Runners: Why so slow?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »jennypapage wrote: »Yep, adding distance will make you faster without even realizing it. When i reached the 5k mark, i could do it in 45' and i was quite tired by then.I couldn't do it faster, my legs were not willing.Now,after increasing my distance slowly to 15k, i can run the 5k in 33' . And i am still improving that time.What gives out first is not my legs, but my breath actually. It took 5 months of running to get from 46' to 33' but it does work. Slowly increase the disntance,and the speed will come inevitably.
Congrats, you've gone from a slow walking pace to a fast walking pace. I thought we were talking about running.
Walking vs. running is not about pace. I walk much faster than most and can easily walk 5 mph or 6 mph. Or I can run 6 mph... I've even run at barely over 3mph on more challenging terrain. The difference between running and walking is form, not speed.3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jennypapage wrote: »Yep, adding distance will make you faster without even realizing it. When i reached the 5k mark, i could do it in 45' and i was quite tired by then.I couldn't do it faster, my legs were not willing.Now,after increasing my distance slowly to 15k, i can run the 5k in 33' . And i am still improving that time.What gives out first is not my legs, but my breath actually. It took 5 months of running to get from 46' to 33' but it does work. Slowly increase the disntance,and the speed will come inevitably.
Congrats, you've gone from a slow walking pace to a fast walking pace. I thought we were talking about running.
That make you feel better about yourself? :huh:
Not particularly, no. but a 4mph or 6mph pace is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about running fast.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »jennypapage wrote: »Yep, adding distance will make you faster without even realizing it. When i reached the 5k mark, i could do it in 45' and i was quite tired by then.I couldn't do it faster, my legs were not willing.Now,after increasing my distance slowly to 15k, i can run the 5k in 33' . And i am still improving that time.What gives out first is not my legs, but my breath actually. It took 5 months of running to get from 46' to 33' but it does work. Slowly increase the disntance,and the speed will come inevitably.
Congrats, you've gone from a slow walking pace to a fast walking pace. I thought we were talking about running.
4.0mph is NOT a slow walking pace and 5.6 isn't a walking pace at all. Not only are you rude, but also completely wrong.
Guess you just need to pick up your pace.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »jennypapage wrote: »Yep, adding distance will make you faster without even realizing it. When i reached the 5k mark, i could do it in 45' and i was quite tired by then.I couldn't do it faster, my legs were not willing.Now,after increasing my distance slowly to 15k, i can run the 5k in 33' . And i am still improving that time.What gives out first is not my legs, but my breath actually. It took 5 months of running to get from 46' to 33' but it does work. Slowly increase the disntance,and the speed will come inevitably.
Congrats, you've gone from a slow walking pace to a fast walking pace. I thought we were talking about running.
i'm sure for a person of normal height that is quite slow, but a short person has a limited stride length.I'll never run a 5k in 20' no matter how hard i try,and that's alright with me.0 -
So.... did my 14 hour mile with a pack
I'm assuming you don't mean you went out at a 14 hour per mile pace, or even 14 miles per hour.Or is there something special about the running gait?
Running consumes about twice the energy as walking, partly because of the gait. You've got both feet off the ground when you run, whereas walking will generally have one for down at any time.
The impact load is what leads to the musculoskeletal and connective tissue development that was mentioned up thread.0 -
youdoyou2016 wrote: »You have gotten some responses that make me cringe ...
There are two reasons for this advice:
1. If you're a newbie: it takes a LONG time for your joints, bones, tendons, and ligaments to strengthen and be ready for running. Your cardiovascular system responds almost immediately. Your muscles next. But bones, joints, etc -- they lag behind A LOT. And a new runner will probably get hurt if she or he keeps trying to go as fast as possible. IT Band, stress fractures, etc -- they happen slowly and over time. It's not like pulling a muscle -- you know it when you do it. One day you can be fine; the next you'll be in PT for months. Stress fractures take a long time to recover from, and you have to start over when you're done rehab.
2. This is going to sound weird, but how you get faster is by slowly increasing your distance by running long, slow miles. You will automatically get faster as you put in the time and prep your legs / body for the work of running. Really -- it just happens automatically as you put in slow miles. You need to work on "base building."
Go to the running Reddit sub for info and advice about running. Truly, some people writing on here are setting you -- and themselves -- up for injuries: mix it up ... do sprints some days. I know it seems logical, especially for people who are fit from other exercise. Obviously, do what you want but that is not the advice I would give or follow myself. Follow a good program, and you can run for a long, long time.
What is making you cringe? 90% of the advice is pretty much exactly what you said.
Because there are enough responses on here that occur as very reasonable that are actually precisely the opposite of how to get into running. Like a few people fit from other sports giving advice about how to go about running based on what they do, which doesn't apply; like a person or two who sounds like a trainer giving advice that contradicts how any running coach would get someone running, etc. People are well-meaning, and it all sounds fine and reasonable. It might even work for someone. But anyone who isn't familiar with the sport and / or just getting into fitness obviously can't decipher what is credible or not. Indeed, how would they know to listen to me rather than someone else? Hence my suggestion to get into a forum that deals specifically with running, run by runners. Reddit is fantastic for this; those posting frequently are actually track coaches for elites. And they write all the time to people like the OP. Those are the people to listen to. I'm also cringing because, as someone about to get surgery for a torn tendon after a year or pain and no progress with PT -- after a life of running with one off season and coming back too soon -- well, don't be like me!
0 -
youdoyou2016 wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »You have gotten some responses that make me cringe ...
There are two reasons for this advice:
1. If you're a newbie: it takes a LONG time for your joints, bones, tendons, and ligaments to strengthen and be ready for running. Your cardiovascular system responds almost immediately. Your muscles next. But bones, joints, etc -- they lag behind A LOT. And a new runner will probably get hurt if she or he keeps trying to go as fast as possible. IT Band, stress fractures, etc -- they happen slowly and over time. It's not like pulling a muscle -- you know it when you do it. One day you can be fine; the next you'll be in PT for months. Stress fractures take a long time to recover from, and you have to start over when you're done rehab.
2. This is going to sound weird, but how you get faster is by slowly increasing your distance by running long, slow miles. You will automatically get faster as you put in the time and prep your legs / body for the work of running. Really -- it just happens automatically as you put in slow miles. You need to work on "base building."
Go to the running Reddit sub for info and advice about running. Truly, some people writing on here are setting you -- and themselves -- up for injuries: mix it up ... do sprints some days. I know it seems logical, especially for people who are fit from other exercise. Obviously, do what you want but that is not the advice I would give or follow myself. Follow a good program, and you can run for a long, long time.
What is making you cringe? 90% of the advice is pretty much exactly what you said.
Because there are enough responses on here that occur as very reasonable that are actually precisely the opposite of how to get into running. Like a few people fit from other sports giving advice about how to go about running based on what they do, which doesn't apply; like a person or two who sounds like a trainer giving advice that contradicts how any running coach would get someone running, etc. People are well-meaning, and it all sounds fine and reasonable. It might even work for someone. But anyone who isn't familiar with the sport and / or just getting into fitness obviously can't decipher what is credible or not. Indeed, how would they know to listen to me rather than someone else? Hence my suggestion to get into a forum that deals specifically with running, run by runners. Reddit is fantastic for this; those posting frequently are actually track coaches for elites. And they write all the time to people like the OP. Those are the people to listen to. I'm also cringing because, as someone about to get surgery for a torn tendon after a year or pain and no progress with PT -- after a life of running with one off season and coming back too soon -- well, don't be like me!
Or the running groups on here....0 -
As others have noted, you will get faster as you put in more miles. It allows you to build your aerobic base and allows your body to adapt to running. I try to follow the 80% rule myself. Fast runs tend to help you push the boundary higher where you go from aerobic to anaerobic.
That said, I find the whole "conversational pace" thing way too nebulous. I'm an engineer and like precision! lol. So, I use a heart-rate monitor during my runs. Zero question about how hard I'm working because I can look at the HRM and see how hard I'm working. It's not always 100% indicative, for example if it's really hot out your heart beats faster to help cool you down, but it's a lot better than "conversational pace" as a metric. Besides, people look at me funny when I'm holding a conversation with myself while running alone.1 -
As others have noted, you will get faster as you put in more miles. It allows you to build your aerobic base and allows your body to adapt to running. I try to follow the 80% rule myself. Fast runs tend to help you push the boundary higher where you go from aerobic to anaerobic.
That said, I find the whole "conversational pace" thing way too nebulous. I'm an engineer and like precision! lol. So, I use a heart-rate monitor during my runs. Zero question about how hard I'm working because I can look at the HRM and see how hard I'm working. It's not always 100% indicative, for example if it's really hot out your heart beats faster to help cool you down, but it's a lot better than "conversational pace" as a metric. Besides, people look at me funny when I'm holding a conversation with myself while running alone.
I like to sing... I don't care what people think if they see me!0 -
The earlier point about beginning runners taking their time and building up the muscle, tendon strength etc is good advice.
As to why more experienced runners aren't doing every run flat out, there are several reasons outlined by others in this thread, but the main reason for me is that training at different intensity levels affects different parts of the cardiovascular system, all of which need to be developed for optimal performance. The table below describes the changes effected by different HR zones
1 -
-
stanmann571 wrote: »jennypapage wrote: »Yep, adding distance will make you faster without even realizing it. When i reached the 5k mark, i could do it in 45' and i was quite tired by then.I couldn't do it faster, my legs were not willing.Now,after increasing my distance slowly to 15k, i can run the 5k in 33' . And i am still improving that time.What gives out first is not my legs, but my breath actually. It took 5 months of running to get from 46' to 33' but it does work. Slowly increase the disntance,and the speed will come inevitably.
Congrats, you've gone from a slow walking pace to a fast walking pace. I thought we were talking about running.
4.0mph is NOT a slow walking pace and 5.6 isn't a walking pace at all. Not only are you rude, but also completely wrong.
I was volunteering at a Marathon yesterday, taking photographs at the 9 mile point and then at the end. Lots of members of the 100 Marathon Club, some with extremely good marathon and Ultra marathon performances. One member of the UK ultra running team.
The vast majority engaged with the camera, gave a bit of chat and were really friendly. There were a small number of utter c*ckwombles who were more focused on how good they were than anything else.
Notwithstanding that, they were running a marathon. That said, some people just qualify for the descriptor.0 -
As others have noted, you will get faster as you put in more miles. It allows you to build your aerobic base and allows your body to adapt to running. I try to follow the 80% rule myself. Fast runs tend to help you push the boundary higher where you go from aerobic to anaerobic.
That said, I find the whole "conversational pace" thing way too nebulous. I'm an engineer and like precision! lol. So, I use a heart-rate monitor during my runs. Zero question about how hard I'm working because I can look at the HRM and see how hard I'm working. It's not always 100% indicative, for example if it's really hot out your heart beats faster to help cool you down, but it's a lot better than "conversational pace" as a metric. Besides, people look at me funny when I'm holding a conversation with myself while running alone.
As an engineer, I find HR monitoring to be too inaccurate. As you build aerobic base, you transfer many muscle fibers over to the aerobic side. As such, your aerobic zone becomes much bigger and the "no man's land" is small to virtually non-existent. Physiological testing is the gold standard. In fact, many people say HR monitoring is useless on a long term training basis.0 -
Oh, I forgot about negative splits. Sits between a tempo and fartleks on the speedwork scale. That leads into another aspect of learning to run fast: mental focus.
How many of us on the run can say what his speed is within 0.3 mph (0:20 pace) without looking?0 -
Just run by feel and goal paces. When I do my weekend 10 miles I'm at 85% max heart rate. It didn't feel unsustainable to me, so I just run with it (no pun intended)1
-
Usually I would agree with you but I got to a point last year where I was pushing myself too much because I thought every run needed to be really fast, I ended up not completing the runs and feeling really demotivated. For me, slowing down didn't mean having grannies able to walk past me, but just slow enough that I wasn't going to stop and give up when I had miles left. Nowadays I can run faster and my time/distance has improved but because my endurance is better I can still do the conversation.1
-
I also want to add that speed work has NO BUSINESS in a beginning runner's plans. Your goal for the first year should be building up the muscles and tendons/ligaments as well as your lungs. Allow the blood vessels to form so when you are ready to go faster you body won't break down. Plus, you gain speed simply by running longer. No need to give all out effort.
The funny thing about that is to run a 2h marathon means that you have to be running ~4:30 pace per mile. I think I read somewhere that their slow pace is still sub 6.0 -
WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »I also want to add that speed work has NO BUSINESS in a beginning runner's plans. Your goal for the first year should be building up the muscles and tendons/ligaments as well as your lungs. Allow the blood vessels to form so when you are ready to go faster you body won't break down. Plus, you gain speed simply by running longer. No need to give all out effort.
The funny thing about that is to run a 2h marathon means that you have to be running ~4:30 pace per mile. I think I read somewhere that their slow pace is still sub 6.
If you are capable of running at that pace you are probably not a beginner. Speed work is very important at that point.
I cannot imagine running one mile under 5:00. I'm not sure I could do it under 6:00 even if I trained my *kitten* off for a year. These guys are gifted for sure.0 -
WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »I also want to add that speed work has NO BUSINESS in a beginning runner's plans. Your goal for the first year should be building up the muscles and tendons/ligaments as well as your lungs. Allow the blood vessels to form so when you are ready to go faster you body won't break down. Plus, you gain speed simply by running longer. No need to give all out effort.
The funny thing about that is to run a 2h marathon means that you have to be running ~4:30 pace per mile. I think I read somewhere that their slow pace is still sub 6.
Has anyone ever run a 2h or better marathon? I know some have come close, but even then it is quite rare. Runners who come even close to a 2h marathon are elites, not beginners.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WhitneyDurham777 wrote: »I also want to add that speed work has NO BUSINESS in a beginning runner's plans. Your goal for the first year should be building up the muscles and tendons/ligaments as well as your lungs. Allow the blood vessels to form so when you are ready to go faster you body won't break down. Plus, you gain speed simply by running longer. No need to give all out effort.
The funny thing about that is to run a 2h marathon means that you have to be running ~4:30 pace per mile. I think I read somewhere that their slow pace is still sub 6.
Has anyone ever run a 2h or better marathon? I know some have come close, but even then it is quite rare. Runners who come even close to a 2h marathon are elites, not beginners.
World record is 2 hours and 2 minutes. Nike is currently running a multi-runner project to break the two hour barrier, 2 hours would be the elite of the elite.
Even really enthusiastic and dedicated amateur runners aren't running 2 hour marathons so I'm not sure how those times apply to this thread.1 -
ronocnikral wrote: »
As an engineer, I find HR monitoring to be too inaccurate. As you build aerobic base, you transfer many muscle fibers over to the aerobic side. As such, your aerobic zone becomes much bigger and the "no man's land" is small to virtually non-existent. Physiological testing is the gold standard. In fact, many people say HR monitoring is useless on a long term training basis.
lol @ronocnikral. Context! Not many of us have access to Olympic training facilities or the like. Wish I did though, assuming it was free! Barring that, I stand by my recommendation that using an HRM is the most accurate way, for non-elite runners, with a finite budget and limited time, to learn how to control their exertion such that they're running at the optimum pace to meet their goals.1 -
ronocnikral wrote: »
As an engineer, I find HR monitoring to be too inaccurate. As you build aerobic base, you transfer many muscle fibers over to the aerobic side. As such, your aerobic zone becomes much bigger and the "no man's land" is small to virtually non-existent. Physiological testing is the gold standard. In fact, many people say HR monitoring is useless on a long term training basis.
lol @ronocnikral. Context! Not many of us have access to Olympic training facilities or the like. Wish I did though, assuming it was free! Barring that, I stand by my recommendation that using an HRM is the most accurate way, for non-elite runners, with a finite budget and limited time, to learn how to control their exertion such that they're running at the optimum pace to meet their goals.
I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
0 -
You might want to read some of the books from the experts on the topic like Phil Maffetone. But the idea is that most of the benefits of training are developed either aerobically or anaerobically. Therefore to train the aerobic system you run slower. To train anaerobic you run harder. Generally 80-90% slower is recommended. If you run hard all the time you could have negative side effects. Following these protocols I was able to decrease my race times significantly with the same amount of training.0
-
-
You might want to read some of the books from the experts on the topic like Phil Maffetone. But the idea is that most of the benefits of training are developed either aerobically or anaerobically. Therefore to train the aerobic system you run slower. To train anaerobic you run harder. Generally 80-90% slower is recommended. If you run hard all the time you could have negative side effects. Following these protocols I was able to decrease my race times significantly with the same amount of training.
Maffetone's "Training for endurance" 2nd edition is usually less than $1 on amazon. Unfortunately, shipping is $4. Well worth the money.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
@MeanderingMammal when you find something that is 100% accurate when it comes to gauging exertion and how to exercise optimally to achieve your goals please let all of us know, even though you'll be awfully busy making your fortune with whatever it is. I'm pretty sure there are pro sports associations that will line up at your door to buy your discovery. Unfortunately, biological processes aren't precise and/or 100% understood.
PhD EE, MIEEE, CodeMonkeysRUs0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
@MeanderingMammal when you find something that is 100% accurate when it comes to gauging exertion and how to exercise optimally to achieve your goals please let all of us know, even though you'll be awfully busy making your fortune with whatever it is. I'm pretty sure there are pro sports associations that will line up at your door to buy your discovery. Unfortunately, biological processes aren't precise and/or 100% understood.
PhD EE, MIEEE, CodeMonkeysRUs
Indeed. I'm just conscious that when we're talking about training tools we end up in the realms of where precision is useful, and where it's interesting.
On a track, no debate. For road training, in a speed cycle its potentially useful, otherwise we're in the realms of interesting. On the trails, probably of little value.
0 -
ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
0 -
There's a bunch of strength conditioning advocates claiming aerobic activities are counterproductive to building strength. Such statements are also loony-toons (insofar they aren't thinking along the lines of PPF).ronocnikral wrote: »Want to get faster? Drop your weight lifting (it is counterproductive to building aerobic base or it adds bulk elsewhere that you need to carry around)
Repeat after me: Proper Strength Conditioning Will Improve Running Efficiency.
Period. Full stop. End of story.3 -
ronocnikral wrote: »I don't either. I do have a handheld lactate meter. It was cheaper than my garmin watch.
That's gotta be tricky, poking your finger every mile during a long run to see if you're maintaining the proper level of exertion. Or do you have the device implanted so it reads real-time?
You clearly don't understand how to apply lactate testing into a training program.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions