The Running Thread -- 2022

[GuinnessRunner]

I’ve been on the treadmill. I prefer to be outside, but comfort takes priority for me during the FL summers. I thought I’d run outside this morning since it’s my easy pace day with only 4.5 miles. Woke up at 5am and the T+D was 151. I said nope and went back to sleep

It's becoming a battle of what sucks less - running outside with high T&D or treadmill. Vegas is putting even odds on this fight but the treadmill is definately gaining ground...

 

[Herding_Cats]

I know we recently talked about/around this topic:
I just got a new pair of shoes (the new model is out) and this morning, looking through amazon while I drink my coffee, I see another pair for even less (almost 50% off retail of the newest model.) How long is too long to keep a pair of shoes in storage? I know that the sizing for the newest model is different, and I'm not sure how that will translate to how the shoe itself will feel (and I really don't have time to go try a pair on locally.)


If you feel the need to help enable me here is additional information:
-It takes me at least 4mo to "go through" a pair of shoes if I'm really sticking to a training cycle, and in the winter most/all of my miles are treadmill which should make them last longer.
-My current shoe rotation is a pair of v10s with 250mi on them that I started using last Halloween. I'm planning on retiring them to work/eveyday shoes at 300mi. (So they'll be done probably in early August.)
-My "backup" shoes are v11s with 100mi on them that I started using last Christmas.
-My new shoes are also v11s. (So in early August I'll be working with 2 pairs of shoes.)
-The shoes I'm considering stockpiling are v11s as well.
-I took pretty much the whole winter and spring off from running because life happened.
-I'm running Dopey in January, and I know that it's suggested to give your running shoes a "day off" between races, although I feel like that's pretty unnecessary for the 5/10k.

 

[Cabius]

T&D of 156 at 4:45am this morning when I went out for my run here (Plano, TX).

I'm over in Carrollton! It's brutal this week. Stay safe!

 

[camaker]

I know we recently talked about/around this topic:
I just got a new pair of shoes (the new model is out) and this morning, looking through amazon while I drink my coffee, I see another pair for even less (almost 50% off retail of the newest model.) How long is too long to keep a pair of shoes in storage? I know that the sizing for the newest model is different, and I'm not sure how that will translate to how the shoe itself will feel (and I really don't have time to go try a pair on locally.)


If you feel the need to help enable me here is additional information:
-It takes me at least 4mo to "go through" a pair of shoes if I'm really sticking to a training cycle, and in the winter most/all of my miles are treadmill which should make them last longer.
-My current shoe rotation is a pair of v10s with 250mi on them that I started using last Halloween. I'm planning on retiring them to work/eveyday shoes at 300mi. (So they'll be done probably in early August.)
-My "backup" shoes are v11s with 100mi on them that I started using last Christmas.
-My new shoes are also v11s. (So in early August I'll be working with 2 pairs of shoes.)
-The shoes I'm considering stockpiling are v11s as well.
-I took pretty much the whole winter and spring off from running because life happened.
-I'm running Dopey in January, and I know that it's suggested to give your running shoes a "day off" between races, although I feel like that's pretty unnecessary for the 5/10k.

I don't know that there's an official or scientific answer to this question, but I can relay my experience. I tend to buy several pairs of my current shoe when they go on clearance. I'd estimate that I've had some pairs stored in the closet for 2+ years before I got around to putting them into service. I've never noticed any kind of breakdown, lack of support or more rapid wear on any of them.

It gets especially hard to estimate because you never know exactly when your shoe was manufactured or how long it was in storage before you bought it. As an example, I just retired my last pair of Ghost 12s last month. The Ghost 12 was in production roughly from July, 2019 (based on release date) through June, 2020. So that pair that I got full service and mileage from were somewhere between 2 and 3 years old.

 

[garneska]

I personally don't buy into that shoes degrade in storage. I feel that is a shop trying to get you to not buy on Amazon. I follow @camaker and stock pile when I can. Generally i get about 400 to 450 miles on a pair of shoes. Once on a stock piled pair, I was having more knee and back pain and it was only about 300 miles on that pair. I decided to switch them out. Now it may have something to do with storing but in all my times i have done the stock piling, it was only an issue once. YMMV @Herding_Cats

 

[PrincessV]

For those incorporating a shorter race, such as a Half Marathon, into your training plan -- do you build in a taper/recover for that race? Or just keep your overall plan trajectory, perhaps taking it easy the following week to recover?

Kind of but not really: I do cut-back runs every other week in general, so if I've got a half during marathon training, I'll have a cut-back before and after the weekend of the half. So sort of a mini-taper, I guess.

I’m sure those of you who live in the south will find this funny, but it’s currently 27C (81F) here, and I’m dreading my run.
We live in Northern Ontario, so it’s rarely that hot at 8pm here. I was hopeful during the day that it’d cool down, but nope.
I’m impressed by those of you who deal with these (and hotter) temperatures all the time!

ETA: guess I didn't need to worry about the heat since I just spent the last hour and a half trying to get my two year old to fall asleep. Guess tonights run is happening tomorrow.

Floridian here: it was 88 with a Feels Like of 93 an hour before sunrise this morning. Just another day in "paradise"!

Does anyone switch to run/walk intervals when it gets hot and humid? I saw that suggested somewhere as a strategy.

I always do run/walk intervals, but I reduce the length of my run intervals and increase the walk intervals during summer. It definitely helps!

~~~~

I have no idea what the T+D is here on the Gulf coast of FL, nor do I care. It's hot, it's miserable, I question every day why I signed up for yet another Jan. marathon, and it's only going to get worse the next two months. Running in FL is stupid.

 

[PrincessV]

I know we recently talked about/around this topic:
I just got a new pair of shoes (the new model is out) and this morning, looking through amazon while I drink my coffee, I see another pair for even less (almost 50% off retail of the newest model.) How long is too long to keep a pair of shoes in storage? I know that the sizing for the newest model is different, and I'm not sure how that will translate to how the shoe itself will feel (and I really don't have time to go try a pair on locally.)


If you feel the need to help enable me here is additional information:
-It takes me at least 4mo to "go through" a pair of shoes if I'm really sticking to a training cycle, and in the winter most/all of my miles are treadmill which should make them last longer.
-My current shoe rotation is a pair of v10s with 250mi on them that I started using last Halloween. I'm planning on retiring them to work/eveyday shoes at 300mi. (So they'll be done probably in early August.)
-My "backup" shoes are v11s with 100mi on them that I started using last Christmas.
-My new shoes are also v11s. (So in early August I'll be working with 2 pairs of shoes.)
-The shoes I'm considering stockpiling are v11s as well.
-I took pretty much the whole winter and spring off from running because life happened.
-I'm running Dopey in January, and I know that it's suggested to give your running shoes a "day off" between races, although I feel like that's pretty unnecessary for the 5/10k.

I've had shoes stockpiled for years before using and they're perfectly fine - I've never experienced degradation from sitting in a box in a climate-controlled space. (A hot attic or garage might be different, say, than a closet in the house.)

 

[DopeyBadger]

I know we recently talked about/around this topic:
I just got a new pair of shoes (the new model is out) and this morning, looking through amazon while I drink my coffee, I see another pair for even less (almost 50% off retail of the newest model.) How long is too long to keep a pair of shoes in storage? I know that the sizing for the newest model is different, and I'm not sure how that will translate to how the shoe itself will feel (and I really don't have time to go try a pair on locally.)


If you feel the need to help enable me here is additional information:
-It takes me at least 4mo to "go through" a pair of shoes if I'm really sticking to a training cycle, and in the winter most/all of my miles are treadmill which should make them last longer.
-My current shoe rotation is a pair of v10s with 250mi on them that I started using last Halloween. I'm planning on retiring them to work/eveyday shoes at 300mi. (So they'll be done probably in early August.)
-My "backup" shoes are v11s with 100mi on them that I started using last Christmas.
-My new shoes are also v11s. (So in early August I'll be working with 2 pairs of shoes.)
-The shoes I'm considering stockpiling are v11s as well.
-I took pretty much the whole winter and spring off from running because life happened.
-I'm running Dopey in January, and I know that it's suggested to give your running shoes a "day off" between races, although I feel like that's pretty unnecessary for the 5/10k.

There are manufacturer claims that the shoes start to break down after a few years even prior to use. This seems like a comprehensive review of your question from the google machine (link). Of course the New Balance rep would say you must only buy right before use. With that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see a timeframe of 2-5 years where you may see issues. I can't recall the longest I've pre-purchased a pair of shoes. Certainly greater than a year, but I'm not sure about the longest. I've got a pair of Zealots I bought in 2018 that I still use for lifting workouts, and I'm not seeing any issues with the shoes falling apart. They're just not good for running anymore.

 

[WillRunForPizza]

As soon as you see a fade in the training run, you're almost always better off stopping the run at that moment. Very little is gained trying to finish out the pre-scheduled workout when seeing a fade. I would define a fade as non-heat and non-course elevation change in pace of >30 seconds per mile.

I sometimes find myself slowing down about that much when the weather is particularly a lot, but it's more a HR issue than an ability issue. Like, I could keep running at the same pace, but my HR would be 15-20 bpm higher than it would if it weren't so hot and humid.

For example, yesterday I did a 4-mile easy run and was doing okay (~150-160 bpm) for about the first 3 miles, but in the last mile my HR wouldn't drop below 170 even when I slowed way down. Even at 170, I'm not yet gasping for air (we recently established that my max HR is higher than average), but I can tell it's more effort. So is it better to (a) just keep going and let my HR go up, (b) slow down and accept a moderately high HR, or (c) take a walk break to try to get my HR in a lower range? Or something else, I guess.

 

[FFigawi]

The T+D here has been in the 165-175 range recently. It’s getting harder & harder to keep walking out the door in the morning or leave the car for a brick run.

 

[DopeyBadger]

For example, yesterday I did a 4-mile easy run and was doing okay (~150-160 bpm) for about the first 3 miles, but in the last mile my HR wouldn't drop below 170 even when I slowed way down. Even at 170, I'm not yet gasping for air (we recently established that my max HR is higher than average), but I can tell it's more effort. So is it better to (a) just keep going and let my HR go up, (b) slow down and accept a moderately high HR, or (c) take a walk break to try to get my HR in a lower range? Or something else, I guess.

Some runners have cardiac drift regardless of changes in effort. So for some, HR isn't a good primary measure of effort in the moment regardless of the conditions. With that being said, you did say you could feel your effort level increasing. And this could be because your body is working harder to keep cool in the hot conditions. If you feel the effort level is increasing, then slow the pace to where the effort level is the same. Especially on a hot run easy run. So if effort is increasing, then do B or C. But possibly the more important advice is that the next time you do a run under similar conditions with a similar goal of an easy 4 miles, start the run even slower. Such that if you see an increase in effort late in the run the increase in effort puts you at the originally planned effort level. If that makes sense. It's important to remember that easy days should be practically a zero effort endeavor. Such that you feel like you started running, ran, and then come home like you didn't do anything. Infinitely easy. If it's not infinitely easy, try slowing down more. According to Schwartz's unshared data set, you can go as slow as +5 min from 5k pace (i.e. 5k PR pace is 9:00 min/mile so + 5 min is 14:00 min/mile) and still reap the benefits of the easy day. Make easy days easy so hard days can be hard.

Now let's say this happened on a non-easy day. There are two school's of thought. Some say you shouldn't adjust the pace. You're suppose to be learning what that exact pace feels like. If you're scheduled for 3 x 2 miles at 10:00 pace and it's blistering hot, you first try and find a time of day or different day to do the workout as scheduled. If you can't move it, then you do 10:00 pace until you can't. So if the workout ends up being one 2 miler, one 1.5 miler, and one 0.75 miler at 10:00 pace, then so be it. That school of thought thinks that it's more beneficial than doing 10:30 pace for a completed 3 x 2 miles. And that's the other school of thought. To do the workout as written, but to adjust the pace based on external factors from the start of the workout. But I think both schools of thought agree that if you see a fade from the altered or original pace goal, then the workout is over. Do not fight it. Save that fight for race day when a ton of damage will accumulate but you'll have ample recovery afterwards. There are a few workouts intended on taking you to the pain cave to teach you to fight through, but those are rare and should be specifically specified.

Now, I'll use a personal example. I ran 15.5 miles at a pace I generally consider pretty easy on a course I designed that is almost always either going uphill or downhill. For the first 10 miles, the effort level was pretty low. After about 10 miles is when I noticed an increase in effort. My body was a little more sore. This was not unexpected. It's natural over the course of a run to have a small increase in effort like that. But it certainly never felt unsustainable. If I suddenly had to increase pace, I would have been able to easily. I didn't adjust the pace to reduce the effort level back down to what miles 0-10 felt like, because I expected to have a small increase in effort as the run persisted. If that makes sense. I guess in many ways it's experience that helps you decide if it's expected or not, to adjust or not, to pull the plug or not, to take an extra walk break or not.

 

[The Expert]

Anybody watch any of the World Championship stuff this weekend? Specifically the Men's 110 Hurdles?
I just happened to have this on and watched it play out live. The favorite pulls a quad in warmups, out of the race. Second favorite is USA's Devon Allen, a U of Oregon alum on his local track and NFL Eagles rookie-to-be. He false starts! But not really. He started 0.099 seconds after the gun, which is apparently 1/1000th of a second "too fast".

They kept replaying it as he argued his case and it's completely imperceptible to the human eye. The computer obviously caught it, and they did DQ him, but I just keep trying to figure out why this rule exists. I've never heard of this 1/10th rule before and am curious why it makes sense. If it's after the gun, it's after the gun, right? I don't follow these competitions much, so can someone enlighten me?

Story if you want to read more:
https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon22...s-final-at-world-athletics-championships.html

 

[DopeyBadger]

They kept replaying it as he argued his case and it's completely imperceptible to the human eye. The computer obviously caught it, and they did DQ him, but I just keep trying to figure out why this rule exists. I've never heard of this 1/10th rule before and am curious why it makes sense. If it's after the gun, it's after the gun, right? I don't follow these competitions much, so can someone enlighten me?

From the broadcast last night (the night after the 110m hurdles) the announcers said it is based on a study 60 years ago that showed human reaction times were more than 0.100 seconds. Anything faster is not reacting to the start but anticipating the start. So if Allen reacts in 0.099 seconds, then the claim is he is reacting too fast. Interestingly, I believe they said he started in 0.1005 seconds during the semi-finals (don't quote me on the exact number but it was ridiculously close to 0.100 seconds). My contention would be whether we had the scientific capability to measure with precision the difference between 0.099 and 0.100 sixty years ago to conclude that you can't react faster. As they said on the broadcast, I'd like to see them repeat this study that they're basing this cutoff on with today's technology and today's athletes. Is it possible we're only now catching someone reacting in 0.099 seconds because before with older tech we could only catch the difference between 0.09 and 0.1 when all along someone was capable of reacting in slightly less than 0.1 seconds? And like the broadcasters, I didn't search out whether this has already been tested in today's athletes with today's tech.

ETA - to change verbage of "less" vs "more"

 

[Bree]

It's becoming a battle of what sucks less - running outside with high T&D or treadmill. Vegas is putting even odds on this fight but the treadmill is definately gaining ground...

I’m the oddball that has learned to love the treadmill. I have one at my house so that makes it easy for me. No driving to get to one! I don’t watch much TV (I’d rather read) so I use my treadmill time to indulge in nonsense like Big Brother

 

[The Expert]

From the broadcast last night (the night after the 110m hurdles) the announcers said it is based on a study 60 years ago that showed human reaction times were less than 0.100 seconds. Anything faster is not reacting to the start but anticipating the start. So if Allen reacts in 0.099 seconds, then the claim is he is reacting too fast. Interestingly, I believe they said he started in 0.1005 seconds during the semi-finals (don't quote me on the exact number but it was ridiculously close to 0.100 seconds). My contention would be whether we had the scientific capability to measure with precision the difference between 0.099 and 0.100 sixty years ago to conclude that you can't react faster. As they said on the broadcast, I'd like to see them repeat this study that they're basing this cutoff on with today's technology and today's athletes. Is it possible we're only now catching someone reacting in 0.099 seconds because before with older tech we could only catch the difference between 0.09 and 0.1 when all along someone was capable of reacting in slightly less than 0.1 seconds? And like the broadcasters, I didn't search out whether this has already been tested in today's athletes with today's tech.

Interesting. I would also like to see them test this again!

 

[DisneyParrothead]

It's becoming a battle of what sucks less - running outside with high T&D or treadmill. Vegas is putting even odds on this fight but the treadmill is definately gaining ground...

I made peace with the treadmill when I moved to Dallas. Since everything is still cooking overnight I never saw the point in getting up before the sun. I’d still be miserable in the heat. At least on the treadmill I could be in A/C and not be as miserable but still end up very sweaty.

 

[The Expert]

I made peace with the treadmill when I moved to Dallas. Since everything is still cooking overnight I never saw the point in getting up before the sun. I’d still be miserable in the heat. At least on the treadmill I could be in A/C and not be as miserable but still end up very sweaty.

I used to hate the treadmill, but I also know myself. I'm not getting up early or going out in the heat to run. Before I bought my treadmill, if I had to I rarely did. Realistically for me it is treadmill or no run at all most days. It keeps me running and helps me stick to my training, so win-win.

One thing I did to motivate me, when I had to go use the gym treadmill before we owned one, was to save guilty pleasure shows. I was only allowed to watch Outlander on the treadmill! That was enough to stick to the habit, and now that it sits behind me in my home office, it's easy to plan into my day.

 

[dobball23]

I used to hate the treadmill, but I also know myself. I'm not getting up early or going out in the heat to run. Before I bought my treadmill, if I had to I rarely did. Realistically for me it is treadmill or no run at all most days. It keeps me running and helps me stick to my training, so win-win.

One thing I did to motivate me, when I had to go use the gym treadmill before we owned one, was to save guilty pleasure shows. I was only allowed to watch Outlander on the treadmill! That was enough to stick to the habit, and now that it sits behind me in my home office, it's easy to plan into my day.

It's funny, I'm the complete opposite. I used to run pretty much only on a treadmill. I would only run outside if forced, and even then I would be more likely to skip than to run.

Then, the spring of 2020 came and the gym closed. To continue running, I would need to run outside. So I did. I haven't been on a treadmill since and have logged ~4,000 miles running since then. I'm going on a cruise later this summer and am almost dreading needing to go back to running on a treadmill even though I spent 20+ years of my life on one almost every day.

 

[Cabius]

I used to hate the treadmill, but I also know myself. I'm not getting up early or going out in the heat to run. Before I bought my treadmill, if I had to I rarely did. Realistically for me it is treadmill or no run at all most days. It keeps me running and helps me stick to my training, so win-win.

One thing I did to motivate me, when I had to go use the gym treadmill before we owned one, was to save guilty pleasure shows. I was only allowed to watch Outlander on the treadmill! That was enough to stick to the habit, and now that it sits behind me in my home office, it's easy to plan into my day.

I still hate the treadmill, but I'm like you: I know that at these temperatures, it's the only way I'll get out at all.

I've found that the combination of tedium and tons of visual stimulation is what kills me. Lots of bright lights, motion, and muted TV screens. Thankfully, I'm super super near-sighted; if I take my glasses off I basically can't see anything farther away than the display. I'm able to focus on an audiobook or podcast.

 

[avondale]

Yeah, I don’t know much about that. I guess it’s just because its later in the day? Today’s UV Index chart shows that it will peak at 8 around 1-2pm and be down to 3 by 5pm

It's the lower angle of the Sun. The same amount of sunlight is spread out over a larger piece of the Earth's surface, so the UV impact is lessened.