I came across this quote today which I'm going to use for all those folks that can't understand how I find time to run. I'm sure many of you have been asked the same question and it's funny because I always look at the person like, "are you serious? no way you can't find time to run." I rarely find someone who doesn't have time to run. It's generally a question of desire and will . . . most people can find 30-45 min. in a day to run but it may require getting up earlier, staying up later, or giving something up, but there's always time . . .
"If running is important to you, then your mind-set shifts from "Can I find time for it?" to "When can I find time for it?" You think in terms not of "Will I run today?" but "When will I run today?"
Harry
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Don't lose too much weight . . . running alone only takes you so far . . .
I met Teresa in Denver last summer while she was attending a
conference that included Dr. Lieberman. We had a fascinating
discussion and she talked a lot about all around conditioning and
being in good shape from activities beyond just running including
weight lifting. I thought about it for months and when my weight
dropped to early 150 lbs. (I'm 6ft.), I just didn't feel right and I
felt weak although my running was fine as was my performance times,
but I still didn't feel strong (and I didn't feel right).
So, I started core work and upper body lifting (light stuff; not for
muscle but for strength) and within 6 weeks, I gained back 15-20 lbs.
I now float between 165-170 lbs. and I feel stronger than ever, and I
feel much better as a runner. Another benefit, my wife is very
happy :) . . . she describes me as looking like a 800 meter runner as
opposed to a marathoner and that's what she likes and I honestly have
to agree . . . throughout the day, I'm just stronger. I didn't change
anything other than adding the core and upper body workouts.
I share this to thank Teresa as we all help each other on this site
and I also want to thank Sean b/c I've watched his dailymile workouts
and he does a great job of all around conditioning and having meet
Sean in person, he is in great shape and strong. I also share this as
it may resonate with others. You see all the super skinny runners and
yes, losing weight does help running and even speed perhaps but
there's a break point where you can go too far.
I'm finally back to my effortless running, just floating along. So
thanks to Teresa and Sean and maybe this helps someone else.
Harry
conference that included Dr. Lieberman. We had a fascinating
discussion and she talked a lot about all around conditioning and
being in good shape from activities beyond just running including
weight lifting. I thought about it for months and when my weight
dropped to early 150 lbs. (I'm 6ft.), I just didn't feel right and I
felt weak although my running was fine as was my performance times,
but I still didn't feel strong (and I didn't feel right).
So, I started core work and upper body lifting (light stuff; not for
muscle but for strength) and within 6 weeks, I gained back 15-20 lbs.
I now float between 165-170 lbs. and I feel stronger than ever, and I
feel much better as a runner. Another benefit, my wife is very
happy :) . . . she describes me as looking like a 800 meter runner as
opposed to a marathoner and that's what she likes and I honestly have
to agree . . . throughout the day, I'm just stronger. I didn't change
anything other than adding the core and upper body workouts.
I share this to thank Teresa as we all help each other on this site
and I also want to thank Sean b/c I've watched his dailymile workouts
and he does a great job of all around conditioning and having meet
Sean in person, he is in great shape and strong. I also share this as
it may resonate with others. You see all the super skinny runners and
yes, losing weight does help running and even speed perhaps but
there's a break point where you can go too far.
I'm finally back to my effortless running, just floating along. So
thanks to Teresa and Sean and maybe this helps someone else.
Harry
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Is heel striking bad?
This was a question someone asked me yesterday. I know there's a lot of discussion recently around heel striking but the easy answer is "yes," but that's not the complete answer. The answer is "how do you run naturally?" And, if you run naturally one way, and a different way wearing shoes, then that's bad. So what is running naturally? Well, I'd argue that when we are barefoot, we are in our natural state. We were born to run without Nike's correct? And we have ancestors that lived barefoot. In fact, shoes were developed to address issues with weather and terrain so if you negate those impacts and have excellent weather and save terrain, natural running would be barefoot running.
Ok, now that we've established that, how do you land while barefoot? If you naturally land with a heel strike and there's no impacts in terms of injury or pain, then I would answer that "heel striking is not bad" at least for you. However, you likely land differently while barefoot vs. shod and if that's the case and if the difference is you land forefoot or mid-foot while barefoot but heel strike in shoes, then "yes, heel striking is bad."
With that said, I've come across runners that do heel strike while barefoot and Dr. Lieberman found runners in Kenya that did just that although he said they were rare (basically outliers). So if you are a outlier, then heel striking may be natural to you although it's likely such folks land very lightly thus reducing the impact forces at landing.
So what's the point? The point is let's stop with starting the conversation with foot strike and simply ask "how do we run naturally." Shouldn't our goal be to run naturally as that is how we were designed. Of course if you believe the human body is flawed by design then this means nothing to you but I certainly believe the human body is one of my most incredibly designed devices in the world.
What's your position?
Harry
Ok, now that we've established that, how do you land while barefoot? If you naturally land with a heel strike and there's no impacts in terms of injury or pain, then I would answer that "heel striking is not bad" at least for you. However, you likely land differently while barefoot vs. shod and if that's the case and if the difference is you land forefoot or mid-foot while barefoot but heel strike in shoes, then "yes, heel striking is bad."
With that said, I've come across runners that do heel strike while barefoot and Dr. Lieberman found runners in Kenya that did just that although he said they were rare (basically outliers). So if you are a outlier, then heel striking may be natural to you although it's likely such folks land very lightly thus reducing the impact forces at landing.
So what's the point? The point is let's stop with starting the conversation with foot strike and simply ask "how do we run naturally." Shouldn't our goal be to run naturally as that is how we were designed. Of course if you believe the human body is flawed by design then this means nothing to you but I certainly believe the human body is one of my most incredibly designed devices in the world.
What's your position?
Harry
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
the mojo is back . . .
It was a long journey to get my mojo back. My running has been fine but something has been off ever since I decided, for not apparent reason, to make a few tweaks to my running form to see what would happen. Well, the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is a ageless saying for a reason. Maybe they should change it to, "if it ain't broke and you change it, you are a dumb ass."
Specifically, I switched from my natural forefoot landing to a mid-foot/whole foot landing and lowered the carriage of my arms. My thought was the former would be easier on my achilles (even though I had no achilles issues) and the latter would improve Vo2 max as it has been reported by Ryan Hall's dad when he recommended that Ryan run with a lower arm carriage. Well, this didn't work for me and I lost that feeling of running completely effortlessly but I finally regained it when I significantly increased my barefoot mileage and stopped with those changes and one day (a few weeks ago actually) I finally felt that effortless running again and it has been the same ever since. It is truly magical to float along and to feel effortless while you run, whether running faster or slower. I've also accepted where my shoe journey has rested.
I've tried really hard to run in true minimalist footwear but it's too hard on my body. I think it has to do with my personal resonance frequency and for whatever reason the Nike Zoom Streak XC which would be ultra minimal for 99% of runners fits me perfectly as does Barefoot Ted's Luna sandals. I feel great when running barefoot on the treadmill and whatever frequency level that creates is the frequency level I need to maintain while shod and it stays within accepted levels while running in the Nike XC's or Luna's. I can't explain it and I don't care to since it works.
However, I never imagined ending up in Nike's when I started this journey almost 6 years ago. In some corners of the minimalist world the word "Nike," will get you into some serious hot water but so be it, that's what works for me. Now, granted, the Nike Zoom Steak XC is a 5.4 oz. ultra light weight minimalist racing flat (only a 3mm heel differential) so we are slicing hairs in some respects. The great news is the Nike XC is commonly available for under $50 and I've but well over 1,500 miles on a single pair, and it's excellent on all surfaces from roads to trails.
As for walking, my go to walking shoe is the Inov-8 F-Lite 195. I love that shoe for walking as it feels great. It's light, flexible yet provides adequate protection for all surfaces and environments.
Well that's the current update . . . I'm floating along with a smile on my face in bright green Nike's or my Jesus sandals (Luna's) . . .
Harry
Specifically, I switched from my natural forefoot landing to a mid-foot/whole foot landing and lowered the carriage of my arms. My thought was the former would be easier on my achilles (even though I had no achilles issues) and the latter would improve Vo2 max as it has been reported by Ryan Hall's dad when he recommended that Ryan run with a lower arm carriage. Well, this didn't work for me and I lost that feeling of running completely effortlessly but I finally regained it when I significantly increased my barefoot mileage and stopped with those changes and one day (a few weeks ago actually) I finally felt that effortless running again and it has been the same ever since. It is truly magical to float along and to feel effortless while you run, whether running faster or slower. I've also accepted where my shoe journey has rested.
I've tried really hard to run in true minimalist footwear but it's too hard on my body. I think it has to do with my personal resonance frequency and for whatever reason the Nike Zoom Streak XC which would be ultra minimal for 99% of runners fits me perfectly as does Barefoot Ted's Luna sandals. I feel great when running barefoot on the treadmill and whatever frequency level that creates is the frequency level I need to maintain while shod and it stays within accepted levels while running in the Nike XC's or Luna's. I can't explain it and I don't care to since it works.
However, I never imagined ending up in Nike's when I started this journey almost 6 years ago. In some corners of the minimalist world the word "Nike," will get you into some serious hot water but so be it, that's what works for me. Now, granted, the Nike Zoom Steak XC is a 5.4 oz. ultra light weight minimalist racing flat (only a 3mm heel differential) so we are slicing hairs in some respects. The great news is the Nike XC is commonly available for under $50 and I've but well over 1,500 miles on a single pair, and it's excellent on all surfaces from roads to trails.
As for walking, my go to walking shoe is the Inov-8 F-Lite 195. I love that shoe for walking as it feels great. It's light, flexible yet provides adequate protection for all surfaces and environments.
Well that's the current update . . . I'm floating along with a smile on my face in bright green Nike's or my Jesus sandals (Luna's) . . .
Harry
Monday, January 16, 2012
taking it easy afterwards
after a 5:46 pace 5k effort, I've taken it easy for the last few days.
With that, here's some food for thought:
"If you believe in yourself and have the courage, the determination, the dedication, the competitive drive, and if you are willing to sacrifice the little things in life and pay the price for the things that are worthwhile, it can be done.
Vince Lombardi"
Harry
With that, here's some food for thought:
"If you believe in yourself and have the courage, the determination, the dedication, the competitive drive, and if you are willing to sacrifice the little things in life and pay the price for the things that are worthwhile, it can be done.
Vince Lombardi"
Harry
Friday, January 6, 2012
Resonance Frequency and why certain shoes just don't work . . .
Below is an excerpt from an article in Runner's World in November, 2010 entitled, "Less is More," analyzing a debate over what we should wear on our feet and Dr. Benno Nigg has done a lot of research with resonance frequency which in basically a phenomenon in which an object (in this case, our bodies and feet for runners) will vibrate violently (or too much) when exposed to a harmonic force (in this case, running shoes) of a frequency close to our natural frequency. The result is jarring and vibration which puts too load on the muscles, tendons and bones which can cause many problems including many of the running injuries we often talk about.
Here's the excerpt:
What the shoe companies are realizing (along with many runners) is that minimal isn't a static concept; what's bare bones to one person might seem like way too much shoe to another. How do you know what's right for you? The answer may one day come from the University of Calgary's Human Performance Lab, run by Benno Nigg, who has created many of the innovations that now frame the debate about minimalist shoes.
The Performance Lab is something of a birthing room for new and unconventional product concepts. In the early 1980s, Nigg was working as a consultant for Nike on its line of tennis shoes. While there, he offered input on the need to add more structure to Air models because the much-lauded Air units created even more instability than traditional foam. "I pushed the cushioning trend as much as anyone," the broad-shouldered Nigg says in his Swiss accent. "And I take the blame for pronation devices as well."
Much of his current research, though, is focused on the "soft-tissue vibrations" in the body. Nigg argues that understanding vibrations—such as the ones that shoot through our legs when our feet whack the blacktop—is the key to performance and may even lead to injury prevention. Every runner has a unique frequency generated by their muscles, called a resonance frequency. It depends on the unique type and size of muscles in your legs. When the vibrations from running come close to a person's unique resonance frequency, you feel discomfort. To check the kind of vibrations in runners, Nigg tapes electrodes to their legs while they are running. These painless sensors measure tiny electrical currents the muscle cells make when activated. Using higher math formulas called wavelet filters, he gets a useful picture of which muscles are firing and when—and what type of shoe would be ideal for an individual.
Since 2000, Nigg has placed electrodes on more than 1,000 runners, most recruited from the University of Calgary's sports teams and running clubs in the area. Some were rail-thin distance runners, others had the muscular carriage of sprinters or soccer stars. The upshot? Nigg has found that some runners' bodies are in tune with firmer shoes because they provide a high-frequency signal to the body, and other runners are in tune with softer shoes, which provide a low-frequency signal. If a shoe hits your natural resonance frequency, you feel uncomfortable after a few miles—and if you persist in wearing it, your muscles become overworked trying to counteract the nettlesome signals.
After explaining his research, Nigg sits down to draw his vision of the optimal shoe for the runner tuned to a minimal shoe. You might expect it to be something shockingly out of the blue—flying buttresses made of carbon-polymer or crash pads injected with flubberlike gel. But once he's through penciling in lines and arrows, his sketch looks, well, like a track spike. The future is a track spike?
"There's no cushioning on the forefoot. For function, it's unneeded," he says. "For comfort—eh, you put a little inside the shoe to distribute forces." With this prototype, Nigg is projecting out to a time when most shoes are ultralight. They do away with foam and instead use some kind of structural element to both cushion and stabilize. Ideally, they keep you running—and away from injuries.
Let me know what you think?
Harry
Here's the excerpt:
What the shoe companies are realizing (along with many runners) is that minimal isn't a static concept; what's bare bones to one person might seem like way too much shoe to another. How do you know what's right for you? The answer may one day come from the University of Calgary's Human Performance Lab, run by Benno Nigg, who has created many of the innovations that now frame the debate about minimalist shoes.
The Performance Lab is something of a birthing room for new and unconventional product concepts. In the early 1980s, Nigg was working as a consultant for Nike on its line of tennis shoes. While there, he offered input on the need to add more structure to Air models because the much-lauded Air units created even more instability than traditional foam. "I pushed the cushioning trend as much as anyone," the broad-shouldered Nigg says in his Swiss accent. "And I take the blame for pronation devices as well."
Much of his current research, though, is focused on the "soft-tissue vibrations" in the body. Nigg argues that understanding vibrations—such as the ones that shoot through our legs when our feet whack the blacktop—is the key to performance and may even lead to injury prevention. Every runner has a unique frequency generated by their muscles, called a resonance frequency. It depends on the unique type and size of muscles in your legs. When the vibrations from running come close to a person's unique resonance frequency, you feel discomfort. To check the kind of vibrations in runners, Nigg tapes electrodes to their legs while they are running. These painless sensors measure tiny electrical currents the muscle cells make when activated. Using higher math formulas called wavelet filters, he gets a useful picture of which muscles are firing and when—and what type of shoe would be ideal for an individual.
Since 2000, Nigg has placed electrodes on more than 1,000 runners, most recruited from the University of Calgary's sports teams and running clubs in the area. Some were rail-thin distance runners, others had the muscular carriage of sprinters or soccer stars. The upshot? Nigg has found that some runners' bodies are in tune with firmer shoes because they provide a high-frequency signal to the body, and other runners are in tune with softer shoes, which provide a low-frequency signal. If a shoe hits your natural resonance frequency, you feel uncomfortable after a few miles—and if you persist in wearing it, your muscles become overworked trying to counteract the nettlesome signals.
After explaining his research, Nigg sits down to draw his vision of the optimal shoe for the runner tuned to a minimal shoe. You might expect it to be something shockingly out of the blue—flying buttresses made of carbon-polymer or crash pads injected with flubberlike gel. But once he's through penciling in lines and arrows, his sketch looks, well, like a track spike. The future is a track spike?
"There's no cushioning on the forefoot. For function, it's unneeded," he says. "For comfort—eh, you put a little inside the shoe to distribute forces." With this prototype, Nigg is projecting out to a time when most shoes are ultralight. They do away with foam and instead use some kind of structural element to both cushion and stabilize. Ideally, they keep you running—and away from injuries.
Let me know what you think?
Harry
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
A week with my body not accepting conventional wisdom
Conventional wisdom would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and that's exactly where I'm at with my running. I've been injury free for years and other than running in Luna's this past summer, I've been running fast and injury free in Nike Zoom Streak XC's so shouldn't I be happy and satisfied? I thought so until last week when I decided to wear my Evo's to walk around all day and the next morning my body and soul refused to run in the Nike's. I woke up and my spirit and body said it wanted to really feel the power of the earth and so I laced up my Evo's and went for a short run but it turned into a long run.
The next day I had a sore right hip and I've never had a sore hip (not to mention I could feel the weight difference of the Evo vs. Nike's), so I switched back to the Nike XC's and the hip pain immediately disappeared so conventional wisdom would say keep running in your Nike's. Well, I woke up the next morning and my soul demanded again to be closer to the earth with a better feeling of the ground, even with all the snow and ice outside, so I went back to the Evo's and had a very enjoyable run and my hip pain was all but gone.
So, obviously, I was intrigued by the source of my hip pain and I had a friend count my stride rate while barefoot vs. Luna's and Evo's vs. Nike XC's and as expected there was what I consider a material deviation in my stride rate when comparing the Nike's vs. Luna's and Evo's. In the Luna's and Evo's my stride rate (per minute at a 8:30 pace) was 184 while it was 176 in Nike's. Then my friend said I ran taller (straight) while in Luna's/Evo's vs. Nike's where I had more of a forward lean. Lastly, we measured my stride and it was longer in the Nike's. So much of this is as expected but it does cause one to ponder.
First, it further validates the impact of different footwear and each deviation from barefoot has consequences. Now, for me the consequences don't translate to injury but nevertheless there are differences. Second, I started to think about potential longer term impacts. If I engage my hips when I'm closer to a barefoot state then I'm not engaging them as much in traditional racing shoes like the Nike XC's and that requires a deeper evaluation than just the injury issue (as people get older you often hear about hip problems and as such, am I weakening my hips by not engaging them enough thus leading to possible future problems . . . in other words, perhaps the focus should be on keeping the body as engaged as possible as we get older which may result in a stronger overall body . . . this is about health not racing). Third, and I personally believe this has something to do with the Blackfoot Indian blood running through my veins as the feeling was spiritual and powerful, why did my body demand to be closer to barefoot when I was already running fast and injury free in the Nike's? It was a powerful desire by my body and such that I couldn't ignore it which drove me back to the Evo's and Luna's.
I find myself in a very interesting situation. I run without issue in my Nike's (and it's fun running) but obviously something powerful is missing if at this point in my running life my body yearns to be closer to the ground (this has happened before and each time the feeling comes back more powerful, then goes away, but eventually comes back even more powerful than before). And, after all is said and done, my 5k PR of 17:42 was set in Evo's :) and my 4th fastest time was set in Luna's, not traditional running shoes.
As always, I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. All my recent struggles have been on spiritual (I'm blessed to not be dealing with injury concerns).
Harry
The next day I had a sore right hip and I've never had a sore hip (not to mention I could feel the weight difference of the Evo vs. Nike's), so I switched back to the Nike XC's and the hip pain immediately disappeared so conventional wisdom would say keep running in your Nike's. Well, I woke up the next morning and my soul demanded again to be closer to the earth with a better feeling of the ground, even with all the snow and ice outside, so I went back to the Evo's and had a very enjoyable run and my hip pain was all but gone.
So, obviously, I was intrigued by the source of my hip pain and I had a friend count my stride rate while barefoot vs. Luna's and Evo's vs. Nike XC's and as expected there was what I consider a material deviation in my stride rate when comparing the Nike's vs. Luna's and Evo's. In the Luna's and Evo's my stride rate (per minute at a 8:30 pace) was 184 while it was 176 in Nike's. Then my friend said I ran taller (straight) while in Luna's/Evo's vs. Nike's where I had more of a forward lean. Lastly, we measured my stride and it was longer in the Nike's. So much of this is as expected but it does cause one to ponder.
First, it further validates the impact of different footwear and each deviation from barefoot has consequences. Now, for me the consequences don't translate to injury but nevertheless there are differences. Second, I started to think about potential longer term impacts. If I engage my hips when I'm closer to a barefoot state then I'm not engaging them as much in traditional racing shoes like the Nike XC's and that requires a deeper evaluation than just the injury issue (as people get older you often hear about hip problems and as such, am I weakening my hips by not engaging them enough thus leading to possible future problems . . . in other words, perhaps the focus should be on keeping the body as engaged as possible as we get older which may result in a stronger overall body . . . this is about health not racing). Third, and I personally believe this has something to do with the Blackfoot Indian blood running through my veins as the feeling was spiritual and powerful, why did my body demand to be closer to barefoot when I was already running fast and injury free in the Nike's? It was a powerful desire by my body and such that I couldn't ignore it which drove me back to the Evo's and Luna's.
I find myself in a very interesting situation. I run without issue in my Nike's (and it's fun running) but obviously something powerful is missing if at this point in my running life my body yearns to be closer to the ground (this has happened before and each time the feeling comes back more powerful, then goes away, but eventually comes back even more powerful than before). And, after all is said and done, my 5k PR of 17:42 was set in Evo's :) and my 4th fastest time was set in Luna's, not traditional running shoes.
As always, I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. All my recent struggles have been on spiritual (I'm blessed to not be dealing with injury concerns).
Harry
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Discovering a new running cycle . .
I'm not sure how I discovered this but I've fallen into a 5 day running cycle that has been just awesome. I look at every 5 day period as a new and separate running period.
During this 5 day period, I do the following:
* 1 hard run whether that's tempo, interval, or long run with race pace
surges
* 3 easy runs and 1 of those runs are 100% barefoot (usually treadmill
during the winter)
* 1 rest day (completely off)
*Note: at the end of practically every run, I do 5-10 min. of
barefoot running as a cool down.
The results so far have been awesome. Shrinking it down to such a small period of time (5 days) has also been great mentally and works well with business travel also. I don't know which days I do which runs or which day I use as a rest day as I let me body decide it but this also accomplishes a few other things. The vast majority of my running is easy aerobic running; hard days are at a minimum (but I go "hard" on hard days) and there's a lot of easy days/rest days between hard workouts; and most importantly, I'm embracing "true rest days" . . . not recovery runs but true rest days.
Lastly, this has allowed me to incorporate core and upper body strengthening. As a result, I'm adding weight and muscle but I feel great. I've decided I much prefer to look like a 400-800 meter runner vs. a marathon runner . . . my wife agrees :)
As always, the journey continues . . .
Harry
During this 5 day period, I do the following:
* 1 hard run whether that's tempo, interval, or long run with race pace
surges
* 3 easy runs and 1 of those runs are 100% barefoot (usually treadmill
during the winter)
* 1 rest day (completely off)
*Note: at the end of practically every run, I do 5-10 min. of
barefoot running as a cool down.
The results so far have been awesome. Shrinking it down to such a small period of time (5 days) has also been great mentally and works well with business travel also. I don't know which days I do which runs or which day I use as a rest day as I let me body decide it but this also accomplishes a few other things. The vast majority of my running is easy aerobic running; hard days are at a minimum (but I go "hard" on hard days) and there's a lot of easy days/rest days between hard workouts; and most importantly, I'm embracing "true rest days" . . . not recovery runs but true rest days.
Lastly, this has allowed me to incorporate core and upper body strengthening. As a result, I'm adding weight and muscle but I feel great. I've decided I much prefer to look like a 400-800 meter runner vs. a marathon runner . . . my wife agrees :)
As always, the journey continues . . .
Harry
Monday, December 12, 2011
So what's been going on . . .
Well, I've been working on running slower as weird as that may sound but I'm working on running easier on my easy days so I can run harder on my hard days. I've discovered that I've pretty much been running in a pre-fatigued state for years and never really ran easy, even on easy days where I was still running a sub 8:00 pace. This is likely why I've been fatigued for my hard workouts.
I'm feeling great after a week or so of testing this out. I rarely run sub 9:00 on easy days and I just float along and often feel like I didn't even get a workout even after a 7-8 mile easy run. The great part is I feel really strong when I push into hard workouts. On this front, I've reduced the number of hard workouts on a monthly basis. I run by feel so I looked at my log to try to find trends and I think I may have discovered a framework for me which is based on a 10 day running cycle with 2x mini 5 day sections. Basically, over 10 days, I will run 8 and rest 2 and within that it's basically a 4:1 ratio of run days to rest days every 5 days and during each 5 day cycle I will do 3 easy runs, 1 rest day, and either a long run or speed/interval work. That means, over a 10 day cycle I will do 1 hard speed session, 1 long run, 2 rest days and 6 easy days.
So far my body is loving it. We'll see how it goes.
Harry
Friday, December 2, 2011
I've been really bad with my posting lately . . .
but I've been running strong so all is good. I'm in the midst of figuring out the best mix of easy and hard running as well as incorporating recovery and rest days. This is a tricky mix as every runner knows. Here's an interesting article on recovery runs:
Recovery runs increase your fitness by having you run in a pre-fatigued state.It is widely assumed that the purpose of recovery runs--which we may define as relatively short, slow runs undertaken within 24 hours after a harder run--is to facilitate recovery from preceding hard training. You hear coaches talk about how recovery runs increase blood flow to the legs, clearing away lactic acid and so forth. The truth is that lactic acid levels return to normal within an hour after even the most brutal workouts. Nor does lactic acid cause muscle fatigue in the first place. Nor is there any evidence that the sort of light activity that a recovery run entails promotes muscle tissue repair, glycogen replenishment or any other physiological response that is actually relevant to muscle recovery.
Recovery workouts, on the other hand, are performedentirely in a fatigued state, and therefore also boost fitness despite being shorter and/or slower than key workouts.Evidence of the special benefit of pre-fatigued exercise comes from an interesting study out of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. In this study, subjects exercised one leg once daily and the other leg twice every other day. The total amount of training was equal for both legs, but the leg that was trained twice every other day was forced to train in a pre-fatigued state in the afternoon (recovery) workouts, which occurred just hours after the morning workouts.After several weeks of training in this split manner, the subjects engaged in an endurance test with both legs. The researchers found that the leg trained twice every other day increased its endurance 90 percent more than the other leg.
A Fresh Perspective on Recovery Runs
Recovery runs increase your fitness by having you run in a pre-fatigued state.What is the Real Benefit of Recovery Runs?
In short, recovery runs do not enhance recovery. Nevertheless, recovery runs are almost universally practiced by top runners. That wouldn't be the case if this type of workout weren't beneficial. So what is the real benefit of recovery runs? The real benefit of recovery runs is that they increase your fitness--perhaps almost as much as longer, faster runs do--by challenging you to run in a pre-fatigued state (i.e. a state of lingering fatigue from previous training.)There is evidence that fitness adaptations occur not so much in proportion to how much time you spend exercising but rather in proportion to how much time you spend exercising beyond the point of initial fatigue in workouts. So-called key workouts (runs that are challenging in their pace or duration) boost fitness by taking your body well beyond the point of initial fatigue.Creating a Setback to Get Ahead
Additional research has shown that when athletes begin a workout with energy-depleted muscle fibers and lingering muscle damage from previous training, the brain alters the muscle recruitment patterns used to produce movement. Essentially, the brain tries to avoid using the worn-out muscle fibers and instead involves fresher muscle fibers that are less worn out precisely because they are less preferred under normal conditions.When your brain is forced out of its normal muscle recruitment patterns in this manner, it finds neuromuscular "shortcuts" that enable you to run more efficiently (using less energy at any given speed) in the future. Pre-fatigued running is sort of like a flash flood that forces you to alter your normal morning commute route. The detour seems a setback at first, but in searching for an alternative way to reach the office, you might find a faster way--or at least a way that's faster under conditions that negatively affect your normal route.Tips for Effective Use of Recovery Runs
- Whenever you run again within 24 hours of completing a key workout (or any run that has left you severely fatigued or exhausted), the follow-up run should usually be a recovery run.
- Recovery runs are only necessary if you run four times a week or more.
- If you run just three times per week, each run should be a "key workout" followed by a day off.
- If you run four times a week, your first three runs should be key workouts and your fourth run only needs to be a recovery run if it is done the day after a key workout instead of the day after a rest day.
- If you run five times a week, at least one run should be a recovery run.
- If you run six or more times a week, at least two runs should be recovery runs.
- There's seldom a need to insert two easy runs between hard runs, and it's seldom advisable to do two consecutive hard runs within 24 hours.
- Recovery runs are largely unnecessary during base training, when most of your workouts are moderate in both intensity and duration. When you begin doing formal high-intensity workouts and exhaustive long runs, it's time to begin doing recovery runs in roughly a 1:1 ratio with these key workouts.
- There are no absolute rules governing the appropriate duration and pace of recovery runs.
- A recovery run can be as long and fast as you want, provided it does not affect your performance in your next scheduled key workout.
- In most cases, however, recovery runs cannot be particularly long or fast without sabotaging recovery from the previous key workout or sabotaging performance in your next one.
- A little experimentation is needed to find the recovery run formula that works best for each individual runner.
- Don't be too proud to run very slowly in your recovery runs, as Kenya's runners are famous for doing. Even very slow running counts as pre-fatigued running practice that will yield improvements in your running economy, and running very slowly allows you to run longer without sabotaging your next key workout.
Active Expert Matt Fitzgerald is the author of several books on triathlon and running, including Runner's World Performance Nutrition for Runners (Rodale, 2005).
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
not keeping up . . .
I haven't been keeping up with my posting but all is well. I've run something like 16 consecutive days with several race pace workout (6:00 min. pace range). My body is tired and it's time for a day off so I'll likely take tomorrow off. Running has been so enjoyable and has become so effortless . . . I'm blessed.
Harry
Thursday, November 17, 2011
stayin' with it thursday
The workout: This is my "floater" workout where I run hard for 800-1200 meters (half marathon pace), then recovery for the same time . . . total workout: 35 min. @ 6:45 pace. It's a fun workout and a great way to wake up the body. I have no idea why I've been feeling so good but I guess I've reached another level in my running. I keep waiting to take a rest day but my body wasn't given me any messages that it wants a rest day so I'll keep going until my body wants to rest.
The cool down: Barefoot cool down on the treadmill for 15 min @ 9:30 pace. I recently switched from barefoot warm-ups to barefoot cool downs and I'm lovin' it. I suspect because my body is already lose and warm, it's like a massage for my feet.
Harry
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
cold wednesday running . . .
40 min. of roads, trails and hills in 19F weather . . .
thought of the day: since I started running 4 yrs. ago, I've had a few major breakthroughs and I believe I'm in the midst of another major breakthrough. About 12 months ago my running started to become effortless and know it's becoming even more effortless and I'm getting stronger which I attribute to finding my optimal weight zone for the type of life I live and the way I eat. I could lose more weight but it would require an even more stringent focus on what I eat to make sure I get enough protein but all things considered I've found my optimal weight zone and my running is even more effortless even at faster paces which I didn't think was possible.
Harry
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
where'd the past week go . . .
I don't know but I had a lot of traveling and a lot of running . . . all is good.
Harry
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
on the trails again tuesday
I skipped the treadmill warm-up as I wanted to get outside on the trails immediately. It was 30F but not bad at all and, in fact, it was good running weather. That was just a fun 50 min. run. A few days ago my gait was "off" but everything was back "on" today.
Harry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
