Starting out - running too hard?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Hi folks,

Quoted message said:

I read the beginner's FAQ, wherein it says I should be able to carry

on a conversation while running. Now, I´m not getting tunnel vision or
anything, and not gulping for air - it doesn't really feel anaerobic,
I mean, and my sporting background's much more anaerobic than cardio -
but I'm breathing too fast to get much of a sentence out. I inhale
every 4-6 paces at that rate, and I run 2 miles in (a laughable, to
good runners, I'm sure) 17 minutes.>

Quoted message said:

I'm not overweight at all, but I'm aware that I'm bigger than average,

so I don't want to get injured and lose interest. Going slower doesn't
seem like running though :P I have no baseline to compare myself to -
does this sound reasonable for a beginner, slow down, speed up, stop
worrying?>

Patience, patience, patience. At this point you should be just trying to
get some nice slow base and yes at conversation mode. 2 miles in 17
minutes is 8:30 pace which may be too fast for your beginning stages.
You may want to run 9 or 9:30 pace. As you miles grow your pace will
improve. Once you get a reasonable base you can then add hills and maybe
some speed work if you want to attack the clock.

-Doug

Quoted message said:

Hi folks,

I've just started running as part of an attempt to get back some
fitness after a long layoff. Taking it easy to start with, I'm doing
routes of a couple of miles. I'm 1.97/6'5" and 90kg/200lbs, my aim is
not to run a 3 hour marathon or anything, just to get to a shape where
I can happily run 3x10k/1hr. routes a week and see how I like it from
there.

I read the beginner's FAQ, wherein it says I should be able to carry
on a conversation while running. Now, I´m not getting tunnel vision or
anything, and not gulping for air - it doesn't really feel anaerobic,
I mean, and my sporting background's much more anaerobic than cardio -
but I'm breathing too fast to get much of a sentence out. I inhale
every 4-6 paces at that rate, and I run 2 miles in (a laughable, to
good runners, I'm sure) 17 minutes.

I'm not overweight at all, but I'm aware that I'm bigger than average,
so I don't want to get injured and lose interest. Going slower doesn't
seem like running though :P I have no baseline to compare myself to -
does this sound reasonable for a beginner, slow down, speed up, stop
worrying?

First of all, you don't say how long you've been running - you say
you've just started, but that might mean anything from two hours ago
to two months. In any case, you're right - much training should be
done at a pace to allow you to hold a conversation, but this gets
easier as you get fitter! I don't find 2 miles at sub-9 minute pace
laughable at all - it's a very good place to begin from, especially
considering that you're very tall for an endurance runner.

For the time being, I wouldn't worry about the conversational running
thing. It's only a guideline in any case, a rule of thumb, and rules
are made to be broken, right ;¬} I run most days at sub-7 minute pace
at which speed I don't find conversation that easy, and when I go
sub-6 I find it downright difficult. But if you only ever run slowly,
then you'll only ever be able to run slowly.

In your position I'd do exactly what you suggest -slow down, speed up,
stop worrying. You clearly have a background in sports, and your
writing style suggests there's a functioning muscle in your head too.
Listen to your body, don't try to make too much progress too fast.
I'd suggest targeting a 5k race in a few months time - if you can run
2 miles now that should be a breeze for you. Don't give up - you
certainly can get to 3x10k/1hr. routes a week without too much
trouble. A sub-3 hr marathon might be a big ask, but a sub-3.5 or
sub-4 hr marathon is definitely possible.

Edward

Quoted message said:

Hi folks,

routes of a couple of miles. I'm 1.97/6'5" and 90kg/200lbs, my aim is
not to run a 3 hour marathon or anything, just to get to a shape where
I can happily run 3x10k/1hr. routes a week and see how I like it from
there.

I read the beginner's FAQ, wherein it says I should be able to carry
on a conversation while running. Now, I´m not getting tunnel vision or
anything, and not gulping for air - it doesn't really feel anaerobic,
I mean, and my sporting background's much more anaerobic than cardio -
but I'm breathing too fast to get much of a sentence out. I inhale
every 4-6 paces at that rate, and I run 2 miles in (a laughable, to
good runners, I'm sure) 17 minutes.

For what it's worth, I started similarly this year. I am also
slightly too big for a distance runner, though of an average height.
I didn't get into too much trouble other than some shin splints; my
runs at the time were either 2 miles at what felt like an 'easy' pace
(16-17 minutes) or hill runs at what felt like a 'hard' pace. There
was a point where my 2-milers seemed to be getting slower and slower,
so just take care not to overtrain. If it feels like your speed vs
effort is falling over the course of 1/2 weeks it is perhaps time to
take it a bit easier. Now, three months later my long run is 7-10km
once per week, but I am a hill runner and am doing 4 sessions per week
so your mileage my differ.

If you just look at the mileage, a quick calculation shows that
starting at 9.6km/week you'll be able to reach your goal of 30km/week
in (log(30)-log(9.6))/log(1 + x%) weeks. Taking the common
prescription of 10% increase, that's 12 weeks. But of course you may
want to play around with varying the load at each workout. I plan to
play around with a 3-run/week schedule of even mileage after this race
and the following recovery month.

Quoted message said:

Hi folks,

I've just started running as part of an attempt to get back some
fitness after a long layoff. Taking it easy to start with, I'm doing
routes of a couple of miles. I'm 1.97/6'5" and 90kg/200lbs, my aim is
not to run a 3 hour marathon or anything, just to get to a shape where
I can happily run 3x10k/1hr. routes a week and see how I like it from
there.

I read the beginner's FAQ, wherein it says I should be able to carry
on a conversation while running. Now, I´m not getting tunnel vision or
anything, and not gulping for air - it doesn't really feel anaerobic,
I mean, and my sporting background's much more anaerobic than cardio -
but I'm breathing too fast to get much of a sentence out. I inhale
every 4-6 paces at that rate, and I run 2 miles in (a laughable, to
good runners, I'm sure) 17 minutes.

I ran several training runs at 8:30/mile when I was racing 10k at about
5:30 per mile.

There is no need to turn training runs into races. Do NOT evaluate your
progress based on how fast your day to day training runs are. If you want
to measure your progress, enter a race and give it your all.

I agree with Doug -- given your weight, beginner status, and description
of your training effort, you probably should slow down your training runs
a bit, to more like 9:30 a mile.

Quoted message said:

does this sound reasonable for a beginner, slow down,

Yes

Quoted message said:

speed up,

Slow and steady wins the race. You'll get faster by training slower.

Quoted message said:

stop
worrying?

Yes

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

If you just look at the mileage, a quick calculation shows that
starting at 9.6km/week you'll be able to reach your goal of 30km/week
in (log(30)-log(9.6))/log(1 + x%) weeks. Taking the common
prescription of 10% increase, that's 12 weeks. But of course you may

That's a common prescription but not a very good one (he'd be doing, what,
90km/week in 12 weeks ?). One can jump through hoops to come up with a version
of "the 10% rule" that isn't just plain dumb, but it's easier to avoid this
abomination to begin with.

Generally, one can ramp up pretty quickly in percentage terms (but still small
in absolute terms) as a beginner (what is is the limit of a 10% increase as you
approach 0 ?), then the law of diminishing returns kicks in. For a runner
doing 40mpw or more, a 10mpw increase is a substantial jump.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

If you just look at the mileage, a quick calculation shows that
starting at 9.6km/week you'll be able to reach your goal of 30km/week
in (log(30)-log(9.6))/log(1 + x%) weeks. Taking the common
prescription of 10% increase, that's 12 weeks. But of course you may

That's a common prescription but not a very good one (he'd be doing, what,
90km/week in 12 weeks ?). One can jump through hoops to come up with a version
of "the 10% rule" that isn't just plain dumb, but it's easier to avoid this
abomination to begin with.

Sorry. I am definitely not advocating a 10% increase in mileage per
week. I am only using it a rough estimate of how long it'd take him
to get to his goal. As far as i am concerned, starting from a similar
level three months ago has taken me to be able to do a one-hour run
once a week. Barely. YMMV.

It cant take 2-6 months to be able run a half hour very comfortably,
especially for people over 30.
Have patience - it does happen and feels good.

Quoted message said:

Going slower doesn't
seem like running though :P I have no baseline to compare myself to -
does this sound reasonable for a beginner, slow down, speed up, stop
worrying?

For perspective, the slower efforts are for your aerobic development. As
you mentioned, you've been doing things that focus more on anaerobic
aspects. For general running, you need to use more aerobic, and training
usually consists of a range of efforts - the bulk being at
conversational effort (talk in full sentences) but some (say, less than
10% of volume) at higher end (can talk in short phrases) and things in
between. Some will train above LT also, but sounds like you're already
familiar with that range.

The difference between your other sports (anaerobic) and running may be
what's making running seem so slow to you. But you may not run 1 hr
continuously at those efforts in those other sports.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

<[email hidden]> wrote
----------------------
Now, I´m not getting tunnel vision or
anything, and not gulping for air - it doesn't really feel anaerobic,
I mean, and my sporting background's much more anaerobic than cardio -
but I'm breathing too fast to get much of a sentence out. I inhale
every 4-6 paces at that rate, and I run 2 miles in (a laughable, to
good runners, I'm sure) 17 minutes.
----------------------

Lots of good advise already given, but sounds like you're going too fast. A
common mistake among beginners. When I started out I ran at an effort a bit
harder than I would later run hardest workouts of the week as a mature
competitor. Needless to say, I started and stopped training several times
because it just wasn't fun. Then I read that you can get into pretty good
shape just cruising along at a comfortable effort.

If you feel like you're straining, or feel on the threshold of leg-burn on
the flats, you're going too fast. At your stage of development, just jog
comfortably, and gradually get your time on your feet up. It's much more
enjoyable to get into shape running well below the discomfort point.

Advanced runners don't push the pace that much -- maybe 25-30% of the time.
The rest is comfortable. That comfort zone trains your base endurance.
When that matures, it's fairly quick (a matter of 4-6 weeks) to turn that
into speed.

-- Dan

(Rich) said:

Going slower doesn't seem like running though

Do you distinguish between running and jogging then? Many people
don't want to use the J word, but really like Dan said, your easy pace
is gonna be a jog, not a run, if you make a distinction. Or a very
slow run, if you don't.

And I believe 2 miles in 17:00 is pretty quick for the vast majority
of beginning runners. Likely a little too quick to be "easy" pace
unless you're some combination of talented, light, and young. And we
know you're not light.

Running too fast a pace is only a problem if you want to build your
mileage and/or remain uninjured; otherwise, have at it.

Fear not: as you start to accumulate miles and dozens of miles and
hundreds and then thousands of miles, your easy pace will get faster -
as will your harder paces.

On Jun 29, 10:54 pm, Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

(Rich) said:

Going slower doesn't seem like running though

Do you distinguish between running and jogging then? Many people
don't want to use the J word, but really like Dan said, your easy pace
is gonna be a jog, not a run, if you make a distinction. Or a very
slow run, if you don't.

And I believe 2 miles in 17:00 is pretty quick for the vast majority
of beginning runners. Likely a little too quick to be "easy" pace
unless you're some combination of talented, light, and young. And we
know you're not light.

Running too fast a pace is only a problem if you want to build your
mileage and/or remain uninjured; otherwise, have at it.

Fear not: as you start to accumulate miles and dozens of miles and
hundreds and then thousands of miles, your easy pace will get faster -
as will your harder paces.

I would work on increasing one run to the 10K distance by
increasing its length weekly, then you can increase another and
another. I do believe however that running the same distance every
day is a bit boring.

Charlie Pendejo said:

[email hidden] (Rich) wrote:

First off, thank you to all the people who responded! It was
remarkably friendly and helpful compared to what I'm used to on
Usenet...

I went for a slower run last night and it was a completely different
experience, I think I was going too fast in the past. And it may be
what put me off running before. So I'll stick with the slower pace for
now, maybe throw in a faster run occasionally if I get bored, and just
work on distance.

Quoted message said:

Do you distinguish between running and jogging then? Many people
don't want to use the J word, but really like Dan said, your easy pace
is gonna be a jog, not a run, if you make a distinction. Or a very
slow run, if you don't.

I thought that "jog" was the pejorative form of the verb "run" :P I
don't really distinguish, I have no experience of running and I think
I was expecting it to be more race-speed all the time.

Thanks again for all the advice!
Rich

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Charlie Pendejo said:

[email hidden] (Rich) wrote:

First off, thank you to all the people who responded! It was
remarkably friendly and helpful compared to what I'm used to on
Usenet...

I went for a slower run last night and it was a completely different
experience, I think I was going too fast in the past. And it may be
what put me off running before. So I'll stick with the slower pace for
now, maybe throw in a faster run occasionally if I get bored, and just
work on distance.

You are now on the right track. The basic running paradigm is base,
power(hills), speed. Once you get a base foundation (just like a
building a house), you can add in hills and then some speed and in that
order. As long as you grow you mileage slowly 5% (ignore the 10% that
abounds as a rule of thumb) you move forward and not [censored] the injury
gods.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you distinguish between running and jogging then? Many people
don't want to use the J word, but really like Dan said, your easy
pace
is gonna be a jog, not a run, if you make a distinction. Or a very
slow run, if you don't.

I thought that "jog" was the pejorative form of the verb "run" :P I
don't really distinguish, I have no experience of running and I think
I was expecting it to be more race-speed all the time.

Just consider the terms interchangeable. The pejorativity (how's that
for a made up flavor) comes from people that need to raise their running
esteem by degrading those that run slower. The only somewhat acceptable
fact is that jogging is slower than running. Once you try to assign a
time the term becomes meaningless and silly.

Friends and acquaintances not close to the sport will ask or commend you
on your "jogging." They use the term positively so don't try to overtly
correct them, it comes out as a snobbism. It doesn't mean you have to
parrot back the phrase if it bothers you, just respond I have
insert-some-positive-fact(s) since I started running. If they pick up on
the change in term fine, if not let it slide. You physical and emotional
changes will speak for themselves with playing vocabulary.

Compared to the fastest runners we are all joggers.

-Doug

Doug Freese said:

Quoted message said:

I went for a slower run last night and it was a completely different
experience, I think I was going too fast in the past. And it may be
what put me off running before. So I'll stick with the slower pace for
now, maybe throw in a faster run occasionally if I get bored, and just
work on distance.

You are now on the right track. The basic running paradigm is base,
power(hills), speed. Once you get a base foundation (just like a
building a house), you can add in hills and then some speed and in that
order.

Hmm... I live in Holland, so by the time I'm running far enough to
find any hills I'll be doing double marathons anyway! Is sand an
acceptable alternative, or is that just asking for sprained ankles?

Thanks for the tips, by the way.

Rich

rick++ said:

It cant take 2-6 months to be able run a half hour very comfortably,
especially for people over 30.
Have patience - it does happen and feels good.

Still haven't gotten laid Rick+? I'm telling you to call that hookers
number I gave you, at 59 YO you just don't want to die a virgin.

rlancashire said:

On 1 jul, 14:12, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Hmm... I live in Holland, so by the time I'm running far enough to
find any hills I'll be doing double marathons anyway! Is sand an
acceptable alternative, or is that just asking for sprained ankles?

Sand is different, the stairmaster machines are OK if you bound on them
rather than walk.. you could do stairs now that I think of it 🙂
It's not absolutely necessary to do hills. Many of the guys that were
in today's mountain race usually train on the flat, since they have no
mountains very close. And they were faster than me too.

--
Christos Dimitrakakis
Homepage: http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/main.html
Music: http://olethros.dmusic.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

Just consider the terms interchangeable. The pejorativity (how's that
for a made up flavor) comes from people that need to raise their
running esteem by degrading those that run slower.

Decades ago, someone told me in jest, "Jogging is slower than me;
everything else is running." More recently, someone wrote, "The
difference between jogging and running is an entry form."

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that [email hidden] wrote in
article <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On 1 jul, 14:12, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went for a slower run last night and it was a completely different
experience, I think I was going too fast in the past. And it may be
what put me off running before. So I'll stick with the slower pace for
now, maybe throw in a faster run occasionally if I get bored, and just
work on distance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are now on the right track. The basic running paradigm is base,
power(hills), speed. Once you get a base foundation (just like a
building a house), you can add in hills and then some speed and in that
order.

Quoted message said:

Hmm... I live in Holland, so by the time I'm running far enough to
find any hills I'll be doing double marathons anyway! Is sand an
acceptable alternative, or is that just asking for sprained ankles?

Go for those double marathons! :-)

It may not be possible in your situation, but others may be able to do
what I used to do to substitute for hills. I have a freeway
(expressway) near my house, and there are bridges and overpasses where
it flies over local streets. I used to use those bridges as short
hills; most have a rise of perhaps 15 meters or so and a length of 80
to 120 meters. In my case, I could run over two of those for every mile
of my run, so a five mile run gave me a reasonable hill workout.

Some people have access to a sports stadium where they can run up and
down the stairs to emulate hill running.
--
Don Kirkman

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hmm... I live in Holland, so by the time I'm running far enough to
find any hills I'll be doing double marathons anyway! Is sand an
acceptable alternative, or is that just asking for sprained ankles?

I don't thing sand will sprain an ankle. What sand will do is make an
arbitrary run some percentage harder. The softer the sand that harder
the workout. Be cautious and don't add sand on a daily basis but as a
weekly workout. All too often people go on vacation to the beach and
substitute their typical road run for the captivating sights and smells
of the ocean and the sand. Between the softness and the angle of the
beach, muscles and tendons get tweaked harder/differently and something
ends up hurt. The moral, treat sand as a hard day and allow some
recovery between.

-Doug