Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... Then you're stuck three miles out and have to run back. This kind of planning will force you to adjust your pace to what you can do over a given longer distance. But first you must establish a personal rule that you will always finish a run without walking.
Jeff Galloway's 2001 book on marathon training suggests that runners at my pace and age actually walk 10% to 25% (1 min out of every 4 to 10 minutes) of the weekly longest distance runs.
Where is that theory between controversial and accepted?
I think it's still way down the controversial end of the spectrum. I can see how it would be useful for coach potatoes who suddenly decide to run a marathon, but less useful for those who have run for years.
That sounds strange biomechanically. At a given pace and running form shouldn't ff/min be inversely proportional to leg/inseam length? Don't significantly shorter people (short legged people to be more precise) need a higher ff/min at the same absolute pace in order to not be over- striding?
No, not if their stride length is longer, as it seems to be.
Actually, if their stride length is equal in absolute distance (ff to ff in centimeters, etc.) then their ff/min should match at the same pace.
Running seems to be more ballistic than contact trigonometric as might be walking, as was my initial misperception, so there's probably some complex ratio of contact time versus flight time that varies with leg length and weight.
IMHO. YMMV. -- Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com nicholson.comrhnOpen ↗ #include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
It seems to me I heard somewhere that BarryNL wrote in article <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. said:
In article <[email hidden]>, eddy eagle <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Donovan Rebbechi <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... Then you're stuck three miles out and have to run back. This kind of planning will force you to adjust your pace to what you can do over a given longer distance. But first you must establish a personal rule that you will always finish a run without walking.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Jeff Galloway's 2001 book on marathon training suggests that runners at my pace and age actually walk 10% to 25% (1 min out of every 4 to 10 minutes) of the weekly longest distance runs.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Where is that theory between controversial and accepted?
Quoted message said:
I think it's still way down the controversial end of the spectrum. I can see how it would be useful for coach potatoes who suddenly decide to run a marathon, but less useful for those who have run for years.
I think it's controversial because it rankles some elitists who can't seem to let other runners set their own goals and methods. Speaking for myself as one of those who has run for years (25+ including 27 marathons) I find the walk breaks important for my ability to even stay on the roads regularly in my mid-70s. I can hardly wait for the naysayers to catch up to my age so I can see how they feel then. :-) -- Don [email hidden]
I think it's controversial because it rankles some elitists who can't seem to let other runners set their own goals and methods. Speaking for
Galloway rankles a lot of different people (not all of whom are "elitists"😉 for a lot of different reasons. Anyone who
(a) is popular (b) has an unorthodox approach, (c) uses fairly aggressive marketting (to say it as nicely as possible) (d) has a following who make themselves seen/heard/whatever
is always going to draw fire from somewhere. (Atkins is a good example of this)
[email hidden] (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote in news:c8rfr9$trs$1 @blue.rahul.net:
Quoted message said:
In article <PKasc.20631$fF3.529166@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net said:
Quoted message said:
>Try maintaining your 175-180 ff/min at your slower pace >and see if ...
Do a google group search on r.r for 'cadence "leg length"'. There's several threads that might be of interest,
Interesting reading.
I'll record a 180 bpm "beep" track for my mp3 player to experiment with on my next run and see how slow a pace I can still keep that cadence. Offhand, I can't thing of a genre of music that plays evenly at that bpm.
Mr. Blue Skies by Electric Light Orchestra comes close with 177 bpm.
