Run Run Away » running race

surgery and excercise

admin — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I want to have a sinus endoscopic procedure to see if it helps me with chronic sinus congestion. doc says it will be a half hour outpatient procedure. so my question is i have a long distance running race coming up in mid-october.. should i wait till after the race ? how long will I be decommissioned after the procedure (ie how long will I not be able to do strenuous excercise afterwards or go to work) ? will i necessarily need to wear the pernicious packing everybody talks about ? and for how long ?

Response:

On 15 Aug 2005 15:03:32 -0700, example2…@hotmail.com wrote: >I want to have a sinus endoscopic procedure to see if it helps me with >chronic sinus congestion. doc says it will be a half hour outpatient >procedure.

That is enough time only for an extremely minor procedure (or, I hate to mention the possibility, a too-rushed attempt at a major procedure) However, without even knowing what precedure it is (and many are possible) it is impossible to say much. Please find out the exact medical names of all procedures that will be performed (you can say that you need them for the insurance form of a secondary insurer if you want). Most of the serious procedures really are usually done under general anesthetic in a hospital for safety. So I am wondering exactly what this doctor is planning…. >so my question is i have a long distance running race coming up in >mid-october.. should i wait till after the race ?

Maybe maybe not (see above)….. >how long will I be decommissioned after the procedure (ie how long will >I not be able to do strenuous excercise afterwards or go to work) ?

It depends on the procedure and the way it is done so you will have to ask the doctor. Just call and ask his nurse. >will i necessarily need to wear the pernicious packing everybody talks >about ? and for how long ?

It varies – mine was only for 16 hours. Some leave it in longer. A very few do not use packing……

Response:

example2…@hotmail.com wrote: > I want to have a sinus endoscopic procedure to see if it helps me with > chronic sinus congestion. doc says it will be a half hour outpatient > procedure. > so my question is i have a long distance running race coming up in > mid-october.. should i wait till after the race ? > how long will I be decommissioned after the procedure (ie how long will > I not be able to do strenuous excercise afterwards or go to work) ?

Ask your surgeon. In my case, I was out of action for quite a while, because I developed a post-operative infection (which happens all too often with sinus surgery). If I hadn’t gotten an infection, I probably could have started doing exercise in a few weeks or so. > will i necessarily need to wear the pernicious packing everybody talks > about ? and for how long ?

Again, you should ask your surgeon. — Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit…@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Response:

Hicham El Guerrouj – why is he becoming a sensation?

admin — Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I must admit I haven’t been following the Olympics, but it seems news sites on the web are getting crazy over El Guerrouj; what’s the big deal? El Guerrouj seems to have captured minds and hearts all over the web. Yes I know he won two olympic gold medals, but that swimmer guy Phelp won a handful or more the other day and yet there wasn’t as much sensationalism over him. Is it that its the first time to be done in 80 years?

Response:

I guess you haven’t been following the Olympics, newspapers and TV ads and why your puzzled. Phelps has already done some commercials. These two plus others have done very well. I would guess the degree of sensationalism is proportional to the sport’s popularity. Since your probably into running because you are reading and posting here, you would most likely hear about El Guerrouj more than Phelps. The newspapers and TV were loaded in particular with Phelps after his ballsy statement about getting more gold than Spitzer before the Olympics started. There was so much Phelps hype that I was almost rooting against him, well almost; it was the daily, hourly media push that pissed me off. As for publicity look at basketball, we sent some boys to do a man’s job and did not once again swoop down for the gold. Sure we medalled, but we put a very poor team together for international style basketball. I wonder if the NBA will learn much about the value of the 3-point shot or continue to play for the stuff? Some minds seem to think we can take just about any 12 pro players and win. Personally I’m glad to see better quality in the game. As for El Guerrouj double it was a remarkable effort and not done since Purmi(sp) is along time. And the 1,500 had to be one of the most exciting running races of the Olympics. I thought the 5,000 was going to have an excitingly close finish until El Guerrouj turned on the afterburner. -DougF

Response:

There wasn’t ? We mustn’t have been watching the same olympics. Medal count doesn’t in itself mean a whole lot. There are some sports where it’s possible to enter several sports that have similar physiological requirements (e.g. 100m, 4×100m, 100m hurdles, 200m) and competing in one does not have too much impact on the other. In distance racing, you don’t have all these subtle variations, and each race takes a lot out of the athlete, so one can’t enter 6 events and win 6 medals. In part, I think the above mindset reflects what’s been going on in the press and it’s very misguided. The idea that the best athlete is the one who wins the most medals is fundamentally flawed, because some athletes can win several medals by entering half a dozen subtle variations of essentially the same thing, whereas others do not have that option (e.g. how many gold medals can a basketball player, a weightlifter, or a wrestler reasonably hope to win ?) Is it that its the first time to be done in 80 years?

Well that’s part of it, but the real point is that it’s a very impressive achievement, because the events are not that close together on the scale. It’s like a sprinter winning gold in the 100m and the 400m. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

I must admit I haven’t been following the Olympics, but it seems news sites on the web are getting crazy over El Guerrouj; what’s the big deal?

He’s much cuter than Phelps (and he’s a damn fine runner). Tim —

Response:

Only the 2nd runner in history that has doubled on the Olympic 1500m and 5000m, convincingly sprinting past a great runner on the last 100m? Yeah, I’d say that’s sensational. —

Lyle: HR data, episode 1

admin — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max. An observation: it appears that Daniels overestimates % MHR associated with a given % VO2 max. For example, a study mentioned in Noakes found something like 60% VO2 max for a heart rate of about 145 (both group averages), so one would need to go up over 150bpm, probably close to 160bpm to get to 70% (the figure that JD uses as the basis for ‘E’ pace) Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me.

So figure 160? Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max.

Where would you put this relative to your LT? Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge benefit. Thanks, Lyle

Response:

Geez, you two should get a room.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – at 10min/mile (after 1 lap): 120-130 at 9 min/mile (after a full mile): about 143 at 8min/mile (after a mile): about 151 at 7:30min/mile (after 1 mile): about 154 These are lower paces than I usually run, I had company to help keep the pace down. half-assed max test (run fast for 2 laps, then go very hard for about 100m): 191 Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. So figure 160?

160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Training surface was a nice fast rubberized track, some slight inclines but pretty flat overall (certainly flatter than the course on which I ran the times that determine my vdot). Bottom line is that my heart rate at Daniels ‘E pace’ is 80% max. Where would you put this relative to your LT?

When I’ve done LT workouts before, the 90% figure (about 170bpm) seems about right. LT should be close to Daniels ‘T’ pace. Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge benefit.

I’d go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring if not impossible to run at 140bpm or lower (with a MHR 190). Many people can’t do it, and most of the others simply won’t do it, so the usual reaction from runners when they put a heart rate monitor on and realise that they’re "supposed to" stay under 70% MHR (as opposed to the 80-85% they’ve been doing) is one of frustration. On 70 miles per week, with a 5 mile race pace of 5:40, I need to drop to about 9:15 minutes per mile to get below 140. So someone who runs that race slower than 7:30 minutes per mile (well over half of the runners at a typical road race) would almost certainly exceed that heart rate at 12 minutes per mile. Below that pace, many have trouble running, and even if they do run slower, their heart rate won’t drop much, because at 12 minutes per mile, they may as well be jogging in place. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Based on where my training load is at (70mpw), max heart rate should be in the low to mid 190s now, couldn’t be more than about 195. Daniels ‘E’ pace is about 7:15 for me. So figure 160? 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs.

Oridinary being something else than an E run? but 150-160 seems consistent with many recommendations. I guess I’m wondering why i still see crap like 140 and below for LSD when it would seem to do little (maybe build psychological/some other type of stamina for very long activities). Really makes me wonder about the suggestions of 140 BPM and lower for LSD work. Hard to see it having a huge benefit. I’d go so far as to say that it is intolerably boring if not impossible to run at 140bpm or lower (with a MHR 190).

I think this has been my major confusion over those recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference, teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly. Ok, maybe if you did 6 hours. Hard to see the point from a training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see it as a recommendation for basic endurance work. For example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80% max giving the least return for the effort, it’s often listed as ‘no-man’s land’ for training (at least for cyclists). Argued that you can’t spend enough time there to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery. Many people can’t do it, and most of the others simply won’t do it, so the usual reaction from runners when they put a heart rate monitor on and realise that they’re "supposed to" stay under 70% MHR (as opposed to the 80-85% they’ve been doing) is one of frustration.

I think that was always mine while cycling. Short of walking my bike, maintaining 140 or below at any non-trivial speed was an effort in pointless spinning around. Lyle

Response:

160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Oridinary being something else than an E run?

Nah, ordinary being an ‘E’ run. Generally speaking though, I think I’m pretty much in the 150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout (drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial. I’m not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the Daniels book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic in person — the book seldom paints a complete picture) For example, a tempo run in practice may end up below ‘T’ pace, because the duration is too long or the terrain is hilly. An ‘E’ run might be a little fast or a little slow depending on how one feels on the day. An ‘R’ workout might be faster than the prescribed ‘R’ pace, especially with the ladder (where the 200m reps will be a tad faster than the 800m reps). An ‘I’ workout will go at whatever pace I can do the reps in, but I try to avoid doing these slower than the prescribed pace. It’s worth noting that with these books, there’s often a difference between the theory and the practice. Authors may not be game to say in public what they do in private — their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too "risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid controversy (or lawsuits). So I don’t think you ever get the whole story when you read these things, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Jack Daniels would direct me to perform workouts that were somewhat different to those outlined in his book were he to coach me in person. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 160 would be good for about 7:00 pace. And that’s about as fast as I run on ordinary training runs. Oridinary being something else than an E run? Nah, ordinary being an ‘E’ run. Generally speaking though, I think I’m pretty much in the 150-160 range for the first 20 minutes of any workout (drift, heat, or the urge to hammer the last few miles may push it slightly above that late in the workout). The jump in effort between 160 and 170 is substantial.

FWIw, I find that 165 or so on the bike (stationary) is pretty comfortable, I agree with a substantial icnrease in effort when I get to the high 160’s-170. I haven’t done a proper measurement in a while but my max steady state HR is probably in the 175 range, maybe a bit higher. So 165 is about 95% of that. riding below 150 is effortless, I’m limited by boredom; don’t feel like it’s doing much if anything (unless all I want to do is spin some blood into my quads). I’m not as dogmatic about hitting exact paces as the Daniels book. (I also doubt that Daniels is that dogmatic in person — the book seldom paints a complete picture)

Oh, assuredly. I think he simply realizes that most people don’t think and need very specific guidelines for such things. As well, personal experience demonstrates that if you don’t give people exacting recommendations (and often if you do), they will find some way to screw it up completely. Being more specific and making it sound as if there ie zero leeway is one way to keep your average dumbass from screwing themselves by trying to play around with your recs. They’ll do it anyhow but at least you can say "Hey, I told you to do it this way, don’t bitch at me because you’re a moron who can’t follow instructions." It’s worth noting that with these books, there’s often a difference between the theory and the practice. Authors may not be game to say in public what they do in private — their training may be too unorthodox, or considered too "risky". So they may moderate their views to avoid controversy (or lawsuits).

Sure. So I don’t think you ever get the whole story when you read these things, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Jack Daniels would direct me to perform workouts that were somewhat different to those outlined in his book were he to coach me in person.

Well, there’s only so much you can do in terms of giving specific recs when you write that kind of a book. In person, you can always make adjustments based on what you are seeing, what other specifics there are, that sort of thing. It’s part of being a good coach. But it’s impossible to convey in book format, books that just say "This has to be adjusted for the athlete" without giving any recommendations are useless. So I think there is a happy medium between cookie cutter workout books and endless "You have to adjut to teh status of the athlete" books. Daniels covers the principles well enough and then gives some good specifics; I think he finds a happy balance. Lyle

Response:

I think this has been my major confusion over those recommendations. Whiel mode may make some of a difference, teh effort level at 140 or below is simply piddly. Ok, maybe if you did 6 hours. Hard to see the point from a training effect point of view yet I still occasinoally see it as a recommendation for basic endurance work For example, this is a common set of commentary on the issue http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm The list 70-80% max giving the least return for the effort, it’s often listed as ‘no-man’s land’ for training (at least for cyclists). Argued that you can’t spend enough time there to get a training effect but it does cut into recovery.

It makes perfect sense and it works. But perhaps it

heart rate, pace, temperature, and finding the right training zone

admin — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Thanks for all the replies. I see the wisdom in staying away from LT most of the time, but am still trying to figure out just where that line is.

Why not just use conversational effort for your easy runs? Based on my interpretations of readings, it seems like breathing and LT are more directly connected than hr and LT. When your conversation gets choppy and just a couple words at a time, you’re probably in LT zone. When you’re gasping, you’re above it. I saw a quote from Lance Armstrong today on the subject, and he said that he watches the HR but in the end listens to his legs.

Legs work, as does breathing and other body signs. Heart rate is a convenient way of quantifying things and logging data. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

OH i read that LT ( wish i could find it) is right about 75%-78% of maxHR.

I thought LT was closer to about 85-90% max hr (80-85% using Karvonen). I train at 75-78 on easy days

That makes sense. Does that suggest that 75-78% in 1st line (for LT) may have been a typo?? Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

point of easy days? i train with a HM and easy days are for your tendons / lig / joints to ‘catch up’ with your muscles on your hard days. I call easy days active resting. It is in rest that your heal not while your run your butt off. Your body needs those day to recover . It helps also in not overtraining. I did train in Glorietta MN and let me tell you that was H*ll . i agree that walking is boring . I thought so untill i started ultras now part of my trains goes into Walking if you can believe that. hope this helps OH i read that LT ( wish i could find it) is right about 75%-78% of maxHR. I train at 75-78 on easy days plodzilla – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gang, Over the past 10 years or so I’ve been in a happy rut of training at about the same effort most of the time and racing at about the same pace. I finally have a bit more time to train, so I’m attempting to be more scientific about adding miles and maybe finally getting one of those coveted Peach Tree mugs and possibly a Boston qualifier. My previous base pattern was to run about 2-4 times per week, once or twice for 2.5 miles and the remainder 5-7 miles. My estimated max heart rate is between 190 and 195 based on self-performed max effort tests. I’m in my mid 40s. When preparing for a 10K I’ll up the mileage and do intervals once a week or so. Preparing for a marathon I’ll do more miles (rarely more than 25/week) and do long runs ramping up to 22 miles or so 3 weeks before. I’m a huge believer in tapering, preferring to run hard one week before a race and then not all until the race. At my low mileage, time off seems to help a lot before a big event. I partially make up for the insufficient mileage by having enough sense to cut back during a race if my goal becomes unreasonable and just be happy to finish. My 10K PB is 43:53 and for the marathon it’s just under 4:00 (8:58 pace). My current focus is to get my marathon pace down to 8:00 for a Boston qualifier, if not by this December then by next year. Up to now, I figured that since I had so many days off it made sense to do all my runs fairly hard. Now that I’m running more often I’ve been keeping the easy days (all but 2/week) to 2.5 or 5 miles or so at approx 145 BPM, or about 9:00 pace. It seemed almost silly to go this slowly at first, but it certainly is easier on my joints and is pleasant enough, so I have been doing this for a few months. Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end. This is slightly slower than my cool weather pace but feels like about the same effort, both during and after the run. Now I understand that heat puts extra burden on the cardio system and leads to increased heart rate for similar effort. I am also sure that heat doesn’t raise the max heart rate, it just imposes a sort of overhead burden. My question is: what is an approprate training level for easy days? This leads to the question: what is the point of easy days? My guess is that easy days let you get some miles on the legs (do SOME new muscle damage), while simultaneously allowing damage from recent hard training to heal without undully stressing the other systems. On the other hand, maybe considerations such as lactate threshold are well estimated based solely on heart rate, and easy days really should be run at this low heart rate even if it forces walking. Bor-ing! Clearly temperature changes the relative load on the various systems (leg muscles, cardio, lungs). It reminds me of the little running I did in the mountains of New Mexico: I ran as hard as my lungs would let me, but my legs has a lactic acid jones on all week. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter. Ideas? Dave

Response:

I think you’ve done more reading about it than me, and I think your assumptions are correct.

Actually, it’s been more a matter of trying to figure out appropriate training when most training is during Alaska winter (running on most kinds of snow is different than running on dirt) and race opportunities are usually in May before field season kicks into full swing. Standard training schedules didn’t work that well for me. It’s very rare that I’ve been able to do a simple running race (exactly one to date after 3 yrs, and the last 2 were cancelled) and there’s usually been a bike component to about half my races so far (duathlon, winter tri). Other events have been snowshoe running and orienteering. Also, running uses the hamstrings much more than cycling, and cycling uses the quads – in my exeperience they are not as similar as you might think.

True, but uphill and downhill running (typically 10-30% slopes on my trails) also emphasize different muscles than flat running, although LT may not be a big issue with downhill running as it is with uphill. The other thing is if your goal is running, cycling too much can easily overdevelop your legs and that will slow you down.

I’ve used it mostly as rehab (achilles) in the past, and there’s a fun trail duathlon early in the season that I’ve been able to do a couple times. One way to combat this is to cycle always with a high cadence and easier gears.

I’ll do that when biking to work or cruising streets, but it’s not realistic on trails where the slopes can be up to 30%, but I usually stick to the 10-15% ones after having been almost bucked off a steeper one when front wheel popped up. I go with the easy gears, but it’s not exactly a high cadence For trail runners cycling probably helps because you need stronger quads anyway…

agreed. Thanks for your comments. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end. That is a hard workout, really a Lactate Threshold type run. Or worse, its a ‘junk’ zone run – not quite high enough to train LT, but high enough to do too much damage for regular training. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter. Accept the fact that you go slower in hot weather — still use effort (%hr) as your guide. I agree that you have to slow down in hot weather to account for the general system fatigue that will accumulate if you train at too high an effort. That being said, I think there can be some allowance for cooling, without letting the HR creep up too high. My rule of thumb is to allow my HR to creep about 5 bpm when its very hot or hot/humid, but still I have to slow down some. – Tony

Thanks for all the replies. I see the wisdom in staying away from LT most of the time, but am still trying to figure out just where that line is. I have read quite a few places that the LT/HR relationship changes with temperature, but have not seem much specific written about how much. I saw a quote from Lance Armstrong today on the subject, and he said that he watches the HR but in the end listens to his legs. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since it got hot. Based on some unanticipated soreness Monday I think that I guessed a little high Sunday. I’ll back off a bit more, maybe to this last +5 BPM recommendation, and see what happens. Dave

Response:

Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end. That is a hard workout, really a Lactate Threshold type run.

Or worse, its a ‘junk’ zone run – not quite high enough to train LT, but high enough to do too much damage for regular training. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter. Accept the fact that you go slower in hot weather — still use effort (%hr) as your guide.

I agree that you have to slow down in hot weather to account for the general system fatigue that will accumulate if you train at too high an effort. That being said, I think there can be some allowance for cooling, without letting the HR creep up too high. My rule of thumb is to allow my HR to creep about 5 bpm when its very hot or hot/humid, but still I have to slow down some. – Tony

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LT work, like max HR is sport and muscle specific (so my biking LT work only carries over some to running). This is something I’ve been wondering about – cross-over effects of various training. Wouldn’t the cardiovascular effects of LT training carry over fairly strongly where the same muscle groups are involved? Cardio effects, if I understand it correctly, include such things as 1. increased heart size 2. increased blood volume 3. increased number and size of mitochondria as well as enzyme changes 4. increased number of capillaries Neuromuscular system effects 5. increased strength of muscles, tendons 6. increased power (although not as much as if you were doing drills to promote power) 7. increased coordination Specifically at LT and above 8. ability to clear lactate in muscles At my level of ignorance, I’d expect: 1 and 2 to be independent of whatever activity you’re doing 3 and 4 to have similar effects if using the same muscles, that is, running and biking might have a fair amount of cross-over (leg oriented), swimming would have less cross-over (esp. if weak kick), and xc skiing might cross-over with running for the legs (but skiing has more upper body demands than running) 5, 6, and 7 to depend strongly on the activity (specificity in training) 8 to be like 3 and 4 – effects depend on muscles used, but not necessarily used in same manner. That is LT on bike might cross over reasonably well for running – at least with regards to lactate clearing (but not for neuromuscular effects). Or is there physiology that would make very little of 1-4 and 8 cross over from mt biking or plyometric-like drills to running? I haven’t read that much about the mechanisms of what happens, so I may be approaching this very naively. I seldom do "speed" work where a person is going faster to have effort level above LT. However, I usually do "hard" workouts (close to LT or above), close to once a week much of the year when running consistently (ie. not during field season) – but they might be steep hills (running or mt biking), breaking trails with xc skis or snowshoes, cross-training class, etc. That is, I’m usually going slower in hard workouts than regular ones, but effort level is greater. In cross-training, we have drills which include high steps, butt kicks, skipping, single-legged hopping (forward and backward for everything to here), jumping over mats (forward and sideways), etc in a rapidly moving line led by instructor. That is, keep up with group or be run over (or step out for a moment so you don’t barf on his mats). Because all these activities have strong leg components, I’ve been assuming I’m getting the bulk of the cardio benefits of LT training, but not the specificity for running. Or have I been working under false assumption?

I think you’ve done more reading about it than me, and I think your assumptions are correct. There is some carryover from LT training on the bike to running, and I’ve been sucessful doing this in the past. It takes less time to get into peak form with running LT workouts if you’ve done them on the bike first for a while. You still have to put in a good month of running speedwork to gain the full benefit. Also, running uses the hamstrings much more than cycling, and cycling uses the quads – in my exeperience they are not as similar as you might think. The other thing is if your goal is running, cycling too much can easily overdevelop your legs and that will slow you down. One way to combat this is to cycle always with a high cadence and easier gears. For trail runners cycling probably helps because you need stronger quads anyway… – Tony – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

My previous base pattern was to run about 2-4 times per week, once or twice for 2.5 miles and the remainder 5-7 miles. My estimated max heart rate is between 190 and 195 based on self-performed max effort tests. … Now that I’m running more often I’ve been keeping the easy days (all but 2/week) to 2.5 or 5 miles or so at approx 145 BPM, or about 9:00 pace. It seemed almost silly to go this slowly at first, but it certainly is easier on my joints and is pleasant enough, so I have been doing this for a few months.

That’s 74% of your maximum output — I consider this to be a medium effort. My max is 192 and I cruise at 130-135 pulse all the time on my easy days. It’s the base mileage + the particular mixture of speed work that gets you to your potential. Recovery days at 67-70% max hr. may seem like junk miles, but they keep the base up, and get you ready for your next hard workout. If you want to improve, you probably need to increase your base mileage (and remove the hard days while you’re doing it!). After you’ve notched up your mileage for 6-8 weeks, gradually reintroduce hard workouts. Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end.

That is a hard workout, really a Lactate Threshold type run. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter.

Accept the fact that you go slower in hot weather — still use effort (%hr) as your guide. — Dan

Response:

LT work, like max HR is sport and muscle specific (so my biking LT work only carries over some to running).

This is something I’ve been wondering about – cross-over effects of various training. Wouldn’t the cardiovascular effects of LT training carry over fairly strongly where the same muscle groups are involved? Cardio effects, if I understand it correctly, include such things as 1. increased heart size 2. increased blood volume 3. increased number and size of mitochondria as well as enzyme changes 4. increased number of capillaries Neuromuscular system effects 5. increased strength of muscles, tendons 6. increased power (although not as much as if you were doing drills to promote power) 7. increased coordination Specifically at LT and above 8. ability to clear lactate in muscles At my level of ignorance, I’d expect: 1 and 2 to be independent of whatever activity you’re doing 3 and 4 to have similar effects if using the same muscles, that is, running and biking might have a fair amount of cross-over (leg oriented), swimming would have less cross-over (esp. if weak kick), and xc skiing might cross-over with running for the legs (but skiing has more upper body demands than running) 5, 6, and 7 to depend strongly on the activity (specificity in training) 8 to be like 3 and 4 – effects depend on muscles used, but not necessarily used in same manner. That is LT on bike might cross over reasonably well for running – at least with regards to lactate clearing (but not for neuromuscular effects). Or is there physiology that would make very little of 1-4 and 8 cross over from mt biking or plyometric-like drills to running? I haven’t read that much about the mechanisms of what happens, so I may be approaching this very naively. I seldom do "speed" work where a person is going faster to have effort level above LT. However, I usually do "hard" workouts (close to LT or above), close to once a week much of the year when running consistently (ie. not during field season) – but they might be steep hills (running or mt biking), breaking trails with xc skis or snowshoes, cross-training class, etc. That is, I’m usually going slower in hard workouts than regular ones, but effort level is greater. In cross-training, we have drills which include high steps, butt kicks, skipping, single-legged hopping (forward and backward for everything to here), jumping over mats (forward and sideways), etc in a rapidly moving line led by instructor. That is, keep up with group or be run over (or step out for a moment so you don’t barf on his mats). Because all these activities have strong leg components, I’ve been assuming I’m getting the bulk of the cardio benefits of LT training, but not the specificity for running. Or have I been working under false assumption? Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Now I understand that heat puts extra burden on the cardio system and leads to increased heart rate for similar effort. I am also sure that heat doesn’t raise the max heart rate, it just imposes a sort of overhead burden. My question is: what is an approprate training level for easy days? This leads to the question: what is the point of easy days?

Run your easy days at 70% of max, even when it’s hot (meaning you’ll be running even slower). The point is to lower your aerobic threshold and build endurance. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone.

The idea behind the monitor is to keep your effort

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gang, Over the past 10 years or so I’ve been in a happy rut of training at about the same effort most of the time and racing at about the same pace. I finally have a bit more time to train, so I’m attempting to be more scientific about adding miles and maybe finally getting one of those coveted Peach Tree mugs and possibly a Boston qualifier. My previous base pattern was to run about 2-4 times per week, once or twice for 2.5 miles and the remainder 5-7 miles. My estimated max heart rate is between 190 and 195 based on self-performed max effort tests. I’m in my mid 40s. When preparing for a 10K I’ll up the mileage and do intervals once a week or so. Preparing for a marathon I’ll do more miles (rarely more than 25/week) and do long runs ramping up to 22 miles or so 3 weeks before. I’m a huge believer in tapering, preferring to run hard one week before a race and then not all until the race. At my low mileage, time off seems to help a lot before a big event. I partially make up for the insufficient mileage by having enough sense to cut back during a race if my goal becomes unreasonable and just be happy to finish. My 10K PB is 43:53 and for the marathon it’s just under 4:00 (8:58 pace). My current focus is to get my marathon pace down to 8:00 for a Boston qualifier, if not by this December then by next year. Up to now, I figured that since I had so many days off it made sense to do all my runs fairly hard. Now that I’m running more often I’ve been keeping the easy days (all but 2/week) to 2.5 or 5 miles or so at approx 145 BPM, or about 9:00 pace. It seemed almost silly to go this slowly at first, but it certainly is easier on my joints and is pleasant enough, so I have been doing this for a few months. Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end. This is slightly slower than my cool weather pace but feels like about the same effort, both during and after the run. Now I understand that heat puts extra burden on the cardio system and leads to increased heart rate for similar effort. I am also sure that heat doesn’t raise the max heart rate, it just imposes a sort of overhead burden. My question is: what is an approprate training level for easy days? This leads to the question: what is the point of easy days? My guess is that easy days let you get some miles on the legs (do SOME new muscle damage), while simultaneously allowing damage from recent hard training to heal without undully stressing the other systems. On the other hand, maybe considerations such as lactate threshold are well estimated based solely on heart rate, and easy days really should be run at this low heart rate even if it forces walking. Bor-ing! Clearly temperature changes the relative load on the various systems (leg muscles, cardio, lungs). It reminds me of the little running I did in the mountains of New Mexico: I ran as hard as my lungs would let me, but my legs has a lactic acid jones on all week. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter. Ideas? Dave

To me there are 3 basic levels I train at: First, 4 times a week for 0:40 to 1:30 I run or cycle at moderate intensity. For me this is HR 135-150 (my max HR is about 190 for running and 185 for cycling). This is for aerobic base conditioning – training the heart-lung and basic circulatory system and teaching the body to efficiently feed the muscles while exercising. My intensity for these efforts is based on feel and the response I’m getting from my HR. If my HR responds quickly and I feel fresh, I go a bit harder (closer to 150), except for the long run or bike when I hold back a little. Second, two days a week I like to do either active rest or full rest. Active rest would be about HR 115 to 130, and can be easy cycling, incline treadmill walk, or a slow jog. The main benefit of active rest is to assist recover by getting some circulation through the body without stressing it. Usually the body is much happier if you don’t take a full day off but do something because its so used to it, and it helps you recover. Third, would be a speedwork day, which is aimed at making you faster with better endurance for racing. The intensity of this effort depends on your lactate threshold (LT). Basically your LT is the highest consistent effort level you can sustain for about one hour, and it will vary as you train it or stop training it. The goal is to find your current LT and then train at it or slightly above it with intervals, tempo runs, or fartlek workouts. Some weeks I will do more than one day with LT like efforts, but that’s usually unintentional when I’m bike riding up a very steep hill or something. LT work, like max HR is sport and muscle specific (so my biking LT work only carries over some to running). You won’t get much faster without LT work, and you won’t get much faster working hard but below your LT either. That is, its very possible to run hard with virtually no more benefit than running at your aerobic pace, while doing a great deal of muscle damage to your legs in the process. For example, my current running LT is about HR 165, and what I consider (based on feel and experience) to be my optimal aerobic training pace is HR 145. If I train at HR 150-160, it wears my legs out but does very little to make me faster because its not quite high enough to actually push up my LT. I call this the junk zone and avoid it whenever possible. There are many ways to do LT training, and some do slightly more intense training called VO2max intervals as well. In the past I’ve done LT intervals of 4-5 mins at 100 to 103% of current LT, with about 2 mins rests, repeated from 3 to 6 times depending on my ability that day. Some prefer slightly longer intervals. I also like the fartlek run because its more creative and fun. You speed up and slow down with some long sustained efforts and some rest in between. When I’m doing fartlek, I make sure my HR rises above the junk zone into the LT zone during the efforts. There are so many ways to do speedwork you have to find what works for you. Usually my LT will rise from about where it is now (165) to the mid to upper 170s after a couple of months of speed training. To estimate your current LT, you can simply record your avg HR during a 10k race in which you’re going as hard as you can for the distance. If your time is 50+ mins then the avg HR during the race is likely very close to your LT. If your time is less than that, then your LT might be slightly lower than your avg HR during the race. For a 5k race usually your avg HR will be higher than your LT by a bit more than a 10k because a 5k is more anaerobic, but it can still give you an idea. For me, I measure it during interval training. I do at least 4 efforts at what I guess is my LT and then "read" my recovery between sets, my ability to reach the same HR on the next set, and my ability to recover over the next few days. I make note then adjust my target. After only 6 sessions you should see your LT and your speed improve. Of course there are many other ways to find your LT. Good luck and stay out of the junk zone. – Tony

Response:

Gang, Over the past 10 years or so I’ve been in a happy rut of training at about the same effort most of the time and racing at about the same pace. I finally have a bit more time to train, so I’m attempting to be more scientific about adding miles and maybe finally getting one of those coveted Peach Tree mugs and possibly a Boston qualifier. My previous base pattern was to run about 2-4 times per week, once or twice for 2.5 miles and the remainder 5-7 miles. My estimated max heart rate is between 190 and 195 based on self-performed max effort tests. I’m in my mid 40s. When preparing for a 10K I’ll up the mileage and do intervals once a week or so. Preparing for a marathon I’ll do more miles (rarely more than 25/week) and do long runs ramping up to 22 miles or so 3 weeks before. I’m a huge believer in tapering, preferring to run hard one week before a race and then not all until the race. At my low mileage, time off seems to help a lot before a big event. I partially make up for the insufficient mileage by having enough sense to cut back during a race if my goal becomes unreasonable and just be happy to finish. My 10K PB is 43:53 and for the marathon it’s just under 4:00 (8:58 pace). My current focus is to get my marathon pace down to 8:00 for a Boston qualifier, if not by this December then by next year. Up to now, I figured that since I had so many days off it made sense to do all my runs fairly hard. Now that I’m running more often I’ve been keeping the easy days (all but 2/week) to 2.5 or 5 miles or so at approx 145 BPM, or about 9:00 pace. It seemed almost silly to go this slowly at first, but it certainly is easier on my joints and is pleasant enough, so I have been doing this for a few months. Now that it’s getting hot, however, it’s about impossible to keep running at this low HR. I decided to see what an easy pace, equivanent to 145BPM and about 9:00 per mile at 65 degrees, translates to at 80 degrees. The answer seems to be 150 ramping up to 160 by the end. This is slightly slower than my cool weather pace but feels like about the same effort, both during and after the run. Now I understand that heat puts extra burden on the cardio system and leads to increased heart rate for similar effort. I am also sure that heat doesn’t raise the max heart rate, it just imposes a sort of overhead burden. My question is: what is an approprate training level for easy days? This leads to the question: what is the point of easy days? My guess is that easy days let you get some miles on the legs (do SOME new muscle damage), while simultaneously allowing damage from recent hard training to heal without undully stressing the other systems. On the other hand, maybe considerations such as lactate threshold are well estimated based solely on heart rate, and easy days really should be run at this low heart rate even if it forces walking. Bor-ing! Clearly temperature changes the relative load on the various systems (leg muscles, cardio, lungs). It reminds me of the little running I did in the mountains of New Mexico: I ran as hard as my lungs would let me, but my legs has a lactic acid jones on all week. My inclination is to let my heart rate creep up on the easy days, letting the days be just as easy on my legs but maybe into the next HR zone. I’m interested in opinions on the matter. Ideas? Dave

Response:

Are we getting soft or what?

admin — Tue, 11 May 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Dan, nothing’s ‘gone wrong’ with running. Things ‘went wrong’ with society. Chronological progress and progress in humanity aren’t always the same thing.

Truer words were never writ. How many centuries after the fall of Rome did it take until cities had running water and sewage systems? Social commentators are now beginning to mumble that we may have wandered up something of a blind alley since the ’60’s in terms of genuine social and personal development. A re-interpretation – not a return – to some of the social values of discipline, hard work, real competition, self denial, and an appreciation of the importance of community are being proposed by some of the forward-looking social anthropologists working in both the US and Europe.

Most of the serious runners I know and knew are very hard workers outside of running. Most are quite wealthy, run successful businesses, or have advanced degrees in the hard stuff (math, engineering, medicine). Success is the residue of hard work. The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one indicator of our skewed social values. After all, isn’t everyone’s a winner? So why bother to try and win?

Running is cruel — one is forced, in the crucible, to face up to one’s own limitations. Yet it also teaches us that we can, to some extent, neutralize natural advantages through hard work and sacrifice. –Dan

Response:

That mirrors my own experiences. In fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of one running contemporary from my youth that hasn’t led a fairly successful professional life. Running is cruel — one is forced, in the crucible, to face up to one’s own limitations.

And therein lies the rub. How popular is that attitude with the 20-30 y-olds of today? Goddamn it! I’m beginning to sound like my father:-) Yet it also teaches us that we can, to some extent, neutralize natural advantages through hard work and sacrifice.

Yeah, but these lessons are wasted on many. Perhaps these ‘natural competitors’ were drawn to running in years gone by. Maybe they’re all snow or skateboarding now, who knows? One thing’s for sure, they aren’t packing the startlines in races in Europe and the US. Emily.

Response:

I’m not a great fan of using wet cotton for cooling. It irritates my skin and gets heavy. I consider it bearable (I mean, people did run before coolmax, right ?) but hardly ideal. I find cotton OK for cooler conditions. My favourite natural fabric is wool (comfortable, and handles moisture nicely). Technology provides some degree of convenience and some degree of entertainment value. Technical attire is ultimately just another piece of technology — convenient, pretty, but not essential. Now that I can afford it, I’m happy to own fancy running clothes, but in my days as a college student, I just went with cheap cotton clothing and it didn’t seem to hurt my running performances or my enjoyment of running. I suppose that to someone whose running career predates personal computers, consumer GPS, and technical fabrics, this fascination (even obsession) with technology probably seems quite ridiculous. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

What gives?

flabby americans. – k i t z – "yeah, she wakes me up in the middle of the night just to tell me everything will be alright…" http://spinning_plates.tripod.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really? Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published. I know Roger is a troll, but is there any truth to this statement? I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer.

That’s my understanding also. I’ve gotten the impression that cotton is used in hot desert races (eg Badwater) for exactly the reasons people don’t use it for winter wear. While I don’t run in those temps and haven’t actually seen scientific studies, the people that describe clothes (several different on-line groups, not necessarily running) to wear usually go with cotton. Whether they’re all shootin’ the breeze or not, I don’t know, but the logic makes sense. Wet cotton (from sweat or water poured on you) cools you. Might be some other side effects of wet cotton like chafing, but that’s something else. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

There are more marathoners, and paradoxically, fewer fast runners.

In fact there are more casual joggers and fewer fast runners. There are more people than ever who do casual running for fitness, but very few who are willing to put in serious training for competition. I finish in the top 1-2% of most local races, but I was not that high up in elementary/high school races. That suggests to me that most of the really gifted athletes do not take up competitive running. Also, the marathon boom possibly pushes a lot of people into the stresses of marathon training before it’s in their interests to pursue it. Club or college competition schedules may pressure runners to race all the time instead of shooting for a few key goal races. The result of this could be that lower level competitive runners don’t get in very good training. Also, while most people at least put a reasonable effort into marathon training, few train nearly as hard or carefully for middle distance races. The common mindset is that a marathon performance takes 6 months of preparation while the middle distance performance only involves basic maintenance training. I think this is in part due to the misguided (IMO) hype surrounding marathons. [snip] I did train very diligently–95 mile weeks, with typically 2 speedwork sessions and a 5k-10k race on Saturday and a hilly 20 miler on Sunday. No one who posts his workouts on this list (excepting Andy, who’s sub 2:30) trains with this combination of volume and intensity.

Keep in mind that most of us aren’t as fast as you were. Karen ("joe positive") frequently runs 70 mile weeks, at 8-9 minutes/mile or slower. That’s a lot of time on the road — same duration as 80-95mpw at 6:40 pace. I ran several 60 mile weeks and a 70 last cycle (most of this at about 7:30 pace) — and I was training for middle distances (my first half marathon was in March). Any week under 60 (except the peak phase) included 2hrs+ cross training. Most of this was at about 7:30 pace so in terms of road time I consider this half-respectable volume for someone who’s primarily interested in 1 mile to 10k times. I don’t do 20 milers, I don’t think they’re relevant to my training goals at the moment. I was doing 3 speed workouts a week in the hard phase of my cycle. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Re: Are we getting soft or what?

Not me, I take Viagra.

Response:

I know Roger is a troll

No, dear Matthew, I’m not. At least, not in the accepted sense of the word on Usenet. I simply prefer to use interesting or amusing ways of getting my message across – ones where you have to think rather that just read. but is there any truth to this statement?

Yes, there is. I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer.

As I recall – and it really is dredging a dark, dark, place in my memory – cotton improved body cooling quite significantly by retaining some moisture (sweat) within the fabric (Yeah, I know, it’s the exact opposite of what ‘Coolmax’ manufacturers claim for their product). This enabled the body to have a ’second chance’ to evaporate the sweat – and thus further reduce skin temperature. When you think about it, it makes sense. As moisture evaporates from the surface of our skin it cools us once. If the evaporated moisture is partially retained within the cotton fabric and flaps back onto our skin a second or third time the cooling effect should be increased. Of course, radiated heat is also trapped by this wet fabric layer so the cooling effect may be mitigated somewhat but, as long as the cotton top was left open at the bottom and loose at the neck, sufficient airflow permitted the radiated heat to escape. No need to thank me. Glad I could help. Emily.

Response:

‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really? Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published.

I know Roger is a troll, but is there any truth to this statement? I have anecdotal evidence (the experiment of one) to suggest that cotton is preferable at least in the high desert summer. Matthew

Response:

Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and he may be partially correct.

He may be completely correct. He usually is. Look at out own Andy. Let’s assume he has the talent and not just a better than average runner. He gets married foregoes having children, put his education on hold, put off getting a job and she supports support him for NO years while he strives for a few years of possible money. This is the type of decision runners have to make. Maybe I’m in the morality depraved group but that is one sucky future.

A ’sucky’ future? One when you have the opportunity to find your limits? Where you can – for probably the only time in your whole life – give *everything* you’ve got in pursuit of a dream? Where you KNOW your wife supports you wholeheartedly? Where you step aside from the rat race in favour of a real race? Many moons ago I made a similar choice. Unfortunately, I lacked innate ability, yet I NEVER regretted the decision to try. How else would I have known what I could (or, more accurately, couldn’t) achieve? Running has the same popularity as 9 inch black and while television is a sports bar or flat chested woman in Hooters.

D’ya know, the inhabitants of ’sports bars’ are probably immune to the educational or informative effect that ANY sort of TV could provide, and flat-chested wimmin can still rock your world – trust me on this. Caroline. Flat-chested, but one hot babe.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (…) ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time: 2:31 3.) The numbers possibly reflect the same trend that has been observed in Finland: while marathon gains in popularity, the "quality" marathoners become fewer _in absolute numbers_. For instance, in 1981 there were (IIRC) 500 sub-3 runners out of 5.000 marathoners – and in 2003 300 out of 11.000! It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then, were there more guys who _wanted_ to go sub-3, are the guys who *could* do it now involved in other sports or not seriously involved at all, were the guys so much tougher then, have the younger guys have had it all handed to them which has made them too soft or is it that the damands of the workplace are so much larger now etc etc?:-)

Roger thinks the running is due to some morality drop and he may be partially correct. We are a materialist society and serious running provides nearly zero financial rewards. Why only run when you can combine running with some other sport and like baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc. and have a future. A future that provides personal accomplishments and food on the table at the same time. Running is growing with people looking for healthy lifestyles. Health is long way from speed. Serious running, at least in the USA, is dead, like it or not and I see nothing for the future. Look at out own Andy. Let’s assume he has the talent and not just a better than average runner. He gets married foregoes having children, put his education on hold, put off getting a job and she supports support him for NO years while he strives for a few years of possible money. This is the type of decision runners have to make. Maybe I’m in the morality depraved group but that is one sucky future. Running has the same popularity as 9 inch black and while television is a sports bar or flat chested woman in Hooters. — Doug Freese (Remove the NOBS)

Response:

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run and train.

Macelroy, we are kindred spirits, you and I. We troll from a deep sense of despair at the pit into which our beloved sport has fallen. In your usual obtuse way, you make complete sense. IIRC, there was one fat child in my year at High School. His name was Neil Manuel. He was tormented so cruelly that – whatever delight was on offer in the dining hall – the rest of us only had to look at the humiliation endured by Neil for our greed to disappear. Somewhere over the past twenty years, that perspective changed. It became ‘ok’ to be tubby and to avoid sports. Fat was no longer viewed as ‘lazy’ or ‘incompetent’. Fat became what it is today – an acceptable lifestyle choice. I also find myself in complete agreement with your outlook on ‘running gurus’. With the possible exception of Fixx – who managed to convey a genuine affection for running – most authors of running literature are either compete numpties or ex-marathoners out to cash in on a ‘marathoners lifestyle manual’. They are cynically written to exploit the gullibility of the newbie who then has the greatest of difficulty in moving away from this trivia towards a deeper understanding of real athletic competition. Hi, Oz. Even those who simply run for enjoyment find themselves sucked into the commercial hype surrounding our sport. NO – and I repeat – NO magazine provides unbiased advice on running shoes. The only way you’ll get that is by talking to shoe company reps or trade insiders. ‘Coolmax’ and similar fabrics are hyped as ideal summer wear. Really? Does cotton not actually do a better job of keeping you cool at temps of between 20C-35C? (This was illustrated in a study performed in 1997 by one major clothing company but not published. Why? They make fat profits of their ‘Coolmax’ range and see no reason to upset the apple cart.) Dan, nothing’s ‘gone wrong’ with running. Things ‘went wrong’ with society. Chronological progress and progress in humanity aren’t always the same thing. Social commentators are now beginning to mumble that we may have wandered up something of a blind alley since the ’60’s in terms of genuine social and personal development. A re-interpretation – not a return – to some of the social values of discipline, hard work, real competition, self denial, and an appreciation of the importance of community are being proposed by some of the forward-looking social anthropologists working in both the US and Europe. The decline in the quality of running fields is merely one indicator of our skewed social values. After all, isn’t everyone’s a winner? So why bother to try and win? Caroline.

Response:

It is a subject of debate and a small mystery why this is so: were there more 25-39-year old men then,

that would be about the right age for baby boomers wouldn’t it?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The winning time in 2003 for Humboldt Redwoods was 3:01! It was 2:27 in ‘81 with 4 people running 2:31 or better. What’s changed at Humboldt that it’s size has shrunk in half as well as seemingly slow times? 3:01 wouldn’t win a marathon with almost 4k elevation change mostly on trails up here (about 1/3 road). Maybe all the tough guys moved north!

Suspect they might be running elsewhere in the redwoods on Oct 10, the week before Humboldt this year. (hadn’t read my ultra digest earlier) http://www.redwoodtrails.com/bizz/index.html Not sure how old this race is or whether this might historically be around the same time, but I know which I’d go for trails vs road in redwoods. no brainer. That’s not to say the fast guys would go there for that reason, but it sure looks like they’re going there (Scott Jurek, Chirs Zieman). Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners, the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so that the few fast runners are spread amongst more marathons.

Dilution makes sense to me, yoo. Sort of like the ballooning of ERA’s in baseball as the leagues have greatly expanded? The number of folks who can pitch at 90+ mph is much more limited than the number who can swing the lumber.

Response:

Wrong. The reason runners are running slower today is because people EAT MORE and eat a lot more fatty foods. Therefore, when they weigh more they have gravity holding them back. Then if you asked them to go on a diet, they think they are going to die if they miss just one meal. 90 out of every 100 runners I see today is overweight. That was not the case at all in the 60s and 70s. Secondly, you have all these self-proclaimed brainless idiot gurus out there preaching to people how to run and train. So what you get are these writers who have taken up jogging for a year or two and then write a book about it thinking that they are world experts and really know all there is to know about running. And then all you blind jerks in this group and every do nothing but follow the deaf, dumb, blind and ignorant. You all would make perfect parrots. And you ask why people can’t run today? It’s no wonder. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read the post about the Big Sur marathon, and looked at the results web page. Hmm, 2863 finishers, but the top times seemed pretty slow for such a large race. So I looked at the results of the Humboldt Redwoods marathon, circa 1981, when I ran a 2:42 (crashed and burned at mile 20), and came in 14th. There were 398 finishers. Here are some stats: ‘04 Big sur under 2:50: .002% 8 runners out of 2863 ‘81 Humboldt < 2:50: 5% 21 runners out of 398 ‘04 Big Sur under 3:00 .006% 19/2863 ‘81 Humbolde < 3:00 12% 21/398 ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time: 2:31 What gives? –Dan Dan, this has been going on for a while. Every year just about every running website and magazine laments the dearth of American men running sub 2:20. I am guessing that in addition to fewer fast runners, the number of marathons has increased since 1981 (I have only a guess since I have never seen stats) so that the few fast runners are spread amongst more marathons. It would be better to me to compare the times of the same marathon since courses can make a difference (albeit 30 minutes in this case is a big difference). You might be surprised that some marathons are probably faster (like Chicago for instance!).

Response:

(…) ‘04 Big Sur top 1% time: 3:03 ‘81 Humboldt top 1% time: 2:31 What gives?

1) There are more "semi-major" marathons now, but the number of "semi-elite" marathoners is the same or smaller – as a result you

Running vs biking up hill

admin — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I posted a query over on r.b.m, as you suggested.

rec.bicycles.racing has the same thread, as someone noted, and the following link provided there is of interest: http://tinyurl.com/34jml This view seems to indicate that a slope of 30 – 35% would be the critical point. Are there longish stretches of such (paved) road in existence? 30% I can almost imagine; beyond that, this seems like it might more or less be in the range of a hypothetical only.

Response:

I did follow it then posted back here since I wasn’t seeing too much

30 hits on the rbm thread now. Some interesting insights.

Response:

I myself rode my bike more then anyone and posted it on rec runner. picking up 10 cent cans to live and eat near 19 month all seasons. and in my own human opinion. Now I am saying sports human.. I learn that people tend to lie allot. Lie last week on the new. The gov of texan and like 650 best of the best bike riders rode from houston to Dallas. or other way. 120 miles. and the news here shows a start of race. al nice bike riding attire, and racer bikes. the best. and this man with white white and all the all said and the governor came in 11th place of all of them and I (he) all brag like. was 12 right with him to safe all the way……These guys look like they came out of a all you can live for free 2 week vacation…….man I talk to my 19 year old boy who said before this he did 36 miles once. and for 4 days his legs were sore and hard. I post heed and hurt my back doing 192 miles in 2 weeks. I jump the 10 % week increases. and a back pack for cans. am I not race. sure I was doing over a 100 mile a week and did a 30 miler and was sora. hurt ba ad sleep 14 hours. and these guys do 10 miles add look better then when they started the race. hair looking clean, no strain on face. no sore bodes…. and I think to my self. I don’t evan know who the governor of Texas is. Is this a lie. who already put near 800 miles in this year on a bike and every were I look I anno find one other person who say what they train….. on a bike. no were I have found. an the new guy look a me from a preview well I am not the best. this is why I live on 10 cent can. and they make millions for what they do. I never once got a thank you. well Bill aid f me me a holystone times…..:)lol. and 3 virus whichever shu downy x for9 month. NO Harpy superwoman throne. and threats and attacks by cousins. sue 3 times one time wasn’t true. Footballs for $1,000 times many. threaten r pleated. audited twice by so all and all. sen around local area for none real jobs. price a door allot. stop 1 or2 times awake by police, threaten on phone may times. claim barnstorming alto times. and evan bomb threat many times. tool stolen many times too. but to date I A Unthinking 1 penne argumentative too me. runners win. because I don’t run… God speed all rr. Do I think a runner win. I think then it was I should of not. if I was right it was left, so up was right, no left was. thenwere? Thehill. No theni was yes. Why because i waen[t. I know this. it takes me 16 month to get to a 100 miles a week. but I am not the best. I see the best. they work I don't, I do 30 miles and die. THey do 12o miles and have a inerview on t.v. with no tired, pain an earn another 100 grand. for haveing a say. nd I get a billed I owe. an I WAKE up. and ride for 10 cent cans an no get paid. because I am. what do you think is a lie. Hell them best can jump over the moon. try a common person an see.

Response:

But let's take a straight gravel road (probably true for paved roads too but I don't have a feeling for necessary slopes for them) and a stock bike (normal low gearing, not a special rig). I'm sure it would depend on the distance and how the start is, but I'm still certain a runner could go faster than a bike - probably in the 20-30% slope range although maybe more - at least for hard packed gravel (or pavement). I was all set to agree with you until you added those last two words: "or pavement." In fact, but for those two words I had said as much in my earlier post -- that on dirt or trails, it is absolutely the case that running is faster under a number of different conditions.

I think what's happening is 3 questions are being addressed, but not clearly separated. (this includes my reply to other post since I'm too tired to do 2 posts - too much rest-of-life at moment). 1. The original OP asked So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

There were no stated conditions of pavement or max slope that I saw - and no distance specified. So I replied that, yea, around 20+% on dirt (not sure how much above 20%), a runner could beat a cyclist since most people (admittedly not world class) stall out somewhere in there. With world class athletes it will probably happen on a steeper slope, but I know that elite mtn runners can run on at least 40-45% slopes. And people seem to agree on this. 2. I could be wrong but I have a feeling you may have interpreted the question in terms of paved roads and the max slopes that exist there. Yes, I would agree that a cyclist would probably beat a runner - at least on the paved roads I've seen since they tend to be less than 20% and traction is less of an issue. And I think everybody agrees on this. 3. In my attempt to explain my viewpoint, I introduced the concept of pavement that might be steeper than existing roads (and why I thought I had phrased it hypothetically with regard to the pavement, since I don't really know) - say 40% or more - and suggested that the same idea as in #1 existed. Namely it gets too steep to maintain forward motion on a bike. My gut feeling is that even on pavement, the cyclist is going to be bailing before the runner, but I could be wrong. The slopes will be more similar for pavement than for dirt, for sure. Both will bail before it's 90 deg (200%, vertical wall) - unless one is Spiderman Actually, based on some of my field experiences with measured slopes, I would expect it to happen before 80-100%. Whoever can maintain forward motion after the other has bailed can obviously go faster and wins the race of unspecified distance. If it's a race of a couple miles or more, then I don't know. The reason I used gravel or hard-packed dirt is they eliminate a lot of the issues of regular dirt trails, but may actually exist in steep enough slopes where a runner would be faster than a biker. Our hard-packed gravel isn't that different from our pavement if that says something about our pavement I'm not sure that existing paved roads are steep enough for the runner to be faster than cyclist. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested. Check it out... --Dan - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - In a quick search, I wasn't able to find any information on slopes that bikers ride. I could be wrong in my thought process, but I'd need to be shown numbers since it's counter-intuitive to real life.

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested. Check it out... --Dan

The OP also posted to RBR (rec.bicycles.racing) if you are interested. Matthew

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested. Check it out...

THanks. I did follow it then posted back here since I wasn't seeing too much (also don't like posting in a ng unless I've lurked a couple weeks) - other than the Shimano comment (low gear design is where it's more efficient to run than bike), which made sense. But this older thread that was referred to in r.b.r seems to have more discussion (read other parts of the thread, but I didn't read it all). I suspect it's a recurring theme in that ng, much like some of our threads. http://tinyurl.com/34jml Even the cyclists seem to think it's faster to run than bike on a steep enough hill, which may be somewhere between 12% (Mt. Washington data) and 3x%. But it depends on the distance. This is why people dismount and run sometimes. The OP also posted to RBR (rec.bicycles.racing) if you are interested.

Thanks. This thread had some interesting discussion with links to some good information - including an old discussion on r.b.m. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

I was all set to agree with you until you added those last two words: "or pavement." In fact, but for those two words I had said as much in my earlier post -- that on dirt or trails, it is absolutely the case that running is faster under a number of different conditions. The distinction between dirt and pavement is about more than the obstacles, the unevenness encountered, and the need for acceleration/deceleration for stops and starts -- all of which change the picture from pavement dramatically in and of themselves -- it is also about the huge loss of traction when going to a crumbly tire-to-path interface. The effect of increasing slope when you are offroad is tremendous as to lost traction alone. One point that might make this clear is that I used to deliberately try to ride such steep PAVED interfaces that I would sometimes "spin out" my rear tire in a 40" gear on pavement, and have to pedal deliberately as slowly as I could and still stay up on the bike. The answer to that dilemma has been solved by the newer much more weakling-friendly gear ratio options. If this is a potential problem on pavement, then how much the more so on dirt? The net force pointing perpendicular at the road from your rear hub surface gets weaker and weaker as the slope increases, because the gravitational vector gets farther and farther away from that line.

Response:

Even the cyclists seem to think it's faster to run than bike on a steep enough hill, which may be somewhere between 12% (Mt. Washington data) and 3x%. But it depends on the distance. This is why people dismount and run sometimes.

Nobody dismounts and runs on pavement. Well, okay, I have seen people way out of their league get off and walk their bikes up hills when they have bit off more than they can chew, but this is not "because it's faster"-- it's because they are not up to the challenge of biking the hill, and walking is the only way they are going to get up to the crest! In thousands and thousands of road miles, I have NEVER, repeat NEVER, found a stretch of paved road where I would have to get off and walk because of the incline. Bear in mind, too, that the cyclist has the option of weaving side to side (as many do) if the incline gets to be too much. This is certainly within the rules of bike racing (though you don't see it much in that environment, for sure), and it is also typical for cyclists to select their gearing for the anticipated terrain of a particular stage or race.

Response:

At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker Appreciate your comments and insight, Dot. This example introduces a new variable, however -- maneuverability -- which a staright-up-the-road hypothetical did not include. I would in many instances expect that it would be more efficient to travel on foot than on bike if you are on trails; all the more so if the trails are rough and meandering, or call for the MTB'ers to dismount and carry their cycles for stretches.

True, most of the tough climbs end up with people carrying their bikes. The OP didn't specify a distance, type of start, or surface. But let's take a straight gravel road (probably true for paved roads too but I don't have a feeling for necessary slopes for them) and a stock bike (normal low gearing, not a special rig). I'm sure it would depend on the distance and how the start is, but I'm still certain a runner could go faster than a bike - probably in the 20-30% slope range although maybe more - at least for hard packed gravel (or pavement). I agree that on an 11% mentioned on r.b.misc, a biker would win, but the question was how steep does the hill have to be before the runner would win. 11% is much shallower than anything I would have suggested. [You might try alt.mountain-bike although they'd probably complain about the smooth surface and no obstacles to jump ] To see this, take a slope that is just beyond rideable, then back it down a notch so it is rideable. At least with me, at that point just before I stall out, I’m moving so slowly, I could run at least that fast and probably not be anywhere near LT. Wind resistance from speed is not an issue. I’m sure with world class athletes, it would be somewhat different, esp. for the speeds and slope, but I think the basic concept would hold true. I think a cyclist will stall out before a mtn runner. For what it’s worth, mountain runners are still running at 30% slopes and more – although it depends on length of hills whether they run or include some walking in that. Normal runners do repeats on 30% slopes and some treadmills go up to 30% or more slopes. 20% slopes would probably be run the whole way. Yea, they’d be walked in an ultra for sure, but in a competitive mtn running race, elite men would be charging up those slopes (women and jr men didn’t have the strength). One of the papers I posted last year referred to submaximal efforts by elites running on 45% slopes (treadmill). Actually, some elites couldn’t do this at submaximal levels. In a quick search, I wasn’t able to find any information on slopes that bikers ride. I could be wrong in my thought process, but I’d need to be shown numbers since it’s counter-intuitive to real life. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep

enough slope? Assuming the slope is NOT so steep as to be unrideable, and assuming lots of other things such as negligible headwind, etc., no. The lightest a cycle can be and still be legal for competition is 15 lbs. Many people ride better bikes in the 20-25 lb. range. If you use a 20-lb. bike and a 160-lb. man, this is roughly a 1/8 weight disadvantage you are giving the cyclist (12-1/2 %). However, the "efficiency" advantage of the bike is far greater than that 12-1/2%. For example, the "hour record" for cycling is about 31 miles. In running, it is more or less a half-marathon (WR = 59:17) or about 13.1 miles or so. The 24-hour record for cycling I think is still 539 miles (for 24-hour running I think it’s about 151 miles?). The cycling advantage would be FAR greater if not for the fact that air resistance becomes severe as the velocity goes up. The hour record on a track bike following a motorized drafting cycle is a huge number that slips my mind, and just for further example, the max sustained speed record for a bicycle is 152 mph (drafting a motor vehicle)! I used to test your theory (sort of) when I bicycled the outrageous street hills of Berkeley, California. My bike at the time had a low gear of 40" (42-28, 27" tires), and I found a hill of about a half mile (I seem to recall) which had just an outrageous slope. If you drove it in your car, you feared flipping over backwards off the hill. I wish I could recall for sure, but it may have been named Marin Street or something like that (I’ll have to go back). I was very strong in the legs, fit, in my early 20’s, and riding about a 22 pound bike. This hill was so bad that it was a challenge to stay up without having to plant my feet, but I eventually learned to go from bottom to top straight up — not doing the weave you see so many people use for hills — Even under these conditions, I was going faster than I could have walked/run up the hill. I think that the relative inefficiency of running would have been exacerbated by the outrageous slope. Interestingly, I do not really think the inefficiency of the cycling is hurt much by the slope, assuming a gear low enough to turn the rear wheel. These days, with triple chainrings and 10-cog rear cassettes, taking such a hill might even be something you could accomplish sitting on your saddle!

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep enough slope?

absolutely – assuming not limited to paved roads (but I don’t have a feeling for roads so may be true there also). Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

Not sure about world class, but for local runners and mt bikers, somewhere around 20%+ on dirt will probably do it and probably depends on surface condition (mud, snow) and equivalent skills / training of the two. (biking requires more skill) [FWIW, I've been calling that particular trail system 10-20% slope. While perusing a trail guide book the other night, I stumbled across a section indicating that short pitches were above 35 *degrees* (which I can believe for very short pitches). But I'm basing my comment on the assumption that most of the hills are somewhere near 20%, maybe a little steeper.] On the hills on trails that are shallow enough that I can bike them (that is I stay off the ones that want to throw my front wheel up – until I’ve got more skill, maybe forever), I run and bike the same distance in about the same time if slightly muddy. And the running was sooo much easier – no LT needed to crest the hills. At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker (just had one biker leading the pack), and the mt biker (my GP was experienced and rides that trail system a lot. The winning run time was about 17+, iirc. Some runners doing marathon training on the same course (gravel road, different from my local course) as a duathlon a couple years ago were alternately passing mt bikers on the uphill and being passed on downhill. Most of those were less than 20%. And generally, we don’t see mt bikes on the long 30%+ hills so there’s no comparison (although may not be legal on the mtn trails). Some might suggest that if a runner can’t beat a mt biker on a hill, then it’s not a hill And if talking long distance like Iditarod Trail Invitational, the runner sometimes wins if conditions are really cruddy for bikes and skiing. So much depens on the surface involved. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker

Appreciate your comments and insight, Dot. This example introduces a new variable, however — maneuverability — which a staright-up-the-road hypothetical did not include. I would in many instances expect that it would be more efficient to travel on foot than on bike if you are on trails; all the more so if the trails are rough and meandering, or call for the MTB’ers to dismount and carry their cycles for stretches.

Response:

Just wondering

If you really want a fun discussion of all points of view, you may wish to post this same inquiry also to rec.bicycles.misc. That’s a fairly lively crew and a newsgroup that’s even more active than rec.running.

Response:

James: I’ve been interested in this one, too, having passed many a mtn biker on uphill grinds. I posted a query over on r.b.m, as you suggested. –Dan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just wondering If you really want a fun discussion of all points of view, you may wish to post this same inquiry also to rec.bicycles.misc. That’s a fairly lively crew and a newsgroup that’s even more active than rec.running.

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep enough slope? Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win. Just wondering Steve Gerdemann

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclist’s time on a steep enough slope? Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

I think there is no chance. FWIW, relatively speaking L’Alpe d’Huez is not that steep. Its mystique comes largely from its typical placement at the end of a grueling stage. Of course any elite distance runner could beat *my* cycling time over this hill I just called "not that steep." I am only talking of steep as paved roads go. Dot and the other trail runners are sure to chime in on the "real" hills regularly found on their training grounds. ISTR discussion that walking is more efficient than running on these grades. Matthew

Response:

clothing in cold weather

admin — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I took up runnning last year but quit when it became too cold. Lost about 12-15lbs in 5-6 weeks. I’ve been running 5-8KM (3-5 miles) As soon as the weather warms up to 8-10 degrees C (45-50 deg F), I’d like to get back to running. What do I wear? Any tips on what clothing is appropriate? (i have checked the FAQ but see next question). Are shorts really okay at that temperature. I do find I sweat quite a bit and its my neck that I am worried about. It becomes very wet with perspiration. I’m afraid that my body termperature will go down too much and of catching a cold or something. What’s the best way to combat excess persperation? I mean, a lot of perspiration is expected, I just don’t want my body temperature to drop too low. Thanks!

Response:

I took up runnning last year but quit when it became too cold. Lost

You’re living in the North Pole, right ? (-; about 12-15lbs in 5-6 weeks. I’ve been running 5-8KM (3-5 miles) As soon as the weather warms up to 8-10 degrees C (45-50 deg F), I’d like to get back to running. What do I wear? Any tips on what clothing is appropriate? (i have checked the FAQ but see next question). Are shorts really okay at that temperature.

Shorts are fine above 40. I’d go with a lightweight synthetic long sleeve top in the 40-50 range. I do find I sweat quite a bit

What kind of clothing are you wearing ? You should stay pretty dry in that temperature range — it’s a sweat spot where it’s warm enough that you don’t need to wear too much but cool enough that you don’t (or shouldn’t) overheat. Maybe you’re dressing too warm ? and its my neck that I am worried about. It becomes very wet with perspiration. I’m afraid that my body termperature will go down too much

Unlikely. At worst, you’ll suffer minor discomfort. You shouldn’t need to cover your neck at that temp, so the sweat will evaporate unless humidity is very high. and of catching a cold or something.

Catching a cold doesn’t have anything to do with feeling cold. What’s the best way to combat excess persperation? I

Wear appropriate clothing — this reduces the chances of excess perspiration in the first place, and also increases the chances that when you sweat, it will evaporate. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

+10C to +5C — Shorts and a lightweight long sleeve shirt

You forgot to mention that the OP should google ‘ITB syndrome cures’, ’cause that’s what they’ll need if they follow your advice and prance around in shorts below c.7C.

Response:

The general guideline I’ve heard is to dress as though it were 20 degrees warmer than actual temperature. This doesn’t work for everyone, but it’s a reasonable place to start (My tolerance seems to be something more like +25). If you’re going to buy one piece of cooler-weather running wear, let it be a long-sleeved wicking t-shirt: perfectly serviceable ones can usually be had at WalMart for 10-15 dollars. Much better than cotton, especially in cooler temps.

Response:

Dress yourself as you would if it were 20F (11C) degrees warmer and you were going out for normal activity. For example, if it’s 45F (7C) and you want to get dressed for a run, dress as if it were 65F (18C) and you are going outside for a stroll. However, if it is windy (more than 15 mph winds), I would add a wind proof jacket or vest. Also, check out this site: http://www.runnersworld.com/apparel/dress_form.html Just plug in the temperature, wind speed, and conditions. It will tell you what to wear. -Phil

Response:

+10C to +5C — Shorts and a lightweight long sleeve shirt You forgot to mention that the OP should google ‘ITB syndrome cures’, ’cause that’s what they’ll need if they follow your advice and prance around in shorts below c.7C.

Nonsense. I’ve been doing it for years. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "What?" she whispered, "D’you think that’ll work?"

Response:

Nonsense. I’ve been doing it for years.

Oh, well that’s that sorted. My mistake.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I took up runnning last year but quit when it became too cold. Lost You’re living in the North Pole, right ? (-; about 12-15lbs in 5-6 weeks. I’ve been running 5-8KM (3-5 miles) As soon as the weather warms up to 8-10 degrees C (45-50 deg F), I’d like to get back to running. What do I wear? Any tips on what clothing is appropriate? (i have checked the FAQ but see next question). Are shorts really okay at that temperature. Shorts are fine above 40. I’d go with a lightweight synthetic long sleeve top in the 40-50 range. I do find I sweat quite a bit What kind of clothing are you wearing ? You should stay pretty dry in that temperature range — it’s a sweat spot where it’s warm enough that you don’t need to wear too much but cool enough that you don’t (or shouldn’t) overheat. Maybe you’re dressing too warm ? and its my neck that I am worried about. It becomes very wet with perspiration. I’m afraid that my body termperature will go down too much Unlikely. At worst, you’ll suffer minor discomfort. You shouldn’t need to cover your neck at that temp, so the sweat will evaporate unless humidity is very high. and of catching a cold or something. Catching a cold doesn’t have anything to do with feeling cold. What’s the best way to combat excess persperation? I Wear appropriate clothing — this reduces the chances of excess perspiration in the first place, and also increases the chances that when you sweat, it will evaporate. Cheers,

The OP doesn’t sound like a candidate for running at all. My 7 year old would say, What a major wuss".

Response:

think that’ll work?" You forgot to mention that the OP should google ‘ITB syndrome cures’, ’cause that’s what they’ll need if they follow your advice and prance around in shorts below c.7C.

You think so? Do tell.

Response:

This might be common advice, but it’s not good advice. The problem is that your cooling requirements are different when you run. For example, your hands and ears don’t get a whole lot warmer as a result of running, but your legs and upper body do. So for example, it’s not unusual to wear shorts and gloves when running, but it’s seldom that one chooses such attire for "normal" activity. For example, if it’s 45F (7C) and you want to get dressed for a run, dress as if it were 65F (18C) and you are going outside for a stroll.

Again, the difference is that you’re much more likely to wear shorts for running. A long sleeved top combined with shorts is common running attire, but less common for normal clothing. However, if it is windy (more than 15 mph winds), I would add a wind proof jacket or vest.

You’re joking, right ? 45 degrees and you’re putting on a windproof jacket ? Ouch. That’s a severe overkill. FWIW, I wear my SportHill top with a windproof front, but only if it’s under 40 degrees. A vest with a mesh back would be a workable replacement, but a windproof jacket is a huge overkill. Over 40 and I wear a lightweight top (regardless of the wind). YMMV of course, but the conditions he’s describing simply aren’t that cold. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Why wait? Enjoy the seasons, esp. the beautiful winter wonderland, assuming you’ve got snow and not just frozen ground. What do I wear? Any tips on what clothing is appropriate? (i have checked the FAQ but see next question). Are shorts really okay at that temperature.

Many people wear shorts at those temperatures. Some wear tights or pants, esp. if leg muscles feel tight or if they run better with warmer legs. It depends on what works for you. At those temperatures, one synthetic layer is probably all you need while running. If you’re sweating at those temperatures, then you may be able to use both short-sleeve top and bottom. I do find I sweat quite a bit and its my neck that I am worried about.

Sweating is the body’s way of not overheating. If you’re sweating, you can probably run in cooler temperatures than you thought. It becomes very wet with perspiration. I’m afraid that my body termperature will go down too much and of catching a cold or something. What’s the best way to combat excess persperation?

You probably don’t want to "combat excess persperation" as this is the body’s way of maintaining core temperature and not overheating. You will *need* sweat production when the temperatures get much above 40-50F. These are actually considered close to ideal running temperatures, or a little on the warm side, by many people. You could run outside when it’s cooler with the same layers you’re using and sweating. Wicking materials can help wick the moisture away. I mean, a lot of perspiration is expected, I just don’t want my body temperature to drop too low.

As long as you’re moving and in positive energy balance and hydrated, hypothermia (body’s inability to maintain its temperature up to normal) is not too likely at 40-50F. If you’re running long (multiple hours) in cold, driving rain or if you stop and stand around wet – like after a race, then hypothermia could be a real possibility. But with 3-5 mile runs (< 1 hr) at those temperatures, it’s not likely. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

"I took up runnning last year but quit when it became too cold. Lost about 12-15lbs in 5-6 weeks. I’ve been running 5-8KM (3-5 miles) As soon as the weather warms up to 8-10 degrees C (45-50 deg F), I’d like to get back to running." Check out this website on injuries and proper attire. http://www.drpribut.com/sports/sportframe.html — R.Robinson

Response:

I would totally agree with you, but: a) people live in differing climates and get accustomed to differing temps, with corresponding comfort levels. I have (well, had) relatives in the Bahamas and I remember seeing them don old coats and hats when it dropped below 60F… thick sweaters and stuff. Even if the original poster is from a winter climate, it does not matter. Surely you can recall friends who both always seem to be complaining about the cold or are wearing no jacket in late November when everyone else is? People really are unique when it comes to environmental comfort levels. b) age accounts for a huge amount of all of this. People just can’t take the cold or the heat as well as they get older. The body becomes less efficient. And this ties into ….. ….c) speed. When I go for an 8k tempo in January at say, 20F, it’s going to take me 30 minutes or so and I will be hot and sweating profusely in my lightest tights and thin long-sleeved shirt. I could easily take my shirt off and run without one, once I’m halfway and fully warmed up. Conversely, if I go for a walk in that weather, I am cursing the bitterness and end up hailing a cab. Older people (and less fit people) simply cannot work up the sort of body heat that you may be able to, and I think you need to take that into account when making statements like the one above. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I took up runnning last year but quit when it became too cold. Lost about 12-15lbs in 5-6 weeks. I’ve been running 5-8KM (3-5 miles) As soon as the weather warms up to 8-10 degrees C (45-50 deg F), I’d like to get back to running. Why wait? Enjoy the seasons, esp. the beautiful winter wonderland, assuming you’ve got snow and not just frozen ground. What do I wear? Any tips on what clothing is appropriate? (i have checked the FAQ but see next question). Are shorts really okay at that temperature. Many people wear shorts at those temperatures. Some wear tights or pants, esp. if leg muscles feel tight or if they run better with warmer legs. It depends on what works for you. At those temperatures, one synthetic layer is probably all you need while running. If you’re sweating at those temperatures, then you may be able to use both short-sleeve top and bottom. I do find I sweat quite a bit and its my neck that I am worried about. Sweating is the body’s way of not overheating. If you’re sweating, you can probably run in cooler temperatures than you thought. It becomes very wet with perspiration. I’m afraid that my body termperature will go down too much and of catching a cold or something. What’s the best way to combat excess persperation? You probably don’t want to "combat excess persperation" as this is the body’s way of maintaining core temperature and not overheating. You will *need* sweat production when the temperatures get much above 40-50F. These are actually considered close to ideal running temperatures, or a little on the warm side, by many people. You could run outside when it’s cooler with the same layers you’re using and sweating. Wicking materials can help wick the moisture away. I mean, a lot of perspiration is expected, I just don’t want my body temperature to drop too low. As long as you’re moving and in positive energy balance and hydrated, hypothermia (body’s inability to maintain its temperature up to normal) is not too likely at 40-50F. If you’re running long (multiple hours) in cold, driving rain or if you stop and stand around wet – like after a race, then hypothermia could be a real possibility. But with 3-5 mile runs (< 1 hr) at those temperatures, it’s not likely. Dot

Let me say it a different way and I won’t come back to this thread. If a person needs to be told or has to ask others how to dress when they go out to run, the probably should stay inside. Some runners enjoy 30

rashes

admin — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

You should be fine. Recovery is quicker overall for those who are in good shape. Hubby and I biked an average of 15-20 miles a day 5 days a week before surgery. He was back biking within 6 weeks and had no incontinence except for when he had too much alcohol. — Rebecca Ford

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control. … I hope not! I just did a 10-mile running race New Year’s day in 1:20:42. Having run a total of 30 miles last week, I consider myself highly active and hope I have a quick recovery because I am in good physical shape. — Wake Age 58 PSA 3.8 Biopsy positive 5% in 1 of 10 cores Gleason 3+3 T1c RP scheduled 1/12/04

Response:

i would have just liked to know ahead of time that there was a danger of rashes developing. that could have been avoided with the proper creams and airing out. and another surprise i didn’t really need to learn after the fact. the doctor said today that it might be another two weeks before i show any improvement. time, i know and patience too. at least i go to use my new bathroom that my friends did for me as a present for surgery and took a tub for the first time. ~g

Response:

… don’t push yourself when you’ve finished the operation! Get it back slowly. You’ll be able to see the scars on your belly, but won’t see the internal injuries that have taken place. They will be there, and they’ll need some time to heal. Give yourself a chance to heal. Don’t overdo it and tear things up inside. That’s two cents from another firm believer in exercise.

That’s the same helpful message I’ve seen several times here. I’ve also read a couple of sad reports from people who pushed too hard too soon. It’s been a while since I had my appendix out, but I remember being pretty cautious during that recovery. I’m not a "type A" sort, so I can usually take it easy with no mental anguish. Bought the GoLytely yesterday – 6 days to go. — Wake Age 58 PSA 3.8 Biopsy positive 5% in 1 of 10 cores Gleason 3+3 T1c RP scheduled 1/12/04

Response:

… and another surprise i didn’t really need to learn after the fact. …

I think when you go to medical school, they train you to say: Oh, you have XXX? That’s normal. Oh, you’re in pain? That’s normal. Oh, it isn’t better yet? Give it another two weeks. I suspect some of the things that surprise us surprise them too, but they’ll never let on. After all, no sense upsetting the patient. Alan [Stop it Alan! Don't be such a darned cynic!]

Response:

I believe you will heal faster, but the Kegel has to be trained. With your obvious training ethic, I think you’ll have a much greater chance training the muscle. — Wishing you a Happy New Year Prostate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 PSA .1 .1 .1 .3 .4 .8 PSA .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 PSA .1 Lupron 7/03, 8/03, 12/03

Response:

… urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control.

… I hope not! I just did a 10-mile running race New Year’s day in 1:20:42. Having run a total of 30 miles last week, I consider myself highly active and hope I have a quick recovery because I am in good physical shape. — Wake Age 58 PSA 3.8 Biopsy positive 5% in 1 of 10 cores Gleason 3+3 T1c RP scheduled 1/12/04

Response:

Wake, I wish I could run that long or that fast, but I couldn’t have done it even before PCa, or even before getting middle aged (57) and PCa! I admire your ability. I’m finding that between the Lupron and the radiation that I’m getting (don’t know which is doing it to me), my running ability is greatly diminished. I’m able to do less than half of what I was doing this summer (4 miles at 9 min/mile was my usual run.) I hope to get it back when all this is done. I think your belief in quicker recovery is justified. –BUT– don’t push yourself when you’ve finished the operation! Get it back slowly. You’ll be able to see the scars on your belly, but won’t see the internal injuries that have taken place. They will be there, and they’ll need some time to heal. Give yourself a chance to heal. Don’t overdo it and tear things up inside. That’s two cents from another firm believer in exercise. Alan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … I just did a 10-mile running race New Year’s day in 1:20:42. Having run a total of 30 miles last week, I consider myself highly active and hope I have a quick recovery because I am in good physical shape.

Response:

Hi Heather: What has happened is that the dog has kind of rejected both of us. She will not stay in the room with us unless on the leash, and then she just sits and will not lay down. This is all after my wife’s accident (the last one…there are so many). I guess the accident traumatized the dog. Another theory is that some of the equipment that is around now is causing her distress, e.g., the wheelchair, walker, etc. Maybe her first home, where we think she was abused, had a disabled person. Who knows, but the current situation is not good for any of us. I guess it is not crazy to get an opinion from someone that specializes in aberrant animal behavior – yes/no ?? Better than the one on tv that reads animals’ minds. Do they show that one down under? Happy New Year! Thank you. David S.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Good point, David. I meant to add that to my post. Keeping the skin in that area free of urine is most important. It can really burn you. Or itch you. Just think back to the days when the kids were young. Mine sure let me know when she had a wet diaper!! Glad to hear all is relatively well. Give my best to your wife…..she has had a tough time of it. A dog shrink?? I can hear my father, the vet, now. (G) He is flippin’ in his grave, I am sure. Cheers…Heather When I had that problem my wife bought feminine wipes. I think "Always" was the one brand. In any case, I use them each time I change the pad, and it worked. The irritation and itching stopped and has not come back. I am five months in, and still incontinent, but at least no more itching. The Always brand comes in a resalable plastic that is small and will fit in a pocket. They are more "wet" than some of the other brands, so I like it better. Some of the other brands come in a rather large plastic container that you could not conceal very easily. Good luck. Thank you. David S. hello everyone, has anyone ever developed a rash while incontinent? my penis is getting red on the very tip, and gets sore and my scrotum is bright red and itches like crazy. the doctor says it’s from being wet all the time. i change pads like crazy and wash every day. over the phone my urologist’s nurse thought it could be a type of ‘jock itch’ or what ever polite wonderful word that’s called. so they sent me to the store on new years eve to get an anti-fungal cream. but since he is a 2 hour drive they told me to go to my regular MD. my regular md office thought it wasn’t any infection but irritation and he prescribed a synthetic cortisone. that was today. the incontinence hasn’t improved since the catheter came out on the 19th. i am patiently waiting this out even though the urologist is slightly concerned. today my regular md wants me to go to a physical therapist who specializes in incontinence issues. the urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control. how are you supposed to drink the usual 6 glasses of water that are good for your health when you leak like a sugar maple! seriously, what i’ve taken to doing at night is sit with my legs open and holding a pad to give myself an ‘airing out’ and to dry off for a while. hmm.. the rest around the house and the walks are relaxing. any one have these rash issues? thanks, greg

Response:

Good point, David. I meant to add that to my post. Keeping the skin in that area free of urine is most important. It can really burn you. Or itch you. Just think back to the days when the kids were young. Mine sure let me know when she had a wet diaper!! Glad to hear all is relatively well. Give my best to your wife…..she has had a tough time of it. A dog shrink?? I can hear my father, the vet, now. (G) He is flippin’ in his grave, I am sure. Cheers…Heather

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When I had that problem my wife bought feminine wipes. I think "Always" was the one brand. In any case, I use them each time I change the pad, and it worked. The irritation and itching stopped and has not come back. I am five months in, and still incontinent, but at least no more itching. The Always brand comes in a resalable plastic that is small and will fit in a pocket. They are more "wet" than some of the other brands, so I like it better. Some of the other brands come in a rather large plastic container that you could not conceal very easily. Good luck. Thank you. David S. hello everyone, has anyone ever developed a rash while incontinent? my penis is getting red on the very tip, and gets sore and my scrotum is bright red and itches like crazy. the doctor says it’s from being wet all the time. i change pads like crazy and wash every day. over the phone my urologist’s nurse thought it could be a type of ‘jock itch’ or what ever polite wonderful word that’s called. so they sent me to the store on new years eve to get an anti-fungal cream. but since he is a 2 hour drive they told me to go to my regular MD. my regular md office thought it wasn’t any infection but irritation and he prescribed a synthetic cortisone. that was today. the incontinence hasn’t improved since the catheter came out on the 19th. i am patiently waiting this out even though the urologist is slightly concerned. today my regular md wants me to go to a physical therapist who specializes in incontinence issues. the urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control. how are you supposed to drink the usual 6 glasses of water that are good for your health when you leak like a sugar maple! seriously, what i’ve taken to doing at night is sit with my legs open and holding a pad to give myself an ‘airing out’ and to dry off for a while. hmm.. the rest around the house and the walks are relaxing. any one have these rash issues? thanks, greg

Response:

I found that to be somewhat of a problem as the "moisture" we are referring to is somewhat

Response:

Yeah, I had the rash. It was very much an irritant. It lasted a week or so. I used a blow dryer on low setting, and that helped alot. I also used "Desitin" (messy but it did help). Keep doing the kegels and walking – it will get better. DanR

Response:

i bought a blow dryer yesterday. today the rash got so bad i almost went to the emergency room. took a shower instead, called the urologist and took the benadryl he suggested. i don’t think i’ve ever scratched so bad in my life. now it’s peaceful. i only wish i was prepared for this before it happened. whew, what a day. ~ g

Response:

When I had that problem my wife bought feminine wipes. I think "Always" was the one brand. In any case, I use them each time I change the pad, and it worked. The irritation and itching stopped and has not come back. I am five months in, and still incontinent, but at least no more itching. The Always brand comes in a resalable plastic that is small and will fit in a pocket. They are more "wet" than some of the other brands, so I like it better. Some of the other brands come in a rather large plastic container that you could not conceal very easily. Good luck. Thank you. David S.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hello everyone, has anyone ever developed a rash while incontinent? my penis is getting red on the very tip, and gets sore and my scrotum is bright red and itches like crazy. the doctor says it’s from being wet all the time. i change pads like crazy and wash every day. over the phone my urologist’s nurse thought it could be a type of ‘jock itch’ or what ever polite wonderful word that’s called. so they sent me to the store on new years eve to get an anti-fungal cream. but since he is a 2 hour drive they told me to go to my regular MD. my regular md office thought it wasn’t any infection but irritation and he prescribed a synthetic cortisone. that was today. the incontinence hasn’t improved since the catheter came out on the 19th. i am patiently waiting this out even though the urologist is slightly concerned. today my regular md wants me to go to a physical therapist who specializes in incontinence issues. the urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control. how are you supposed to drink the usual 6 glasses of water that are good for your health when you leak like a sugar maple! seriously, what i’ve taken to doing at night is sit with my legs open and holding a pad to give myself an ‘airing out’ and to dry off for a while. hmm.. the rest around the house and the walks are relaxing. any one have these rash issues? thanks, greg

Response:

Diaper rash, my dear. As in what babies get from wet diapers. (G) And as I have stress incontinence problems…I can feel your pain. Use a cortisone type cream and keep the area dry. (think ‘baby’). Use baby powder, or Bond’s Medicated powder……and fold up a paper towel or thicker Kleenex, and put it between you and the pad……changing it as often as needed. The folded Kleenex works for me for prevention…..the cortisone cream works for the very sore redness. Cheers…..Heather

Response:

hello everyone, has anyone ever developed a rash while incontinent? my penis is getting red on the very tip, and gets sore and my scrotum is bright red and itches like crazy. the doctor says it’s from being wet all the time. i change pads like crazy and wash every day. over the phone my urologist’s nurse thought it could be a type of ‘jock itch’ or what ever polite wonderful word that’s called. so they sent me to the store on new years eve to get an anti-fungal cream. but since he is a 2 hour drive they told me to go to my regular MD. my regular md office thought it wasn’t any infection but irritation and he prescribed a synthetic cortisone. that was today. the incontinence hasn’t improved since the catheter came out on the 19th. i am patiently waiting this out even though the urologist is slightly concerned. today my regular md wants me to go to a physical therapist who specializes in incontinence issues. the urologist’s nurse said that men who are very active before surgery seem to have more trouble regaining bladder control. how are you supposed to drink the usual 6 glasses of water that are good for your health when you leak like a sugar maple! seriously, what i’ve taken to doing at night is sit with my legs open and holding a pad to give myself an ‘airing out’ and to dry off for a while. hmm.. the rest around the house and the walks are relaxing. any one have these rash issues? thanks, greg

Response:

Training Week Ending August 17/ 2003

admin — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org (my band/photo website)

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

David, thanks as always for the weekly training thread. -chris S DNR M 6 miles 1:00:30 (10:05) w/6×100 strides T 8 miles 1:17 (9:37) W DNR F DNR S 20 miles w/hills 3:24 (10:12) Total: 42 miles

Response:

David, thanks as always for the weekly training thread. -chris

Yes, thank you sooooooooo much, you went to such great pains to type that out, Thank you, great greetings, run on, congrats, way to go, nice work. There you fucking idiots, I just did your whole weeks worth of crap-posts in one sentance.

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

Goal MCM Sunday 4.8 miles 9:20 pace Monday DNR Tuesday 10.2 miles 9:26 pace Wednesday 6.8 miles 9:24 pace Thursday DNR Friday 18.0 miles 9:26 pace Saturday DNR Total 39.8 miles 9:28 pace Skip

Response:

Goal Sydney Marathon in 3 weeks Mon 14km 5:20/km recovering from Sunday’s long run Tue 12km 5:00/km Tue 7km 4:45/km including 6×400m intervals Wed 17km 4:40/km 3×1k intervals (3:33,3:50,3:50) + 4 hills Thu 12km 5:00/km Thu 9km 4:50/km to work Thu 9km 4:50/km from work Fri 9km 5:00/km to work Fri 9km 5:00/km from work Sat DNR – rest day Sun 24+km ~4:00/km Bankstown "half marathon" Total 122km An ill-chosen week of training – although my choices are limited by family and work commitments. Tired at start of week due to Sunday’s long run and at the end of the week from overall volume of last 2 weeks. Then a fiasco in Sunday’s half marathon. I and several others were mis-directed and run an extra 3+ km. The consequent confusion, loss of concentration and rhythm saw my speed fall away in the second part of the race. I wasn’t on-track for a great time but it was very disappointing because I didn’t get any feel for how my marathon preparation is going. Andrew

Response:

Coming back from a month-long break. M: 3.4 miles (32:40) T: DNR W: 4 miles (37:50) T: 4.2 miles (40:39) F: 3 miles (27:34) S: DNR S: DNR – was going to run this morning, but I cut my foot while boating yesterday, and don’t think running on it today is a good idea. total: 14.6 marisa

Response:

goals: more miles, and faster; learn to race distances longer than 5K. 5K Sept 6; 20K Sept 21. M: 5.1M (9:50) T: 6.1M (9:54) W: 7.75M informal speedwork incl 2×1600 w/400 recovery (7:19, 7:14). Plyometrics during cooldown, which was kind of neat. R: 3.1M (10:15) F: 6.1M – 3M wu + 5K race (21:54, PR, 5th AG) Sa: dnr Su: 14M (9:13), longest run ever Total: 42.2 miles I’m starting to get the hang of 5Ks – I’m learning to tell (by feel) the level of effort I can maintain for 3-or-so miles. It’s nice to PR and know I’m getting faster, but I really don’t like 5Ks all that much. I’d rather concentrate on doing better in longer races. Unfortunately, I suck at those. I plugged this week’s 5K time into a equivalent-race calculator and it came up with a 10K pace that’s just appalling. Holding that pace over 6.2 miles seems much much harder than holding my 5K pace over, well, 5K. I’ll chew on this a while. Comments are welcome. Good week all Karen

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

you bet… s – DNR, :45 swim – drills and :15 continuous swim m – triathlon training brick (just for fun): biked :40, ran :40 t – DNR, rest w – :40 tempo run (about 8-9km) t – DNR, rest (usually bike, but an easier, recovery week this is) f – :40 fartlek run s – DNR s – about :45 open water swim with approx. 100m repeats goals: stay fit and healthy, and ready for anything. not sure if another tri will happen before the season is over. might do a duathlon in fall. will definitely put a running race or two on the calendar. Terry Fox Run in Sept. focus on speed training for the run, specifically for 5k also concentrate on speed/technique in swim dream about a better bike (maybe at Christmas… or next Father’s Day) thanks for perusing, Cam — Not every race can be a perfect experience, but every race can be a learning experience.

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals. you bet…

HE WAS JUST

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

old goal: 10K midnight run at the end of the month and the army ten miler in VA ……. New goal: heal my ankle and increase my iron intake lessons learned: sometimes there is a reason besides just motivation and work stress for not running well and past ankle sprains can cause problems 1-2 years later… (damned prairie dog holes and legos on the stairs…) Mon: 5k, real slow.. Tues: I dunno how far…. 45 minutes. Wed: 25 minutes and felt crappy. Thur : 35 minutes… went to donate blood (regular donor) was told that I wasn’t allowed because I was anemic and should go see my GP for some iron pills. blech. Friday: MRI results back… My love hate relationship with my orthopedic surgeon has… intensified. MRI results back… three inflamed tendons, 1 damaged ligament, bone floater, mild arthritis, and a "build up of " something or another (I tuned him out at this point…because he had the nerve to ask if I was running on such an ankle after I clearly told him 6 weeks ago that I was in the middle of increasing my mileage to around 30-40miles and he also said "gee.. I guess you really did have some pain." Grrr…). Saturday: 50 minute run… real slow..sorta a "lets try this just one more time thing because perhaps it will get better…) Sunday: DNR. Going to take two weeks off… ach.

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

M – 2 miles in 12:20 T – 2 miles in ~24:00 W – 2 miles in 15:30 T – 3.5 miles in 26:00 F – 4.5 miles in 36:00 S – 3 miles in ~24:00 S – 3 miles in ~26:00 total: 20 miles goals: sub 19 5K + sub 5 mile jobs

Response:

David, thanks as always for the weekly training thread. -chris Yes, thank you sooooooooo much, you went to such great pains to type that out, Thank you, great greetings, run on, congrats, way to go, nice work. There you fucking idiots, I just did your whole weeks worth of crap-posts in one sentance.

Why waste a sentence ? Your post was worth a month of crap just by signing your name.

Response:

Why waste a sentence ? Your post was worth a month of crap just by signing your name.

Why not, you’re wasting a perfectly good brain (at least before you fried those braion cells.)

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals. cheers,

Goal is still the MCM in October. Sunday: Leesburg, Va. 10k 45:26 7:20/mile 7 miles Monday: 10 miles 1:21:29 8:09/mile Tuesday: DNR Wednesday: 8 miles hills 1:13:55 9:14/mile Thursday: DNR Friday: 7 miles hills 54:00 7:43/mile Saturday: DNR Total for week: 32 miles The races tend to mess up a traing schedule because they take a lot out of me. Didn’t feel fresh again until the middle of the week so I’ll probably not have any more until after the MCM Doug Burke

Response:

Mon- 12 easy 6:35 pace Tues- AM 7 easy sub-7 pace; PM 6Xmile w/ 3min recovery including 500m jog. 5:19-5:16-5:12-5:08-5:03-4:57. Good workout but smooth and controlled. Thurs-12 miles at 6:30 pace including 6X150m hill repeats. Fri-AM 10 miles easy sub-7 pace. PM 9 miles easy 6:40 pace. Sat-12 miles including 6 mile tempo run at 5:36 pace. Wanted 8 miles sub-5:30 but humidity/heat hit me pretty hard. Sun-22 mile run in 2:28. Ran out by time 1:17 (calling it 7min/mile though I’m sure it was more like 6:45-6:50) then returned on average 30 sec/mile faster. Last 2 miles mid-5’s. Total for week: 111 miles. Andy Hass

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

Sun 14.43 miles in 2:07:16 (8:49 pace) Mon DNR Tue 5.12 miles Wed 14.41 miles in 2:04:07 (8:37 pace) Thu 5.12 miles Fri DNR Sat 26.32 miles in 4:16:46 (9:45 pace) Week 65.4 miles (new PR) (Distances are per Timex GPS Speed/Distance monitor.) Goals are (1) to stay on my feet and (2) the Fox Cities Marathon on September 28 (will be my first). Saturday’s run was my first attempt at covering the entire marathon distance (after prior runs of 20, 22, and 24). I had a horrible crash and burn just after mile 23 and had to walk the final distance. The temperature was about 90 F with a 70 F dew point. My wife and I had consumed all of the water we had brought along and we were at a stretch of trail that offered no protection from the sun whatsoever which was beating down on us from the front. It was an awful experience. My wife (who was accompanying me on her bike) managed to go on ahead and return with some additional water but I still had to walk the final 3 miles. I’m very disappointed. It was also a frightening experience. It felt like the end of a 10K race but that feeling didn’t ease up for hours afterward. Even the next day I still felt odd. Oh well. My next attempt at over 26 will be on the 30th (will be shooting for 28). Robert – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -cheers,

Response:

Saturday’s run was my first attempt at covering the entire marathon distance (after prior runs of 20, 22, and 24). I had a horrible crash and burn just after mile 23 and had to walk the final distance.

Are you using anybody’s training schedule or is this one you’ve made up yourself? I only ask because trying to run marathon race distance in training is generally considered to be "old school". (Nothing wrong with "made up" plans per se, just that you have to have reasonble plan that’s not going to wreck your body.) Training up to and beyond race distance is fine for distances up to half-marahon but most folk reckon that running 26 miles just does too much damage to be worth doing and you’ll find that most folk here stick to a maximum long run of 20 to 22 miles.

I’d strongly suggest that this would be a bad idea for you and that you ought to have a look at some other marathon training regimes. If you haven’t looked already, http://www.runnersworld.com/home/0,1300,1-51-56,00.html is a reasonable place to start. Good luck in the ‘thon. (I’m also running one on the 28th of September). Tim — Time for a new sig.

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

<< Sun – 7.4 miles, 1:14:22 Mon – DNR Tue – 4.1 miles, 41:31 Wed – 3 miles, 23:16 Thu – 3.5 miles, 33:06 Fri – DNR Sat – Grey Cloud Island River Run 10K, 56:48 Mike

Response:

You imply running a marathon wrecks your body? Youare doing something very wrong if you believe this crapola. Proper training can allow a marathon (26 miles) per week. You must suck terribly. Training up to and beyond race distance is fine for distances up to half-marahon but most folk reckon that running 26 miles just does too much damage to be worth doing and you’ll find that most folk here stick to a maximum long run of 20 to 22 miles.

You are a dimwit. I’d strongly suggest that this would be a bad idea for you and that you ought to have a look at some other marathon training regimes. If you haven’t looked already, http://www.runnersworld.com/home/0,1300,1-51-56,00.html is a reasonable place to start. Good luck in the ‘thon. (I’m also running one on the 28th of September). Tim

Listening to Tim can seriously screw up your running for years to come. So Timothy, lets put things in perspective. How long have you been a runner? how far do you run per week? Your impending silence says it all.

Response:

Tim, thanks a bunch for the input. I’m using a plan I cobbled together myself from a number of sources, including the link you included in your post (plus Galloway and Higdon). I "feel" like what I’m doing is proper for me. I really want to go into the marathon knowing that I’ve already covered the distance and then some. I’m taking it easy on those runs and going slower than I intend to in the actual race. And I’m doing those ultra long runs only every other week. The other weeks are half the mileage though I do include hill work. I’m listening to my body (which has been talking to me!) and trying to be careful. I’ve been at this now for three months and feel like I have too much to lose to screw up now. Hopefully I won’t. Thanks again, Tim, for the reply. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you using anybody’s training schedule or is this one you’ve made up yourself? I only ask because trying to run marathon race distance in training is generally considered to be "old school". (Nothing wrong with "made up" plans per se, just that you have to have reasonble plan that’s not going to wreck your body.) Training up to and beyond race distance is fine for distances up to half-marahon but most folk reckon that running 26 miles just does too much damage to be worth doing and you’ll find that most folk here stick to a maximum long run of 20 to 22 miles.

Response:

Tim, thanks a bunch for the input. I’m using a plan I cobbled together myself from a number of sources, including the link you included in your post (plus Galloway and Higdon).

Assuming one does not get injured then this becomes a religious argument. In a way you are both right. Personally I was always a fan of running 26-28 in training for both strength and confidence and worked well for me through a few dozen marathons. For those of you without years of experience about your recovery rate, I agree with Tim. When in doubt error on the short side. — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

Mon–off Tue–10.00mi 1:23:47 (8:22/mi) Thu–off Fri–4.00 mi 34:08 (8:32/mi) Sat–10.00mi 1:26:26 (8:38/mi) Sun–20.60mi 3:06:27 (9:03/mi) first 20 miler! mpw=52.6 4 hours. Running a 60 mile week in two weeks, looking forward to it! -jeremy — — Jeremy Hallum, System Manager , Astronomy, University of Michigan "Audentis Fortuna Iuvat"

Response:

Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals.

Goals: Saguaro National Park 8-Miler on Labor Day; Jim’s Mystery Run Sept 14 (3-8 miles??), Tucson Marathon Dec 7th; Lots of local races in between. Mon: Rest Day Tue: 7.5 mile loop in central Calif. Took 1:08:41. Wed: 7.5 mile loop again. Saw a runner ahead going just about my speed so caught up to her and we talked. She was 18 (to my 46!) and she was training for her first marathon. So I tried to give her all the pointers I could. This time the loop took 1:06:22 (an 8:51 pace) Thu: 7.5 mile loop again. Didn’t see Michelle today. Took it at an easier pace (1:11:53). Fri: Rest Day (actually in airports most of day!) Sat: 12 miles at 9:28 pace. Noticeably hotter and humider than in Ca., even at 6 AM. Sun: Rested again. Actually needed to spend the day getting the house back in reasonable order! Total: 34.5 miles Teresa in AZ

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings rec.runners! Please tell us about your training week and goals. Sun 14.43 miles in 2:07:16 (8:49 pace) Mon DNR Tue 5.12 miles Wed 14.41 miles in 2:04:07 (8:37 pace) Thu 5.12 miles Fri DNR Sat 26.32 miles in 4:16:46 (9:45 pace) Week 65.4 miles (new PR) (Distances are per Timex GPS Speed/Distance monitor.) Goals are (1) to stay on my feet and (2) the Fox Cities Marathon on September 28 (will be my first). Saturday’s run was my first attempt at covering the entire marathon distance (after prior runs of 20, 22, and 24). I had a horrible crash and burn just after mile 23 and had to walk the final distance. The temperature was about 90 F with a 70 F dew point. My wife and I had consumed all of the water we had brought along and we were at a stretch of trail that offered no protection from the sun whatsoever which was beating down on us from the front. It was an awful experience. My wife (who was accompanying me on her bike) managed to go on ahead and return with some additional water but I still had to walk the final 3 miles. I’m very disappointed. It was also a frightening experience. It felt like the end of a 10K race but that feeling didn’t ease up for hours afterward. Even the next day I still felt odd. Oh well. My next attempt at over 26 will be on the 30th (will be shooting for 28). Robert cheers,

Nice week Robert but I’m curious, why are you running such long distances in your long runs? Even Pfitzinger in his hardest schedules (The more than 70 miles per week ones) only has one 20, one 22 and one 24 miles runs. Don’t know what your time goal is but it appears to me you’ll be running three marathons in six weeks. Also, do you have a time goal and if so, what is it? Again, don’t get me wrong, nice week and great effort just be careful of over doing it. Goal #2 is not going to be possible without reaching goal #1. Doug Burke

Response:

Sunday: Leesburg, Va. 10k 45:26 7:20/mile 7 miles Monday: 10 miles 1:21:29 8:09/mile Tuesday: DNR Wednesday: 8 miles hills 1:13:55 9:14/mile Thursday: DNR Friday: 7 miles hills 54:00 7:43/mile Saturday: DNR Total for week: 32 miles The races tend to mess up a traing schedule because they take a lot out of me. Didn’t feel fresh again until the middle of the week so I’ll probably not have any more until after the MCM

Some good work last week, nevertheless. Did you consider slightly reorganizing that week so you had an off day Monday after the 10-mile race and maybe placed those other workouts Tue-Thur-Fri? Wonder if that would have helped or hurt, and I can’t remember if you have real-life schedule factors that prescribe which weekdays you can run. Good luck with your continued prep this week. chris

Response:

Lance, again

admin — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Yup. In ultras it happens often. The guy who won the 240k stage race I was in, waited at the finish line for a 1/2 hour, refusing to cross it even though he would have had smashed the course record. He did this to wait for the second placed runner, who’d encouraged him when he had a momentary loss of energy earlier in the day and had dropped behind. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage.

This is to encourage them to actually try to win the stage, rather than have them all getting together and agreeing just to coast in, so as to get a rest (did you see Sunday’s leg?) On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?

I believe it’s because it’s considered pointless to go to that accuracy on each stage of a race which lasts 3 weeks. FWIW, official Athletics Federation foot races on roads here are timed to the nearest second only. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

On time trails, and indoor races, yes. Not on ultra endurance races. Same holds for running I fancy? PS At my vVO2max of 20km/h (rounded to nearest km/h), 1/100th of a second gets you 5.55 recurring centimeters = about two inches. To a thousandth, that’s 6 millimeters: a loose T-shirt, or one guy breathing in and the other out, at the critical instant, is enough to win or loose. I reckon that going to such lengths would make a mockery of the whole affair. In the same way, 60km/h for 1/100th second = 17 cm = 7 inches which is easily identifiable for even an untrained eye, not to mention a trained federal official (or one’s close lady-friends). 1/1000th second is not even one inch difference in a hundred or more miles; a rider who gets just one second’s draughting from a passing TV motorbike, or team manager’s car, could win because of it…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs". Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second. Even the 100m stops there. I’m not so sure about that. I’ll bet there are cases where two times agreed to the hundredth with one or the other competitor declared the winner. I’ve looked over the shoulders of FAT timing officials and watched them line up a vertical cursor on the lead runner’s chest. (There is a nifty finish photo that essentially makes the horizontal on the screen the time coordinate.) You can probably distinguish a single pixel-width margin of victory (though you’d need at least two to be statistically significant.) A single pixel from a vantage point within meters is almost certainly higher than hundredth second resolution, though I confess I haven’t done the calculation.

—Yes, but I didn’t mean that you can’t call a winner between two people registering the same time. That happens all the time in running too. However, to try and time it out to the thousandths of a second is statistically flawed (significant digits and that sort of thing) so they just stop at the hundredths and the guy a pixel in front wins. They did a lot of research into this when FAT timing came about. Andy Hass

Response:

I’ll pipe in… 1) The waiting is done when there is an event not deemed to be the cyclist’s fault (although that is questionable and debatable) and just part of a tradition like in baseball not stealing bases when up by 10 runs. It is an unwritten rule that everyone abides by. Remember cycling is a sport of teams and also long memories. At some point you will need the assistance of others not on your team so you do some things that seem counterintuitive. For the record, the same "rule" does not apply in mountain biking. 2) A couple of years ago, Ullrich missed a turn and went off the road. Could have been really bad. Ullrich gets his bike and gets back on the road. Lance waits for him (it is just that he does not speed up and slows down a little) while Ullrich catches up. Often a teammate will help "bring" the fallen rider back to the pack. Once the rider rejoins the group, game is back on. This does not apply to low level domestiques however. 3) Time is different in cycling. In track it is the same thing since decimal points to the right of the decimal depend on the distance. Cyclists can be given the same time if they finish in contact with one another. Simply how the rules are written. Time bonuses are given for top 3 places even if all are given the same time. On the road time is measured to the second. No need for anymore accuracy in races lasting several hours. On the track, timing is to the thousandths of a second (take that 100m runners!). 4) Personal times in time trials are important. The magic mark is covering a 40km ITT in under an hour. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? —

http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc Mathematics, Syracuse University 229B Physics Building (315)443-1575

Response:

You know why? Nobody else wants to be around the miserable pricks, so they flock together. even though they compete against each other. i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners.

Absolutely! I’ve been good friends with many. Well, until I trip them just before the finish line. But I think they’re being fussy when they yell and scream afterward (if they still have their teeth) like little children.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong. i have seen similar things in triathlon. i’ve watched many of the big events on tv broadcasts, and there have been occasions where the elite athletes WANT some competition. i have seen guys or gals slowed to a walk (in the run) with cramps and other problems, and one of their competitors would slow down, give them a pat on the back, words of encouragement, and in one case i recall a fellow barely at a jogging pace, looking back at his ailing comrade, trying to get him to get back in the game. i haven’t seen this in the sport of running, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. i do know that many of these cyclists and triathletes train together, and have formed friendships, even though they compete against each other. i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners. and as for the time issue, i have gathered that times aren’t everything to triathletes, even the elite ones. i have seen them dilly-dallying in the final metres of a race, high-fiving the fans, waving a flag, even slowing to a walk as they break the tape. i guess they figure, if they win, the time doesn’t matter.

Since triathlon courses vary so much, time comparisons between courses cannot even be considered. Other than maybe breaking a magic barrier time is somewhat irrelevant.

Response:

I think the big mistake in your comparison between bike racing and run racing is that you’re looking at le Tour de France. Le Tour is a stage race, and these races take place over multiple days, so timing is a little different. Each stage is usually a different length on a different course, and so time is only a measure of who beat whom, not a measure of your personal improvement. Track races (and even criteriums) are much more like running so much as timing goes. –Vincent

Response:

without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong.

Yes, that was very nice of Ullrick. Lance even said something positive about it afterwards. I know from races around here, when one person tripped and the other guy won, the guy that won felt bad about not checking on the guy that was in the lead. I guess the victory isn’t as sweet if it based on the other person’s bad luck. Roger

Response:

[snip] Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs". Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second. Even the 100m stops there.

Luge definitely, and iirc bobsled time to the millisecond. Maybe the 500m in speed skating? – in all three, the events are scored by summing times for each run of 2-4 runs. Downhill skiing, on the other hand, while it does have speeds of order 70 mph (35 m/s) and sums times for successive runs, only times to the hundredth of a second (again, iirc). — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

Some response interlaced, some at the end… The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

In longer-distance bicycle racing, it is tradition that you don’t attack when another racer has had some bad luck. You won’t always see a rider wait for another one (as Ullrich and the rest of the group did), but you will NEVER see a downed rider attacked (‘downed’ can be a crash, mechanical, etc.). There is a long history of this type of sportsmanship between Armstrong and Ullrich. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

OK, here’s the main problem that you’re running (no pun intended) into. This (the TdF) is a three week, ~2300 mile bike race. They ride, on average, the equivilant of a century (100 miles) daily. To put this into perspective, one could say that that is like running a marathon every day for three weeks. I think if there was that type of race someplace on the planet, rules/traditions/etc. would probably more closely resemble the TdF. Also, there are generally (depending on how far into the race they are) 150-180 riders racing at any one time. On the flat stages, you can have a bunch finish of over 50 riders. Way back when (this is the 100th year of the TdF) they didn’t have any sort of timing devices capable of differentiating that type of finish. I guess these days they could have each rider mount a Champion Chip on the head tube and time it that way, like we do in running, but it works fine the way that they do it and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Put that part down to tradition. Time bonuses (as well as monetary rewards) are a way to ensure that you don’t have 150 folks crossing the line with a ’same time’ every day. Even given all of this, the race is timed to hundredths of a second, though it is very rarely needed to go to that – mostly only if they are trying to figure out who beat whom at a certain point (intermediate sprints, climbs, finish line). If you want to compare a bicycle race with running, do some research on criteriums, pursuit, the hour record, time trials, etc. These are sprint-type races that more closely resemble our 5K/10K -type races. Finishes are regularly decided by tenths and hundredths of a second. This is where folks rejoice at shaving fractions of seconds from their PRs. Great questions. Hope I could shed some light on it. I LOVE bike racing. I get very worn out at this time of year – in Phoenix, the Tour coverage starts daily at 5-6AM. Plus I have to get my 7 – 12 mile run in. I’m glad today is a rest day in the Tour – I was able to catch a few extra Zs… David

Response:

Armstrong in his book talks about the camaraderie in the peloton, how even though everyone’s competing against everyone else they work together a lot of the time. (I’ve read elsewhere that something similar happens in auto racing.) To a certain extent it’s just practical — one angry cutoff and down go a couple dozen racers. But there’s a lot of bonding that goes on. — Brian P. Baresch Fort Worth, Texas, USA Professional editing and proofreading If you’re going through hell, keep going. –Winston Churchill

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs". Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second. Even the 100m stops there.

I’m not so sure about that. I’ll bet there are cases where two times agreed to the hundredth with one or the other competitor declared the winner. I’ve looked over the shoulders of FAT timing officials and watched them line up a vertical cursor on the lead runner’s chest. (There is a nifty finish photo that essentially makes the horizontal on the screen the time coordinate.) You can probably distinguish a single pixel-width margin of victory (though you’d need at least two to be statistically significant.) A single pixel from a vantage point within meters is almost certainly higher than hundredth second resolution, though I confess I haven’t done the calculation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? —Part of this is because of the way cycling is done. If they DID split hairs, you would have the entire peleton racing each other to the line. Surely mass tragedy would come out of 100+ riders crashing in a heap as they mass towards the line racing each other. Timing it in this fashion saves chaos. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? —It’s probably a lot like cross-country or trail racing. Sure, you know how fast you’ve run for that distance, but on differing courses the times can be pretty meaningless. Road cycling (like Le Tour) doesn’t lend itself to caring about your absolute time…the Tour is rerouted every year. If you were talking track cycling, I’m sure it’s very different.

Good points. So there aren’t ad hoc, but constant, courses (like Falmouth) in bike racing that invite time comparisons from year to year? Perhaps this is because bike courses tend to be so much longer that keeping them unchanged would be impractical. — Mathematics, Syracuse University 229B Physics Building (315)443-1575

Response:

you have to admit, he’s got the best legs in the business! i’d love to ease his pain sometime. stef – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?),

Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. It was several years ago, I think. Ullrich went off the road on a downhill mountain turn, wasn’t hurt, climbed back up with his bike & resumed the race. I’m not sure it’s all chivalry! It’s also partly "what goes around comes around". Pro bikers change teams, have mishaps, etc. and need each other’s cooperation. Look at how an assortment of riders from various teams get together to maintain a breakaway. And on the turn where that rider went off & was killed a few years ago, the next time they went by there everybody stopped to pay respects. Now how often are you gonna see THAT in a foot race! Neither my mother nor I are cycling fans (though she’s a recreational cyclist) but we find the TDF fascinating in how the race develops, the tactics, the side-races, etc. And as a cancer survivor (though nothing as arduous as Lance’s journey) I’m a particular "Lance-fan", just as I’m a supporter of world-class athletes who also deal with diabetes. I’m not at their level, but it’s nice to see the "can’t do that because…" stereotypes shattered. bj

Response:

This year’s tour is a classic and one to be remembered. The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

In single day races this isn’t usually the case. If you fall or have a mechanical you can kiss the peloton good bye. The major difference is that there is no standard distance so time is just that time. this is a 3 week race in which the riders form a certain amount of community. A few rules: don’t attack in a feed zone, don’t attack in a pee break (often done while riding, eww). The rules have been broken so they aren’t hard and fast. Very unlike a marathon. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races?

Very accurately. Just to the second but time trials are often recorded in hundredths of seconds. But bonus seconds are full seconds not fractions. Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?

It is more of a safety thing. Imagine 200 cyclists trying to pass each other at the finish to get a few seconds advantage? Again time is just a recording method. In road cycling there are no standard distances so the emphasis is on placement. If there is no visible gap (this is kind of like a strike zone thing) between riders the whole group is given the same time as the first rider, in that group, over the finish line. There is no serious attempt to split hairs but placement is more important. Where you place is used as a tie breaker. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

Sure! My experience, through triathlons, is similar to running prs. Enjoy the tour, Andy

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

—One way of looking at this is the way the timing is done. As long as they expect to finish in the same group, no time difference will occur and there will be no personal loss for them. Worked for Lance in ‘00, not so well for Ullrich this year. In running, every tenth of a second counts for everybody. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions.

—Well, the recovery didn’t ensure him that, just the victory. Judging from the way the two men rode the rest of the stage, I’d bet Armstrong would have won the stage even if Ullrich would have attacked…though it would have been much closer. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races?

–They are timed very accurately (go to their website…hi-tech photo-finish equipment is used). Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer.

—There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs". Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second. Even the 100m stops there. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?

—Part of this is because of the way cycling is done. If they DID split hairs, you would have the entire peleton racing each other to the line. Surely mass tragedy would come out of 100+ riders crashing in a heap as they mass towards the line racing each other. Timing it in this fashion saves chaos. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

—It’s probably a lot like cross-country or trail racing. Sure, you know how fast you’ve run for that distance, but on differing courses the times can be pretty meaningless. Road cycling (like Le Tour) doesn’t lend itself to caring about your absolute time…the Tour is rerouted every year. If you were talking track cycling, I’m sure it’s very different. Andy Hass

Response:

The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? — Mathematics, Syracuse University 229B Physics Building (315)443-1575

Response:

without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong. i have seen similar things in triathlon. i’ve watched many of the big events on tv broadcasts, and there have been occasions where the elite athletes WANT some competition. i have seen guys or gals slowed to a walk (in the run) with cramps and other problems, and one of their competitors would slow down, give them a pat on the back, words of encouragement, and in one case i recall a fellow barely at a jogging pace, looking back at his ailing comrade, trying to get him to get back in the game. i haven’t seen this in the sport of running, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. i do know that many of these cyclists and triathletes train together, and have formed friendships, even though they compete against each other. i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners. and as for the time issue, i have gathered that times aren’t everything to triathletes, even the elite ones. i have seen them dilly-dallying in the final metres of a race, high-fiving the fans, waving a flag, even slowing to a walk as they break the tape. i guess they figure, if they win, the time doesn’t matter. Cam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten. At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

– Not every race can be a perfect experience, but every race can be a learning experience.