Login
2000 Miles of Starting All Over

Remeind me to look at running logs... (Read 1200 times)
mikeymike
posted: 1/15/2008 at 1:34 PM
modified: 1/15/2008 at 1:35 PM
Quote from JakeKnight on 1/15/2008 at 12:19 PM:
In that thread in the general board where I was talking with Jim2 about the over-emphasis on the long run, people like this are EXACTLY what I was talking about.

She (he?) read some training program, picked out a couple details, then missed the whole point. It's impressive she/he could even finish a long run.

And Jessica Biel is acceptable.


Speaking of that thread in the scary place. I found this:

Long runs are overrated.


Interesting. Where have I heard that before? Seems back when I was still establishing myself as an elitest prick on this board, I took a lot of shit for saying things just like that.

Also Jessica Biel is way more than acceptable. Actually JK while you were gone we voted and JB replaced JA as our official Jessica.
pandajenn19
posted: 1/15/2008 at 3:37 PM
Belated response, because my brain is fuzzy...

In many ways I’m just like those in the scary place. I’m worse than some of them. I’m slower than dirt, my running pace is apparently walking pace for most of you. I don’t log that many miles every week because I cross train (which I don’t log because I only log the running for your benefit, not mine.) I am *gasp* going to ‘run’ a marathon on limited miles, my long runs are way too long for my weekly mileage, and I just took a few days off because I’ve been sick. Why on earth do I do these things all wrong? Well, I’m doing the marathon to support a friend who is driving 7 hours so she can complete her 10th marathon. She wanted someone to go with her, and I thought it would be a fun trip even though I know I won’t be properly prepared. I’m too competitive to sit on the sidelines.

So really, I’m not much different from all those in the scary place. Other than the fact that I don’t ask a bunch of questions. Because I know what I am doing is wrong and I know better than to flaunt my ignorance. Because for me, it would be flaunting it. I’d wager that for the people who do ask the questions, they are too ignorant about the subject to recognize their ignorance. Bravo to them for being brave enough to ask the questions they clearly need to be asking in spite of that. Better to ask and risk sounding dumb in the asking than to be too proud to ask and unable (for whatever reason, we know not everyone can figure things out on their own) to learn what they need to learn.

Not trying to be preachy, just saying that not everyone is on the same page, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
Scout7
CPT Curmudgeon
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 3:45 PM
I agree that asking questions is very important, and most people should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the questions being asked.

However, where I take issue is when the person asks for this advice when he or she already knows what they are going to do. If someone asks a question, I will answer to the best of my abilities. Sometimes, that means telling someone something that is not exactly the answer desired. If that's the case, and you are going to then either completely dismiss my statements, or even argue against them, then why did you ask in the first place?

"Is it a good idea to run this race?" No. But you're going to do it anyway, so why bother asking?

I think most of us try to be helpful when we can. Admittedly, sometimes we can come across as being harsh, but that's just the style and characteristics of people. Plus, sometimes people need that good whack to bring them back to reality.
Amat victoria curam.

Sine labore nihil.

Dulcius ex asperis.
mikeymike
posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:04 PM
I agree. Which is why I don't respond to questions by 7 hour marathoners who run twice a week and tell them they need to run more or buy a certain book. It's not that I don't think they have a right to run a marathon or whatever they want to do. It's just I have no experience doing what they're doing and my advice would be too simple for them and is not what they're fishing for.

A lot of the questions on RA lately are just dumb. Period. People claiming to want to get faster trying to run marathons off of 60 miles per month etc. But I actually have less patience for many of the responses than the questions. Everything is percentages and formulas and scientific acronyms nowadays. 35 mpw joggers talking about VO2Max, etc. The fucking 10% rule again? It's like a laboratory over there rather than a running board. The FIRST "program"? Jeezus. On the rare occasion that I do respond to one of the folks who are too ignorant to know they are ignorant, my advice sounds too simple to be taken seriously and gets drowned out by the fucktards who just finished a training book and want to sound smart by adding big words such as "aerobic" and "Lactate Threshold" and "Pfitzinger" and such; Run more. Mostly easy. Take a long range approach and be consistent. The end.

Do I think it's wrong to run a half marathon on 35 mpw? Hell no. I've done it. I've even run a marathon on that (maybe even less than 35 mpw I don't remember.) But I did so knowing that if I actually wanted to run it reasonably well and close the gap between my then current performances and my genetic potential at those distances, I'd need to run a lot more mileage. It's a pretty basic concept.
Jeff
posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:09 PM
modified: 1/15/2008 at 4:11 PM
I think Jenn makes a good point. One of the special qualities of RA is that we've (some minor skirmishes aside) avoided the tired "elite vs. beginning runner" resentment. Given the recent cultural flux and the fact that folks are coming from places where that resentment is more evident, we might be extra careful about this sort of issue.

Unfortunately, this is an issue of tone, and the tone of a post often has more to do with the reader than with the writer. Except in Scout's case. Wink

MTA: My point is this: we can get riled up about internet idiocy, but that ain't gonna change it. That's why I like this group. Not that y'all aren't idiots--just your idiocy and mine mesh better.
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
trishierunner
esq.
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:12 PM
modified: 1/15/2008 at 4:13 PM
Thank you for that, Jenn...

I have to admit .... being here in the swamp has made me less willing to post questions in the big scary pace. I'm not fast, I never will be fast, a BQ of 3:40 is a FAST marathon time for me, I ask questions that a lot of people here probably think are stupid (although I do know how to tie my shoes). I understand this:

Run more. Mostly easy. Take a long range approach and be consistent. The end.


but I still have questions about tempo runs and hills and how to be the best runner I can be (cheesy, but true). I have questions about LT and what it is and what it means to me.

I'm here for a lot of reasons, but a main one is to get information from runners who "know the answers" --- or can at least offer input, "this is what works for me," etc. I don't think it's cool to ridicule people who have questions about running.
2009: BQ?
Scout7
CPT Curmudgeon
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:14 PM
Quote from Jeff on 1/15/2008 at 4:09 PM:
Unfortunately, this is an issue of tone, and the tone of a post often has more to do with the reader than with the writer. Except in Scout's case. Wink


Zen is universal.
Amat victoria curam.

Sine labore nihil.

Dulcius ex asperis.
Run2Eat
posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:21 PM
when i have ventured out there -- into the g.s.p. -- it is merely to peruse a thread from over there that someone posted over here. invariably, any reasonable answer given there is given by someone available to me here; ergo, wherefore leave the swamp?
if you don't run, you'll rust. [tom petty]
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:22 PM
In a similar vein, I have to wonder what the damn rush is for everyone to run the marathon. I've never run one, so I admit to speaking out of ignorance. But it just seems like the marathon has become the end-all be-all, and folks aren't taking the time to enjoy the shorter races, build some experience, and work their way up.

You may or may not remember Carlos Lopes, the Portuguese distance running legend. I remember seeing this cat win the '84 Olympic marathon, and then set the marathon world record a year later. I was inspired by him. You know what inspired me the most? The fact that he was 38 when he set that record. I loved the fact that unlike most other races, a dude could be the best ever (at that time) at almost 40 years old. Ever since then, I've always kept in the back of my mind that there's no rush to marathoning. I will probably run my first at the end of this year or next. I'll be 38 or 39. And that's fine with me.

Obviously, I'm not begrudging those of you who run a lot and run marathons. I wish I were there right now. My concern is the 3-day a week runner who should focus on running more and getting some 5k's and 10k's under their belt belt instead of rushing into the marathon on the cheap.
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
Scout7
CPT Curmudgeon
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:22 PM
Quote from trishierunner on 1/15/2008 at 4:12 PM:
but I still have questions about tempo runs and hills and how to be the best runner I can be (cheesy, but true). I have questions about LT and what it is and what it means to me.

I'm here for a lot of reasons, but a main one is to get information from runners who "know the answers" --- or can at least offer input, "this is what works for me," etc. I don't think it's cool to ridicule people who have questions about running.


The issue is not the questions. The issue is the responses received back. Also, it is very difficult to answer a stranger's specific questions, because I have no prior interaction with that person. I don't know what his or her life is like, what his goals are, how much time to train he has, etc etc etc. If I go and ask "how do I get fast?", I should not be attempting to challenge the advice given to me. I'm asking a question for a reason (because I don't have the answer); yet many of these people already seem to have an answer to the question. If that's the case, then why ask in the first place?

Oh, and LT is something that you only really need to worry about if you're basing your training on HR. Other than that, it's not a big deal, because there are other ways of basing your training.

LT = Lactate Threshold; it is the point in which your body can no longer effectively eliminate the lactate in the muscles, and will begin accumulating it. There are many ideas as to how or why, and what the effects are. Generally speaking, LT is somewhere around your 10K-15K pace (it can vary). Heart rate training would have you conduct most of your training below this level, especially for a marathon, with the goal of increasing your ability to maintain pace at LT (to extend the amount of time that you can run closer to your LT pace).

There is a field test to determine your LT heart rate and pace. You would do this field test to take the numbers and establish your training zones based on heart rate, and then do your training appropriately.

Tempo runs, intervals, fartleks... It all depends on your goals, your limiting factors, and your current state of running.
Amat victoria curam.

Sine labore nihil.

Dulcius ex asperis.
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:24 PM
modified: 1/15/2008 at 4:25 PM
Quote from trishierunner on 1/15/2008 at 4:12 PM:
I'm here for a lot of reasons, but a main one is to get information from runners who "know the answers" --- or can at least offer input, "this is what works for me," etc. I don't think it's cool to ridicule people who have questions about running.

Nicely put. Big grin
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
Run2Eat
posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:28 PM
jeffgoblue... every time i see your name, i read it as either jeffglue or jeffglobule.

just wanted you to know.
if you don't run, you'll rust. [tom petty]
jEfFgObLuE
Frustrating Project
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:36 PM
Quote from Run2Eat on 1/15/2008 at 4:28 PM:
jeffgoblue... every time i see your name, i read it as either jeffglue or jeffglobule.


I like jeffglobule. Cool

Maybe I'll start randomly alternating my name between jeffgoblue, jeffglue, and jeffglobule just to mess with you.
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20
25k: 1:35:59

21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00

"Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth."
Steve Allen

Oswald acted alone.
zoom-zoom
Registered for #2
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:36 PM
Quote from mikeymike on 1/15/2008 at 4:04 PM:

Do I think it's wrong to run a half marathon on 35 mpw? Hell no. I've done it. I've even run a marathon on that (maybe even less than 35 mpw I don't remember.) But I did so knowing that if I actually wanted to run it reasonably well and close the gap between my then current performances and my genetic potential at those distances, I'd need to run a lot more mileage. It's a pretty basic concept.


This gets me wondering if I should attempt a marathon this year. I think my longest weekly mileage before my HMs this year was ~38. I was figuring on more like 45-50mpw in preparation for a marathon, but maybe that's not adequate...? My biggest problem is speed, or lack thereof. Finding the time to get my miles in is tough. Yeah, the more I run the faster I get, but it's still relative. A "fast" long run for me is still about 10min/mile. *Luckily* MI has the highest unemployment in the nation and I'm not holding my breath at finding anything more than a very part-time job this year, so I have time to burn...but building beyond 50mpw is still going to take a TON of it.

k
Kirsten
'07: 1324.5 mi
'08: 1561 mi
...

• Ladies Locker Room •

.: 2009 Goals :.
• Run 1750 miles
• 2 marathons (May - Bayshore, Fall - ?)
• PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k? ~ HM ~ 26.2
• 1st trail relay (North Country)
Scout7
CPT Curmudgeon
 posted: 1/15/2008 at 4:38 PM
Quote from zoom-zoom on 1/15/2008 at 4:36 PM:
This gets me wondering if I should attempt a marathon this year. I think my longest weekly mileage before my HMs this year was ~38. I was figuring on more like 45-50mpw in preparation for a marathon, but maybe that's not adequate...? My biggest problem is speed, or lack thereof. Finding the time to get my miles in is tough. Yeah, the more I run the faster I get, but it's still relative. A "fast" long run for me is still about 10min/mile. *Luckily* MI has the highest unemployment in the nation and I'm not holding my breath at finding anything more than a very part-time job this year, so I have time to burn...but building beyond 50mpw is still going to take a TON of it.

k


What's the highest weekly volume on Higdon's Beginner Marathon Plan? I think it caps at around 40 (I could be off). So stop sweating it.

The keys to marathon success are consistency, listening to your body, and frequency.
Amat victoria curam.

Sine labore nihil.

Dulcius ex asperis.
Feedback  |  Help
© 2005 – 2009 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved.