Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Moraghan Training - Stevie G
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Most foolish Marlow session was once done in a pitch black park, sprinting into who knows what on who knows what surface! Thinking back we sometimes did reps on slippery pavements too, followed by recoveries of the slowest runner! Only once do i remember a muscle problem! Probably wouldn't want to try again a decade on.
10 for me today, 7.01 job. Little overcase, slightly cold. Probably just the conditions you want to be honest.
I agree with CC on the 32'xx 10k re loads of marathons debate. The marathon guy probably does virtually no other running training at the moment, maybe just strength and or cross training; why would he and how would it benefit him given his schedule? So, as CC says, a 32'xx 10k runner like many of the fastest on this thread is a) putting in more effort and b) a much more talented athlete. This focus on race distance and numbers over quality is often held out at a much lower level; in most clubs the 'glory' usually goes to people who do lots of marathons, especially in exotic locations or even more so ultras. The best runners who knock our regular low 30's 10k's and 16'xx 5k's or older ones with very high WAVA's barely get a mention in dispatches.
dating 1 model or sleeping with 800 horrors? both takes commitment and a certain amount of effort but its the quality that counts. or if that football analogy didn't quite work how about 1 match at championship level plus 300 at league 2 versus 800 sunday league matches. which player is the better athlete and impresses me the most?
maybe it groups the mind set of this thread. those genuinely striving for more and more rather than getting out and enjoying running will fall on either side of the argument and maybe will never appreciate the otherside. (no dig at anyone as both are equally valid).
Running 800 marathons of course takes commitment but if they are run in 5hours, I suggest no they don't take that much out of your body and yes I could do that easily (but why would I). of course if they are all sub 3 then that's pretty damn good, but still the random number of 800 is irrelevant to me. is that person less of an athlete than someone who has run 810 but all slower?
I would rather have better PBs. the time people start talking about the number of races is often when the quality of their times is falling. which I know happens to us all at some point
Dean, I assume the triathletes one is for me. Actually it tends to be ex runners that get injured, ex swimmers that got bored and ex cyclists that don't like wearing socks.
Dachs - Assuming I have guessed the correct park, I think it will do the job, albeit not the most inspiring. It does get pretty boggy in patches and you've got some small lumps but it's going to be a short lap, we must be talking 5-6 laps at least? Maybe chuck some logs down. On the plus side it's convenient for me.
Nice Track Tempo SG.
I think most so called WRs are stupid. I don't think you can compare 900 marathons and a sub 32 10k. They are not mutually exclusive and the guy that does 900 slow marathons and could never have achieved a sub 32 10k had on choice. If I ran 31:xx in the local 10k race and did little else, it would probably be a lot less rewarding than travelling the world doing hundreds of marathons. Clearly the marathons takes more commitment, the 10k could be done in a couple of years with enough talent. Achievement is about getting the most out of yourself.
I've got nothing out of myself this week as I have been ill. I've got a virus of some sort but not a standard cold as I am also feeling sick. Not sure it's going to shift before Abingdon on Sunday but we'll see. Looks like a windy one potentially so the evidence of it being just a get round job is growing. Still it will be marathon number 9 including Ironman marathons so only 891 to go.
Although,maybe i'm the third type...the ones who run casually a bit but can't always say they enjoy it at the time
My original question was "which is more impressive". I can guarantee that 99% of the general UK population would be more impressed by 800 marathons than a sub 32 10k (even 800 sub 32 10ks for that matter!).
Sub 32 probably takes more focus and determination, but the question of "what's the point?" for 800 marathons applies equally to a sub 32. Yes, it's damn quick, and way beyond most mortals ability, but it aint gonna win you no Olympic medals or even a British record. In fact, even I am only roughly as far away from a sub 32 as a sub 32 is from a British record!
Of course, and as I've already said, those who post on this thread have more understanding of what it takes to run a sub 32. Any of us (who aren't injured) could run a decent marathon tomorrow, whereas only a couple could probably bag a sub 32, and possibly one or two more who could achieve it in tow years if they focussed. Not sure how many of us could do 8 half decent marathons a week for two years regardless of what other training they were doing!
6.5 mud miles this morning. Felt alright and avoided the rain!
On top of this, even if you have a dreadful 10k race, it won't be anything like what can happen if a marathon goes wrong.
I experienced a wheels dropped off half and that was a tough battle dribbling out 6/7 miles, so i can only imagine what knowing you still have 12-15 miles coming when you feel dreadful is like.
The beauty of running of course is that there is no one "right" way of going about it. There;'s so much to choose, pb hunting, different distance challenges, different surfaces, new races, new places, racking up loads of whatever you decide you want to rack up, and these can change year on year out.
It's inspiring to see people who have run for 30 or so years still taking joy in simple races, even though they were much faster years back.
Careful everyone, you'll push this thread so far on that we won't get to witness PMJ's analysis of the outcome of the start line photo. I'm guessing the woman in pink on the left won it outright. Also, the guy in leggings on an unseasonably warm October weekend will have really benefitted from those warm legs and cruised to sub 52.
800 marathons vs a sub 32 is so different an achievement you might as well not bother, but I do agree with CC's analysis. I have little doubt that I am running more miles on average than my multi-marathon clubmates. But Bus is also right that very few of the general population would be more impressed with my efforts than with 900 marathons. In fact, those that were would probably be related to me.
Of course, since we aren't really running to impress Joe Public (well, not most of the time anyway), I am at ease with that.
800 horrors!? Is this some of that locker room talk I've been hearing about?
.
If you did a session like mine yesterday, a continuous track tempo, would you have to manually amend it so it didn't give a hyped up version of how fast it was?
ie, as tracks overestimate distance, i ended up with something over 7.5miles on the garmin, giving a 5.37or so pace.
In reality it was just over 7miles at around 6.00 pace.
Would it be obvious enough that it was on a track, or would you have to mark it as so etc?
I always remember our pal from another thread taking mile splits on the track with his garmin. It meant he was conning it by perhaps 15-20secs, as the beep would go with about 50-60metres of lap 4 to go!
Don't think you can manually amend it. You would just have to write in the description that it was on a track and was shorter/slower than recorded. It would be very obvious that it was a track from the map.
This kind of thing is why I always wear a stopwatch on the track rather than a Garmin, and therefore never upload track sessions to Strava.
Good to hear Garmin's don't work properly on the track as couldn't work out the stats from my Reading track mile one at all (told me I was sub 3 minute k pace!). Why are they so far out with track stuff?
You can also edit the GPX file if you really want to cheat :-)
I always just leave it as the under-recording and over-recording probably balance in the end, but I would comment as per Dachs and Reg above if it was a session - otherwise I'd be cheating and/or disappointing my legions of followers about my athletic prowess ;-)
Maybe I've changed something on the settings Reg. my new dashboard gives a much bigger map and more details of everyone's runs. Takes an awful lot of scrolling! Agree re the uploading date v activity date!
Reg - that triathlete comment defn wasn't aimed at you....more at many of the other triathletes I know.
Bus - absolutely agree running a marathon is more impressive to joe public than a 32 10k. just like people are less impressed at a 4.30 mile than a 4hr marathon.
interestingly in explaining the difference between the 10k and 800 mara's, we all have used words like talent/ability are needed for the 10k time yet words like commitment are used for the marathon achievement.
I quite like the new strava, but SG I never amend anything. on the track I leave the watch running to time recoveries so my ave pace is always slow looking but if I do a session on my treadmill I wont add in the recovery times when I manually add it to strava so my ave pace looks frightening. for a session like yours I would just do as the others have said...in the comments say 10k tempo in x pace
Oh and pink leggings lady was the one start line chancer who caught my eye as being out of place
Incidentally, talking of start line antics, I was standing on the start line of the Hampshire XC League on Saturday (it's quite a wide start so top 20ish are justified standing there, when some bloke wearing a vest unfamiliar to me came and stood right in front of me. Think it may have been his first time, and he may have not quite realised the quality of the field.
I lapped the bastard.
Much prefer the changes they've made to the mobile app for information density, but not keen on the large thumbnails on desktop. Didn't like having my feed out of order to begin with, but it's now nice not to miss the activities of my friends who only upload once a week...
Mentioned previously about sports testing - I've managed to get booked in for lactate testing, VO2Max and HR on Monday. All for £75, not too shabby!
So it'll be run each weekday this week, and then rest the weekend for me.
What sparked this post is that my other brother (also an older brother - he's the middle one) just texted me asking "what's a good time for a 5k run". Turns out he's been going out doing 5k every day as well. He's built more like me and I'm sure he could be a pretty good runner if he sticks at it.
Of course, I told him that if he can't go sub 18 within a month, he's a total fucking failure and never to text me again.
Quite right CC - Family banter eh!! That start line picture should have it's thread in the clubhouse and the start line slow idiots shamed.
My main point was it's I feel that people are so desperate to have their 'place in the sun' that they'll seek out something ridiculous to 'be the best at' just good that it doesn't apply to anyone here eh! as we'd just keep plugging away to get better. As I've often said, I'm a 'narly club runner..son of narly club runner'. My dad's mate was worse - quite 'vociferous' you might say - my dad still laughs about the day the winner of the Poole AC marathon place announced that they were going to a race walk strategy in front of him. Bad move!
My attitude has always been..train hard, have a beer. Not arsed how fast/slow you are!
PeteM said:
It is so easy to get me going isn't it? Yep, 1430 finished in 1:51 and 1,391st, 1431 1:26 so a bit better but still a tosser. 1242 (guy in green) should know better. Cabbage Patch is gun to chip so I understand you don't want to start at the back and cross the start line a minute after the gun but no excuses: you can see it is a dozen wide and he finished 571 so should be 30 to 40 rows back.
Did anybody spot me on the hour long programme about the Yorkshire marathon on sat morning? No me neither.
They decided to dedicate half the programme to 2 fuck wits that dressed up as superman after realising that they'd not trained for it. Best part of 5 and a half hours!
Probably want to be careful calling people tossers.
On that run there were marshalls that were amazed that I was still going all the way until the end and speaking to people afterwards, everyone was impressed. I didn't have any running mates back then though - I doubt any of them would have been impressed... They would have recognised what I'd put myself through but they wouldn't have been impressed.
That also demonstrates to me that nearly anyone can rock up and get round a marathon if they go slow enough. I was 30 and in decent enough shape having kept relatively fit through playing football most of my adult life and never letting myself put on too much weight etc. But I had done hardly any distance running.
The most painful lesson of all was that not wearing proper running shorts and jogging/walking for over 7 hours will set your balls on fire. The chafing was by far the worst I've ever experienced. I've had bleeding nipples before but that is nothing compared to how my balls felt that day... Lowering myself into the bath was absolutely terrifying.