training question

Quoted message said:

What I want to know is whether I should try and add in sprints with a goal of being able to do the entire distance at a run or should I try to gradually increase the speed of the jog?>

Why would you want to do the whole distance at a run instead of a jog?
Sprinting GREATLY increases your chances for injury, and at this stage
you have an already increased chance of injury. If it's health you
seek, long, slow, distance is the way to go. Go by time, not distance.
By that I mean longer time running will make you healthier, sprinting
will get you injured real quick. So the slower you run, the longer
you'll run for.

Robert Megee <[email hidden]> writes:
: I've started getting back into shape after a 15year layoff.
: the fist week was walking the two miles through the park.
: The next week I started adding in a slow jog in spurts to
: the mix. I kept this up gradually adding more jog spurts for
: the rest of that week and the next week. On monday of week
: four I jogged the entire distance. The next day I couldn't do the
: entire distance but did the next day. Since then I've jogged the
: entire distance. This has been for three more weeks. I would say
: that the "jog" is probably a little bit faster now than it was.
: Today I decided to add in a bit of an all out run or sprint. I ran
: for a bit then dropped into the jog. I did this twice in my run.
: What I want to know is whether I should try and add in sprints
: with a goal of being able to do the entire distance at a run or should
: I try to gradually increase the speed of the jog?

: thanks,

: Robert Megee

Neither. Add distance to your run instead.

Larry

Now there's an alternative I hadn't considered. In my past I used to
push my limits. I discovered the hard way that overtraining with
weights can be a bad thing. This was one of the motivations behind
asking for advice. So far both responses say basically the same
thing: Jog don't run. To get healthier, run farther (or longer)
I must admit that it should be a lot easier on the knees that are
not quite what they used to be. (too many years of karate)

Thanks ever so much for the advice.

Robert

Quoted message said:

So far both responses say basically the same

thing: Jog don't run. To get healthier, run farther (or longer)
I must admit that it should be a lot easier on the knees that are
not quite what they used to be.>

Build a good base mileage, the rest comes later. You mention bad knees,
so invest in good shoes. Find an experienced running store that will
sell you a shoe that is the right type for your running style, and
unless you're into "designer shoes" avoid nikes, they'll kill your
knees.
You're welcome.

Lengthen the run before adding any type of speed.

What are your goals? (should have asked this first).
"Robert Megee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've started getting back into shape after a 15year layoff.
the fist week was walking the two miles through the park.
The next week I started adding in a slow jog in spurts to
the mix. I kept this up gradually adding more jog spurts for
the rest of that week and the next week. On monday of week
four I jogged the entire distance. The next day I couldn't do the
entire distance but did the next day. Since then I've jogged the
entire distance. This has been for three more weeks. I would say
that the "jog" is probably a little bit faster now than it was.
Today I decided to add in a bit of an all out run or sprint. I ran
for a bit then dropped into the jog. I did this twice in my run.
What I want to know is whether I should try and add in sprints
with a goal of being able to do the entire distance at a run or should
I try to gradually increase the speed of the jog?

thanks,

Robert Megee

Robert Megee said:

I've started getting back into shape after a 15year layoff.
the fist week was walking the two miles through the park.

Congratulations! I'm assuming you're just "getting back into shape" just
for health reasons, or do you have a specific goal for something?

Along with what the others have already said about increasing distance,
you might want to consider varying your workouts a little - perhaps
jogging longer with some walk breaks or jogging longer one day then
shorter next (or walking) - whatever it takes to get you out there
longer *without* injuring yourself. Listen to your body as to what it
will tolerate.

Enjoy a life time of running.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

what are my goals? Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular
system. My bp is getting to the point where my doc is considering
putting me on meds. I'd like to avoid that if possible. And over the
years i've added a few extra pounds around the middle that I'd be
happy to shed.
Varying my routine is something I'll have to work on. I've always
been of a mind to do a similar workout each time. I'll try and teach
this old dog this new trick.

Thanks for all the support!

Robert

Quoted message said:

Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.
Nothing sheds pounds like a long slow run.
The King

I'm for it! said:

Quoted message said:

Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.
Nothing sheds pounds like a long slow run.

A long fast run will burn more calories and therefore encourage more
weight loss than a long slow run. The problem is that you can't do
these as often. They require some amount of recovery with a day off or
an easy run.

tkb

"TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm for it! said:

Quoted message said:

Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.
Nothing sheds pounds like a long slow run.

A long fast run will burn more calories and therefore encourage more
weight loss than a long slow run. The problem is that you can't do
these as often. They require some amount of recovery with a day off or
an easy run.

this sort of complete explanation is really not encouraged here. We've been
told LSD burns more fat for years now and we've blindly accepted this.
applying the whole story to our tiny little minds is not going to help us.
as it is some of us have heads that are too heavy for our puny shoulders to
hold up so dont go putting anymore information in them.

i'm still at 0 miles as i ramp up at no more than 10% mileage per week for
that last 5 years.

Quoted message said:

tkb

"I'm for it!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.

Well, that's not quite true. Running at a sprint tends to put a lot
less impact through the joints than jogging. The slower you go the more
impact the average exerciser puts into their legs.

Robert, being of heavier-than-optimal weight, and having admittedly worn
knees, I suggest you be very conscious of two things:
1) your shoes. Buy a shoe for its fit and construction, not price or style.
buy them only from a runners-specific store - general athletic stores (malls
especially!) are [censored]. Replace them every 500 miles, and don't wear your
workout shoes around the house or they'll lose their cushioning prematurely.
2) the impact on your legs. At a sprint, your legs naturally push your body
forward from step to step as hard as they can to keep maximum speed. At a
jog, many runners tend to maintain that pop in their step, but direct it
upward instead of forward. They slow down their cadence, but continue to
take fairly large steps. The result is a motion that uses the same muscles
(makes it feel 'natural' and relaxed), but the upward-downward motion is a
joint killer. It's also inefficient, in that it wastes energy. You may
need to teach yourself how to properly run slower - to stop the bouncing.
Bouncy running can easily double or quadruple the loads on your joints.
The correct way to slow down is to shorten your strides and use more of a
shuffling motion - and keep the pace of your feet moving faster.
How do you know if you're bouncing too much? Basic things: jog
alongside a brick wall or fence and look at an a eye-level horizontal
reference. If you see more than an inch of bounce, you probably bounce too
much. Shorten and quicken your strides without changing pace (you'll need a
more shuffling motion to do this) so that it's smooth, silent, and relaxed.
It will not feel natural for more than a minute, as different muscles will
get tired and your body will want to revert to its old habits. IMHO, you
should force through this now, because your muscles are more compliant to
change and because you're at the most vulnerable to injury. It will take a
couple of weeks where you forget about intensity and focus on form whenever
you run - after 15-20 days it will be more natural.

As for the workouts, I agree with the others who said longer runs.
Changing the pace as you had been is still a valid workout, we call these
interval workouts or fartleks. Just don't do them every day. The sprints
are a good idea - I liked to do them all at the end on a soft surface - it
loosens my muscles and helps maintain my ability to run fast. But for now,
focus on running form, and then on slowly increasing distance. Don't add
more than 10% total running mileage per week, and try to vary the distance
from one day to the next.

Dave

David Geesaman said:

"I'm for it!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.

Well, that's not quite true. Running at a sprint tends to put a lot
less impact through the joints than jogging. The slower you go the more
impact the average exerciser puts into their legs.

I dont really agre with this statement, but the advice that followed is
generally good, especially about getting proper shoes.

Quoted message said:

[]

Quoted message said:

How do you know if you're bouncing too much? Basic things: jog
alongside a brick wall or fence and look at an a eye-level horizontal
reference. If you see more than an inch of bounce, you probably bounce too
much.

When I started running I used to use an old style stopwatch, IOW, one
that hung on a strap around my neck rather than a wristwatch. If your
running includes any bounce, you'll know it quickly if you are wearing
something like that. And you don't have to turn your head to check. The
feedback is immediate and consistant.

Shorten and quicken your strides without changing pace (you'll need a

Quoted message said:

more shuffling motion to do this) so that it's smooth, silent, and relaxed.
It will not feel natural for more than a minute, as different muscles will
get tired and your body will want to revert to its old habits. IMHO, you
should force through this now, because your muscles are more compliant to
change and because you're at the most vulnerable to injury. It will take a
couple of weeks where you forget about intensity and focus on form whenever
you run - after 15-20 days it will be more natural.

As for the workouts, I agree with the others who said longer runs.
Changing the pace as you had been is still a valid workout, we call these
interval workouts or fartleks. Just don't do them every day. The sprints
are a good idea - I liked to do them all at the end on a soft surface - it
loosens my muscles and helps maintain my ability to run fast. But for now,
focus on running form, and then on slowly increasing distance. Don't add
more than 10% total running mileage per week, and try to vary the distance
from one day to the next.

Dave

Good advice Dave.
HTH,
ed

"Ed Prochak" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Geesaman said:

"I'm for it!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>

Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.

Well, that's not quite true. Running at a sprint tends to put a lot
less impact through the joints than jogging. The slower you go the more
impact the average exerciser puts into their legs.

I dont really agre with this statement, but the advice that followed is
generally good, especially about getting proper shoes.

When you're running at your full speed, you're moving your legs faster
than at a normal run. Which means your body spends less time between
strides. To bounce you need to take longer, slower strides and leap more
from one footstep to the next. While it's sort of possible to do this at a
sprint, it's not natural. Many recreational runners I've seen, especially
the generally athletic ones doing cross-training, have a very vertical
bouncy jog. What I've seen over the years at the local track and gym gives
very strong support for this generalization.

The thing about the stopwatch is a great reference also. Another
humbling test is to try drinking a cup of water :o) which almost anyone
who's entered a race has tried. Ignoring the fact you're sucking wind, the
slightest up-down motion puts the water on the ground and not in your belly.

Dave

David Geesaman said:

"Ed Prochak" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Many recreational runners I've seen, especially
the generally athletic ones doing cross-training, have a very vertical
bouncy jog. What I've seen over the years at the local track and gym gives
very strong support for this generalization.

Guilty as charged 😉 - at least in the past for the bounce. One
technique that's been used also is to try to do a cadence of 180. Most
beginners, myself included, had to shorten their strides to be able to
get anywhere close to that - and the bouncing stopped, or at least was
reduced significantly. That was probably one of the most significant
changes when I was "learning" to run a few years ago. I'm a little lax
about it now and generally in the 170-175 range unless I think about it,
but I'm usually negotiating trails where my stride may be affected by
roots, twists in trail, etc. Smoother trails the cadence increases a bit.

Quoted message said:

The thing about the stopwatch is a great reference also. Another
humbling test is to try drinking a cup of water :o) which almost anyone
who's entered a race has tried. Ignoring the fact you're sucking wind, the
slightest up-down motion puts the water on the ground and not in your belly.

Sloshing in water bottles or hydration bladders as well as headlamp
beams are also good continuous tests for smoothness.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

I'm a believer in adding distance and speed will gradually come.

I started about six years ago at age 52. walked to start than started
a slow jog. two miles then 2.5, then 3, then 3.5, then 4. Three
times a week, then four and finally 5.5 (run three days, take a day
off) varying distance between 3.5 and 5.

My first 5K about a year after I started was 32 and change. Today, I
run a 5K at about 23:30. Lets me finish in the top three in my age
category enough to keep me interested. I've dropped a minute each of
the last three years.

Thing is I never made any effort to increase speed. It just came
naturally as I felt better.

If you are just starting, do the research on matching shoe type to
your running style, and get good ones. replace them before you think
you need to.

The benefits to sticking with it: Normal blood pressure, no cardiac
problems, and my slight weight problem is a thing of the past.
the cons: in the winter my knees ache a little.

Good luck

Frank

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:05:27 -0500, Robert Megee <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've started getting back into shape after a 15year layoff.
the fist week was walking the two miles through the park.
The next week I started adding in a slow jog in spurts to
the mix. I kept this up gradually adding more jog spurts for
the rest of that week and the next week. On monday of week
four I jogged the entire distance. The next day I couldn't do the
entire distance but did the next day. Since then I've jogged the
entire distance. This has been for three more weeks. I would say
that the "jog" is probably a little bit faster now than it was.
Today I decided to add in a bit of an all out run or sprint. I ran
for a bit then dropped into the jog. I did this twice in my run.
What I want to know is whether I should try and add in sprints
with a goal of being able to do the entire distance at a run or should
I try to gradually increase the speed of the jog?

thanks,

Robert Megee

I think with my knees i've got a fairly bounceless jog. I was
planning on getting a stop watch so I'll try the watch around the neck
test. I've got a brick wall nearby that I can use too.
I really like the idea of running a certain amount of time. This will
allow me to run a variety of different paths.

I must say I really am impressed with this newsgroup and really
appreciate all the help.

Robert

David Geesaman said:

"Ed Prochak" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Geesaman said:

"I'm for it!" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >Well, vaguely I want to improve my cardiovascular system.>
>
> Then Long Slow Distance will do it, and with minimal chance of injury.

Well, that's not quite true. Running at a sprint tends to put a lot
less impact through the joints than jogging. The slower you go the more
impact the average exerciser puts into their legs.

I dont really agre with this statement, but the advice that followed is
generally good, especially about getting proper shoes.

When you're running at your full speed, you're moving your legs faster
than at a normal run. Which means your body spends less time between
strides. To bounce you need to take longer, slower strides and leap more
from one footstep to the next. While it's sort of possible to do this at a
sprint, it's not natural. Many recreational runners I've seen, especially
the generally athletic ones doing cross-training, have a very vertical
bouncy jog. What I've seen over the years at the local track and gym gives
very strong support for this generalization.

Yes, it's true that turnover increases when you run all-out. But there are a
couple of problems with the following assertion:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, that's not quite true. Running at a sprint tends to put a lot
less impact through the joints than jogging. The slower you go the more
impact the average exerciser puts into their legs.

(1) the trend is nonlinear. Turnover doesn't change a whole lot when you go
from say a slow jog to 5k race pace, but changes a lot between 5k pace and
sprinting. Someone who has a "bouncy jog" at their easy training pace,
probably also has a faster, but equally "bouncy jog" at 5k race pace.

(2) there's more to forces on the joints than vertical impact.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

TheVicar said:

i'm still at 0 miles as i ramp up at no more than 10% mileage per week for
that last 5 years.

Gotta love the good old "10% rule". Instead of trying to reinvent it with half
a dozen subclauses, better to dismiss it as BS.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David Geesaman said:

Running at a sprint tends to put a lot less impact through
the joints than jogging.

I do understand your point about stride rate and smoothness. But
(quoting from _Run Strong_, Human Kinetics, 2005, Jack Youngren's
chapter "Stride Mechanics"😉:

-- snip --
The main impact force encountered on landing is the vertical ground
reaction force. This is the bone-jarring component of the force of
impact that is transmitted straight up the limb. In sprinting,
vertical ground reaction forces can reportedly exceed six times the
body weight with each stride. At paces encountered in distance
running, the body absorbs ground reaction forces on the order of two
and a half to three times its weight with each footstrike.
-- snip --

(I am certain there must be a considerably greater range than 2.5 to 3
times body weight from smoother quieter faster-striding runners to the
boing! boing! [or thud! thud!] 120 stride per minute pogo sticking oafs
out there - that "2.5 to 3" is probably for a single runner [average?
ideal?] over a range of paces.)

Later in the chapter:

-- snip --
Impact forces are greater at faster speeds and are absorbed through
a smaller area of the foot because a forefoot strike becomes more
prevalent. Stresses on the Achilles tendon are much greater [...]
-- snip --

There's an interesting bit in there somewhere about how at higher
speeds, a lot of the propulsive force for some part of the stride
actually comes from the mechanical energy stored energy in one's
tendon(s?) which get stretched and bounce back with each stride, and
actually require more muscle power at slower speeds; but I can't seem
to find it at the moment.