improving? I don't know...

improving? I don't know...

Post by Masatomo Ued » Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:15:28


please someone help me to understand this:

as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
and I'm 24 (nearly 25).

when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

when I run at a slower pace, I can keep that up for 45 minutes at
around 11-12km per hour, covering a distance of 9.8 km or something
like that (I haven't tried more than that as yet, because everytime
I'm doing that I'm with a friend and he wants to stop after a while..
I think I could run more than 45 minutes at that pace... well, that's
what my body thinks).

So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
still 25, it takes time to get some results?

today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by Terry R. McConne » Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:58:48



Quote:
>please someone help me to understand this:

>as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
>and I'm 24 (nearly 25).

>when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
>keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
>more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

[...]
>So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
>to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
>weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
>can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
>that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
>mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
>still 25, it takes time to get some results?

For somebody who has been running for only 2 months you seem to have some
rigid ideas about what constitutes "correct form" and about what are
desirable/realistic long-term goals in the sport. There are at least as
many variations on form as there are variations on body type. Take a look
at Paula Radcliffe's form. She lurches around the track like a drunken sailor
while running sterling world-class times. Something about that tortuous gait
is right for her.

The 180 per minute cadence is not a magic number. At best, it is a population
average, and you are not a population average! Moreover, it is probably optimal
only for well trained athletes in peak form. Your own cadence will take
care of itself as your fitness improves. Forget about it.

As for the 16min 5K, that's a mark achieved by very few, even after years
of dedicated training. Worry about 20:00 first. Or 25:00. Or better yet,
don't think about times at all at this early stage in your running career.
Concentrate on making running an enjoyable and established part of your
life. You will gradually learn what time goals are realistic for you. Then
go after them. There can be as much satisfication in breaking xx:xx as there
is in breaking 16:00, provided you worked hard to get there.

Quote:
>today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
>CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
>write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
>least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
>decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
>Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
>slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
>and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
>running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
>was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

Age is not the primary determinant of performance. Training is.

--
************************************************************************
Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

************************************************************************

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by SwStudi » Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:11:08


Quote:
> please someone help me to understand this:

I will give it my best shot!

Quote:
> as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
> and I'm 24 (nearly 25).

I remember!

Quote:

> when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
> keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
> more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

That's fantastic - much, much better that most people. It took me
about three months to be able to run 5k in 20 minutes flat. If you
can aready do this, you are well on your way to being competitive.

Quote:
> when I run at a slower pace, I can keep that up for 45 minutes at
> around 11-12km per hour, covering a distance of 9.8 km or something
> like that (I haven't tried more than that as yet, because everytime
> I'm doing that I'm with a friend and he wants to stop after a while..
> I think I could run more than 45 minutes at that pace... well, that's
> what my body thinks).

Again, this is great! You clearly are doing well, and should attempt
a more structured program soon, so as to reap more benefits.

Quote:

> So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
> to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
> weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
> can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
> that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
> mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
> still 25, it takes time to get some results?

You need knowledge of running principles and training plans, and how
they work, so you can decide how YOU can make a 16 minute 5k
happen, if that is your goal. Get books like "Daniel's Running Formula"
by Jack Daniels, "Run Fast" by Hal Higdon, or "Road Racing For Serious
Runners" by Pfitzinger/Douglas. Check the various plans out, and
which one (or combo of a few) could work for you. Experiment.

Quote:

> today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
> CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
> write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
> least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
> decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
> Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
> slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
> and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
> running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
> was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

Tell me about it! I have been in a few races with Ed Whitlock,
the 70-year old who owns several records. Least year I was in
a 5k with him and he ran in the low-17's. He ran a sub-3 hour
marathon last year. Unfortunately he has been injured the last
little while. I hope he recovers in time for the Boxing Day 10
miler. As far as 50-year olds go... man, that's still young. There's
lots of guys that age around here that kick my ass in every
race. I plan to do the same when I'm 50.

--
David (in Hamilton, Ont)
"You can't burn out if you've never caught fire."

http://www.angelfire.com/nc/swstudio/racing.html

-

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by David Forbe » Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:16:15

IIRC, the great Zatopec was not noted for his elegant style (form)
either.

Quote:



> >please someone help me to understand this:

> >as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
> >and I'm 24 (nearly 25).

> >when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
> >keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
> >more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

> [...]
> >So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
> >to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
> >weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
> >can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
> >that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
> >mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
> >still 25, it takes time to get some results?

> For somebody who has been running for only 2 months you seem to have some
> rigid ideas about what constitutes "correct form" and about what are
> desirable/realistic long-term goals in the sport. There are at least as
> many variations on form as there are variations on body type. Take a look
> at Paula Radcliffe's form. She lurches around the track like a drunken sailor
> while running sterling world-class times. Something about that tortuous gait
> is right for her.

> The 180 per minute cadence is not a magic number. At best, it is a population
> average, and you are not a population average! Moreover, it is probably optimal
> only for well trained athletes in peak form. Your own cadence will take
> care of itself as your fitness improves. Forget about it.

> As for the 16min 5K, that's a mark achieved by very few, even after years
> of dedicated training. Worry about 20:00 first. Or 25:00. Or better yet,
> don't think about times at all at this early stage in your running career.
> Concentrate on making running an enjoyable and established part of your
> life. You will gradually learn what time goals are realistic for you. Then
> go after them. There can be as much satisfication in breaking xx:xx as there
> is in breaking 16:00, provided you worked hard to get there.

> >today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
> >CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
> >write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
> >least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
> >decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
> >Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
> >slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
> >and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
> >running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
> >was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

> Age is not the primary determinant of performance. Training is.

> --
> ************************************************************************
> Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

> ************************************************************************

--
Regards,
Dave
**************************************
I'd love to think that there's an end
just waiting right around the bend,
but every turn's a tunnel.
       I descend
I'm the running man...
Edward Ka Spell and kEvin Key,
The Last Man to Fly, 1991
**************************************
 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by Rudiger Schier » Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:40:35

Quote:

> IIRC, the great Zatopec was not noted for his elegant style (form)
> either.

Hm, but he was noted for his style, anyway :-)

Cheers,
Rudiger

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by Don Kirkma » Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:46:17

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Masatomo Ueda wrote in article

Quote:
>please someone help me to understand this:
>as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
>and I'm 24 (nearly 25).
>when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
>keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
>more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

Because you're still a new runner and haven't built up the
strength/endurance that others have.

Quote:
>when I run at a slower pace, I can keep that up for 45 minutes at
>around 11-12km per hour, covering a distance of 9.8 km or something
>like that (I haven't tried more than that as yet, because everytime
>I'm doing that I'm with a friend and he wants to stop after a while..
>I think I could run more than 45 minutes at that pace... well, that's
>what my body thinks).

Inverse relationship between speed and how far you can keep it up.
Quite normal even if some don't seem to be affected by it.

Quote:
>So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
>to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
>weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
>can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
>that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
>mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
>still 25, it takes time to get some results?

Start from where you are, keep doing some of each, and be patient.

Quote:
>today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
>CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
>write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
>least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
>decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
>Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
>slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
>and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
>running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
>was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

This morning, with 3/4 mile to go to finish my run, a girl probably in
her twenties rounded a corner on my course maybe 50 yards ahead of me.
Not a pretty stride, but a strong one.  Never one to pass up a chance to
act macho I upped the leg turnover a bit to see how soon I could catch
her without dying first.  A half mile later the gap was still 50 yards.
She began to lag on the last quarter mile, and just before reaching my
finish I came a*** of her and she said something about I wasn't even
breathing as hard as she was (I'm 72).  As I started the walk back home
she turned right and kept on her pace.

The difference?  Mostly my 20+ years of running against her entire 20+
years of life.  Patience, m'lad.  Life is an endurance run.
--
Don

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by Doug Frees » Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:37:26

Masatomo, you are like a bull in a china closet. Heed Terry's
words below before you burn out. You have a lifetime of running
in front of you, what is your rush?  I admire the fact you set
goals but you are looking for instantaneous results and the body
does not work that fast. Even the elite runners take YEARS not weeks
for improvements. As for how far you can go....well...take a close
look at your parents.

I sense a type A time bomb.

--
Caveat Lector
"the further you go outside, the further you go inside" - B. McKibben
Doug Freese

Quote:



> >please someone help me to understand this:

> >as some of you might remember, I've been running for two months now
> >and I'm 24 (nearly 25).

> >when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
> >keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
> >more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

> [...]
> >So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
> >to start from... especially because I've been running a couple of
> >weeks with the "correct form" but couldn't see any improvement (I
> >can't run more that those 20-23 minutes mentioned earlier and I know
> >that I'm not doing more than 5k during that period of time). Does it
> >mean that running seriously maybe is not my sport or that, even if I'm
> >still 25, it takes time to get some results?

> For somebody who has been running for only 2 months you seem to have some
> rigid ideas about what constitutes "correct form" and about what are
> desirable/realistic long-term goals in the sport. There are at least as
> many variations on form as there are variations on body type. Take a look
> at Paula Radcliffe's form. She lurches around the track like a drunken sailor
> while running sterling world-class times. Something about that tortuous gait
> is right for her.

> The 180 per minute cadence is not a magic number. At best, it is a population
> average, and you are not a population average! Moreover, it is probably optimal
> only for well trained athletes in peak form. Your own cadence will take
> care of itself as your fitness improves. Forget about it.

> As for the 16min 5K, that's a mark achieved by very few, even after years
> of dedicated training. Worry about 20:00 first. Or 25:00. Or better yet,
> don't think about times at all at this early stage in your running career.
> Concentrate on making running an enjoyable and established part of your
> life. You will gradually learn what time goals are realistic for you. Then
> go after them. There can be as much satisfication in breaking xx:xx as there
> is in breaking 16:00, provided you worked hard to get there.

> >today... well, something happened that made me think. I was running at
> >CF (let's call CF the correct form otherwise it'll take me forever to
> >write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
> >least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
> >decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
> >Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
> >slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
> >and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
> >running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
> >was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

> Age is not the primary determinant of performance. Training is.

> --
> ************************************************************************
> Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

> ************************************************************************

 
 
 

improving? I don't know...

Post by Robert Grumbi » Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:54:11



Quote:
>when I run at what's called the "correct form" (180 per minute), I can
>keep it for a maximum of 20-23 minutes (covering around 5 or slightly
>more kilometers), then I have to slow down because I get tired.

  Remember that the 180 is only _part_ of the story for good form.
It may be the least important part for you at the moment.  If you
can't hold 180 and run your 45 minute pace, drop the 180 and go
for the 45 minutes.  More important than cadence (though the higher
cadence helps this as well) is that you be running smoothly --
feet _meeting_ the ground, not slamming in to it, feet touching
down squarely under your center of mass (hips for most purposes),
and the like.

Quote:
>So... I'd like to get to at least a 16min/5k, but I don't know where
>to start from...

  You start from your first race, done after adequate preparation.
Obviously you can run 5k easily now.  So sign up for a 5k.  That'll
be your first PR.  You get from that number (whatever it is) to
your absolute best (whatever _that_ is) by training consistently
and seriously for the next several years at least.  Might be 16,
might be 30 (ok, for you it won't be 30 by the sounds of it).

  Emphasize: You're looking at _years_ to reach your absolute
best.

Quote:
>write this message) and after 22 minutes I saw this guy who was at
>least double my age... probably 50 or even something more... well, I
>decided to start running after him and see if I could overtake him.
>Well, I kept my CF (maybe a bit faster) and was slowly, very very
>slowly getting closer to him. But after 2 minutes of getting closer
>and closer... well, I decided to slow down because I couldn't keep
>running at that pace longer than that!!! WHAT! HE WAS DOUBLE MY AGE! I
>was shocked. So... I realized I still have a long way to go

  And may never get there (beating that guy) as there are some
very fast 'old' buzzards out there (50 isn't that old, it's just
that you're that young :-).  Last year as I was finishing
a 10 miler, I heard a big cheer go up.  A couple minutes later,
I crossed the line and found out the cheering was for the fellow
who had just set the national record at 10 miles for _80-84_ year olds!
(This year, I 'redeemed' myself, finishing a few minutes ahead of
him.)

  But whether you get there or not, you've got decades of running
ahead of you.  Lots of fun in store!
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences