What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Paul Mitche » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Hi,
        as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
any of my running traing with say a stepper?

Any ideas?

Cheers
Paul Mitchell

Thanks
Paul Mitchell


email me.

My own opinions & ideas, nothing to to do with my employer.

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Eldo Lightfo » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
> Hi,
>    as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
> but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> any of my running traing with say a stepper?

> Any ideas?

> Cheers
> Paul Mitchell

> Thanks
> Paul Mitchell


> email me.

> My own opinions & ideas, nothing to to do with my employer.

Why not try aerobics, Paul?
--
Eldo Lightfoot -- Personal Trainer
COOLEX -- ActiveWear for Active People
http://www.coolexstore.com

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Tricia Richt » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> what training can I do that isnt running
> but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> any of my running traing with say a stepper?

> Any ideas?

How about water running?

--
Tri-Baby

                                     _
                                  -    o
     '             -  __o       -    </\_
 `     '         -    \<         - __/\
   /\o_         - (()) (())        -  /
^^^^^^^^^^    

"Real triathletes don't draft."
http://www.stanford.edu/~brooksie

*New to triathlon?  Check out Hulaman's Simple TriTips:
 http://www.hulaman.com/triathlon/tritips.html    

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Brian Wagne » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
> > what training can I do that isnt running
> > but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> > gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> > steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> > makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> > any of my running traing with say a stepper?

> > Any ideas?

Who says you have to run on concrete?  With the possible exception of
New Jersey (gratuitous regional stereotype inserted to avoid
disenchanting Joe Foster) there is no place that is completely paved
over.  I run on grass, which is lower impact than any treadmill I've
ever used.  I live in the suburbs and run on the treelawn (that strip of
grass between the street and the sidewalk for those whose region uses a
different term) and the only pavement I hit is crossing streets and
driveways.  I like to chuckle about the people who run in the streets,
in violation of Ohio law, thinking it's better for their knees than the
sidewalk.  The grass is best, but 3 inches of concrete sitting on soil
is better than an inch of compacted asphalt over 10 inches of concrete
over six inches of gravel.  Another good surface is if a metropolitan
park system has horse trails.  Horse's knees get injured, too, and an
iron cleat on your toenail doth not a Nike Air make, so these paths are
low impact, but you must be alert and able to tell the difference
between mud, if you get my drift.
 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by fl.. » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Aerobics is good. Far better: basketball. And actually, swimming will train
your endurance/stamina well, really. At best, if your only problem is
"running on the pavement", which I 100% understand (I do orienteering), then
on week-ends go to some forest to run to run long distance on trails! And you
want to improve fast? Ok: run on trails, WITH a backpack.

fMan

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by mos.. » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> I like to chuckle about the people who run in the streets,
> in violation of Ohio law, thinking it's better for their knees than the
> sidewalk.  The grass is best, but 3 inches of concrete sitting on soil
> is better than an inch of compacted asphalt over 10 inches of concrete
> over six inches of gravel.

Certainly can't argue with the grass is best statement but I've always heard
that concrete can be well over ten times harder then a good blacktop asphalt.
We've got some asphalt trails here in CO and after about 70min. of running you
can really feel the difference between that surface and a concrete sidewalk.

Clay T

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Tisa Mendo » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Hi,

I can recommend the bike, I'm not crazy about steppers because it's hard
on my knee joints, and I get a much better cardio workout doing the other
cardio machines. I, too, am a 24hour Fitness member - and the one thing
that I'm hooked on is spinning classes! Take one - talk about cardio
workout-rama! It's great! However, if you can't seem to make it to one, I
also like the Precor/Transport (elliptical) machines.

I was training for a marathon and had severe shin splints. My mileage was
around 22 miles a week, but my flat feet wouldn't allow more running
without inlays. If you are hooked on running like me, I highly recommend
going to a really good shoe runner's shop where they can evalute your
stride when you run, your feet - whether they pronate or supinate...it
might help your back. Also, definitely see a doctor about your back and
running - it's well worth it. I think I learned more about biomechanics
with my recent injuries with running - who would've thought that all I
needed was inlays!

Anyway, what I was getting at by mentioning my injury is that I was
introduced to "pool running". If your 24Hr club has a pool - check pool
running out! You wear this big foamy/floatable belt around your waist -
this helps to keep you upright and floating in the water...and you
simulate running - another great workout. I also belong to the YMCA. I pay
$33/month for pool membership.

I'm not sure how your back will feel with the spinning class - but check
it out if you can. So, your back doesn't bother you on the treadmill, eh?

-Tisa


Quote:

> Hi,
>         as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
> but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> any of my running traing with say a stepper?

> Any ideas?

> Cheers
> Paul Mitchell

> Thanks
> Paul Mitchell


> email me.

> My own opinions & ideas, nothing to to do with my employer.

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Droll Tro » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


> >Hi,
> >       as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
> >but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> >gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> >steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> >makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> >any of my running traing with say a stepper?

        Indirectly, yes, IMO.  Increasing raw anaerobic strength _always_
increases aerobic _capacity_.  The technical reason for this is that
with increases in strength, the entire Force-Velocity curve is shifted
upward, which means the 'aerobic region' is shifted upwards also.
Stepping can be good for this, as can plyometrics, or plain old weights.

        I don't see why avoiding concrete implies the need for a treadmill.
Most high schools have clay/*** tracks, and I seem to remember
peculiar substances called dirt, grass, and sand, in places called, uh,
parks!

        Regarding Mike's very erudite comments.

Quote:
> The problem in answering is that some people don't say what their goal is -
> being the "best" runner possible or being a "better" runner. or just being fit.
> In other words, they don't distinguish between:

> 1) Exercising for fitness.
> 2) Running for fitness.
> 3) Running to be the best runner you can be.

        This is an excellent point, and I would only offer add'l food for
thought:  How fit is fit, and what is the relationship between levels of
fitness and levels of health?
        I mention these because I think that a lot of people are drawn to
"extreme" sports, when they are really not cut out for these things.
For some, marathoning and triathaloning can be the very reason to live,
and for others, unnecessary wear and tear. IOW, sometimes the goals Mike
speaks of can be lofty and well-intentioned, but not realistic.
        In a nutshell, we want to _optimize_ fitness levels, to _maximize_
health levels, however these are ultimately defined. Maximizing fitness
itself can be counterproductive health.
        If I may quote perhaps the greatest philosopher and contributor to the
arts of the 20th century:

        A man's gots to know his limitations....
                                      Clint Eastwood in... whatever...

        Thank you very much.
--
     I learned my lesson having walked that mile for a Camel, and
discovered...  Free Delivery!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd,  Who can't safely boil water, much less cook!
    "Fitness for Scientists??"       http://SportToday.org/

     Nice Bodies are, well, nice, but still largely irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> In my opinion....

> In most cases, NO other exercise except running will make you the BEST runner
> you can be in terms of pure running.  Specificity counts. Other exercises such
> as biking and swimming work to improve your overall fitness level, may allow you
> to exercise longer, and may indirectly improve your running. But running
> improves your running the most.

> Running may not be the best exercise for you to achieve general fitness though,
> because of injury history, physical limitations, or time/location limitations.

> Running is no magic pill. Nor is swimming, biking, weights, aerobics, spin
> classes, or Tae Bo. Just about any vigorous exercise can be used to improve your
> overall fitness.

> A variety of exercises can be used as holistic approach to improving your
> fitness, looking good, and feeling good about yourself and you need to find a
> combination (or just one) that you enjoy doing and fits your ultimate goal.

> Identify your goals and then choose the mix or specificity you need to get
> there.

> So to answer Paul - any exercise will improve your overall fitness, some better
> than others. Some may be used as an aerobic substitute for the running you can't
> do due to your physical limitations. But not completely.

> Mike Tennent
> "IronPenguin"
> '98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Mark Mille » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Exactly.

-- Mark


s.net...

Quote:

> >Hi,
> > as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
> >but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> >gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> >steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> >makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> >any of my running traing with say a stepper?

> >Any ideas?

> >Cheers
> >Paul Mitchell

> Altho this is posted to four groups, it is somewhat relevant to them all,
so
> I'll reluctantly leave them all in. This is being posted from rec.running.

> A few posts here lately have asked a similar question - is there a
> substitute/alternative to running (swimming and biking being the most
popular
> suggestions) that will make you a better runner.

> The problem in answering is that some people don't say what their goal
is -
> being the "best" runner possible or being a "better" runner. or just being
fit.
> In other words, they don't distinguish between:

> 1) Exercising for fitness.
> 2) Running for fitness.
> 3) Running to be the best runner you can be.

> In my opinion....

> In most cases, NO other exercise except running will make you the BEST
runner
> you can be in terms of pure running.  Specificity counts. Other exercises
such
> as biking and swimming work to improve your overall fitness level, may
allow you
> to exercise longer, and may indirectly improve your running. But running
> improves your running the most.

> Running may not be the best exercise for you to achieve general fitness
though,
> because of injury history, physical limitations, or time/location
limitations.

> Running is no magic pill. Nor is swimming, biking, weights, aerobics, spin
> classes, or Tae Bo. Just about any vigorous exercise can be used to
improve your
> overall fitness.

> A variety of exercises can be used as holistic approach to improving your
> fitness, looking good, and feeling good about yourself and you need to
find a
> combination (or just one) that you enjoy doing and fits your ultimate
goal.

> Identify your goals and then choose the mix or specificity you need to get
> there.

> So to answer Paul - any exercise will improve your overall fitness, some
better
> than others. Some may be used as an aerobic substitute for the running you
can't
> do due to your physical limitations. But not completely.

> Mike Tennent
> "IronPenguin"
> '98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by J Sterlin » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> Hi,
>         as the subject says, what training can I do that isnt running
> but would be good training for running. I have access to a 24hour
> gym which unfortunately doesnt have a treadmill. It does have
> steppers, rowers, bikes etc. I lve running but find that concrete
> makes my back hurt and so I use a treadmill normally. Could I replace
> any of my running traing with say a stepper?

  Does your club offer spinning.  I did that when I first got rid of my
cast (broken heel), and I found that it helped strengthen my legs
without the impact and was a good aerobic workout.

                        Jean S.

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Matt Mads » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
>    Indirectly, yes, IMO.  Increasing raw anaerobic strength _always_
>increases aerobic _capacity_.  The technical reason for this is that
>with increases in strength, the entire Force-Velocity curve is shifted
>upward, which means the 'aerobic region' is shifted upwards also.
>Stepping can be good for this, as can plyometrics, or plain old weights.

Anaerobic strength increases aerobic capacity?  What are you talking
about?  Perhaps you're confused.  For instance, increasing muscular
strength does increase absolute muscular endurance, but increasing
muscular strength (and endurance) does not increase aerobic capacity.

In fact, any hypertrophy can only hurt an aerobic athlete who needs
to carry his own weight (runner, cyclist, etc.).  Remember, an
aerobic athlete, although he's working at full aerobic capacity,
isn't even beginning to use his full strength.  That would be highly
anaerobic.

Further, and increase in strength does NOT shift the entire
Force-Velocity curve upward; it only shifts the high-force
section.  Maximal velocity (unloaded) is virtually unrelated to
maximal force.  But this has nothing to do with aerobic vs. anaerobic.

Matt Madsen

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Droll Tro » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> >       Indirectly, yes, IMO.  Increasing raw anaerobic strength _always_
> >increases aerobic _capacity_.  The technical reason for this is that
> >with increases in strength, the entire Force-Velocity curve is shifted
> >upward, which means the 'aerobic region' is shifted upwards also.
> >Stepping can be good for this, as can plyometrics, or plain old weights.

> Anaerobic strength increases aerobic capacity?  What are you talking
> about?  Perhaps you're confused.  For instance, increasing muscular
> strength does increase absolute muscular endurance, but increasing
> muscular strength (and endurance) does not increase aerobic capacity.

        <Hogg, always confused, and now backpedaling furiously, but with aplomb
and dignity>
        You are correct, and this in fact what I meant.  I used the phrase
'aerobic capacity' perhaps too literally, and not in the VO2 sense.  To
the extent that a muscle is stronger, it's lactic acid threshhold is
presumably higher, ergo, more "capacity to do aerobic exercise".  But
true, not from an aerobic training effect POV.

Quote:
> In fact, any hypertrophy can only hurt an aerobic athlete who needs
> to carry his own weight (runner, cyclist, etc.).  Remember, an
> aerobic athlete, although he's working at full aerobic capacity,
> isn't even beginning to use his full strength.  That would be highly
> anaerobic.

        <Hogg, regaining his composure and some confidence>
        Come, now.  Hypertrophy is not likely to be an issue here.  Motor
neuron recruitment might be, but that's good. I wish hypertrophy was an
issue; then I'd biceps bigger than 6 inches.

Quote:

> Further, and increase in strength does NOT shift the entire
> Force-Velocity curve upward; it only shifts the high-force
> section.  Maximal velocity (unloaded) is virtually unrelated to
> maximal force.  But this has nothing to do with aerobic vs. anaerobic.

        <Hogg, starting to bristle academically, the way Gerwin, DeLuca, and
now Matt Madsen do>
        Oh please.  Running is the unloaded part of the F-V curve?  We're
talking running, not ping-pong.

        <Hogg, smoothing his ruffled feathers, and becoming conciliatory, so's
the Pundits lighten up on him in the future>
        But, technically, you are correct.  The F-V curve _angles_ upward,
leaving the unloaded portion less affected.  But I bet it is _somewhat_
affected.

        <Hogg, now duckin-n-dodgin pre-emptively, anticipating future attacks>
        Besides, I didn't say anaerobic training was the _best_ way to train
for aerobics.  The poster was asking for alternative preparation.

        <Hogg, now feelin' his Cheerios, willing to take another chance in the
face of low-level hostility>
        But, I do think that anaerobic conditioning is absolutely pre-requisite
for people like the elderly, who often have atrophied to the point where
they can't even benefit from aerobic efforts.  In principle, this same
principle applies here, as profferred above.

        <Hogg, heaving a sigh of relief, hoping to God he saved some face, but
not entirely sure, cuz the rest of the Pundit Pack ain't had their crack
yet>
        Whew!  

        <Hogg, grateful that one of the Pundits still talks to him, but
starting to agree with the Wife, that maybe I need to get a job, or a
hobby, or sumpn>
--
      Praying to God the Stock Market corrects itself Big Time, so my
Family will stop kicking me to the point of Gluteal Hematomas for having
taken ALL my Goddammed Money out at 5400.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd,  Who can't safely boil water, much less cook!
     "Fitness for Scientists"        http://www.holobarre.com

     Nice Bodies are, well, nice, but still largely irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Matt Mads » Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
>You are correct, and this in fact what I meant.  I used the phrase
>'aerobic capacity' perhaps too literally, and not in the VO2 sense.  To
>the extent that a muscle is stronger, it's lactic acid threshhold is
>presumably higher, ergo, more "capacity to do aerobic exercise".  But
>true, not from an aerobic training effect POV.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but aerobic exercise doesn't produce
lactic acid; lactic acid is a byproduct of anaerobic exercise.

Wind sprints are anaerobic; marathons are aerobic.  Training for
one is quite different from training for the other.  Muscular
endurance and aerobic endurance are two different animals.

Matt Madsen

 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Droll Tro » Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> >You are correct, and this in fact what I meant.  I used the phrase
> >'aerobic capacity' perhaps too literally, and not in the VO2 sense.  To
> >the extent that a muscle is stronger, it's lactic acid threshhold is
> >presumably higher, ergo, more "capacity to do aerobic exercise".  But
> >true, not from an aerobic training effect POV.

> I hate to beat a dead horse, but aerobic exercise doesn't produce
> lactic acid; lactic acid is a byproduct of anaerobic exercise.

        Even worse, I think you're beating the _wrong_ horse.  My point was
that by increasing raw strength and consequently the lactic acid
threshhold, you widen the window for aerobic performance, VO2
notwithstanding.

Quote:

> Wind sprints are anaerobic; marathons are aerobic.  Training for
> one is quite different from training for the other.  Muscular
> endurance and aerobic endurance are two different animals.

        But still ecologically related.  Perhaps two different dead horses?
        I'm not debating the substantially different training styles, just the
area of their intersection, which for some is a much larger area than
for others.  For trained athletes, I agree that the intersection is
minimal.  For untrained senior citizens, the intersection is pretty
significant.
        God, I hope we agree on this.

Quote:

> Matt Madsen

--
      Futilely Espousing God's Word on Pre-Purchase Epiphany,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd,  Who can't safely boil water, much less cook!
                   http://www.holobarre.com

     Nice Bodies are, well, nice, but still largely irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 

What training can I do that isnt running but would be good training for running.

Post by Stefano Fer » Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



>>You are correct, and this in fact what I meant.  I used the phrase
>>'aerobic capacity' perhaps too literally, and not in the VO2 sense.  To
>>the extent that a muscle is stronger, it's lactic acid threshhold is
>>presumably higher, ergo, more "capacity to do aerobic exercise".  But
>>true, not from an aerobic training effect POV.

>I hate to beat a dead horse, but aerobic exercise doesn't produce
>lactic acid; lactic acid is a byproduct of anaerobic exercise.

>Wind sprints are anaerobic; marathons are aerobic.  Training for
>one is quite different from training for the other.  Muscular
>endurance and aerobic endurance are two different animals.

>Matt Madsen

That's interesting, I always wandered about the
real need of things like repeats or hill for a
marathon training but I never found any confirm to
my suspect that many long distance runners are
doing them only because they are too afraid of
changing. Do you know of anybody training for a
marathon or an ultra without any of them, just
plain short-tempo-long routine, some weight (or
swim or whatever) for avoiding injuries and
nothing else?

Stefano