Can we talk about running?
- Thread starter xxmimixx
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Lochaber (Fort William). April 15th. This will be my 1st standalone marathon - my boyfriend reckons a standalone marathon is harder than an Ironman run leg, and I'm not going to disagree with him until I've done both (as he has).
I'm not sure I agree with him. I think each has it's own challenge - but running 26 miles is running 26 miles and if you happen to have swam 2.4 miles and cycled 112 miles beforehand, that can make the ironman run really hard (as you know). The challenge for the standalone marathon comes from the fact that hopefully you'll run it a bit faster than the ironman - and getting the pace right is the issue but as you've done plenty of training, I guess you've got that sussed
His argument is that you run a standalone marathon at a much higher intensity than an IM run leg & therefore it hurts more. Certainly my IM run was at a pace and intensity (and with a deliberate run - walk strategy, which I'd trained for) to give me the best chance of finishing, with time being secondary. If I get the time I'm aiming for at Lochaber, I'll be over an hour faster...
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
His argument is that you run a standalone marathon at a much higher intensity than an IM run leg & therefore it hurts more. Certainly my IM run was at a pace and intensity (and with a deliberate run - walk strategy, which I'd trained for) to give me the best chance of finishing, with time being secondary. If I get the time I'm aiming for at Lochaber, I'll be over an hour faster...
I don't buy this at all. He's comparing apples and pears. If you are a leisure competitor then whatever you are doing will be at a lower intensity, if you are a more serious semi-pro etc., then it will be higher. All other things being equal, nine hours of physical exercise is tougher than three.
Arsen Gere
Über Member
- Location
- North East, UK
Some thoughts on running and calories burned...
I ran to work and home again yesterday, I tried to run at a constant heart rate = 140 bpm.
I ran to work in a 10mph wind and slightly up hill at a pace of 8.04 min/mile. 1 hr 28 min.
I ran home slightly down with a tail wind at 140 bpm again, at a pace of 7:31 min/mile so 1 hr 23 mins.
Interestingly my watch (Garmin 405 cx) reckons I burned 1340 calories ( 15.2 cal/min) going to work and 1323 coming home (15.9 cal/min), probably because my HR was fixed and reflects the constant load over the same distance but for a shorter duration.
To keep my HR up I have to run quicker down hill as opposed to slower up hill.
So although the times were different the energy expenditure was almost exactly the same, if you believe the watch.
Now 1g of carbs = 4 calories. Max calory uptake is 1g/min if a single carb eg glucose, but if two carbs eg glucose+fructose you can do 1.2g min.
Now if I can only get in 4 to 6 cal/min and I am putting out 15-16 I have a deficit of about 10 cal/min. So if my body goes to it's fat stores they produce about 37 cal/g. The body only has around 3000 cal of glycogen but a fat store of 75000 cal of fat.
So to finalise the results of this analysis - my legs hurt.
I ran to work and home again yesterday, I tried to run at a constant heart rate = 140 bpm.
I ran to work in a 10mph wind and slightly up hill at a pace of 8.04 min/mile. 1 hr 28 min.
I ran home slightly down with a tail wind at 140 bpm again, at a pace of 7:31 min/mile so 1 hr 23 mins.
Interestingly my watch (Garmin 405 cx) reckons I burned 1340 calories ( 15.2 cal/min) going to work and 1323 coming home (15.9 cal/min), probably because my HR was fixed and reflects the constant load over the same distance but for a shorter duration.
To keep my HR up I have to run quicker down hill as opposed to slower up hill.
So although the times were different the energy expenditure was almost exactly the same, if you believe the watch.
Now 1g of carbs = 4 calories. Max calory uptake is 1g/min if a single carb eg glucose, but if two carbs eg glucose+fructose you can do 1.2g min.
Now if I can only get in 4 to 6 cal/min and I am putting out 15-16 I have a deficit of about 10 cal/min. So if my body goes to it's fat stores they produce about 37 cal/g. The body only has around 3000 cal of glycogen but a fat store of 75000 cal of fat.
So to finalise the results of this analysis - my legs hurt.
OP
OP
xxmimixx
Senior Member
- Location
- a different place on earth...
lolz
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
15km today at a steady pace with a fast final km. Cold but sunny and no wind. And no pain. Heaven!
OP
OP
xxmimixx
Senior Member
- Location
- a different place on earth...
Excellent news! I got back to running last week and no pain, and using roller every day now. It's a God sent. It's so nice to feel 'fit' to take part in activities
*Like*
currently running 60 to 70 miles per week, cycling 100 to 150 and gym 2 to 3 times per week, determined to get top 50 in edale skyline fell race end of march 21 mile, then hopefully gold standard in etupe du dales 110 mile end of may, never mixed the training so much as I have this year but its paying off already with two second places under my belt since Xmas, hopefully I can keep it going until end of may then have a week off resting before my next challenge which I have not decided on yet ? would love to have a go at a duathlon some time.
pubrunner
Legendary Member
That's very impressive; in the dim & distant past, I frequently did 70 (ish) miles a week - running. That was without any gym work or cycling, though. I'd have found it very hard to maintain your volume of training, as I'd suffer from injuries more frequently. If I had tried that sort of training, I think that there would have been more 'junk' miles; I'd have found it hard to keep up with the speedwork and quality training.
If you have a partner, they must be very understanding - please tell me your most feasible excuses
Presumably, you don't have kids ?If you could find time for some swimming training
, you could find yourself on the way to becoming a very good triathlete.Good luck with it all !
That's very impressive; in the dim & distant past, I frequently did 70 (ish) miles a week - running. That was without any gym work or cycling, though. I'd have found it very hard to maintain your volume of training, as I'd suffer from injuries more frequently. If I had tried that sort of training, I think that there would have been more 'junk' miles; I'd have found it hard to keep up with the speedwork and quality training.
If you have a partner, they must be very understanding - please tell me your most feasible excuses
If you could find time for some swimming training
Good luck with it all !
I have been very lucky with injuries and illness over the last 25 year of training, usually just the odd sprained ankle from to much fell running. I am mainly a runner than a cyclist now but I started off as a cyclist doing 300 to 400 mile per week, I think that is what got me into the big miles, anything else and I don't feel like I have done anything.
Its quite easy if planned well to get all of the aspects of training in during the week and still recover enough to train hard, hill work, speed session long run etc.
I work mostly afternoon shifts and always have so when the wife and kids have gone to work and school it gives me 4 hours to train before I go to work, they don't even know I have been training sometimes which keeps everyone happy. A typical weekend would be up at 6, run 2 hours, then on to bike or gym for 1 and half hours, gob done by 10.30, easy.
It helps that I recover quickly, I have always put this down to a very healthy diet and protein drinks plus mega doses of multi vitamins and minerals.
Most of my running and cycling friends cover a lot more mileage than I do, 2 of them doing 120 per week running plus gym, I tried upping the mileage some years ago but felt bad all season.
Any way off now for a 15 mile run, 10 steady last 5 with intervals then 42 hill on bike but slow spinning, off work all week so making the most of it.
cheers.
Arsen Gere
Über Member
- Location
- North East, UK
An article showing running in shoes makes you faster than barefoot, but adding weight slows you down - in this blog.
http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/
Conclusion : run in lightweight shoes.
Paper here :
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A..._of_Running_Barefoot_versus_Shod__.98716.aspx
http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/
Conclusion : run in lightweight shoes.
Paper here :
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A..._of_Running_Barefoot_versus_Shod__.98716.aspx
Don't run in the lightest shoes you can find, I learnt the hard way. two years ago I was second in my local 5 mile road league with 2 races to go so I bought some ultra light road flats, did a couple of fast training runs in them and then did the race, my feet and knees where so sore I lost over a minuet and dropped to 10th place in the league, I continued to train in the ultra light flats until the next race where I eventually had to drop out after a few mile due to the pain in ankles, after that I went back to my medium weight trainers and never had a problem since.
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Got my first 10k race of the year next weekend, and then my first (and probably only) half marathon of the year at the end of April. My training hasn't been the best (for family reasons)... we'll see.
