mile. That in just a few months time after only a little improvement over his first 6 years, and only 10 seconds in the last 2 years.
I said a beginning or a person who isn't close to doing any races should do only easy highly aerobic runs when trying to optimize performance long-term. You give examples of elites and sprinters. I am not saying I disagree with your wall of text, I just don't see the relevance. I agree that a 400 race time gives a good indication of running form and gait. But what is the relevance?
For improving gait and running form you work on hat specifically. I agree doing sprints or hill repeats increase muscle strength, which help running economy (gym strength training works even better), but that's all besides the point.
Also, you should be careful about evaluating elite level coaches on how well their athletes perform. I says so much more about their knowledge of doping than about ordinary training programs. Rupp and Farah are on either EPO or blood doping or something else we don't know about 99.9%. (They already admitted to using T3 with a TUE not to mention the whole altitude house for RBC manipulation). Honestly, every time you see an athlete mention 'altitude training', read 'blood doping/EPO'. It's just a cover.
Salazar in particular (he also trains Armstrong) is also known for his own very bad training methods. He and his coach kind of ruined his career, to put it mildly. I wonder how much of that carries over to what he does now, besides the very efficient PED use. Or maybe Armstrong brought some 'train smart'-mentality with him. Many elite level coaches also have this attitude of 'I take as many eggs as I can and smash them as hard as I can until I find one that doesn't break'-approach, so even if their runners win gold medals, it doesn't mean much to me even if I believed their all didn't cheat/performed without PEDs.
Also, you are wrong about muscle fibers. Muscle fibers can't be converted from type I to type II. But you can convert Type IIa to type IIb or the other way around. You actually want as much Type IIa fibers as possible, for obvious reasons. Explosive speedwork will actually stimulate fibers going from IIa to IIb and from distances of 400m and up it is best to have all IIa and no IIb..
Also, since Lydiard almost all trainers use base training and taper towards the race season. You say Lydiard promoted sprint work. Yes he did. But only coming up towards a race. He's plan a training program starting from the race going back in time. He puts his race specific training, sprints, intervals, hill repeats at certain times from the race date. And then before that he placed base building from a fixed point before the race until the present. That means if there was no race coming up for a year, he would never have you do speedwork, only base building. So you either forgot the point we were discussion or you misunderstood his training methods.
There seems to be a communication issue between you and me and L_Master. You cherry picked one thing out of my post that you thought was "drawing at straws" but ignored everything else. Here is the bottom line from my point of view:
You said, "Running a 5k or any longer distance is almost entirely a matter of oxygen transport. If speedwork makes you feel like you can run a faster 5k then its all in your head."
You have to be able to provide evidence in order to prove such an extraordinary claim.
On June 21 2013 13:40 AirbladeOrange wrote: There seems to be a communication issue between you and me and L_Master. You cherry picked one thing out of my post that you thought was "drawing at straws" but ignored everything else. Here is the bottom line from my point of view:
You said, "Running a 5k or any longer distance is almost entirely a matter of oxygen transport. If speedwork makes you feel like you can run a faster 5k then its all in your head."
You have to be able to provide evidence in order to prove such an extraordinary claim.
I'm actually pretty much okay with the first sentence, though its physiologically a significant oversimplification. As you said though, the second sentence is where I balk.
Komei - I'd be curious to hear you elaborate more on why someone generally should do only mileage + tempos. Ill respond more to your post when I have time later in the day.
Humn reading some of this thread now i apparently made lots of stuff "wrong" then i started running ~2 years ago.^^ Not running that frequently with 2 times a week but therefore always going preety close to my own limit. I made an extented winter break aswell this year aswell and just started running 1 month ago again.
Though i am still quiet pleased with my general result since i succedded with my main goal of loosing weight. (I lost about 25kg in the first year due running and a slightly changed food pattern)
At the moment i am trying to get into better shape on the 10k distance (i want to be able to run a 12kmh pace without going to my limit). Last weeks i ran 2-3 times 11km in 56-60 mins with going preety much to my own limit. Another goal for me is to loose another 8kg.
I suppose i will try to run more frequently with 3-4 times a week and therefore take it easier but maybe increase the distance by a bit.
On June 21 2013 13:40 AirbladeOrange wrote: There seems to be a communication issue between you and me and L_Master. You cherry picked one thing out of my post that you thought was "drawing at straws" but ignored everything else. Here is the bottom line from my point of view:
You said, "Running a 5k or any longer distance is almost entirely a matter of oxygen transport. If speedwork makes you feel like you can run a faster 5k then its all in your head."
You have to be able to provide evidence in order to prove such an extraordinary claim.
I'm actually pretty much okay with the first sentence, though its physiologically a significant oversimplification. As you said though, the second sentence is where I balk.
Komei - I'd be curious to hear you elaborate more on why someone generally should do only mileage + tempos. Ill respond more to your post when I have time later in the day.
The first sentence is better than the second but like you said it's oversimplified. One of the things I was trying to point out is that speed work allows a runner to use their oxygen more efficiently, even in distance running. And there are more practical and strategic reasons why runners need good speed for racing and general improvement as well.
On June 21 2013 18:19 Rhodry wrote: Humn reading some of this thread now i apparently made lots of stuff "wrong" then i started running ~2 years ago.^^ Not running that frequently with 2 times a week but therefore always going preety close to my own limit. I made an extented winter break aswell this year aswell and just started running 1 month ago again.
Almost everyone makes the mistake of just giving it all once or twice a week. People think 'no pain no gain'.
Though i am still quiet pleased with my general result since i succedded with my main goal of loosing weight. (I lost about 25kg in the first year due running and a slightly changed food pattern)
At the moment i am trying to get into better shape on the 10k distance (i want to be able to run a 12kmh pace without going to my limit). Last weeks i ran 2-3 times 11km in 56-60 mins with going preety much to my own limit. Another goal for me is to loose another 8kg.
I suppose i will try to run more frequently with 3-4 times a week and therefore take it easier but maybe increase the distance by a bit.
You might have been lucky to not get injured running with overweight from no fitness or running background.
I would always suggest using a HRM to track intensity and use cycling to build your aerobic base if you have overweight or no running background.
As for the running economy thing. Surely running economy makes you run more efficient. Surely if you are able to run as a sprinter, and you have the aerobic strength to run a pace that benefits from a sprinter's gait, that is an advantage.
But we are talking about beginners and people that run for health, not for performance. So what does running economy matter? Also, I still don't believe doing speed work improves running economy.
I think this focus on running economy is kind of irrelevant. The main reason for doing speed work and intervals is to improve the anaerobic system, which matters. Especially for high level athletes and for sports where a sprint has to decide the outcome or where race tactics require you to go anaerobic, etc etc.
It's just that you want to focus on improving your aerobic system in the cases I mentioned. So you ignore the anaerobic system.
Things like running economy and muscle imbalance don't even enter this debate. And when you want to address them, you don't do so by having highly anaerobic workouts with high HR. You do it through drills or strength training. And you can't improve your running form all by yourself. Even if you are able to actually videotape yourself. Trying to correct a bad running gait and forcing it to be more ideal is often a recipe for injury. You need actual coaches that know what they are doing to improve running form. And often the running form you were born with and developed as a child is largely what you are stuck with. Haile Gebrselassie didn't have the running form he had because of anaerobic workouts. He had it because of his genes and because of running as a child. Running everyday from an early age is the only way to have really good running form. Yeah, if the average person ran like that, they would be faster and more oxygen efficient. But they don't and there's no way to make them. Also, even if they magically could, they don't have the aerobic engine to support it anyway. For a nice gait you have to run fast, which they can't.
Good video for beginners that want to get fit but more importantly, healthy:
Maybe i got lucky then allthough even with being overweight i did my whole life regulary sports every week which i guess helps. And while never really focusing on running before i used to do some semi competitive table tennis training which included 45-60 mins running warmup.
On June 21 2013 18:19 Rhodry wrote: Humn reading some of this thread now i apparently made lots of stuff "wrong" then i started running ~2 years ago.^^ Not running that frequently with 2 times a week but therefore always going preety close to my own limit. I made an extented winter break aswell this year aswell and just started running 1 month ago again.
Almost everyone makes the mistake of just giving it all once or twice a week. People think 'no pain no gain'.
Though i am still quiet pleased with my general result since i succedded with my main goal of loosing weight. (I lost about 25kg in the first year due running and a slightly changed food pattern)
At the moment i am trying to get into better shape on the 10k distance (i want to be able to run a 12kmh pace without going to my limit). Last weeks i ran 2-3 times 11km in 56-60 mins with going preety much to my own limit. Another goal for me is to loose another 8kg.
I suppose i will try to run more frequently with 3-4 times a week and therefore take it easier but maybe increase the distance by a bit.
You might have been lucky to not get injured running with overweight from no fitness or running background.
... a lot more words ...
Do you actually run? Or do you just read about it? Just curious, its the one thing that keeps going through my mind as I read your posts. I don't really get into the scientific theories behind running and all that jazz, so I'm not going to join in on the great debate.
In my training news, I finished up my 70mi week without getting injured, so that's pretty good. Racing again around Thanksgiving so hoping to just keep logging miles until I get closer. After that going to throw in some speed work...because regardless of whether it helps me physically, I like the mental advantage of torturing myself and knowing that I can handle it.
On June 22 2013 10:02 Komei wrote: Maybe you are just not very refined in the way you process thoughts and ideas, leading to confusion?
No, because when it comes to running I prefer to do, and not think. I'm not going to be running in the olympics anytime soon, so it doesn't matter if I'm doing everything by the book. If I feel that speed training helps, then I'm going to do it. If I want to base train, then I'll do that. I spent too much time not running, and now that I'm running again I run to avoid burnout and injury.
More to my question that you so conveniently dodged, though... do you run? I see a lot of lengthy posts, but not one yes or no. Is it really that hard to answer?
I would just like to understand why you have your perspective, that is all. Have you tried doing interval workouts, but found they didn't work for you? Do you run for only health and enjoyment, but not to race? Anything other than theory?
EPT
allthough even with being overweight i did my whole life regulary sports every week which i guess helps. And while never really focusing on running before i used to do some semi competitive table tennis training which included 45-60 mins running warmup.
