I used to be overweight and could not run to the door even if my life depended on it. Five years later and I run no less than 5k a day from Monday to Friday. Resting during the weekend. Do run events every other month or so on Sundays.
How did I do it?
I started with the couch-to-5K program[1]. That led me to diet and eat better. Did my first 5k four months later. Then a 10k three after that.
Running is not for everybody. But you should try it out. Run at your own rhythm and style. Some people are naturally better at long distances, some of us are sprinters. The truth is its about patience and pacing yourself. It is also great for thinking (or not thinking). My life is definitely better because of it. Feel free to ask me questions!
Couch-to-5k did it for me too. I was a little skeptical when I started, both of the program and my own abilities. I was rather out of shape and couldn't imagine running 5k based on my physical condition. Not overweight, just painfully unhealthy and unfit.
But I was very excited the first time I was able to complete the 5k run without walking breaks, and then I started to work on my time. I am not a fast runner but eventually got to a pace of 30 minutes. Certainly not anything like pinnacle athlete form but it brought a lot of personal satisfaction.
I paired my running with swimming. I would do a 5k run and then a 1k swim. It did wonders for my energy level and endurance and I felt much better.
Good on you! Similar story here - 6 years ago I lost 100 pounds through better diet and running. Started with Couch to 5k also. Since then, I've run 15+ marathons, and even a few ultras. I'm the healthiest I've ever been, and have never felt better. Plus, I'm setting a much better example for my kids than I was previously. Now they're really starting to get into running too, and have been doing some of the shorter kids races.
Regarding "some people are naturally better..."; it took me ~4 months, "running" 4 days a week, to be able to jog a 3 mile (~5K) run in ~30 minutes. My age then was 28.
My friend, who never worked out in any way, woke up with a hang-over and decided to join some friends for a competitive, cross-country 10K... he came in first. He was 22 years old, IIRC. His father is a dedicated marathon runner (qualifies for Boston Marathon), so that partly explains it.
”Seven years ago Steve Way weighed 16 1/2 stone and had high-blood pressure, a 20-a-day habit and an addiction to takeaways and chocolate. So, like many other people, he began running to get fit. Only he didn’t stop. And 26,000 miles later – more than the circumference of the globe – and at the grand age of 40, he has been selected to run the marathon for England at next month’s Commonwealth Games.”
Now apply that to software and interviewing. Its mind blowing to think of an interview being like that cross-country 10K and your group of friends being in it and being judged against the guy who came in first without trying. Life sure is funny.
Absolutely! I can only be as good as the best I can be. I suck at some things, average at many, and unfairly good at handful. I love it because it never gets boring. :)
That's whole different adventure altogether! Our diet depends on a lot of variables. How we feel, our daily stress, relationships on/off work and whole lot more things. My experience has taken me from that very first step of not drinking anymore pop soda to almost vegetarian (I eat meat once a week in small quantities and sometimes cheese). I did the atkins, paleo, juice, fruit, and everything in between. Slowly learning what works for me. Which meant finding and way that vegetables and grains would be enjoyable to eat. Food, or its taste, makes my day. So learning how to cook and buy nutritious food that tasted good has been a process.
Best advice I can give is to see your diet as a learning experience with the end goal of living a better life. Little daily goals amount to amazing yearly achievements!
(1) Actually it does matter how and where (relative to your body) you land your foot. Contrary to the article, many people do need to fix their "natural" form and/or get shoes that help them avoid pronation, both to avoid injury and to increase the enjoyment that will help them stick with it.
(2) Similarly, the article's advice about stretching is way out of date. It's now consensus that static stretching can not only reduce performance but increase chance of injury. The author weakly hints at some of this, but never actually recommends against static stretching like most would.
(3) Lastly, there's a pervasive assumption bordering on encouragement of people wearing headphones while they run. I realize there's a lot of controversy about this, but a responsible author would at least have mentioned that it's a safety issue as well as an aesthetic one. If you run all alone where there's no traffic - including pedestrian traffic - do whatever you want, but if you're running in crowded times or places it's irresponsible to deafen yourself. I've know runners who have both been injured and have caused injury to others because of this, so I'm not inclined to let that pass.
I'm sure many people could follow this author's advice and be fine, especially if they're young enough and slim enough that they've never had to overcome the barriers that face older/heavier runners. Good for her and good for them, but that doesn't mean her experience can or should be generalized to everyone. There are better sources. Just search for "beginner running advice" and pick anything, especially one of the articles from Runner's World. With all that was already out there - it's practically an industry - this one just doesn't cut it.
a responsible author would at least have mentioned that it's a safety issue as well as an aesthetic one.
Not only will I second this, I'll add that it's also an athletic issue. I used to run with headphones. But I don't anymore, because I realized I wanted all my senses, not just to be aware of my surroundings, but to be aware of myself. I literally listen to my body when I run, because it's a cue for me that I'm running correctly. I know it's not for everyone.
I used to always have earbuds in but then I ran an official 5k where earbuds were not allowed and I've never looked back. If you had told me I'd enjoy running without anything to distract me from the exercise I would have thought you were crazy but it turns out I now completely agree about wanting all of my senses.
I listen to music with the volume fairly low so i can hear my foot strike and my breathing. For me, the music is not a distraction but a combination of two things i like to do... especially when it's music i love and the tempo fits beautifully with my pace. it becomes a the perfect score to your run.
2) A little bit of stretching wont hurt, just don't do it too extensively. Stretching relaxes the muscles and increase range of motion, witch can have a positive effect on your running. It can also help the muscles "warm up". If stretching was so bad, you wouldn't see elite athletes do it, or cats and dogs.
dynamic stretching and warming up before, static stretching after (ie holding 30 seconds at maximum extension).
if you run a lot, because it's a narrow range of motion, if you don't stretch, then over years you will definitely run into flexibility problems that stretching would have helped alleviate.
For instance runner's knee occurs when you strengthen and shorten muscles, and they tend to pull up your kneecap so it is out of position and no longer glides smoothly in its slot. (naive and possible not 100% complete or correct explanation).
If you're going to run regularly for years, a flexibility regimen is key to staying healthy. Also listen to your body, increase distance (and speed) gradually.
I think increased risk of injury applies more to e.g. sprinters or football players increasing risk of straining a hamstring by doing a static stretch prior to an activity with explosive acceleration.
Static stretching is probably what you think of when you think of 'stretching', holding a pose for 10-30 seconds. Dynamic stretching is when you move around. Lunges, jumping, calf raises are all examples of dynamic stretching. A quick google for 'runner dynamic stretches' would be informative.
The important part is that static stretching before workouts has been linked to increased risk of injury, and lower performance. Stretching post workout and on non-workout days is fine.
"Dynamic" means you keep moving. All of your squats, lunges, jogging in place, and so on are dynamic. "Static" means you hold a position. Your classic runner's stretch is static, as are the various "hold your toes" stretches in any position. The danger is only with static stretches prior to exercise, which can lead to over-extension and injury. The benefit of dynamic stretching before exercise is still kind of debatable. Some swear by it, others are more skeptical. Just about everyone agrees that both static and dynamic stretches after exercise, while everything's warmed up and maximally pliable, is generally beneficial.
FWIW, I don't do any pre-exercise stretching. On the other hand, I practically always do at least one kind of stretching after every run - simple ankle rotations in both directions with one leg across the other knee while seated. I really notice the difference later in the day and/or next time I run. If particular muscles feel sore, I'll throw in one or two other kinds of stretches. That minimal approach has kept me out of trouble despite running more even than most other runners - consistently five or six days a week in every kind of weather. Just an anecdote, not data, but seemed worth sharing anyway.
>That minimal approach has kept me out of trouble despite running more even than most other runners - consistently five or six days a week in every kind of weather.
Meh. I ran thirteen times a week for years, quit for years, started again overweight more than once to slim down again and have done many 5 hour + mountain runs on the wrong side of 30. I've generally done static stretching both before and after running when I have time. After tens of thousands of miles, I'm still at zero injuries of note.
IMO the biggest thing is to not do the same thing every day. Take easy days and easy weeks between the more intense ones. Also, try not to go too fast except on speed days or tempo runs. You'll actually be healthier and faster if you let your body recover (whatever it takes at your fitness level to do that).
> I ran thirteen times a week for years
> Take easy days and easy weeks
Something doesn't quite add up here. Also, as impressed as you might be with yourself for running some unspecified distance more often than someone else while you were in your twenties, it doesn't change the fact that most runners go out every other day at most. Every distribution has its outliers, and your "meh" was unnecessarily dismissive.
The meh was because many, many runners who do static stretching do train at a higher volume than what the poster felt was a lot and do so without injuries. One data point from someone who only runs five or six times a week not getting injured says only that his approach probably wasn't unusually destructive.
>"Also, as impressed as you might be with yourself for running some unspecified distance more often than someone else while you were in your twenties, it doesn't change the fact that most runners go out every other day at most."
It's pretty common to run twice a day on university cross country teams. As far as I know, most competitive 10k runners do. I wasn't an outlier by any means. In fact, at that time I wasn't quite good enough to make the cut. I am not "impressed" with myself for having done >200km on hard weeks.
I do think that having done that and also having done a lot of running at different sizes and shapes in my 30s without injury is at least a decent data point that static stretching isn't absolutely horrible. It might be sub-optimal but it can be done regularly for years without leading to an injury.
> It's pretty common to run twice a day on university cross country teams
That's what percentage of the population, again? "Meh" to anyone who wasn't on their university cross-country team is just damn rude, no matter what factoids you're trying to get across. That sort of casual condescension toward strangers must go over really well at parties.
> it can be done regularly for years without leading to an injury.
Nobody ever claimed otherwise. It's all about the odds. If you don't care for my anecdote, fine. Your own's even less relevant to most people. If you want the facts, stop escalating the claims about yourself (which by their very mention say a lot about whether you're impressed with yourself) and look at actual studies with real samples and controls. You might start by looking for anything by Thacker or Shrier, as mentioned here[1]. I challenge you to find anything scientific from the last ten years that leads to a significantly different conclusion.
You're attributing malice that just wasn't there. The anecdote was meh, not the person or the drive behind it.
Honestly, I find your personal attacks and comments about how you believe I perceive myself to be the only nasty behavior on this thread.
> If you don't care for my anecdote, fine. Your own's even less relevant to most people.
I disagree. Maybe this analogy can make where I'm coming from clearer:
There are certain postures that are easier on the back than others when digging with a shovel. Imagine you have a single data point from someone who grew some vegetables in their backyard and did a bit of shoveling every weekend and a single data point from someone who worked as a tree planter in Ontario for three consecutive summers and spent long hours every day digging and planting.
I believe that neither would be scientific or conclusive, but that if all else were equal, then knowing how the posture/technique that worked for the tree planter would be more useful. I would go with that until encountering problems or taking on something more demanding than what the tree planter did.
Besides the fact that data (which I have cited and you have not) beats any anecdote, your analogy is awful. For one thing, since I happen to know people in the tree business, I can assure you that the pros use equipment the amateur isn't likely to have. It's a different activity. Second, people are broadly similar when it comes to how their bodies will handle tree planting. There's no huge difference in speed and resulting stresses on the body. What's likely to injure one person is likely to injure another, even if one is twenty and fit while the other is fifty and overweight. By contrast, few runners will ever be operating in the same milieu as someone who's competitive at the college level. Most have never been capable of it, and almost none once they've passed forty. Injury risks are most definitely not comparable across the two groups.
You're an outlier. You should be proud of that, and clearly are, but you want to have your cake too. You want to believe, contrary to the evidence I've cited, that your outlier's experience is relevant for people who have never had the benefit of working with professional coaches and trainers, for whom any likelihood of that is decades behind them, who might have struggled with all sorts of mid-life health issues before they took up running. That's the typical beginning runner who needs to know this stuff. They're ill served by your willingness to hold forth without benefit of relevant experience or familiarity with the actual science of the matter. Was there ever any rational expectation that your anecdote - which is the only thing you offered, in contrast to what you were supposedly answering - would help anyone else avoid injury? If not, then why did you feel the need to speak up?
Yeah, it was to help others avoid injury. I really do think that the biggest factor is taking easy days as well as easy weeks.
>"They're ill served by your willingness to hold forth without benefit of relevant experience or familiarity with the actual science of the matter."
This is really rude and makes more uncharitable assumptions.
The fact is I have helped a lot of friends and family members of various ages and sizes get into running without injury, and to go through marathon programs in some cases. While I've read more books and journals on running than most people ever will, I don't think trading links to them with angry people on the internet is productive. Have a good day.
tldr; Take easy days. Take easy weeks. Listen to your body.
I started running a few years ago, and noticed that there is a massive amount of cargo culting and folklore surrounding technique and training regimens. I ended up just discarding it all and doing what felt right because I found it impossible to filter through the noise. If these things have been properly studied and documented, I'd like to see it.
Not the person you're replying to, but I have some sources. The best consistent source I've found is Alex Hutchinson. He reports on scientific studies and tries to sift the wheat from the chaff. Quick search found this one on stretching [1] from him. Foot strike and mechanics is a much more complicated area AFAIK.
He also wrote a fantastic book on the state of sports science "Which Comes First, Cardio or Weights? Fitness Myths, Training Truths, and Other Surprising Discoveries from the Science of Exercise" [2] which I highly recommend if you're interested in hearing about the source studies (and their limitations).
I also think the idea of a total beginner picking a marathon is bad advice. A very fit person could pull this off, but they know who they are. Someone who has been running for quite some time and wants to start off with a marathon could do it too. But couch to marathon is a bad idea.
I agree, I started doing a couch to 5k, I'm now off running, and I've got a constant pain in my knee which shows no signs of going away.
Turns out my technique was bad and I had a week muscle in my knee, now I've badly messed it up. The worst thing is that it never hurt seriously -- you can build up some serious damage without ever being in serious pain.
Same thing happened to me, though in my case it was less of naturally bad technique and more that I have naturally weak joints that I tried using without sufficient other supporting muscles for stabilization. Missing a few http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondary.... Now it's going to take a year or two, maybe more, to get the joints back to where they were so I can try again.
Everyone has their favorite shin-splint exercise. The one that works for me is one that I've rarely seen mentioned, so I'll share it here. After your run, sit normally and place one ankle across the other knee, then simply rotate your ankle in as big a circle as you can in both directions a dozen or so times. Repeat with the other ankle, of course. ;) For fun, you can put your fingers on your shin while you're doing the rotations, and really feel those muscles moving around. A simple thing, and I've never gotten shin splints nearly as much as others seem to, but I find it helps with that as well as other common kinds of post-run soreness.
Shin splints is commonly caused by tight calf muscles and tendons. Try foam rolling your calves and dynamic stretching before a run (google 'runner dynamic calf stretch').
It can also be technique, or shoes. But calves are a good place to start.
You're entitled to your opinion, but music is what pushes me to go hard and keeps me motivated in my runs. I literally run 25%+ faster with music on. Not only that, but it's just not nearly as enjoyable without the music (and the scenery).
If you listen to music, just wear good earbuds that don't block ambient noise, and don't crank it too loud.
Stretching: By now most runners know not to static stretch from cold start, but not stretching at all is a bad idea. In my experience static stretching after the run works great, and so does dynamic stretching after a substantial (1mi) warmup. Also, most runners don't know how to stretch their upper body. In my experience it's really important to stretch your back.
You can run with headphones, but at least try and minimize their dangers. Don't use ones with high isolation, like in-ear canal earphones, because you'll hear very little of the outside world. Plus, a lot of models produce lots of microphonics (cable noise), which will drive you positively batty during a run. Turn the volume down so that you can at least hear a car horn. And be sure to run on the left side of the road, where you'll be able to see cars coming towards you and move out of the way if there's ever any danger. You aren't a bicycle trying to fit in with traffic.
A lot of people prefer to run with music. That's fine, and not a problem in a park or similar area. But you need to be extra careful on public roads when you're willfully dampening one of your senses.
Ha. As someone who used to walk a mile to work along a very busy street, I wish I could find in-ear-canal earphones that actually blocked out the outside world. I heard every car no matter how ridiculously loud my volume was. People talking on phones often don't hear cars but I think this is because they aren't paying attention (note this can be a problem even with no headphones at all.)
That's obviously a personal preference, I listen to a mix of stuff that you might hear on A State of Trance, as well as Hans Zimmer and Two Steps From Hell, among other things.
I don't do cadence matching, I just fast forward through the playlist :)
One other thing that has made a big difference for me recently is a latest generation Garmin GPS running watch hooked up to Strava. The end effect is that you have your running log pushed effortlessly to Strava over bluetooth once you're done with the run, and there your friends can see it and vice versa. The motivation of seeing your friends' training logs is more awesome than I ever expected.
The earbuds that Apple ships with their newer devices are very high quality. I think they've set a new standard with those.
By the way, I'm talking about earbuds, not in-ear-canal earphones. I don't like those and I agree they get gross. They also block out far too much ambient noise to be safe when running.
How do you prevent it from falling off? I am on a quest to find something that is comfortable (ideally around the ear) and won't slip out. I would also like something thing so I can put on a headband and cover my ears in cooler weather without crushing the bands into my skull.
It's not all or nothing, but the two do often come into conflict. I'll bet hardly anybody reading this runs only by themselves on empty roads or trails. When such contention does occur, I think it's pretty clear that safety and consideration have to take priority. Isolating and distracting yourself with audio, even at low volume, is contrary to that. Also, I seriously doubt that anyone who uses music to "pump it up" and "go hard" is staying at low volume.
"but if you're running in crowded times or places it's irresponsible to deafen yourself"
Odd that every car sold today is marketed on the basis of being quiet inside and having a deafening sound system. Why is it so important for runners to have their senses of hearing? So that they don't inadvertently get murdered by the functionally deaf in cars?
although it of course also may happen in normal traffic, dogs, children, bikes, and other joggers suddenly appearing in your path can happen a few dozen times on a long run, if you're in a crowded place.
Dogs are the worst. As a former dog owner I know what it's like to love one, but they're still territorial animals and a considerable safety concern when not properly leashed or fenced. Older runners have even been mauled to death by dogs whose owners didn't see fit to restrain them.
Yeah but victim blaming isn't helping the situation. Drivers create a dangerous streetscape. They need to own responsibility for that. Harping on headphones, cyclists without helmets, or "distracted walking" is not a positive response.
We should consider it personally as far as our individual risk assessments go, but it should never be a talking point, because it makes it seem like drivers shouldn't be responsible for paying attention.
The author's first mention of this issue is "choose your playlist" (which already assumes it's an operative concept). Then she goes on to say:
> If you’re a runner who likes the quiet and solitude of
> running, then pick a bucolic path and go run. But many
> people like
This makes it all about what you like - i.e. an aesthetic issue. Nowhere does she suggest that what you like should be balanced against what's safe or considerate of others. Hence my objection.
> (1) ... Contrary to the article, many people do need to fix their "natural" form
I'll second that. I'm not a natural athlete. I have very poor kinesthesia (our 6th sense). I accidentally walk into doorframes as I try to pass through. It wasn't until my wife told me that I realized my originally learned running pattern was bad for my joints.
I think your comment is exactly what we need more of in this thread, because it represents the most common kind of experience. All of the data I've seen indicate that overstriding is the most common problem new runners face. This aligns well with my own experience talking to others about running. It comes up so often that I'd say it's the #1 thing separating those who stuck with it from those who didn't.
When people first start to pick up speed, they naturally tend to increase stride before they increase tempo. I think it comes from their experience with walking. Whatever the reason, it turns out to be a dangerous tendency that even runners far more experienced than me have to fight sometimes (and some lose). As more people hear that, fewer will become injured or discouraged. Hearing it from people who they can identify with, who haven't been elite athletes since junior high, is most helpful.
I always tell people that my life-saving workout device was the Kindle 3. In 2010, I was 315 lbs, sedentary as hell and not making any progress to fix that. The idea of running just seemed like complete drudgery.
I ended up making a pact with a friend to meet up at the gym every morning, and I took my kindle and reread a long epic fantasy series page by page. I started off stupid-slow, with a slight incline. First 25 lbs shed without a problem, and steadily increased my pace.
I've now graduated to actually running outside (yay!) and distracting myself with podcasts, have completed 2 half-marathons, and at one point was down to ~210lbs.
People's motivations and activation hurdles are different - for me it was boredom and accountability - which I fixed with a book and some peer pressure.
That's awesome to hear. Often on HN I see people being negative about things like running or meditation for example, adamently saying these things didn't work for them and won't work for everyone. I don't see the point in coming up with a solution for everyone. We all know people don't work that way. Personal anecdotes are a great way to get inspired based on actual experiences. Even if it is shown that some activity doesn't work for everyone, if it works for one person, it's worth sharing!
The absolute best way to keep yourself running is to find a race, sign up for it, pay for it and put it on your calendar.
I've wasted a lot of money thinking this way. Unless you're cash-strapped and it meant a lot buying that ticket/software/tool/book/etc, you just shrug it off and move to the next target. Money doesn't buy discipline. YMMV.
It find it helpful to have a goal, but it doesn't have to be a race. Other goals: run every day ("streaking"); run a certain number of miles per week, month or year. There's a FB group called "2016 in 2016" but that's too much mileage for a starting runner.
I like to track my miles, and there's lots of good sites for it. I personally use Garmin Connect, then use https://tapiriik.com to sync to Strava. I also use Smashrun, which imports directly from Garmin Connect (or you can let Tapiriik sync to it). Strava lets you set a weekly mileage goal, and Smashrun lets you set a monthly and a yearly goal. I like having those staring me in the face.
I think this comes down to how different people are motivated. Others in the thread have said 'a race is a goal' so it motivates them. But, you also see lots of runners with other motivations. For example, I see a lot of people on bulletin boards talk about the social aspects: for them joining running clubs, or organising a running partner is very motivational. Maybe that would work for you.
It didn't keep you training until at least the event date? Sure its not going to change your lifestyle forever, but it will at least force you to train so that you are not totally unprepared come race day.
I've signed up for a half marathon, stopped training and then run/walked it anyway. I have also signed up, trained, gotten injured and run anyway, and I've signed up, trained, been injured and dropped out.
I joined a running club in NYC. It had classes ranging from walkers to elite marathoners. Probably fairly unique to have such a range but I believe this was quite key to their long term (30+ years) success. Having a complete cycle helps everything run smoothly. It was run by Shelly and Bob Glover, two well known names in the world of running.
Running is a great way to get to know a diverse crowd. I met girls, cardiologists, musicians, students, postal workers, young and old. On the pavement we were all just friends talking about our PRs and next races.
We were very supportive of anyone of any level and really encouraged newcomers. If you have access to a running club or class, I recommend it. The class was paid, which might sound ridiculous at first, but once you get into it you quickly see the value of experienced coaches and supportive classmates.
As someone who's already run 900 miles and four marathons year-to-date, I'll add some hard won advice:
1) Do not be in a hurry. Most runners do way too much way too soon. You will likely get injured. You gain aerobic capacity in a matter of weeks to months. But soft tissues, tendons, ligaments, bone density... those takes years to adapt.
2) If you're getting injured, something is wrong. You're doing too much too soon, or you have a bio mechanical or strength issue. Running requires strong hips and a strong core. If these are weak, you will get injured. The injury will show up in your legs, so you'll look there. You'll buy new shoes. You'll foam role. You'll wear orthotics. The problem will not go away, because the problem is probably not in your legs.
3) Run as little as you need to to achieve your goals. The more you run, the more you increase risk of injury.
4) You probably need to run more than you think you need to. Beginner marathon training plans are a huge disservice. They'll get you to the finish, but you'll hate it. Wait till you've been running at least a couple years, that banging out a 13 mile run mid-week is no big deal, that you can easily handle a 50 mile week.
5) The shoe industry is a racket. Wear the lightest weight, most comfortable running shoes that you can tolerate. You probably don't need a motion control or stability shoe.
6) The key to not getting injured, besides having sufficient strength per above, is landing softly. Landing softly requires a quick step and not over-striding. Your feet should land under you, not out ahead of you. A good goal to aim for is 180 steps/minute. This is not easy for most people. Quick light step. Repeat that to yourself all the time during the run. (Aside: you run faster primarily by pushing off harder so that you cover more distance per step, not by over-striding, and not by increasing turnover.)
7) There's a lot of exercises you can do for core and hip strength. But none better than picking up a barbell and putting it down. Specifically the back squat and the dead lift. These two exercises will protect you from injury for life. Start doing them now. They will make you a better runner.
Great advice. I want to emphasize #1 for anyone who's considering following the marathon training plan in the NY Times article.
The suggested marathon training plan has you doing a 9-mile run on week 4... And then 23 miles and 26 miles just a few months after starting to run (presumably). For a beginner, that's just begging for an injury from pushing too hard. Even for seasoned runners, it's not necessary to reach 26 miles when training for a marathon. Getting to 23 is usually enough.
I've done a marathon with no training once...it was a very miserable experience, and unsurprisingly my worst time ever.
In general, training is good, the more you can get in, the better, especially for beginners. Unless you're starting out with extremely good overall fitness, it will take a while to get to the point where you can finish a marathon without too much pain ir risk of injury.
The marathon demands its pound of flesh. I prefer to pay for it during training. (Of course, that's no guarantee I won't pay for it again during the race, but if that happens, it's probably because I was racing too fast.)
Mostly good advice. I disagree with number 3 though. Increasing volume is much safer than increasing the intensity of the "normal" workout.
For me at least, I probably did the highest mileage and was the strongest runner when I had no goal at all but was just running up the mountain because I loved it. Though I didn't race any marathons, I did so many runs of greater than that distance on my own on weekends that I've lost count. It was 1-2 per month for at least a year or two.
Maybe. I think it depends on the runner. I had success with the Run Less Run Faster for a couple races, and I know a lot of other runners who've had good success with it to. And I did qualify the point with "to achieve your goal". If your goal is to BQ and you can achieve that on 40 miles a week, then why run 80 miles a week?
I can't argue with your second paragraph at all. All the mountain runners I know are beasts. :-)
As for learning to land properly: some training barefoot can do wonders. Only the most stubborn people keep slamming their heels into the ground, when there's nothing at all to cushion the blow.
If you want to get into barbell exercises, get a coach or at least look for good guides online (or in book form). Don't do half squats.
Good advice to have someone who knows what they're doing show you how to deadlift and back squat. I read Starting Strength before I started, but I'm glad I didn't try to do it on my own.
I'm iffy on the barefoot running advice. If you're going to run barefoot, it's probably best to do it on a soft surface like a grass field. But, that will allow you to continue to heel strike, and worse, because your heel will sink further into the ground, may increase the stress on your achilles. I prefer to advise people to try to land quietly[1], since that usually equates with landing softly. Also, re: heel strike, see this:
I agree. I found that Vibram Five Fingers and other "minimalist" and thin "zero drop" shoes are the best thing between my feet and the ground. They promote a natural foot strike (e.g. it hurts if you heel strike).
> I used to own some Vibram Five Fingers, but are prefer proper barefoot these days.
Where do you run? How did you build up your soles? I run on NYC sidewalks and in parks and my feet wouldn't last more than a few hundred yards before I stepped on glass, gravel, or chestnut or sweetgum pods.
Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), then Singapore and now Sydney.
I pretty much only wear shoes either for social events, or when I am leaving the house over noon: the pavement and streets are too hot, and I would burn my feet.
You can train up against gravel, if you are hardcore enough and care enough. (I didn't bother.) Even rough concrete used to be a bit painful, but I got used to that.
No more so than a hammer promotes broken fingers when you use it to smash them. Vibram probably should have been more careful in its marketing, but ultimately, it wasn't the shoes causing those stress fractures, it was runners doing too much too soon in them.
Interesting findings. I've heard it before but hadn't seen the study.
Personally, I found that I have less pain in my shins and knees wearing minimalist footwear than I did wearing various other kinds. I only run 400-500 miles per year and rarely longer than 10 miles, most are 4-6 mile jogs, and I only do one long run per week. I do several other activities for exercise. Maybe it's a matter of intensity.
I started running in my 30's, July 2002. I was 45 lbs heavier then, 185 lbs on a 5'8" frame. My first race was a half-marathon in early 2003. Dec 2003, I ran my first marathon. Between 2003 and 2007 I ran 4 marathons (4:22, 4:15, 3:54, 3:36) and a number of other races of shorter distances, but I was regularly having issues with both of my achilles tendons and was often having to take 1-3 week breaks. For a runner, taking breaks is frustrating to say the least. I'd done the whole shoe-fitting thing and different shoes didn't make a difference. At some point, I saw a podiatrist, who prescribed custom orthotics. I ran with those for a couple years, but orthotics didn't help either. (I'd like to point out: I probably had close to 1 lb on each foot in gear. I wear size 12 shoes, and those running orthotics were not light. By comparison, the shoes I wear now weigh ~ 6 oz.)
In 2009, I was in my best running shape to that point and pacing a marathon group, when at mile 17 my achilles took me out of the race. It hadn't recently been sore, and wasn't bothering me at all up to that point in the race. Just boom, it felt like something took a chunk out of my lower calf. After it didn't improve with a few days rest, I ended up at a PT. The PT had me run on a treadmill, evaluated my muscle strength, and diagnosed me with particularly weak hip muscles and prescribed various exercises for that.
Now I had never cross trained at this point. I had literally never been inside a gym. It was about 2 months of going to the PT every week before my achilles was no longer sore. But I'd also started a new demanding job at this time, and so I ended up not running very much from 2009-2012.
So that was my first career. I no longer have detailed logs from then, but I was probably running 1000-1200 miles/year. I ran okay, made steady improvements, but was often injured. Wanted to run Boston someday, but never imagined I could run that fast. (For those not aware, to run the Boston Marathon -- marathoners' Mecca -- you first have to qualify for it by running a certified marathon course sufficiently fast according to your age and gender.)
My second running career begins in late 2012. I needed to start running again, but knew I had to do something different. I had read Born to Run by this point, and decided to toss my orthotics and stability shoes, and just work toward the most minimal shoe I could comfortably run in. I also knew I needed to cross train, but wasn't disciplined enough to do that on my own. So I ended up at Crossfit, which I'd been hearing good things about.
(Let me apologize here as the Crossfit part of the story begins. Let me also remind you I had never been in a gym before 2013, much less Crossfit.)
Throughout 2013, I went to my Crossfit gym 3-5 days a week, and ran whenever I felt like it, mostly by feel. My goal, besides get back in shape and not suck at everything in Crossfit, was: enjoy running. But then another runner I met at the gym encouraged me to run a fall marathon, confident that I was running really strongly on a few runs we'd shared together. So that fall, off an improvised training plan and my fitness improvements from Crossfit, I ran a 3:22 marathon.
This was a gigantic improvement off my previous 3:36, really surprised me, and gave me hope of a BQ the following year. I finished out 2013 at ~ 1500 miles for the year, and importantly, no injuries.
For 2014, I continued with Crossfit and building my mileage, and trained for a fall marathon BQ, which I achieved with a 3:12. I finished 2014 at ~ 2000 miles. And still, no injuries.
For 2015, I set myself a goal of running a 3:05 marathon. I failed to achieve it at Boston (3:26) nor a fall marathon (3:16), due to it either being an overly aggressive goal, poor race strategy, or just having two bad race days (it happens). Nonetheless, I was really enjoying running at this point, and I allowed Crossfit to fall by the wayside as I no longer had time for it and running. This is probably a mistake that will at some point come back to bite me. But so far, knock on wood. The strength I gained from 2013 - mid-2015 has given me a body which can sustain vastly more miles than my pre-2013 self. I ended 2015 at 2500 miles and no injuries.
Now, this year is the year I've gone running crazy. I have a goal of 3000 miles, which I'm ahead of at 900 mi YTD. I have a second goal of running a marathon each month, and I'm ahead of that too. Each marathon I'm taking what the course, weather, and my body give me that day. January gave me a 3:16. February gave me a 3:08 (new PR). March gave me a 3:22 trail marathon, and a week later, a 3:42 on a warm humid day, where I just enjoyed the race and helped another runner I met on the course get in under her 3:45 goal.
So that's my running story so far.
TL;DRs:
- You need sufficient hip and core strength to run w/o getting injured.
- The back squat and deadlift are the most efficient exercises for gaining hip and core strength.
- You will gain aerobic capacity faster than you gain strength.
- Your aerobic capacity will allow you to run faster and more than your strength justifies.
- Especially tendons, ligaments and bones take a long time to get stronger.
- Patience grasshopper. Take time building your strength and allowing your body to adapt. Running is stressful!
- With sufficient strength, you can run as much as time allows.
- More running will make you a more efficient runner.
- Being a more efficient runner will make you a faster runner.
Last point: the body is amazingly adaptable. On Wednesday, I ran 48 miles in 24 hours across three runs (17, 18, 13). My 2007 body, that ran a 3:36 marathon, would have exploded trying to do that. I'm about to head out to a local ultra to pace folks for a few laps in the dark that are completing 100 miles in under 30 hours, some in under 15 hours. They've been running since 6 AM. They are all shapes and sizes, but I'll tell you what, they have resolve.
BTW, if you do decide to give Crossfit a try, a bit of warning. Key is finding a good one with coaches who know what they are doing. It's an affiliate model with no quality control at all. Anyone can open a Crossfit w/o really having a clue. Crossfit isn't perfect, but I enjoyed it (and need to get back...) for the supportive community, generally knowledgable coaches, and for how it benefited me as a runner.
Brand doesn't matter. Comfort and fit are most important. I'm currently running in Asics and Nikes. I've worn Mizuno's and New Balance in the past. A running store will generally match your foot to a category of shoe (stability, motion control, neutral/cushioned), then pull out various brands of that category till you find one that's comfortable. But the category part is bunk. See the NYT article on shoes I linked to and also this page http://fellrnr.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Running_Shoes
If you want a specific recommendation, give the Saucony Kinvara a try. It's more shoe than I normally wear, but I needed a red shoe as part of a costume for a recent marathon, and found them not bad. :-)
As my coach would say, stop over-thinking it. Just pick up the damn bar and put it down. Either or both are fine. The overhead squat is also excellent, but vastly more difficult.
All I meant was, you can get stuck in analysis paralysis with weight lifting just like anything else. Of course you need proper form. Front squat vs back squat, which is what I was specifically addressing, probably doesn't matter. Either is better than neither, though I think most people would find the back squat easier and a better place to start. The front rack position can be uncomfortable, and the mechanics of the front squat I found generally more challenging. There's also a debate about high-bar vs low-bar back squat which may be as heated and silly as emacs vs vi. Ultimately, getting under the bar, getting below parallel, and standing back up (all with proper form) is the important part, not which style of squat it is.
Aside: the Olympic snatch is an amazing feat of strength, agility, form, athleticism, mechanics, balance, all of it. It's really a thing of beauty to see done well.
Starting at 4 minutes. Pyrros Dimas is competing in the 85kg (187 lbs) category. He lifts 178 kg (392 lbs) over his head there. 392 lbs. Most people couldn't pick that bar up off the ground, much less get it over their head.
This post is true yet uncharitable. The post explicitly mentions a coach, which would lead a reasonable person to assume proper form. Yes, have proper form, but if you're not doing any kind of squats, doing either front or back properly is better than not doing anything.
Just practice good form with the bar, whatever you do, and concentrate on making progress rather than setting goals. People who set unrealistic goals get hurt.
For me, it was a physical therapist (I've added my story as a sibling comment to yours.) That was the first professional I saw that watched me run and evaluated all parts of my body. The shoe stores and podiatrist only looked to see if I was pronating and at my feet. The chiropractor only looked at my back. The orthopedist only wanted to look at an MRI or bone scan. A massage therapist who works with athletes and/or is/was a runner may also be able to help. But honestly, I'm sold on the value of a good PT.
The British National Health Service provide a nine-week training plan for complete novices. There is an MP3 for each week of the plan, building up from a gentle walk-run-walk to continuous running. The training advice has been reviewed by medical experts to minimise the risk of injury. An extended set of podcasts are available for people who have finished the programme.
> There was never any runner's high, just excruciating pain.
That's pretty normal. I run a lot, and runner's high is a very rare thing for me to experience. I think most people confuse it with the sense of accomplishment one often gets after a run.
I've only felt a real high after very hard workouts. Very hard workouts. Workouts where my heart beats hard enough to break capillaries in my lungs, and the aerosolized blood gives a metallic taste.[1] The high feels like a weird mix of THC and opiates, and takes a couple of hours to wear off. During that time, it's definitely not safe for me to drive.
I like to run, but honestly, I think enjoying running is a little masochistic.
This sounds entirely psychosomatic. I've run several marathons and Ironman races and I would occasionally get a runner's high while training, where I felt like I could nearly sprint for long periods of time without fatigue. Definitely no mental effects, let alone anything that would make it "unsafe to drive". But I would mention this "high" to friends who were competitive runners and they all felt there was no such thing as a runner's high. They just had good workouts where they felt like they were fit and improving and bad workouts where they did not.
I doubt it's psychosomatic. I didn't know the effects of opiates or marijuana when I first experienced it. It was only later that I discovered THC caused the same close-eyed visuals and differences in time perception. Likewise for opiates (prescribed after dental surgery). The decreased appetite and body high suddenly made sense.
There's research to back this up as well. In response to exercise, the body produces cannabinoids, opiates, and stimulants.[1]
I'm glad to read this. When I exercise I frequently get "Runners Low" instead. I've seen people suggest that running is great for depression, but I've often found the exact opposite: exercise can actually induce sadness & negative thoughts in me on days when I feel great. It doesn't always happen to me, but it happens often enough that it annoys me whenever I hear the suggestion to "go for a run, you'll feel better". That doesn't seem universally good advice for everyone.
The longest I've ever run is 14km, and I've done 12km City To Surf a few times. I still exercise & work out, but I keep myself motivated & upbeat using music, and try to make it the last thing before bed, so I can sleep off any bad feelings and/or exhaustion.
Damn straight. Eventually, I was running 3 miles every other day. I never experienced the runners high either. Running never got easier. As I got better, I was simply able to prolong the amount of torture before succumbing...
My friends say things like "I run to clear my head" or "I run to relax". My runs are dreaded, tedious nightmares and the only positive aspect is that eventually the run will end.
Assuming (could not be the case of course) that you program - the joy one experiences after coding for hours and then finally having everything fit together and work likely does not mirror the experience one had the first few times programming where everything fails to compile, breaks, doesn't work as expected, etc.
I commented on this in my other post on here. In short, it doesn't come right away.
I get that you are real keen on helpful comments about it, but you probably were running too fast (relative to your condition for it) and for not long enough (per run).
I guess I've never chased it, but I run 5 miles pretty regularly with no expectation of it.
I've been running about 8-10 miles/week for 15 years now, but have never been able to expand beyond that very much without excessive knee pain, foot pain, and muscle loss (I weightlift a lot too).
There was a period of about a decade in which I had to wear custom-molded graphite orthotics (~$300) during most of my waking hours because my feet were supposedly "flat". Two podiatrists said that I'd need to wear them the rest of my life or get surgery, which would leave me in crutches for 6 months per foot (they won't do both at the same time).
I lost my orthotics in a flood, and unwilling to fork over another $300, I focused on fixing my feet. I started stretching my soul, walking around the house barefoot, and going for short (~100m) barefoot jogs on a grassy field. After a few months, I started wearing shoes without arch supports to force my feet to adapt. Managed to get rid of my foot pain within 2 months :).
Still struggling with the knee issue though. I've been treating running as an isolation workout on the knee joint -- my body can handle it just fine, but like in weightlifting, I can't isolate the same muscles/joints day after day. Sprinting any amount hurts, and I have to avoid all hills (going up is fine, the descent is killer).
While I figure out a way around the knee pain, I've recently been doing more metabolic conditioning (think Insanity or P90-X, but with fewer knee-destroying jumps). I experience a lot more fat loss this way, plus the workouts seem more holistic than running in the sense that my upper body is not neglected.
"After a few months, I started wearing shoes without arch supports to force my feet to adapt. Managed to get rid of my foot pain within 2 months :)."
This demonstrates a truism that we should all become familiar with: If you brace a body part, the body part being braced will become weaker. Orthotics are a brace that hold up the arch of your foot. Your arch will get weaker.
"Sprinting any amount hurts, and I have to avoid all hills (going up is fine, the descent is killer)."
I cringe to offer up personal anecdotes or helpful tips, but on the outside chance that it is helpful, you might try running downhill on toes only - no heel at all. It's a bit odd looking, but it's worth playing with.
I've heard about heel vs midfoot vs toe striking and have been making a conscious effort to midfoot strike when I jog or toe strike if I take large steps. I don't understand how shifting weight off the heel is better on the knee, but I'll try anything -- personal anecdote or not. Thanks for the suggestion!
EDIT: if you're in the bay area and average 9.5-10 minute miles on 3-5 mile runs I'd love to run with you (I'm new here). Add me on Strava https://www.strava.com/athletes/7583883 or email me.
Common knowledge? If anything, the preference seems like a fad to me. Plenty of elite runners heel-strike.
I've been running for... a while. In high school, I was captain of the XC team. I finished 5th in the state and our team won the state meet.[1] The spring after that, I ran a 4:18 mile and a 9:07 two mile. In college, I competed in Division I NCAA XC. None of my coaches cared that I was a heel-striker. I've since switched to forefoot, but noticed no difference in times or injuries.
If you're just getting into running, forefoot will be murder on your calf muscles and Achilles tendon. As the article says, It's best to just go with what feels comfortable. As you run more, your form will become smoother and more efficient.
I think the focus on heel vs. other strike is misleading. Sure, plenty of elite runners strike with their heels, but do they land their feet way in front of their body? That's the real fatal combination, and IMO the main reason to discourage a heel-heavy style is that most people can't overstride too badly with a fore- or mid-foot strike. Their quads won't let them. ;)
"As the article says, It's best to just go with what feels comfortable"
I actually kind of agree, with the caveat that it's important to know warning signs and possible remedies. If someone's natural way of running continues to feel comfortable and keeps them injury-free, that's fantastic even if it's not the "correct" style that some books recommend. However, most people do need to make some adjustments and it's important to know when or how. Maybe you don't even remember when coaches were using that knowledge on your behalf to correct things that might have caused you trouble, but if you were running at that level in HS and college I'll bet it happened.
As a former runner myself, I was always taught that it depends on speed. If you're going at a slower pace, which distance running usually falls under, then heel strike is more natural, but if you are sprinting then you want to stay on your toes. As somebody that has been a sprinter and XC runner, I've found this to be true. How that advice fares with everyone else, I can't say, but when I know that when I try running distance on my toes or heal strike while sprinting, I will not perform as well and distance on toes feels like my Achilles will snap after about a half mile or so.
It's not "common knowledge" especially for people who don't run, which is who the article is aimed at. It's also still a debatable issue. I'd say for new runners the key is to get into a routine and worry about stride only if it's causing you pain until you get to a more advanced stage.
Waiting until you feel pain is waiting too long. Every runner, from day one, should learn enough about running dynamics and injury causes that they can recognize and do something about bad form (even if it's only "bad for them" form) before it gets to that point. That's where the article missed a chance to help. A paragraph or two about foot landing and body angle, why they matter and what to do about them, would have done a world of good. It doesn't take much. Instead we get "neither is better" and "don't worry about pronation" and no mention at all of anything above the knee. While it's true that not everyone runs the same way or should - I'm a bit of a supinator and I'm not likely to change - it's still important for people to understand right from the start that different running styles will have different effects.
"Whatever you do is OK" will just lead some people to be miserable even if they're not actually injured. Like every skill, there's knowledge involved in running. I personally would not have kept running past that first day if I hadn't learned enough to know that my misery might be because I was doing it wrong and that running differently might be worth a try. The way to get people into running is to coach them into it and make sure their early experiences are positive ones.
People have different styles, and I'd hate to be overly prescriptive. Having said that, switching from heel strike to forefoot strike made it possible for me (overweight 44 year old) to go from the couch last January to running the Twin Cities Marathon last October.
Heel striking is not really what we evolved for as you can only do it comfortably in heavily cushioned running shoes. If you run barefoot or in lightly padded shoes you are forced into a more forefoot first style.
I think the problem isn't so much how you strike, but what happens after you strike: if you find yourself pulling yourself forward with your knee joints after you strike, then that could cause knee injuries (and pulling tends to happen more with heel strikes). The focus should be on pushing yourself forward with the back foot, not worrying so much how your foot lands.
I've had long conversations on this topic with a podiatrist, but it's still not certain.....
I do advocate landing on the fore/mid foot. But after arguing about it for several years I actually did some studying and found about 98% of distance runners are heel-strikers. So you shouldn't worry that much about it. But if landing on the fore/mid foot comes natural to you, you definitely should keep doing it unless you have problems with your achilles.
These plans are terrible. In particular, the marathon program recommends a 26 mile training run followed by a three week taper. No one recommends 26 mile training runs outside of the very top elite athletes (and for very, very good reasons). It just isn't actually good for you to run that long, especially when you're only running three days a week. Seriously, that marathon program, if run on cement, would likely cause a stress fracture in a new runner.
My girlfriend is a very keen runner, with a lot of half-marathons and triathlons under her belt.
I suffer from bad knees (and a back) partially due to previous injuries and having a slight case of scoliosis. She's encouraged me to start running with her. Today is the second rest day I've had this week and I'm already feeling better for it.
Next up is getting some proper trainers fitted (I walk weirdly to begin with).
Seriously, make time for running. Even a mile a day.
I cannot recommend Hal Higdon's programs enough. He has free training programs for every level and various distances. We used a modified version of the advanced program in high school XC and won state championship twice in a row.
It seems to me that a lot of the discussion is in the manner of "what programming language to teach first", and that here as with programming the main thing is to start.
I would boil down my advice to a couple of points. First, get good shoes. If you are a beginner, go to a store where the staff is gaunt. (I think of the Pacers stores in the Washington area.). You can count on them knowing something about running and shoes. Second, listen to your body. Don't try to run through an injury. If you are running in hot weather, be very aware of how you feel. Never hesitate to stop and walk back if something isn't right.
For me this is an actual example where apps helped me a ton. I started running a few years ago, nothing exceptional but I try to go consistently twice a week. I track with runkeeper and this helps me with motivation, including seeing my friends that "just completed a run".
This year I was surprised by the "year of running" [1], so I took the challenge. Coincidentally today I'm celebrating my 100 miles this year :)
I also built "run with mark" [2], again to help me with motivation... and counting. Coincidentally again, I was updating it right now, when I saw this post (going to build a geo map with balls where I run).
I'm surprised at the amount of discussion about headphones. Safety issues aside -- certainly only listen when it doesn't affect safety -- what are your favorite headphones for running? And what are your favorite apps for music?
I've been using yrbuds, and I love them compared to all other headphones I've tried, but I'm still interested in what works for others and what else might work even better for me.
For music, I've been using RockMyRun, and I absolutely love being able to set an RPM for pacing that doesn't change. There's almost nothing else I like about this app, it's slow and buggy, but the RPM feature keeps me using it, even with music styles I don't care for. :P
The only thing that works for me is earphones with earclick molds. Larger speakers that you don't have to jam into your canals. Unfortunately, there aren't many of these, and the urbanears "medis plus" aren't even made anymore. I don't think there are any that are bluetooth, either.
The ones that hook around the earlobe are ok, but most of those are the ones with the smaller speakers that have to sit against your ear canal just right, or they go partly into your canal in a way that is never quite perfect. Both lead to sound that is massively different from step to step. Completely frustrating.
I have taken running more seriously over the past year and cannot emphasize finding a running group more. Committing to run with others will build it into a habit. I have written about my experiences with running here http://aviadas.com/blog/2016/02/09/10-things-i-learnt-going-...
Because of the HN crowd, chances that if you start rinning, you're going to start reading and studying the science behind it.
When you do, keep in mind that most studies have been done on elite athletes who self-selected themselves. They became elite because they had the right genes and trained properly. You might not have those genes.
There still is a lot of material saying that if you train you can increase your VO2 max, which has been shown to be true only for people with specific genes, a few years ago.
Well. Someone failed to properly apply animation cycles in whatever they used for the header image. When a runner's near hand passes across the body going forwards, there's an extra frame that is almost a duplicate, but slightly further back, which results in a little hitch in the motion.
This error is meticulously maintained on all of the running figures, despite them being all out of synch with each other.
When I started running, it would have been very useful to have it drilled in to me that all "running" is not equal, and doesn't have to be at a fast clip, until that makes sense. Of course running 26 miles seems crazy based on what it feels like to "run" a mile when you're untrained and trying to go fast. Yes, that guide starts out suggesting a run/walk routine - however I think it would do new runners much service to explain what kind of paces there are, what they feel like, and why most of your running should be done at an easy one.
> First pick a race.
Why?! It really bugs me that so much of current running culture seems to be about earning that 13.1/26.2 sticker for your car, or getting that "Finisher" t-shirt. Certainly, completing races and achieving goals in general benefits our psyche and sense of accomplishment.
But running can be so much more than a sequence of training runs leading up to the all important race. Runs should be enjoyed. To me, one of the secrets of running, or at least - something that takes time to learn - is that running becomes much more enjoyable with experience, and you may have to put in some grind time to get there. When running 3 miles leaves you feeling completely wiped, the "runners' high" seems alien and unimaginable. As you get more experienced, AND learn to pace yourself, 3 miles seems short, and you probably won't feel into the groove until you're at least 1-2 miles in. When you have the fitness to casually run 5 miles through the park or on your favorite trail and feel good afterward - THAT's where running really starts to add balance and enjoyment to your day, imho.
When you've leveled up a bit, running becomes personal time, meditative, and leaves you refreshed. While people may discover this on their own - encouraging the mindset of, "Pick a distance, plop down some money for a bib, and train" - seems to encourage people to treat running as a means to an end, where the end (the race) just means it is time to pick a new goal (longer race, better time.)
Why not suggest people find a beautiful trail within an hour of where they live, that would take them a few hours to hike, and then run until they can experience the joy of gliding through that trail in a fraction of the time?
There's a lot of great information in that article, but I suppose I feel like it falls in to the trap of spending much more time on the "how" of running - how to pick a training plan, what shoes and socks to buy, how to eat, how to avoid injury, etc... - and not enough time on why it's worth it to put in all that work. Other than for the likes you'll get when you make your half-marathon completed Facebook post.
I'm in full agreement that running's best enjoyed, but be fair to the writing and the audience. In the very next sentence, she explained exactly why to start by picking a race, and it wasn't about earning stickers or getting tshirts.
The reason is motivation, and having a deadline and a financial commitment is motivating for most people. This was written for an audience that isn't running yet, and most people who aren't running yet do need to have tricks to motivate.
Just choose a running method which is fun for you. You wont keep it up for 50-some years if it is not fun. Some people like social running, while others hate it. Some like outdoors, even in difficult weather, while other prefer indoor treadmills. Some like frequent formal races, while other dont.
I use to walk 8 to 10 kms per day. Would there be a benefit if I move from walking to running? My major concern is that running will hurt my knees in the long term.
Walking is good for overall health but it's also important to get your heart rate up. There was a post in here that crowdsourced resting heart rate and the people who elevated their heart for 45 minutes a week had a lowered resting heart rate.
Uh, except that it's exactly half the distance of a marathon. And it's a good stepping stone to the marathon. Seems like a pretty obvious name for it. It's sometimes called a mini-marathon, which is a little silly. But really, to non-runners, every distance is a marathon ("good luck on your 5K marathon this weekend!"), so what does it matter? :-)
Yes I get it, and it does not matter, I'm just grumpy. The point I'm trying to make is that for an amateur runner, the distance of a marathon is a performance that require LONG time preparation and discipline, and maybe even talent. Not everyone is capable of completing this distance by foot. Not a runner myself, but I have 2 _very_ athletic friends that completely failed this distance with the most unexpected injuries and fatigues, even after a year of preparation. I am just tired of how 'half-marathon' associates with an actual marathon, because a marathon is a completely different thing that will destroy a casual runner. Have a good weekend js2
Ah, as we like to say, the marathon is two halves, but the second half doesn't begin till mile 20. It is a distance that demands respect. You are right, it is a completely different beast than the half-marathon.
About your two friends: I'm at the point, fortunately, where I can complete a marathon at will. But racing it is a different thing altogether. I'm going to guess that, given you say they are very athletic, they had set a time goal for themselves. That's usually a mistake for the first marathon, and regardless of their fitness, it's a distance where if you push too hard, you will be punished.
Gosh I love marathons. Except when I hate them. :-)
How did I do it?
I started with the couch-to-5K program[1]. That led me to diet and eat better. Did my first 5k four months later. Then a 10k three after that.
Running is not for everybody. But you should try it out. Run at your own rhythm and style. Some people are naturally better at long distances, some of us are sprinters. The truth is its about patience and pacing yourself. It is also great for thinking (or not thinking). My life is definitely better because of it. Feel free to ask me questions!
[1]http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml