Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
How hard should you run ?
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
For ME, running is important because it makes me happy. it's one among other things I want to do to 'be the best i can be' at all of them. which will probably mean never getting as far as i might at any single one. But FOR ME, that's what i want.
(((hippo & clinic)))
Wrote above without seeing t-bird's post - would hardly say I'm a great example of a well-balanced personality!
Odd, eh?
No your wrong I know the meaning of life..
its to do with family and friends,180mph Motorcycles, Alcohol soaked nights of stupidity in the pub, Running and sport,Travel and broadening your horizons.
Its amazing that supposed genius's have pondered that for years and never been able to get it quite right ;-)
does that count
and i feel bad if i dont
and right noe=w,im in a FOUL mood, cos ive only done 5 miles this week and i cant face seeing another patient
I will be happy IF i get a degree. But the process of getting one makes me unhappy sometimes (i hate exams).
surely something about running must make you happy?
pulling out black toenails in front of my horrified housemates makes me very happy, because sometimes they offer to do the washing up if i stop :S
Doesn't mean I don't love the overall experience. Just like running.
I feel happy after I've been to the dentist...
Could you take patient for a run? Say it's experimental therapy?
I'm not happy because I've got to write something about Votaire, and I don't feel worthy.
Also ,late in the day, can I send good ,healing vibes to Mr and Mrs FF.
I didn't realise !
Duck Girl - but all that stuff is extrinsic; if I said, for example, that I liked sex because of the fag afterwards - not that I smoke - then people would consider it odd. Yet with running, we're all happy to focus on the extrinsic...
(km / marathon of course).
its to do with family and friends,trees, doing daft things in a tent up a mountain far away, Running (there is no other sport), Travel, broadening your horizons & saving-the-world.
Maybe not a neat line, but there is a line:
Prizes - extrinsic; weight loss - extrinsic; stress management - extrinsic; feeling of strenght and power whilst running - intrinsic; competition - intrinsic (with a bit of extrinsic); self-esteem boost - extrinsic; PBs - mainly extrinsic; feeling of wind in hair, sun on back - intrinsic; etc.
there you go
Yeah.
Guzzle -
"Almost anyone can become a 2.20 marathoner? Surely the evidence is almost completely against this assertion. Are you really suggesting that the only difference between top marathon runners and the ‘also rans’ is just the level of training?"
I never said that! No strawman arguments, please! Of course there is a difference in talent between the best and the also rans (generally speaking). But the upper limit PHYSIOLOGICALLY (not dealing with "life") is much faster than you think, IMHO (and the opinion of Lord Coe and many others).
But if you, and others, are not prepared/wanting to/able to put in the miles over a period of years, you'll never know. Me, for my part, am well on the way to proving my point in thsi experiment of one. Although if I do it, I'm sure it'll be all down to "talent"... :-/
"How many class milers have become ‘aerobic monsters’ ?"
Not many - they generally train and race to their strengths. If somebody is a class miler they are unlikely to commit the time and effort required to prepare for, race and recover from a flat out marathon. Seb Coe's 2:48 was harldy the best he could have done. Perhaps better to consider Ovett (who put in many nmore miles than Coe) who ran the Dartford Half in 65min one year, in borrowed shoes and with no specific preparation.
"Surely the proportion of people running marathons has declined."
To some degree, yes, but not to extent that the collapsing of standards has happened. The times in shorter races (which, I believe, are more popular than ever) are declining too.
"First you claim there are no physiological limitations, followed by ‘of course there are limits’."
Again, I never said that. My position is simply that the limits are further on than most people realise. They do not put in the work required to get even close to their limits and then they blame their "lack of talent". I understand that very few people can (or would even choose to) go to the lengths that Paula Radcliffe goes to, but that is "lifestyle" limitation (voluntary or otherwise) NOT physiological.
There are a number of post hoc fallacies in that last post.
But, regardless, what people are not factoring in with this physiological boundaries stuff is that it isn't *physiologically* possible for many people to put in the kind of effort required to get to their theoretical physiological limits.
They get injured, they get ill, etc. Coe's a good example of this (as is Roger Black). It isn't just a lifestyle thing; some people just stand up to training better than others. This is precisely one of the reasons that performance enhancing drugs work (cf. Cathal Lombard); they allow people to cope with training.
I for one LOVE running. But there are days when it is not fun. Some people would simply not run on such days - but I would not give myself the choice to back out.
After some time out injured, getting back to peak mileage has been hard. First two weeks of getting back into proper training coincided with all the snow Kent has endured. I think I may have enjoyed one or two of the 19 runs I did in those weeks. Many more were deeply unpleasant.
But I knew I'd be glad when the form returned along with a spring in my step. It has and I am.
To my mind, the "a little of what you fancy" approach is certainly the healthiest approach to life. Running a bit, doing other sports, a bit of this and a bit of that. But it also leads to a life of anonymous mediocrity. The "pursuit of excellence" is another approach and one I aspire to and encourage my children to embarce too. It matters little WHAT you excel in, but excellence is surely worth pursuing. That requires sacrifices galore along the way - intrinsic happiness is but one of them.
That ssid, most people who know me pretty well know me as a fun and happy person. I'm not as dour and serious as the above may make me seem!
No, hedonism, for example, is old. But you're right that in historical terms it's tended not to have good PR.
I agree that the upper limits are usually much higher than people think, problem being they tend to do things the same old way, and no amount of effort into the actual training is going to change a bad schedule or not being with a good group.
I actually think (as themo said) how people adapt to training, recover from it, is one of the most important things - that often is more important than say a true natural gift but propensity to get injured.
In individual races one should run to the limit.
This limit is set by the psychologial and physiological barriers we all have but is compounded by external factors such as family and work. Very few people have the incliniation to full expolore their physiol;ogial barriers to the limit (most of us whatever we think will be way way off)
You're absolutely right, IMO. I ran 2.52 off 40 miles a week. A friend of mine put hundred mile weeks in, but could never get under 3 hours.
The reason: just genetic luck. There was no credit in my time, and no discredit in his times. We were just dealt different genetic hands.
Needless to say, there are other people out there who are by orders of magnitude more 'talented' than I am - Tom, for example - that's just the way it is.
Worm