C25K / running advice
Options
Replies
-
I'm just going to echo what everyone else said and add: if you think you're going slow? Go slower.
Don't worry about speed at all. Ever. You need to build a base of endurance for a good long time, and that problem you're having with your calves and shins should be long behind you before you ever worry about speed.
In fact, I've never purposely worried about speed. I've found that it's just come naturally over time after running for a while. I can now purposely set out to do shorter faster runs or longer slow runs, and I've done this just over a very long time of just getting out there and running after doing C25K... very, very, very slowly. It's taken me a year to get to this point, but I never set out to set the world on fire as a runner either.2 -
bcalvanese wrote: »As far as I've found in my (pitiful) running career. long runs (whether they are 20mins straight or 20 miles) always involve a slower pace than the intervals. The long run is all relative depending upon your current ability. I'd definitely agree that you should slow down and try to hit the time goal, mainly because part of those is learning how to be comfortable while running (which is inherently an uncomfortable activity for most of us).
Have you signed up for a race yet? If not, I think you should. Just having a goal to shoot for always made training motivation easier for me. Find a local charity 5k for right around the time you finish the program. Then work to the 10k, then your half. Miles always get easier
I competed in a 5k on Saturday and did HORRIBLE (my treadmill incline doesn't work and it has been a long time since I ran outside) but I am in training to participate in a half marathon next fall. I did it 2 years ago and I liked it but I didn't train properly so I wasn't last but it took me a very long time to finish and last year I didn't do much for running as I was trying to figure out what was up with my calves/shins
Are you using a treadmill to train for a half marathon?
Only for the winter (I live in Canada and it has been -40c with the wind almost all week) once spring comes I'm hitting the walking paths
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm just going to echo what everyone else said and add: if you think you're going slow? Go slower.
Don't worry about speed at all. Ever. You need to build a base of endurance for a good long time, and that problem you're having with your calves and shins should be long behind you before you ever worry about speed.
In fact, I've never purposely worried about speed. I've found that it's just come naturally over time after running for a while. I can now purposely set out to do shorter faster runs or longer slow runs, and I've done this just over a very long time of just getting out there and running after doing C25K... very, very, very slowly. It's taken me a year to get to this point, but I never set out to set the world on fire as a runner either.
Part of my problem is I'm also trying for fat loss and faster means more calories. I'm fighting a battle in my head and losing lol0 -
Faster may mean more calories, but farther also burns more calories. So do hills. If going slower means you can go farther with less risk of injury, then it's a win win.0
-
spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Is this really true? Genuinely curious. The reason I'm asking is I do a 10km fixed route once a week, sometimes I walk it, sometimes I trot bits of it and if I go faster I burn more calories according to my HRM. Maybe it's because it's very hilly, would that make a difference?0 -
Stretches and foam rolling will help those calf muscles. I've had calf issues caused by taking up dancing. Mine are much stronger note, but the combination of dancing and running means I have to take extra care of them. Dynamic stretches before you go out and run, and long hold stretches after with some foam rolling might help. Don't let nagging pains become an injury!!
When I did the c25k I remember being terrified of the 20 minute slot. But rather than throw in a walk break to get me through I just slowed down when it got too tough. That way I was always running, and the mental achievement was what spurred me on. Had I kept repeating weeks of have given up. But you've already done a half, so you know you can do the distance.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Is this really true? Genuinely curious. The reason I'm asking is I do a 10km fixed route once a week, sometimes I walk it, sometimes I trot bits of it and if I go faster I burn more calories according to my HRM. Maybe it's because it's very hilly, would that make a difference?
Where your HR is either too low to be a meaningful proxy, or it's variable so that you have leading and lagging edges on the profile, the accuracy of an HRM reduces significantly.
The basic physics is that energy consumed is a function of mass and distance. Vertical elevation does make a difference as you're lifting bodymass vertically as well as moving it horizontally, so you're covering more distance, but I don't imagine the vert changes each time you go round it.
There is a difference between walking and running, but ther isn't an appreciable difference between paces. Broadly:- Walking calories per mile = 0.3*bodyweight in lbs
- Running calories per mile = 0.6*bodyweight in lbs
Your issue is that you're using HR to determine calorie expenditure, and it's just not a good indicator unless you're operating within a fairly narrow type of activity.0 -
36 here. I went through a phase where I was limited by calf and shin pain. It does go away, it took a few weeks, but now I'm mostly limited by heart rate and to a certain extent, breathing and water intake. Quitting smoking was hard but the single best thing to improve my running and my health in general. I'm not fast, I can do 9:00 min/km (14:30 /mi) sustainably and maybe 6:00 min/km (9:39 min/mi) for short bursts. I don't push myself too hard, I could probably do better by now.
I started running after an airsoft (a combat sport like paintball) game that lasted 2 days. On the last day, I was placed with the "OPFOR" (opposing team), a sort of third team that attacks whatever of the two main teams is doing better, to keep things fun. As you might guess, OPFOR is made up of all the very best players. I did some really interesting maneuvers with a LOT of running, led by a man whose name I never learned, but who was in the British Regular Army for 15 years and must have been in his fifties. Afterwards, he took me aside and told me I needed to train at running in order to be really competitive in the sport. (It's a sport for anyone, regardless of fitness level, some players never run at all, but I wanted to do well.)
So I tried running and found I really enjoyed it... before long, getting better at airsoft wasn't the main goal, I was just running because I like it.
I used C25k to get started, followed it for about 2 months. Honestly, with my age and fitness level, it wasn't pushing me hard enough to get the progress I wanted. It's a great program for beginners, something anyone can use, but I felt like I outgrew it.
After trying many apps, like Runtastic (good, but doesn't tell you what pace to run at at the beginners program, only "running without panting", which BTW is "laufen ohne kraufen" in German.) Also Endomondo... good, and it works well on an iPad, but the premium was a little expensive. I've settled on doing my intervals with MapMyRun.
Currently -1 or -2 in this part of Canada, a bit cold for running outside. I still do on occasion, but much of my running is on a treadmill.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm just going to echo what everyone else said and add: if you think you're going slow? Go slower.
Don't worry about speed at all. Ever. You need to build a base of endurance for a good long time, and that problem you're having with your calves and shins should be long behind you before you ever worry about speed.
In fact, I've never purposely worried about speed. I've found that it's just come naturally over time after running for a while. I can now purposely set out to do shorter faster runs or longer slow runs, and I've done this just over a very long time of just getting out there and running after doing C25K... very, very, very slowly. It's taken me a year to get to this point, but I never set out to set the world on fire as a runner either.
Part of my problem is I'm also trying for fat loss and faster means more calories. I'm fighting a battle in my head and losing lol
You're going to injure yourself going too fast too soon, and then sideline yourself. Then you won't be able to run. How many calories will you burn then?
You have to run smart.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm just going to echo what everyone else said and add: if you think you're going slow? Go slower.
Don't worry about speed at all. Ever. You need to build a base of endurance for a good long time, and that problem you're having with your calves and shins should be long behind you before you ever worry about speed.
In fact, I've never purposely worried about speed. I've found that it's just come naturally over time after running for a while. I can now purposely set out to do shorter faster runs or longer slow runs, and I've done this just over a very long time of just getting out there and running after doing C25K... very, very, very slowly. It's taken me a year to get to this point, but I never set out to set the world on fire as a runner either.
Part of my problem is I'm also trying for fat loss and faster means more calories. I'm fighting a battle in my head and losing lol
Longer means more calories. If you keep your heart rate at "X" BPM for "X" amount of time, you will burn "X" amount of calories.
Sure, going faster will increase your heart rate, but if you wind up with an injury that puts you out of commission, then you will have a set back.
You seem to be pretty hell bent on going fast, and people are just trying to make you aware of the possibility of injury.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Heart rate is driven by stroke volume and blood oxygen concentration, so it's derived from energy expenditure, and cardiac efficiency.
Essentially by moving your bodymass through a distance you consume energy. To release that energy from the chemical storage in the body there is a requirement to burn it, along with oxygen. That oxygen is delivered through the blood.
So you can see that HR can act as a proxy for energy expenditure. The validity of the proxy depends on whether you're working in a range where there is a direct relationship; aerobic range. Where HR flucturates there are errors generated.
So as your fitness increases that increases both your stroke volume and your blood oxygen concentration. The former is easier to improve, as you note upthread. Fitter people move more blood around for every beat of the heart, so as fitness improves ones HR will reduce for any given level of energy expenditure.
Improving blood oxygen is much harder, and only effective for short periods of time.
That's how you get to the calculation of bodymass and distance, with a scaling factor that's driven by mechanical efficiency; running is much less mechanically efficient than walking, hence consuming twice the energy per mile.1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Body mass most definitely comes into play with all exercise, not just running. A 250 pound man is going to burn quite a few more calories running 3 miles than a 120 pound woman.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Heart rate is driven by stroke volume and blood oxygen concentration, so it's derived from energy expenditure, and cardiac efficiency.
Essentially by moving your bodymass through a distance you consume energy. To release that energy from the chemical storage in the body there is a requirement to burn it, along with oxygen. That oxygen is delivered through the blood.
So you can see that HR can act as a proxy for energy expenditure. The validity of the proxy depends on whether you're working in a range where there is a direct relationship; aerobic range. Where HR flucturates there are errors generated.
So as your fitness increases that increases both your stroke volume and your blood oxygen concentration. The former is easier to improve, as you note upthread. Fitter people move more blood around for every beat of the heart, so as fitness improves ones HR will reduce for any given level of energy expenditure.
Improving blood oxygen is much harder, and only effective for short periods of time.
That's how you get to the calculation of bodymass and distance, with a scaling factor that's driven by mechanical efficiency; running is much less mechanically efficient than walking, hence consuming twice the energy per mile.
I just did 3.6 miles on my treadmill. I have a Fitbit with an HRM. It just sent an adjustment, and I did the calculation you posted, going by body weight.
I got a lower adjustment than what I should have.
I guess I'm fitter than I thought?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »Faster may mean more calories...
It doesn't. Calorie burn is a function of bodymass and distance. Pace doesn't make a meaningful difference.
Pretty sure it's a function of heart rate and time rather than body mass and distance.
Body mass most definitely comes into play with all exercise, not just running. A 250 pound man is going to burn quite a few more calories running 3 miles than a 120 pound woman.
A 250 pound man will have to exert more energy thus increasing heart rate more. So it's still heart rate.
The basic rule of cardio training is heart rate and time. Physical metrics are a factor to some degree (because everyone is different), but the heart adjusts to your body metrics over your lifetime thus being a better way to estimate calorie burn in general.
Also, heart rate and time is the best way to determine training effect and fitness level. So many people think they are getting a cardio yet wondering why their fitness level is not improving. It's because they are not keeping their heart rate at X BPM for X number of minutes non-stop. To them it may feel like they are working out, but if they measured their heart rate during the workout, they may realize they are not in a cardio zone for the minimum 20 minutes & a minimum of 3 times per week that is recommended to get a minimum training effect.
I am far from an expert, but I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 1980's, and have a pretty good basic knowledge of fitness. I'm sure there are many more theories since then though...:)0 -
How can a 250 pound man's heart rate be so vastly different from a 120 pound woman's heart rate as to account for the difference in calorie burn?
I can't wrap my head how you can ignore the force needed to move mass into the idea of burning calories.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I just did 3.6 miles on my treadmill. I have a Fitbit with an HRM. It just sent an adjustment, and I did the calculation you posted, going by body weight.
I got a lower adjustment than what I should have.
I guess I'm fitter than I thought?
Possibly, although I don't think that the FitBit range calibrate for VO2Max? I also don't know how FitBit uses contemporaneous step count, or whether it's just a binary switch between the accelerometers and the HRM.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I am far from an expert, but I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 1980's, and have a pretty good basic knowledge of fitness. I'm sure there are many more theories since then though...:)
I'd suggest replacing the books from the 80s, understanding of exercise physiology has moved on significantly in the last 30 years.
3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I am far from an expert, but I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 1980's, and have a pretty good basic knowledge of fitness. I'm sure there are many more theories since then though...:)
I'd suggest replacing the books from the 80s, understanding of exercise physiology has moved on significantly in the last 30 years.
If you mean that it has gotten so over complicated that people don't even know the basics anymore, then I guess you're right.
So I guess the heart rate does not increase when a person exerts energy to perform a task (unless its the 1980's).
I like to keep it simple.
Do things that keeps your heart rate up... burn more calories... increase your fitness level.
I've gone from being obese and at an extremely poor fitness level to being slightly over weight and at a fair fitness level in a year and a half. I started adding jog intervals into my power walks about 4 or 5 months ago because I could not get my heart into the cardio zone just power walking. I could only jog for about 30 seconds at first, and now I can jog 5 miles.
This basic approach seems to work pretty well, and I do sometimes read about the newer stuff, and noticed that if you strip away all the complex formulas and calculations, it still just comes down to increasing your heart rate, burning more calories, and improving your fitness.
But hey... I'm just an old dude.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions