Forums >General Running>Running "rules of thumb"
#artbydmcbride
Maybe I could increase my daily miles by seven every three weeks. Maybe I should. I probably won't.
What if I double-dog dared you?
Runners run
Half Fanatic #846
As to that asphalt-concrete argument, it keeps coming up, and runners swear the asphalt is "softer." I'm one of those. Others say "What difference can it possible make?" Who knows? But I do know that attitude has a bearing on performance. What you believe is important. Spareribs
Don't know where I read it years ago, that concrete is 6 times harder than asphalt. I do know that I try to avoid running on concrete very much because when I do, my body can be a little sore the next day. I often run barefoot on asphalt (and sometimes barefoot on concrete), and my bare feet definitely like asphalt over concrete. There just seems to be more 'give' or at least asphalt seems to be more "runner friendly" to me. I suppose if one is a 20-somerthing year-old, it probably doesn't matter for shorter distances, but that's just my guess.
"I don't always roll a joint, but when I do, it's usually my ankle" - unk. "Frankly autocorrect, I'm getting a bit tired of your shirt". I ran half my last race on my left foot!
I run some mileage on trails but most on asphalt/concrete. if I have some sort of minor injury (where I can still run through it) or excessive heavy/tired legs will increase % of miles on softer surfaces.. It always helps
couple of other "rules of thumbs"
*replace running shoes every 6 months (though I dont believe this, too many variables0
*when heading into a race it is better to be slightly undertrained & fresh than to be overtrained & burnt out or even worse injured. this one 100% agree with.
Don't know where I read it years ago, that concrete is 6 times harder than asphalt.
Lab tests can probably show that concrete is 6x harder. Lab tests can probably also show diamonds are at least 6x harder than concrete. But I doubt it would make much difference if running on diamonds.
What I'm saying is... as long as the surface is significantly harder than your shoe, it's probably irrelevant.
I find trails very helpful for injury prevention, because my feet are landing at different angles so stressing different muscles and connective tissue with every step. There may be lots of hard rocks, but the unevenness more than makes up for it.
King of PhotoShop
Here is part III of the series, which wraps up next week with a list of all the "rules" you suggested. Thanks everyone. Spareribs
http://runningblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/running-rules-of-thumb-part-iii-weight-speed-and-time.html/
Paul in the Peaks
whilst running this am I thought of two that I heard an elite steeplechaser say.
both related to whether you should run if you suspect or are unwell
1. If its above the shoulders run easy, if its below the shoulders wait until your are better
2. Sit down and relax - record your heart rate. Stand up and notice your heart rate increase, then sit again. If your heart rate doesn't slow you are battling a bug/virus
I love running - after the event...
Full: 3:59:26
Half 1:39
15k 1:17
10k 48:24
5k 22.18
Here is my final post on the rules of thumb discussion. While I did not mention any of you by name or handle, I did include a few of the contributions from this thread that I found very interesting. And I promise you no more posts from me on this subject except to reply to any comments. You gave me some outstanding material, which helped me immensely because I don't always have a topic for my weekly article. Thanks so much. You are all the best.
http://runningblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/running-rules-of-thumb-part-iv-bogey-golfers.html/
Spareribs
Sorry I'm late but I didn't see this one. You can run no faster in a marathon than you run your fastest 26.2 miles in any given week.
huh?
Oh good. I'm not the only one.
We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
I think it means if you kept an accurate summary for how much time you spent running 26.2 miles over the course of a week (cumulative), you'd find you couldn't run 26.2 consecutive miles any faster than that.
I think.
Not a rule of thumb around here. But, in a sense, I kind of see where someone might be trying (too hard) to be "on to something" there. Except, of course, you could have totally dogged that 26.2 week of miles.
Is it the same time upstairs or is it cold outside?
I think it means if you kept an accurate summary for how much time you spent running 26.2 miles over the course of a week (cumulative), you'd find you couldn't run 26.2 consecutive miles any faster than that. I think. Not a rule of thumb around here. But, in a sense, I kind of see where someone might be trying (too hard) to be "on to something" there. Except, of course, you could have totally dogged that 26.2 week of miles.
Don't think so. When I think back to my training which led up to my marathon PR, I know for a fact I never had 26.2 miles in a week near that pace. I ,maybe at most 10 miles total at what I thought was going to me marathon pace, but I actually ran faster during the race. Even when you factor in other workouts faster than MP, it's no where near 26 miles.
Hey, I'm just trying to say what I think the other person may have meant. I've never actually heard of the "rule" and it didn't make a lot of sense to me either.