Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
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
I knew it!!! Easier for tall people. It's so unfair.
Haile Gebreselassie (or something like that!)
Mo Farah
Keninisa Bekele (or something like that!)
etc, etc (in other words I can't think of any more quickly!)
All those people are taller than me...
(and yes, before Stevie comes back on here and starts citing examples of shortarsed women runners, I do know there are some!)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1164007
It's a bit out of date but probably covers male marathon runners and short arsed women nicely!
I suspect weight is more important than height, so the advantage to being shorter is that you are likely to be lighter as well. Not the case if you are built like a lady rugby player, however.
PS: comment on that thread has Bekele slightly shorter than me. I was going by what google said.
Fat, thin, short, tall? Just as long as you beat the guy/gal in front of you. That is what's important. (6'1'' btw)
Back from hols early yesterday morning and tried an easy 4 miles this morning. Couldn't feel anything in my calf so, hopefully I can get on with it again.
Turkey was great, very relaxing and, being outside the euro, very good value. Mrs D took a pool running float with us as she hates running in hot weather. I was a bit sceptical and it took a few session to get my form right but once I got going it felt like a really good workout. I would definitely recommend it, particulaly when you have daily access to a pool. I started a new thread about it yesterday, but no responses yet.
wrt WAV, me and the missus are roughly equal on about 70%. That put me well back in the pack, but she is starting to get close to the front; in terms of placing that is, she is still quite a way back in terms of time, because as lit say there is usually one or two really fast women. The men seem to be more evenly spread.
If you are desperate to win something Skinney, have a, look at this for next year: http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/forum/events/run-in-blood---metal-running-in-sweden/258689.html
The winner is the bloke who manages the greatest distance during the 29 minutes of Slayer's classic Reign in Blood album. Apparently the winner manged 7.3km, so you could be in with a chance. Some good prizes too.
that would make a great presentation picture for Stevie's 'coachee wins' album, too.
I'm sure he would be very proud.
Ann Trason is small (5ft ish) and she was/is an amazing runner.
Don't undermine me Tommy. Anyway ultrarunners don't count.
I helped you out earlier with taller athletes!
Was trying to show that you can be short or tall and still be a good runner (or ultra runner). As you say, weight is probably more crucial.
Oh all right, you're forgiven.
I have just realised I've made it sound like I'm really fat.
I'm not fat, honest!
Phew - I was getting really worried when I realised after a year and a half's training that I still can't beat a fat female dwarf!!!
Re Reign in Blood - I've been tring to convert my 31:17 5 mile time into a 29 minute distance in kms - I think I make it 7.44kms which means I could actually win this!! Long way to go though.......................particularly if when I got there the speed of the runners was better in year two!
PS Lou - that photo of you on the link is messing with my head too!
Don't be so hard on yourself Skinny. You can over 5 miles. Just not in half marathons.
You know Lit's real name. You've seen a photo of me.
What's messing with your head is the realisation that there are real people behind the nonsense you spend far too much of your working day reading.
Lou, you realise he probably knows your real name now too.
Above is my 2nd September 2012 posting of training run I did last year one week before my 10k race which I ran in 42:13
Last night I did a similar session except only 40 mins long and obviously training paces are now faster.
Covered exactly 6 miles in the 40minutes with mile splits of 6:43,6:35,6:41,6:47,6:44,6:32.
So the miles were faster by 36s, 36s, 20s,12s, 26s, 33s.
Apart from race times and PBs this is a fairly clear indication that consistent training focussed around easy running with some hard sessions works!
Can chuffing feel it today mind!! Recovery 3 miles later.
well done Skinny. The mile splits are a bit confusing though because they overlap different bits of the 5-minute sections. What were the paces supposed to be in both cases and what were they actually?
Oh - notifications have stopped working again - that was short lived!
Hi (I know - I love the session but it's a nightmare if you want to try and break it down into all the chunks!) - should have been 6:55-6:50 for MP and 6:30-6:35 for HMP.
Keeping it simple at 6:50 MP and 6:30 HMP it would work out at almost exactly 6 miles which is what I did.
My 4 10 minute blocks should therefore have worked out at 1.5 miles per 10 mins - I did 1.51, 1.5, 1.49, 1.5 (the 5 minute splits were about right too).
Last year the paces should have been 7:30 MP and 7:10 HMP but I was already operating inside them by that stage. This year I'm finding it much harder to hit the target training zones. I think what that probably means (but yet to be proven) is that whereas last year my race times were actually inside my training zone speeds that this year my training zones will become my race pace.
I guess I'll find out over next couple of weeks.
(Are you prepared to tell me if your training zones are same as mine or faster?)
(yes - clearly they're slower than yours because of your 5 mile race time)
I regret that 5 mile race every time I step out of the house for my quality run!!
Yeah, that'll teach you to beat my PB.
I'm not going to get involved with all this 'My PB's bigger than your PB'. I'll let my feet do the talking.
Interesting that your session is based on time, but your splits are based on distance (or is it the other way round?) Looks confusing anyway. I'm a slave to my garmin - can't work anything out in my head, despite having a a quite mathamatical job.
Run number two today: 6 miles easy including 5x1 min hill reps. That got the blood pumping.
Lou, the session's based on time at a target pace, so it's easier to compare the splits in terms of distance (though I suppose you could record the average pace for each 5-minute split if you preferred). If you were doing mile reps (distance) at a target pace, you'd normally record the time per split, so it's just the other way round.
PS: some of your PBs are a bit better than mine, I think. Will have to fix that.
For the session described, I would record average pace per 5min split. If I was alternating each mile, I would record mile splits.
I'll have to have a look back to find your PBs, or put my deerstalker on. Just done a quick search on Fetch and whilst there is a Literatin there is no data.
Okay without doing any stalking and trying to discover your real name I have established the following.
Lou Diamonds
Age 40
Height 6'1"
Weight 11 7
HM 89:02
10k 40:10
Literatin
Age 31
Height 5'4" Weight ??? (would be impolite to ask but definitely not fat)
HM 88:26
10k 40:59 (but hot, hilly, blah blah blah)
Me
Age 45
Height 6'0" Weight 10 4 (hence forum name!!)
HM 89:08
10k 41:19 (but just back from injury, into wind, hot blah blah blah)
Sounds like we could have some really good races!!
What an interesting 3 way battle. How very close.
In 2 weeks time let's compare again
8 stone 12.
Stevie, what will it mean for your training regime if Lou wins?
That would just prove his point about long legs.
Plus, based on the above, it seems that I am the fatty of the three of us.