Running Page 6

  • Page

    of 35 First / Last

  • JuanKerr 13 Jan 2010 10:01:26 36,295 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Went for a 3 mile run interspersed with press ups, sit ups, pull ups etc last night. Aching like a bastard now.
  • craigy Staff 13 Jan 2010 10:01:38 7,717 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You think that's bad -- I've been laid off with a torn calf sustained doing a 10k since November. Easily put on a stone since then. No exercise is making me feel very strange.
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 10:17:28 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Destria wrote:
    This snow is playing hell with the cycling. Trying to make up for it with the running. Managed about 13 miles on Sat, with a couple of steep hills in there, generally keeping heart rate at 165ish. Except when I went down a steep hill, as I had to practically walk down to avoid falling over.

    Also did a quick (well, relatively :p) 5k at lunch today and now I'm hurting.

    It's easy to geek out with this gps watch and hrm though. Quite fun :).

    Quick nutrition question, and this seems like one of three threads I could bung it in... Now I know that it's important to eat properly after doing running/cycling/exercise (to replace glycogen stores etc), but is there any particular trend I should be following (e.g. lots of protein after high intensity stuff or something)?

    Have I got to become one of the Protein Shake in the Office Kitchen gang?

    Destria, depending on the severity of your workout you have a window of about 20-30 mins straight afterwards where your body is more geared up to absorb nutrients (Woo). So I would suggest some kind of recovery drink with protien and carbs to start the recovery process, followed by a decent meal of carbs/proteins within the next 2 hours or so. It's a fairly standard cycling method.

    The amount of carbs and proteins really depends on what food you're eating for the rest of the day and everyone is different.

    You don't need to go mad with expensive drinks, and I know some cyclists who just use the For goodness shakes as a recovery and they have a good balance or carbs and protein. I tend to use Rego but have used a few different ones.




  • THFourteen 13 Jan 2010 10:19:06 33,810 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    hehe i stuffed myself with tuna, pasta, pesto and vegetables last night

    felt good.

    bloated this morning though :D
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 10:19:28 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    did the 3.6mile run home again last night, 3rd time i've done it in 2 weeks and it took me 40mins... ok not a great time, but for someone who's never run before i'm pleased!

    still using the free runkeeper app, which maps my run and speed and posts it to facebook, much fun

    rewarded myself with a bacon roll this morning. really need more willpower as i'll never lose weight if i keep eating shite.

    on the plus side my 500g bag of peri peri biltong arrived this morning.

    Well done on the run, and sorry to burst your bubble, but you do realise you probably took in more calories with the bacon roll than you burned on the run?

    ;-)
  • THFourteen 13 Jan 2010 10:29:08 33,810 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    haha yeah... according to runkeeper, i burned 450 calories on my run. thinking a bacon roll (brown roll, 2 slices grilled bacon with fat still on, brown sauce, no butter) is probably about 350-400.

    alternative scenario would have been no run, and eat the bacon anyway, so i'm not too fussed...

    gym this afternoon - supposed to be legs and back day but i dont want to stress my knees out too much the week before i go skiing.
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 10:32:30 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    haha yeah... according to runkeeper, i burned 450 calories on my run. thinking a bacon roll (brown roll, 2 slices grilled bacon with fat still on, brown sauce, no butter) is probably about 350-400.

    alternative scenario would have been no run, and eat the bacon anyway, so i'm not too fussed...

    gym this afternoon - supposed to be legs and back day but i dont want to stress my knees out too much the week before i go skiing.

    Humm, I wouldn't pay any attention to the figure you see on your monitor as pretty much all HR monitors are miles out and very generous on the number. Even the expensive ones.

    Depending on the individual and intensity, if you're in the right zone you can burn anyting from 400-900 an hour. My Garmin 705 is incredibly generous and I pay no attention to it at all.
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2010 10:38:31 12,887 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    :D

    Thats just mean!(Edit: that was @ Pistol, damn my slow typing)

    I've really fallen behind on my excercise recently due to the deadly Christmas/snow combination. All the excercise i've had is football once a week for the past four weeks :o
    On the plus side it's given me time to catch up on my extensive games backlog but also I feel a bit weird, my first 10k run back will probably be quite hard.

    I'm planning on training for the Dublin city marathon this year, i've run the equivalent of halves before(on my own) but never attempted to get to full marathon distance.

    I know i'll have to slowly build myself back up to half marathon fitness after my slacking the past month but is there any particular training regime that i shoudl undertake to build myself up to the fitness required for a full marathon otr just do the usual gradual build up?

    My usual gradual buildup is running through a mixture of parks/paths and increasing the distance I run as I see fit.
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 10:56:24 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    :D

    Thats just mean!(Edit: that was @ Pistol, damn my slow typing)

    I've really fallen behind on my excercise recently due to the deadly Christmas/snow combination. All the excercise i've had is football once a week for the past four weeks :o
    On the plus side it's given me time to catch up on my extensive games backlog but also I feel a bit weird, my first 10k run back will probably be quite hard.

    I'm planning on training for the Dublin city marathon this year, i've run the equivalent of halves before(on my own) but never attempted to get to full marathon distance.

    I know i'll have to slowly build myself back up to half marathon fitness after my slacking the past month but is there any particular training regime that i shoudl undertake to build myself up to the fitness required for a full marathon otr just do the usual gradual build up?

    My usual gradual buildup is running through a mixture of parks/paths and increasing the distance I run as I see fit.

    :-)

    Really wasn't trying to be mean at all, just honest. I've had to take a hard look at the calories i'm burning an hour to make sure I have enough on board for my endurance rides, so it's been born out of that. I now know through trial and error what I'm burning per hour (give or take) and if I went back to what my Garmin said I'd be miles out.

    So there's a reason why I say it.



  • Deleted user 13 January 2010 10:58:48
    craigy wrote:
    You think that's bad -- I've been laid off with a torn calf sustained doing a 10k since November. Easily put on a stone since then. No exercise is making me feel very strange.

    I'm feeling very twitchy.

    Basically due to a load of circumstances (moving house, home at Christmas) since about the beginning of December my whole regimen has been fucked up and I was looking forward post-move to get back on it last week. I did a big run to the gym and then my usual weights, got home, watched the snow come down and literally done nothing since aside from walk about in my snow boots up and down Ally Pally hill. :/

    I could go to the gym in the eve but it's a council one and packs out after five. Gah. I usually go midday after a run when it's quiet.
  • THFourteen 13 Jan 2010 11:09:49 33,810 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    similar problems here, if i go after work its rammed, and i have to be at my desk by 8 nowadays so too early for me to get up and go before work.

    i just take a 1.5h lunch break 3 times a week

    i can see everyone hates me for it, but fuck em.
  • rutter 13 Jan 2010 11:21:50 1,919 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I too fit in all my exercise at lunch. Will be off for a quick 4 miler at midday down the river in the snow! Hope I don't fall in!
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2010 11:54:44 12,887 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    pistol wrote:
    mikew1985 wrote:
    :D

    Thats just mean!(Edit: that was @ Pistol, damn my slow typing)

    I've really fallen behind on my excercise recently due to the deadly Christmas/snow combination. All the excercise i've had is football once a week for the past four weeks :o
    On the plus side it's given me time to catch up on my extensive games backlog but also I feel a bit weird, my first 10k run back will probably be quite hard.

    I'm planning on training for the Dublin city marathon this year, i've run the equivalent of halves before(on my own) but never attempted to get to full marathon distance.

    I know i'll have to slowly build myself back up to half marathon fitness after my slacking the past month but is there any particular training regime that i shoudl undertake to build myself up to the fitness required for a full marathon otr just do the usual gradual build up?

    My usual gradual buildup is running through a mixture of parks/paths and increasing the distance I run as I see fit.

    :-)

    Really wasn't trying to be mean at all, just honest. I've had to take a hard look at the calories i'm burning an hour to make sure I have enough on board for my endurance rides, so it's been born out of that. I now know through trial and error what I'm burning per hour (give or take) and if I went back to what my Garmin said I'd be miles out.

    So there's a reason why I say it.

    I was only having a laugh anyway :)

    First thing you need to do when you want to get yourself fit is honestly assess your calorie intake and how it will affect what you need to do.

    I honestly don'y know what my calorie burnage per hour is as my Nike+ iPod thing tells me 1200 cals after 1 hour running which is obviously bullshit! How did you go about working it out?

    /stares shamefully at empty pizza box from the weekend
  • Deleted user 13 January 2010 12:02:54
    rutter wrote:
    I too fit in all my exercise at lunch. Will be off for a quick 4 miler at midday down the river in the snow! Hope I don't fall in!

    Can we not pretend that the distances we run are any smaller than they are?

    Thanks! ;)
  • craigy Staff 13 Jan 2010 12:03:58 7,717 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mike, have you properly calibrated your Nike+ with your weight and height? You can also do distance calibration which should make the measurements a bit more realistic.
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 12:08:21 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    pistol wrote:
    mikew1985 wrote:
    :D

    Thats just mean!(Edit: that was @ Pistol, damn my slow typing)

    I've really fallen behind on my excercise recently due to the deadly Christmas/snow combination. All the excercise i've had is football once a week for the past four weeks :o
    On the plus side it's given me time to catch up on my extensive games backlog but also I feel a bit weird, my first 10k run back will probably be quite hard.

    I'm planning on training for the Dublin city marathon this year, i've run the equivalent of halves before(on my own) but never attempted to get to full marathon distance.

    I know i'll have to slowly build myself back up to half marathon fitness after my slacking the past month but is there any particular training regime that i shoudl undertake to build myself up to the fitness required for a full marathon otr just do the usual gradual build up?

    My usual gradual buildup is running through a mixture of parks/paths and increasing the distance I run as I see fit.

    :-)

    Really wasn't trying to be mean at all, just honest. I've had to take a hard look at the calories i'm burning an hour to make sure I have enough on board for my endurance rides, so it's been born out of that. I now know through trial and error what I'm burning per hour (give or take) and if I went back to what my Garmin said I'd be miles out.

    So there's a reason why I say it.

    I was only having a laugh anyway :)

    First thing you need to do when you want to get yourself fit is honestly assess your calorie intake and how it will affect what you need to do.

    I honestly don'y know what my calorie burnage per hour is as my Nike+ iPod thing tells me 1200 cals after 1 hour running which is obviously bullshit! How did you go about working it out?

    /stares shamefully at empty pizza box from the weekend

    1200?.....blimey, that'll be miles out and possibly nearly double.

    Mine has been worked out by months of trial and error. Most of my bike training is geared towards endurance events so I've been figuring out what I need to eat and drink per hour to a) get round in a good time and b) to ensure I keep my glycogen levels topped up at all times. It amounts to about 600-1000 calories per hour. Your body will struggle to take on that many calories on the fly so you have to do the best you can, and I find I can get enough on board if I mix between food and drinks.

    It's all been worked out by experimenting, i.e. how much I eat in the day, and how I feel after the ride. What I weigh before the ride and after etc etc. Lots of playing around with different amounts and it's not something you can do overnight.

    As a guide, and if you haven't got a lot of time, or the desire to go into any great detail, i would say the best way to look at it is to always air on the side of caution. By that I mean, always think you're burning less than you really are. If my HR monitor said 1200, I'd be inclined to think I'm probably burning about 500-600. But this amount is dependant on a number of variables such as fitness levels, intensity etc.



  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2010 12:10:00 12,887 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Oh yeah, it's properly calibrated with weight/height etc. and first thing i did was a distance calibration as thats how I measure my runs.

    Although i may need to recalibrate the weight after Christmas :D
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2010 12:15:41 12,887 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Also i'm actually quite heavy despite generally being quite fit so i always find that kcal readings feed me total BS anyway(about 90kg and just under 6ft)

    Cheers pistol, i was thinking it was probably more likely to be around the 5-600 mark anyway. I wonder why they have these things measure way off?

    I also just realised, i can't find a measurement for height on my Nike+ Settings, which would automatically mean that pretty much all readings are way off for everyone.

    Am I missing the option to set height somewhere?
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 12:17:03 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    Oh yeah, it's properly calibrated with weight/height etc. and first thing i did was a distance calibration as thats how I measure my runs.

    Although i may need to recalibrate the weight after Christmas :D

    You'll see a lot of debates on the fitness forums about HR monitors and how accurate they are. It comes up a lot. The algorithms that they use are pretty much useless because they don't take into account the individual (how could they), or the terrains you're running or cycling on. If I do a very hilly ride my Garmin can't tell the difference as far as calories are concerned. It tries to work out an average, hence it being miles out. It's a bit like when you have 2 people on treadmills next to each other, one a right fatty and the other fit, and if both went at the same speed for the same amount of time, both would say the same calories were burned. Which of course is nonsense.

  • THFourteen 13 Jan 2010 12:18:03 33,810 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    hmmm a lot more complicated than i thought. i figured it was a measure of distance + speed and your weight

    f=ma or some such equation i cant remember from physics...

    i'm not that fussed as i dont actually want to LOSE much weight as such, just need to get rid of some front and side pork

    if i weighed 11 stone i'd look skinny and i dont want to look skinny
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 12:20:23 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    Also i'm actually quite heavy despite generally being quite fit so i always find that kcal readings feed me total BS anyway(about 90kg and just under 6ft)

    Cheers pistol, i was thinking it was probably more likely to be around the 5-600 mark anyway. I wonder why they have these things measure way off?

    I also just realised, i can't find a measurement for height on my Nike+ Settings, which would automatically mean that pretty much all readings are way off for everyone.

    Am I missing the option to set height somewhere?

    5-600 per hour is still pretty intensive though.
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 12:21:12 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    hmmm a lot more complicated than i thought. i figured it was a measure of distance + speed and your weight

    f=ma or some such equation i cant remember from physics...

    i'm not that fussed as i dont actually want to LOSE much weight as such, just need to get rid of some front and side pork

    if i weighed 11 stone i'd look skinny and i dont want to look skinny

    What is front and side pork if it's not weight?

    ;-)
  • pistol 13 Jan 2010 12:22:40 13,019 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    hmmm a lot more complicated than i thought. i figured it was a measure of distance + speed and your weight

    f=ma or some such equation i cant remember from physics...

    i'm not that fussed as i dont actually want to LOSE much weight as such, just need to get rid of some front and side pork

    if i weighed 11 stone i'd look skinny and i dont want to look skinny

    But if you had 2 people the same weight, but one was much fitter than the other. If both went the same distance at the same pace, they'd still burn different calories.

    The other day I felt pretty guilty as I was round a mate's house and his wife walked in from the gym. She was going on about how many calories she'd burned after reading it on the treadmill. She'd done about 45 mins and said she'd burned over a 1000. I kept my mouth shut for a while but then couldn't any longer..;-)

    Doing this in June

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-7SJa4o5NE



  • Destria 13 Jan 2010 16:09:19 2,836 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I heard that the rough benchmark was about 100 calories per mile. Whether or not that's accurate I've got no idea, but I'm assuming that she hasn't run 10 miles in 45 minutes :).

    I'm sure I've asked this before, but I've heard different things about my running style. Basically, probably due to most of my pre-running running being barefoot inside a dojo, I land on my toes first.

    Most people I've spoken to say that that's odd, and I should be landing on the heel and rolling onto the toe. Is it pretty much just a case of personal preference, or could I run quicker/more efficently/better/whatever if I tried to do that instead?
  • FalseAlibi 13 Jan 2010 16:13:23 89 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Destria wrote:
    I heard that the rough benchmark was about 100 calories per mile. Whether or not that's accurate I've got no idea, but I'm assuming that she hasn't run 10 miles in 45 minutes :).

    I'm sure I've asked this before, but I've heard different things about my running style. Basically, probably due to most of my pre-running running being barefoot inside a dojo, I land on my toes first.

    Most people I've spoken to say that that's odd, and I should be landing on the heel and rolling onto the toe. Is it pretty much just a case of personal preference, or could I run quicker/more efficently/better/whatever if I tried to do that instead?

    It is odd, in that people have a habit of heel striking due to bouncy soled trainers, but landing toe or mid foot first is good running form I believe.

    Have a look at the more modern natural running shoes with hardly any sole or into POSE running and you'll see you're lucky to naturally run the way you do.
  • faux-C 13 Jan 2010 16:21:59 9,439 posts
    Seen 11 seconds ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can't believe I'm the OP for this thread! :o
  • woodnotes 13 Jan 2010 16:26:55 4,935 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    faux_carnation wrote:
    Wow. Zombie thread.

    I managed about a month. It's really tedious.
    lol :)

    Gym membership is best but bloody expensive. Still, for me it means I get variety. I can go swimming, to cardio on crosstrainer/treadmill etc, or do weights. I never do any classes as I can't be arsed with that, but the rest is really keeping me fit and interested. My ultimate goal is to get in to a routine whereby I go swimming/gym every morning. But the fact that it's a goal and that I'm not already doing it means it's bloody unlikely :)
  • sport 13 Jan 2010 16:32:19 12,775 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    FalseAlibi wrote:
    Destria wrote:
    I heard that the rough benchmark was about 100 calories per mile. Whether or not that's accurate I've got no idea, but I'm assuming that she hasn't run 10 miles in 45 minutes :).

    I'm sure I've asked this before, but I've heard different things about my running style. Basically, probably due to most of my pre-running running being barefoot inside a dojo, I land on my toes first.

    Most people I've spoken to say that that's odd, and I should be landing on the heel and rolling onto the toe. Is it pretty much just a case of personal preference, or could I run quicker/more efficently/better/whatever if I tried to do that instead?

    It is odd, in that people have a habit of heel striking due to bouncy soled trainers, but landing toe or mid foot first is good running form I believe.

    Have a look at the more modern natural running shoes with hardly any sole or into POSE running and you'll see you're lucky to naturally run the way you do.

    +1

    Everyone has different running styles but top runners land on the fore/mid foot. Watch small kids running and run barefoot, it's what we do naturally.

    As Alibi says, count yourself lucky, I've spent months getting into a forefoot strike, but it's starting to feel more natural now.
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2010 16:36:46 12,887 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Hmm, I've always run that way; landing toes first. In fact, the other way; landing heel first, seems incredibly awkward and potentially painful the more I think about it.

    Think of the heel bruising people, the heal bruising :(

    Edit; Why in gods name my brain decided to spell heel: heal at the very last part of that post, I'll never know.
  • Page

    of 35 First / Last

Log in or register to reply