Running thread

All training and programming related queries and banter here

Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer

Post Reply
User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Running thread

#41

Post by iamsmu » Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:49 pm

PC wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:07 am Well, I put the capstone on my recent rash of long(er) distance running. Ran a race effort Half-Marathon in 1:54:18 (race was cancelled).

I started running in January with the goal of building up an aerobic base, and improving my timed mile. Through a buddy who recently got back in to running, I was coerced to run this HM with him. I agreed to it ~8 weeks out, and at that time my longest run was ~25 minutes. I ran a pretty aggressive plan to build up to 13.1 miles.

Glad it's over, and I can get back to jacking the weights properly!
How the hell did you do that? Did you follow a running program of some kind?

scotty
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:24 am

Re: Running thread

#42

Post by scotty » Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:02 pm

I’ve been running 3x a week. All of these are pretty slow, with HR kept around 130-145bpm. What I’ve found is, that the speed I can run at and still maintain my HR in that zone has slowly been increasing, haven’t seen too much interference with lifting.

One thing I’ve found that helps recovery is to do most runs on a treadmill, this removes the downhill eccentric component which is really hard on the legs. I tend to set the incline at 3, otherwise I’ve found treadmill running doesn’t transfer to the road/trail very well.

User avatar
PC
Registered User
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:35 am
Age: 35

Re: Running thread

#43

Post by PC » Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:12 pm

Thanks for the kind words, guys!
iamsmu wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:49 pm
PC wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:07 am Ran a race effort Half-Marathon...

~8 weeks out [...] my longest run was ~25 minutes. I ran a pretty aggressive plan to build up to 13.1 miles.
How the hell did you do that? Did you follow a running program of some kind?
I did. Stumbled across a guy who had a few programs, and even an app (!). I chose the HM program with the least frequency, hopped in the program at the 8-week-out mark, and ran it sink-or-swim style.

Link: https://www.halhigdon.com/training-prog ... arathon-3/

User avatar
OrderInChaos
Registered User
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Running thread

#44

Post by OrderInChaos » Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:50 pm

@iamsmu, @aurelius, @asdf, et al

Do you have an opinion on the 3-day 'HLM' approach to conditioning that BBM tends to include in their recommendations? I think it's in the Endurance template and they've given that advice to a number of dudes asking for PFT help. Basically alactic intervals/short LSD/aerobic intervals T/Th/Sa on a MWF full body lifting schedule.

I think broseph did something similar with rowing. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to work on a bike, rower, etc. than running. Running seems much more volume driven for most distances beyond 3k. Have the BBM dudes ever discussed Maff zones? Seems like they either 1) don't buy in or 2) don't consider it necessary for most folks/goals they train.
PC wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:12 pm ...Stumbled across a guy who had a few programs, and even an app (!). I chose the HM program with the least frequency, hopped in the program at the 8-week-out mark, and ran it sink-or-swim style.

Link: https://www.halhigdon.com/training-prog ... arathon-3/
You stumbled across an awesome resource! Phil Maffetone, Jack Daniels, Matt Fitzgerald, and Steve Magness are maybe the only others who I've found more influential. HH is way more beginner friendly in terms of a no-shit, do this on this day approach. You're really durable to tolerate the sink or swim with that program! I'm envious. Great work on the 1:50! 8:30 pace for that race is no joke, especially as a lifter first and foremost!

User avatar
aurelius
Grade A Asshole
Posts: 4673
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:14 am
Location: Dallas
Age: 43

Re: Running thread

#45

Post by aurelius » Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:27 pm

Conditioning...like I should be giving advice on conditioning. Here is where I'm at now: Human beings should be able to run. It is one of our basic modalities of travel. The other one is walking. If you can't run and walk, you are a not a fit human being.

Be able to run a 5k at a serious pace (let's throw out 25 minutes). Be able to walk a significant distance under load (20% body weight). Train those things. What do I do? Write about conditioning on the internet.

*twice a week I go about 4-5 miles with a 50 pound weight vest and do 5 sets of 20 lunges on 10 seconds of rest. I'm supposed to run twice a week including 'sprints' up stairs at the end but that somehow always gets pushed to next week.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Running thread

#46

Post by asdf » Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:14 pm

scotty wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:02 pm One thing I’ve found that helps recovery is to do most runs on a treadmill, this removes the downhill eccentric component which is really hard on the legs. I tend to set the incline at 3, otherwise I’ve found treadmill running doesn’t transfer to the road/trail very well.
Good observations, and they match my experience. (Although even with an incline, treadmill running doesn't transfer very well to road or trail.)

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Running thread

#47

Post by asdf » Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:27 pm

OrderInChaos wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 5:50 pm Do you have an opinion on the 3-day 'HLM' approach to conditioning that BBM tends to include in their recommendations? I think it's in the Endurance template and they've given that advice to a number of dudes asking for PFT help. Basically alactic intervals/short LSD/aerobic intervals T/Th/Sa on a MWF full body lifting schedule.
I haven't seen their layout and I don't know the experience level or goal they're targeting. Is it a running-specific prescription? I don't think beginners need intervals or tempo runs to improve. Just a gradual increase in volume (frequency and/or distance per run). Getting faster happens on it's own for most people.

User avatar
OrderInChaos
Registered User
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Running thread

#48

Post by OrderInChaos » Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:42 pm

asdf wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:27 pm Is it a running-specific prescription?
Pretty sure it's general, especially in the template (to be done rowing, or biking, or any other modality you can modify pace and effort on effectively). In their forums they've recommended same for PFT takers, definitely run specific in that context. Wondering if it's more "out of their depth", acknowledging they're catering to lifters who want a little run fitness/pass a test vs. run performance writ large.

I think it'd conform more to my understanding of run improvement if it looked more like:

MWF: 45-60m or 5ish miles @5-6
T: Short hills or strides-heavy fartlek run... avoiding sprint gait/pace
Th: Race specific distance for time, @8-9
Sa: Race specific intervals, 400s or 800s or mile repeats at slightly faster than current race pace
Su (or Friday): Same pace as MWF but out to 2-3hrs

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Running thread

#49

Post by asdf » Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:23 pm

OrderInChaos wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:42 pm
asdf wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:27 pm Is it a running-specific prescription?
Pretty sure it's general, especially in the template (to be done rowing, or biking, or any other modality you can modify pace and effort on effectively).
Got it. As a way to structure general conditioning, it's hard to argue with a mix of LSD, anaerobic, and aerobic intervals.

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Running thread

#50

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:42 am

scotty wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:02 pm I’ve been running 3x a week. All of these are pretty slow, with HR kept around 130-145bpm. What I’ve found is, that the speed I can run at and still maintain my HR in that zone has slowly been increasing, haven’t seen too much interference with lifting.
I went out today with the goal of staying under 150. I kept it down for about 1.75 miles. It felt horrible. Short mincing steps. I had to run around a 9:20 pace. Then my HR went up to the low 160's. I never got it down again until I was going downhill. There's no way I could "run" up even a small hill with a sub 150 HR.

If you have these HR goals, are you supposed to walk when needed to keep it down?

I feel like I'm messing up my mechanics. I'm not using any momentum, my stride length shortens, and I'm all bouncy going slow. I didn't have to stop at all though. . . . Though I was 6:30 slower than my last run at the same distance!

User avatar
augeleven
Registered User
Posts: 4522
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:47 pm
Location: 9th level
Age: 43

Re: Running thread

#51

Post by augeleven » Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:41 pm

Yeah, a lot of maffetone critics argue that only doing the low HR speed messes with mechanics, but there’s a long history of super slow long distance going all the way back to lydiard. Running super slow is a skill, think of it as adding a different gear to your running transmission.

psmith
Registered User
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:00 am

Re: Running thread

#52

Post by psmith » Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:27 pm

iamsmu wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:42 am
If you have these HR goals, are you supposed to walk when needed to keep it down?
Yep. If it makes you feel any better, the Uphill Athlete guys say that almost nobody can stay mostly-aerobic while running uphill for a sustained period. And the best trail ultrarunners walk most of the big climbs.

On topic: I've done pretty well over the last six weeks with splitting up my weekly running volume into half-hour sessions (6-7 x 30:00 instead of 3 x 60:00-75:00), staying under MAF with both setups. Supposedly there are some metabolic benefits to longer sessions, and yeah, maybe there are, but the total training volume I'm handling right now (running + other stuff) is much higher than it was before, I feel fresher, and I'm getting faster. Worth considering if you're having issues!

User avatar
OrderInChaos
Registered User
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Running thread

#53

Post by OrderInChaos » Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:43 pm

iamsmu wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:42 am
scotty wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:02 pm I’ve been running 3x a week. All of these are pretty slow, with HR kept around 130-145bpm. What I’ve found is, that the speed I can run at and still maintain my HR in that zone has slowly been increasing, haven’t seen too much interference with lifting.
I went out today with the goal of staying under 150. I kept it down for about 1.75 miles. It felt horrible. Short mincing steps. I had to run around a 9:20 pace. Then my HR went up to the low 160's. I never got it down again until I was going downhill. There's no way I could "run" up even a small hill with a sub 150 HR.

If you have these HR goals, are you supposed to walk when needed to keep it down?

I feel like I'm messing up my mechanics. I'm not using any momentum, my stride length shortens, and I'm all bouncy going slow. I didn't have to stop at all though. . . . Though I was 6:30 slower than my last run at the same distance!
Check out this dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paavo_Nurmi

and this: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 012.681595

I think he was a military reservist too so the walks were weighted and boots at times. But, a ton of extra LSD, emphasis on the S.
augeleven wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:41 pm Yeah, a lot of maffetone critics argue that only doing the low HR speed messes with mechanics, but there’s a long history of super slow long distance going all the way back to lydiard. Running super slow is a skill, think of it as adding a different gear to your running transmission.
You think 10:30 to 11/mi pace is a rough estimate of "slowest reasonable 'gear' to have on the column" for that concept? I can't imagine going slower than that without experiencing what smu mentioned above.
psmith wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:27 pm splitting up my weekly running volume into half-hour sessions (6-7 x 30:00 instead of 3 x 60:00-75:00), staying under MAF with both setups. Supposedly there are some metabolic benefits to longer sessions...
I think the main thing long sessions get you is better adaptation to fat metabolism during activity. I also get tougher feet faster from 3 x Long vs. 6+ x Short, but that's minor/irrelevant to half mara and shorter IMO. Would you incorporate a single weekly 60+, up to maybe 90, if your progress slows?

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Running thread

#54

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:47 pm

psmith wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:27 pm
iamsmu wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:42 am
If you have these HR goals, are you supposed to walk when needed to keep it down?
Yep. If it makes you feel any better, the Uphill Athlete guys say that almost nobody can stay mostly-aerobic while running uphill for a sustained period. And the best trail ultrarunners walk most of the big climbs.

On topic: I've done pretty well over the last six weeks with splitting up my weekly running volume into half-hour sessions (6-7 x 30:00 instead of 3 x 60:00-75:00), staying under MAF with both setups. Supposedly there are some metabolic benefits to longer sessions, and yeah, maybe there are, but the total training volume I'm handling right now (running + other stuff) is much higher than it was before, I feel fresher, and I'm getting faster. Worth considering if you're having issues!
I had no idea what MAF was. I just read a few things. Interesting. I don't see how I could keep my HR so low and do anything resembling running though. . . .

User avatar
augeleven
Registered User
Posts: 4522
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:47 pm
Location: 9th level
Age: 43

Re: Running thread

#55

Post by augeleven » Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:43 pm

OrderInChaos wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:43 pm
augeleven wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:41 pm Yeah, a lot of maffetone critics argue that only doing the low HR speed messes with mechanics, but there’s a long history of super slow long distance going all the way back to lydiard. Running super slow is a skill, think of it as adding a different gear to your running transmission.
You think 10:30 to 11/mi pace is a rough estimate of "slowest reasonable 'gear' to have on the column" for that concept? I can't imagine going slower than that without experiencing what smu mentioned above.
I’m pretty inexperienced with running (or inexperienced in being successful, plenty of experience in getting it wrong)
That being said, putting in a 6:30 mile in this training pace calculator

http://www.fasterrunning.com/calculator

Has your long runs at 9:30-10:30.
My sad 8:30 mile has my long run at 12:30-13:30

@psmith I know it’s true that even elite ultra runners walk the big hills, there have been several times I’ve been slogging up a trail in NH with 1k+ in elevation gain, and someone with a small water bottle just goes zipping by up.

User avatar
OrderInChaos
Registered User
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Running thread

#56

Post by OrderInChaos » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:46 pm

augeleven wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:43 pm That being said, putting in a 6:30 mile in this training pace calculator

http://www.fasterrunning.com/calculator

Has your long runs at 9:30-10:30.
My sad 8:30 mile has my long run at 12:30-13:30
Yo, I think the long runs there have an artificially slow component. "Easy" run is probably a good MAF proxy and long is supposed to be a version of that doable for 2-3 hours. Granted that's still 11-11:30, but seems more in the realm of reason for me.

I think lots of effective runner prediction models go to shit for anybody too far out of the BW ranges they account for; in this case, I think they're overly conservative with those Long and even easy paces (compared to if you were a much more novice runner who weighed 150 or less, and still ran an 8:30 mile). Not enough people who lift even a little yet want to run for that side of Exercise Science to research it.

I did the unthinkable in MAF framing and did a lot of above MAF Zone 2 running last year before going Army and after my 25k. I can now do a modestly higher than before MAF pace. I think adaptations happen both ways - tons of Zone 2 makes your Zone 2 speed faster, with lower risk of injury per session; but Zone 3+ and tempo and all that in appropriate doses can also gradually make that Zone 2 pace faster. I think there's a little too much noceboing among the MAF crowd - still a good crowd to exist in the world where CF Endurance existed lol
augeleven wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:43 pm @psmith I know it’s true that even elite ultra runners walk the big hills, there have been several times I’ve been slogging up a trail in NH with 1k+ in elevation gain, and someone with a small water bottle just goes zipping by up.
That for 3:30 sounds a lot like my experience of a 25k :lol:

User avatar
iamsmu
Registered User
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:52 pm
Location: Handicap: +.3
Age: 49
Contact:

Re: Running thread

#57

Post by iamsmu » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:15 pm

Looking at that calculator, I see that I do pretty much all my runs at my anaerobic threshold (Tempo pace). My running isn't improving much, but my Metcons are. Not sure if it's related.

If it's not raining tomorrow, I'm going to try my second mile for time. It's pretty much flat. I've been doing my Murph miles around my house, which has hills. I don't have a good sense of my 1 mile time. . . .

psmith
Registered User
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:00 am

Re: Running thread

#58

Post by psmith » Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:32 pm

OrderInChaos wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:43 pm You think 10:30 to 11/mi pace is a rough estimate of "slowest reasonable 'gear' to have on the column" for that concept? I can't imagine going slower than that without experiencing what smu mentioned above.
Sounds in the neighborhood. I think I was working at a 12:30ish pace for a while there, though distance measurements were imprecise. I'm sure it looked silly.
OrderInChaos wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:43 pm Would you incorporate a single weekly 60+, up to maybe 90, if your progress slows?
a) yep
b) or just when I'm not doing a whole bunch of other shit, without waiting for progress to slow
c) or even longer yet if I was hiking up hills and such instead of trying to maintain a constant running pace
d) and this right now is the first step in a process of slowly increasing daily running volume as well. I'd like to be in the 45:00-60:00 range by December, though again this is in the context of having less other shit to do by then.
e) I've also been doing the 30:00ish sessions fasted, though I dunno if that matters.

scotty
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:24 am

Re: Running thread

#59

Post by scotty » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:06 am

iamsmu wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:42 am I went out today with the goal of staying under 150. I kept it down for about 1.75 miles. It felt horrible. Short mincing steps. I had to run around a 9:20 pace. Then my HR went up to the low 160's. I never got it down again until I was going downhill. There's no way I could "run" up even a small hill with a sub 150 HR.

If you have these HR goals, are you supposed to walk when needed to keep it down?

I feel like I'm messing up my mechanics. I'm not using any momentum, my stride length shortens, and I'm all bouncy going slow. I didn't have to stop at all though. . . . Though I was 6:30 slower than my last run at the same distance!
Yeah, you may need to brisk walk at first and it will take a while to get used to mechanics of running slower (took me about a month). It will get easier. It’s really important to start the session slow so your HR doesn’t spike. For me, once I hit about 145, I’m over my lactate threshold (dunno if that’s the actual mechanism, but it’s a threshold for sure) and my HR will start to drift up, regardless of the intensity.

scotty
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:24 am

Re: Running thread

#60

Post by scotty » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:09 am

I'll also say, since I've started training like this I've found my running interferes a lot less with my lifting and I'm slowly but surely improving which wasn't happening when I used to run every session flat out. I don't do any faster runs (sub 5:00min/km pace) right now so no idea if I'm actually becoming faster in an absolute sense, but runs around a 6-7min/km pace now feel very easy (I've been doing this for about six months now). I might have to do a couple of weeks of speedwork and do a 5K.

Post Reply