Quote from: James Malloch on October 23, 2023, 09:20:44 amGood news is that some new shoes and some supportive insoles seem to be doing the trick, touch wood! I’ve ran (without any walk) for longer than 15 mins for the first time in about 5 years anyway! It’s nice to be moving again!That’s brilliant. I’ve been really lucky with injuries but went over on my (already bad) ankle in June and it’s been very unstable/weak since. Seeing a podiatrist next week (Colin Papworth who is well known in Sheffield). I run in 5 different shoes so I’m hoping he doesn’t tell me I have to chuck them all away and buy some stability shoes!
Good news is that some new shoes and some supportive insoles seem to be doing the trick, touch wood! I’ve ran (without any walk) for longer than 15 mins for the first time in about 5 years anyway! It’s nice to be moving again!
The only pair of shoes I’ve not really got on with was when I was persuaded I needed stability shoes!I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?
I was chatting to a mate at the fell relays who reckons he does most of his training in zone 2. Other people have tried to sell this to me in the past …except Frank is regularly top 5 in local races. Anyone else?
I did the BGR this year and my three rules of thumb seemed to work well.1. 80:20 i.e. 80% of my weekly run was Z2 with 20% speed/ intervals.2. Don’t increase mileage for the 15% per week3. Easy runs on tired legs Took me a while to get used to running slowly (Z2) , but once I did, I really started to enjoyed it, you can think, connect and take in the environment much betters.(*ps I know very little about training)
My one reservation with this is that it would appear to work for professional athletes, since they have the time to do 15+ slow miles every day, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be the right strategy for someone more time-poor, who maybe only gets to run 3 times a week.
My tuppence worth based on personal observations and spending a lot of time following the training of sub-elites. Caveat: I am shit at running and have never run more than 60km pw.There’s loads of evidence for 80/20 but my view is it does not apply to the casual climber-runner who is running sub 5 hours per week. Even less so for anyone who cannot run faster than a 45-minute 10K.1. The whole idea is to tolerate more volume and that will get you fitter. I reckon to run 80% Z2 you need to be running at least 60km/5 times per week and even then you only have 12km of faster work or 1 run realistically. If you’re running 30-40km pw and most of that is easy you will not get faster.2. ‘Long Slow Run’ is a myth unless you’re quite fit. Even at a very slow pace your heart rate climbs as you become more fatigued so what might start off as Z2 can end at top end of Z3.3. In my opinion you need to be at least a sub 22 minute 5k runner to run 80% at Z2. Otherwise your true easy effort is so slow that it’s only possible on flat roads. So any slower fell/trail runner is going to be running at a higher effort than ‘true’ Z2. 4. You need to train race effort. Plodding around then expecting to run 1 - 2 minutes faster per km in a race is unrealistic.*5. Some runners perform very well off natural talent and low mileage.6. Consistency is a better thing to focus on than 80/20 for average/slow runners.*If you have good natural form and are experienced i.e. know what effort whatever the distance is you’re racing then this may be less true.
The other points seem pretty sound too, especially the one about consistency (so, by implication, not getting injured).
I wonder if this also applies to ARC/aerobic capacity training for punter-climbers?
From my n=1 I agree with the main point about z2 not applying to shufflers like me. My z2 is a brisk walk which I've done plenty of for 50+ years; my running would never have progressed if 80% of my training was walking. The other points seem pretty sound too, especially the one about consistency (so, by implication, not getting injured).
I struggle with the logic behind this, although that’s not to say it isn’t right. Given it’s a relative to fitness level, why would it be different for different fitness levels? [...]
I'd have said the 80/20 split might lend itself to less injury, no? Given a certain amount of time running per week, running more of it at a slower pace sound less injury provoking than running at consistently high effort.
5. Some runners perform very well off natural talent and low mileage.
T_B has run the London marathon so he's not completely shit at running!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/27/harvey-lewis-ultramarathon-backyard-championshipThis is just batshit bonkers.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1494 access attempts in the last 7 days.