[Closed] Starting running - any tips?

Well it's boring if you run on roads.

But seriously, running is no better or worse than cycling, it's just different.

The biggest difference for me is that it's constant effort. On my MTB I stop, look at a section/the view/wait for my mates. On the road bike you stop less but can still coast downhill/to junctions/to the cafe. On a run you just don't stop, downhill, uphill, flat, all effort. I've grown to very much enjoy it.

So, yes, intervals do work but you should do them for specific points not as a general workout.

Well Zatopek died a few years ago so we cant ask him but given his intervals where seldom longer than about 400m and he went on to win the 5000m, 10000m and the Marathon in the same games (he had never run a marathon before!) then I think his intensive high volume interval training did the trick.

Zatopek was doing his training from a pretty high base so he didn't really need to put in huge amounts of "fluff" kilometres as he'd already done that.

What do you mean "from a high base"? Zatopek did almost nothing other than intervals. After reading some books on him years ago I tried to find evidence of him training in the more "traditional" way with longer runs etc and I couldnt find it. Non interval training has value but really it is for "active" recovery and doesnt "add" in the same way that interval training does. People incorporate faster efforts into longer runs which is good and there are ways of introducing "intervals" within longer runs which are effective but it is the "interval" that adds the fitness.

he needed speed work

What do you mean by "speedwork" Zatopek ran his intervals close to race pace so for example 65sec ish, Thats not "speed" thats race pace.

I think his intensive high volume interval training did the trick.

I think some other factors were in play, like say genetics.

High base as in being fit (for the effort being undertaken) rather than having done SFA for years.

So how many others have trained in the way that Zatopek did or is/was he an outlier? Paul Radcliffe? Other modern marathon runners? What's Mo Farah's training regimen? Not being argumentative, just don't know.

There's been research done recently that seems to indicate that it's training to exhaustion (muscle exhaustion) is what causes improvement. So you could do 20 x 100m intervals or 10 x 200m or 5 x 400m, etc(at the right intensity) and get the same effect. The research was done on weightlifting (not bodybuilding BTW) but it's all muscle stress and adaptation.

Once you get to a certain level of fitness with regards to distance then there isn't much point in doing big distances, your body's adapted so you can just keep ticking over. When you get in to long distance (in these terms a marathon is short!) then it's more about looking after yourself and ensuring you remain hydrated and eat properly. After 18hrs on the go your taste buds change.

I think some other factors were in play, like say genetics.

It goes without saying that he chose his parents well...

So how many others have trained in the way that Zatopek did or is/was he an outlier? Paul Radcliffe? Other modern marathon runners? What's Mo Farah's training regimen?

All "good" athletes use some form of Interval training. I dont know the detail of Radcliffes training but it was very high intensity and I know she never ran slow! I once passed her when she was at uni on a morning training run. She must have been close to 5 min miling! She also did a lot of volume but again all of it was quite fast. A lot of her training was done between 10k and HM race pace.
The main point is that you have to spend time at close to, or even faster than your goal race pace. If you want to run 15 mins for 5k dont waste your time training at 6 min miling unless it is to warm up/down or for recovery.

you want to run 15 mins for 5k dont waste your time training at 6 min miling unless it is to warm up/down or for recovery.

always useful advice on a "How to start running thread" 😆

I'm not saying that they don't use interval training, I'm asking whether interval training is the only type of training that they do.

I'm asking whether interval training is the only type of training that they do.

No, Zatopek was slightly unusual in that ALL he did was interval training. Other runners during the 50's/60's also did very high interval volumes and the evidence is strong that it is the most effective way to improve performance but most runners mix their training more. Based on similar concepts but most runners do more "multi" paced training such as "fartlek" which is just running fast and slow during a constant run or increasing the pace gradually during a run etc.
Seb coe for example did multi paced training based around 5 "speeds" just more sophisticated interval training.

So the next question (we'll omit Zatopek from the answer since we know how he trained) is: Did Radcliffe, Coe, Ovett, etc. only ever do interval training or did they develop a reasonable base before they transitioned to mostly interval training?

surfer, just about all serious distance runners do a substantial volume of easy running. A decent proportion of faster/interval training too of course, but certainly this is much less than half the total.

Of course easy running for someone like radcliffe is still pretty fast compared to most mortals. But it's easy for her.

substantial volume of easy running

Of course easy running for someone like radcliffe is still pretty fast compared to most mortals. But it's easy for her.

The term is relative and most top class runners would stay close to specific thresholds when training. Other than jogging to warm up and down for example Farah would not do any "easy" running. He may run well within his ability but it needs to bear some resemblance to what he is trying to achieve. For example his long run would be say 60 secs per mile slower than his Marathon goal pace (which may be around 2:07) so easy for him might be around 5:45 for 20 miles plus.

For mere mortals similar rules apply (assuming your goal is to improve performance) so Sunday 15 mile runs should not be done at jogging pace. They should be related to what you are trying to achieve. So often I see club mates jog their Sunday runs then wonder why they underperform when they try to run 2:45 for a Marathon when their Sunday morning 15 mile runs are at 8:30 pace.

But you aren't answering the question! You are looking at what the top athletes are doing [b]now[/b] which isn't what's being asked.

When they first started out did they "just go for a run"? It may have varied in pace but it's unlikely to have been "intervals" or even fartlek.

Intervals place a lot of stress on the body, it's why they are effective in training, but the body also needs to be able to handle that stress. Even with a decade of club running and racing I developed ITBS when I increased the intensity of my training sessions. If you are just starting out then "just going for a run" is all that's needed. Running/jogging until you are out of breath then walking a bit is effectively intervals but you shouldn't be heading out with intervals in mind.

But you aren't answering the question!

You seem to be under the impression that I am obligated to!

You are looking at what the top athletes are doing now which isn't what's being asked.

My latter ramblings arent in response to the OP but to another post above.

Do you mean this?

Did Radcliffe, Coe, Ovett, etc. only ever do interval training or did they develop a reasonable base before they transitioned to mostly interval training?

I dont know you would have to ask them but I suspect they incorporated them very early on. I know I did. In fact as a junior almost all of my training was interval based, run hard, jog, run hard, etc. You adjust to the stress by starting them at a pace you can handle with a recovery that works. If you are breaking down they are too hard but they are not something that only work for elite athletes they just need to be appropriate.

surfer, doing your general aerobic running at 60 seconds/mile below marathon pace is not spending a lot of time running fast neither is it between 10k and HM race pace!

I agree that some sessions of harder running is normal and appropriate. In my case, about 2 runs per week have faster intervals (based on the Jack Daniels book and plan if you're interested). That leaves up to 5 days of steady running at 60s/mile below race pace, though I don't really run 7 days a week. All the major sources talk about doing the bulk of miles at 60-90 secs (e.g. Daniels) or 10-20% (e.g. P&D) slower than marathon pace which is itself significantly slower than a half marathon pace.

I note you seem to have changed your tune from Radcliffe 5 min miling to Mo running 5:45. These are very different levels of effort and the latter would be much more common than the former, is my point.

I note you seem to have changed your tune from Radcliffe 5 min miling to Mo running 5:45

One was an estimate of what Radcliffe looked like she was running when I passed her. She could have been on a short run or be running a fast section or be near the end of her run. The 5:45 was for a 20+ mile run for Farah. You seem to be trying to conflate the 2. Why? What has one got to do with the other?

doing your general aerobic running at 60 seconds/mile below marathon pace is not spending a lot of time running fast neither is it between 10k and HM race pace!

I didnt say this, again you are taking different examples and combining them. The 60 secs per mile was Farah doing his long runs and in relation to his Marathon pace. This is not related to 10k/HM pace. That was in reference to Radcliffe. Different athletes run at different paces you know.

These are very different levels of effort and the latter would be much more common than the former, is my point.

Of course they are, what is your point?

My point is that you seemed to be saying that serious runners spent a lot of time running hard (specifically, at paces between 10k and half marathon pace), which is only true if by "a lot of time" you mean a small proportion of their time.

For example, the first one of your comments that attracted my attention:

Most distance runners include longer runs at threshold pace as well as hill repeats etc but whether that is simply because intervals every day is hard work and boring!

And then you said that Radcliffe never ran slow and did all her training at high intensity.

This all seems highly misleading if you actually accept that almost all distance runners run a large majority of their miles at least 60-90s/mile slower than threshold! It's true that MP+60s is not a casual jog but it's an easily sustainable pace that a serious runner could do for an hour or two every day, even twice a day. It's not hard running by any stretch of the imagination. It's what you do on the non-hard days. And it's not just to fill the time either, it's an important part of the training.

(specifically, at paces between 10k and half marathon pace),

I didnt. Many runners train for much shorter distances, 1500 etc. Their training would be different. I refered to 10k/HM pace specifically to Radcliffe who may train at that pace during certain sessions. Others may be close to 5k pace etc. Pace varies for athletes depending on the session, time of year and goals.

And then you said that Radcliffe never ran slow and did all her training at high intensity

Yes and thats true, why are you indicating that this is at odds with something else I have said. Radcliffe always ran at a high intensity so much so that she struggled to find even elite men to run with.

My point is that you seemed to be saying that serious runners spent a lot of time running hard

I dont think I used the word "hard" but serious runners cant afford to waste effort. Running to slowly (pace which offers no "training" effect) has an opportunity cost. What I said was that training has to bear relation to an athletes goal and has to be specific. For example you would never catch Farah doing a 10 mile training run at 7 min miling. Why would he, he can only tire himself out for his next "proper" session, trip over and hurt himself etc. It is a waste.

This all seems highly misleading if you actually accept that almost all distance runners run a large majority of their miles at least 60-90s/mile slower than threshold!

Which I dont. If you accept Farah runs his longest session at around 60 secs slower per mile than his Marathon race pace why would he run his shorter run slower?

Also what do you mean by "threshold"

Running to slowly (pace which offers no "training" effect)

But cyclists do long slow riding, it's called base training. Do runners not do this?

But cyclists do long slow riding, it's called base training. Do runners not do this?

Some runners do and good luck to them but the training effect is small. Plus riding "tends" to be less injurious so there is less risk.

What I mean by threshold was the lactate threshold pace generally taken to be about 1h race pace i.e. between 10k and HM. Since you used both the term and the speed range I assume you were using it in the same way.

I'm not sure if you disagree with anything I've said. Maybe Radcliffe is a bit of an outlier in how she trained but the vast majority of running for distance runners is at a fairly comfortable (for them) pace. Yes, 7 min miling for Mo would probably be too slow, being roughly 40% over his marathon pace. If we are merely disagreeing over my interpretation of what you seemed to be saying then, whatever.

I've been 'couch to 5k'ing for 19 sessions now. It still bloody hurts! Ankles, shins and calves mainly, crampy, achey pain that increases in intensity during the run, but is 90% better by the next day, do not injury as such. I'm determined to keep going, but I'm increasingly wondering if I'm just not cut out for running. It's not been horrendous heart n lungs wise, mainly legs.

Should I give up, or will it get better?

Join a running club, club nights are a brilliant motivator to keep at it and get out the door on a winters night.

Go get a gait analysis and the right shoes.

Stick at it, a few years and it becomes a habit. I love that if I don't end up with enough time to ride I can throw my shoes on and grab some decent exercise.

On from above, when it's proper wet and freezing in the winter a 30/45 min run is so much easier than a 2hr ride.

I agree with getting a gait analysis, I would also ask what stretching/foam rolling you are doing post running but also on non running days.

I have NO idea about stretching, although I do try to stretch the painful bits for 10-15secs per painful muscle. Wouldn't know what to do with a foam roller tbh.

Have had gait analysis done and the verdict is that I over pronate quite pronouncedly. Hence I have some comfy new Brooks adrenalines, which may have helped a bit, but still pain pain pain if I run (at any pace; let alone a reasonable pace) for more than 10 minutes. It's frustrating tbh.

You could try some hoka or altra shoes, they have a few more mm of cushioning than standard shoes, while keeping a fairly low heel to toe drop. Having heard good things about lowering the niggling joint pains after runs, I have gone for some hokas, seem good so far.

Also don't worry about slowing it down while you adapt, you may be trying to push too hard as you already have aerobic fitness, but need joints and muscles to adapt as well.

Well, after all that, a really enjoyable 20th run. Still a little sore, but one of my best so far 😀

molgrips - Member

Running to slowly (pace which offers no "training" effect)

But cyclists do long slow riding, it's called base training. Do runners not do this?

This thread sort of inspired me to do a few runs after giving up due to knee pain a couple of years ago. One 3.4 m run every Monday and starting to try on the last two, ( now done six) my time has come down every week now to 28mins, and the knee with the help of a support feels okay. 56 and still fighting! 🙂

@v8

After running (and MTB) I stretch my groin, quads, hamstrings, glutes and calves. if you google stetching those muscles lots of things should come up, try a few for each and settle on the one that works for you.

If you can get into the habit of stretching on none running days too you will feel better for it.

Some of us just run for fun too

Well done you

IMO you need to run more than once a week to get much out of it.

Fun discussion to come to late (who is faster - surfer or thecaptain? Race! 😀 My money is on surfer). This article is relevant I think:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2006/09/wejo-speaks-why-i-sucked-in-college/

"In running however, there are not bonus points for running “hard.” The point is to run fast. There is a difference. Don’t forget that. Too many people confuse “hard” with fast. The next time you see Bernard Lagat running, tell me how “hard” it looks like he’s running. And if you are running “hard” on all your runs and all your intervals, you will never teach your body to relax while running fast which is the key to running even faster."

Running to slowly (pace which offers no "training" effect)

everything is relative isn't it?

It's the UTMB this weekend!

Lots of runners who have trained to run at a slower than their marathon pace, running slower than their marathon pace over 166Km and nearly 10,000m of elevation.

Kilian Journet is back running the UTMB - first time since 2011

Been out in Chamonix during the UTMB on a couple of occasions and watched [and cheered] many of the runners over the final stretch to the finish.

Quite humbling to watch really ...

C25K-ing here too - just done the first run of week 4 (well, 2 days ago) but I have had recurring problems with the tendons/small bones in my big toe which I have just learned is called sesamoiditis (although it happened whilst gardening rather than running), so I am with you on the pain thing V8!

I am terrible for not stretching so am going to just do that for the rest of this week and then pickup the last 2 week 4 sessions next week and get back on track.

I am so not a natural runner being more of a mobile mountain than anything else 😉 Just trying to actually complete the whole program for the first time this go - I have generally got to this stage and injured myself then given up, but I am determined to finish this time!!!

The long term aim is to move the running to once/twice a week (sticking around the 5k distance), do a bit of gym to try and fix all my biomechanical imbalances and start getting a couple of rides in a week on the mountain bike too again (neglected largely since my last injury a couple of years ago).

And loose some sodding weight! Since I started running and without consuming more I have gained weight although lost body fat (2.7kg on, 3%BF lost). Going by my past experiences of exercise this happens to me then the weight suddenly falls off whilst I am not looking!

Capt. Kronos - Member

C25K-ing here too - just done the first run of week 4 (well, 2 days ago) but I have had recurring problems with the tendons/small bones in my big toe which I have just learned is called sesamoiditis

i had 2 different doctors tell me that i'd need to have my sesamoid bones removed.

instead, i took the arch-supports out of my running shoes, and i've not had a problem since.

Interesting ahwiles...

Do you have low or high arches? Just wondering if I may have entirely the opposite problem and need better support (I have very long, very high arches which cause me other issues from time to time).

This does give me an idea though - off to Superfeet I think!

as far as i can tell, i've got 'normal' arches.

(assessed using the highly scientific 'out of shower' technique)

it seems that most running shoes have a sexy, sculpted, 3d 'footbed'. if i replace these with a cheap, thin, flat, 'insole', then i have no trouble.

(i have even got by after simply cutting out the arch support 'bump' with a stanley knife)

Just been trying out some old Superfeet Green for the last 45 minutes - mowing the lawn. Made a real difference so think I best order some running size ones, plus a pair for my work boots!

An important tip for any enduro riders considering trail running races: you get timed on both the downhill AND the uphill :p

You need to get faster running then. Off-road on decent technical up and down stuff a bike is slower than running

The bike in that case would be useless - you would be better off without it than with it!

I have overtaken countless runners. Even when I cross paths with a fell race. I have never known a runner to overtake me.

To me, going for a ride for one hour or less isn't worth it if its muddy. The time it takes with the faff and the cleaning isn't worth it. I'd rather go out on foot if its only for an hour.

For example, is it worth going on a 45 minute ride, getting the bike and everything muddy, then spending another 45 minutes cleaning it ? In that 90 minutes I could have done it on foot ?

I don't think I have ever spent 45 mins cleaning a bike!

Muddy ride from the house, back in - quick hose down and lube (5 mins), mucky clobber in the washing machine and into the shower. Job done!