| Author |
 Topic  |
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Oct 2009 : 7:40:48 PM
|
I understand your point. If I'm honest, I don't KNOW they work, but I'm placing my trust in the scientific theory behind them.
I've recently been using AccelGel, which have a 4:1 carb/protein content, unlike all other carb gels. They're supposedly better, but I can't say with any certainty that in my experience they are any better. Again, I'm trusting the science - they certainly aren't doing me any harm and most importantly, my stomach is coping well with them (unlike the Lucozade gels I used to use).
I guess it comes to finding what works for you. |
 |
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2009 : 8:24:34 PM
|
gastric emptying does slow during exercise and gets progressively slower during prolonged exercise. That's why it's better to take energy on from the start of the run rather than waiting until you feel tired. From what I've read, it's perfectly reasonable to assume you could utilise all the calories from each gel you consume, if taken with sufficient water (and not too much / too little)
Speed is irrelevant to calories burnt, HR is relevant so if you run at the same speed on two different days and one day you have a higher HR, you will burn more calories on that day. |
|
|
|
Dips
4076 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2009 : 10:08:04 PM
|
quote:
The standard calculation of calories burned is purely a function of weight & distance, with speed being irrelevant.
There has to be some standard calculation... if you run harder/faster your HR is higher, so in a way speed is relevant when making your calculation, as is your body weight.
quote:
I object to being told they're great by the companies who make them & also by the people who rely on advertising revenue from these companies.
Surely this applies to anything and everything, not just gels? Any product will be advertised as being great, the best,the one and only and everyone wants to make some dosh out of their product. Even KFC and barley twists. 
Just mind you don't choke on one of those sweets before all your teeth fall out.  
Re: the article on Women Olympic runners. I liked that article too, I have a book by Joyce Smith, British former long distance runner and the milage she put in while training was amazing. Its an old book (I've lent it out so need to track it down) so it makes great reading when compared with the training theories of today. What always amazes me is how it is fairly recent it is that women have been allowed to compete at the longer distances.
Dips x
"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream." C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2009 : 10:32:14 AM
|
Something about that article struck me though...
I think it was Constantina Dita that said she didn't think women could run quicker than Paula's current WR. Obviously records are there to be broken, but it got me wondering how close could women get to mens' records.
Men Women
Mara 2:03:59 2:15:25 91.56%
HM 58:33 1:06:25 88.16%
10k 26:17 29:31 89.05%
5k 12:37 14:11 88.95%
1500 3:26.00 3:50.46 89.39%
800 1:41.11 1:53.28 89.26%
400 43.18 47.60 90.71%
200 19.19 21.34 89.93%
100 9.58 10.49 91.33%
Comparatively, Paula's WR is the best performance by any woman, EVER, in comparison to fellas. Now if a sub-2hr marathon is possible for men (which some think is) then Paula's equivalent would give a women's record of around 2:10.
Think it also goes to show that given how comparatively late women were allowed to compete in athletics, they've done pretty bloody well. |
Edited by - StephenPrice on 05 Oct 2009 10:32:46 AM |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2009 : 1:49:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dips
I am a great beleiver in Quality rather than Quantity...I think you only get better at running by running but its better to do less milage with quality. Rather than churning miles and miles, never recovering well enough and then never being able to do any quality sessions.
Just doing some research on running training for my London Schedule and found the following atricle:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0100.htm
It finishes off by saying:
quote:
You'll run your best marathon, or 10K, or 5K, or mile, when you're the most fit, not when you've run the most miles, and optimal fitness occurs when you reach a reasonable mileage level and then progressively crank up your training intensity.
It backs up both points really. Get to your optimal volume and then get plenty of "quality" in - it's the quality that makes you quicker, not the miles. Of course, if you're optimal mileage is 140 miles (WITH the quality), that's going to be better then 50 miles. |
|
|
|
mdunn77
1540 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2009 : 1:55:58 PM
|
during my run today, I remembered another argument for stretching before running: it's something to do whilst your garmin works out where it is |
|
|
|
Lazybones
454 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2009 : 4:42:17 PM
|
You don't need to track it down Dips - I've got it. Will bring it along when I next see you.
I think a lot of the info is very much relevant to age. I have found that the occasions when I have got most injured (not from falling over  ) are when I have cut back on the gym work. Not just for flexibility (which for me is important) but for core strength, particularly building up good strong abs has definitely helped my hillwork. Dips can tell you I walk up hills ever so fast 
"The only losers are those who quit" |
|
|
|
PeteStockdale
416 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 10:40:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn77
Great debate this.. btw, I've seen Pricey and Mr Gorman here mention quality runs quite often - how would you define quality in that context?
I look at this way. Everyone has a pace and distance which feels reasonably comfortable - for example, it might be that you can do 6 miles at 8 minute miles, without too much concern. If you do that everyday then you will have logged 42 miles in the week, 175 in the month, but at no point will you have pushed yourself. You will have maintained fitness but the only way to get better is to do something that takes you out of the comfort zone. It is those training runs that I consider to be 'quality'.
So, you might run further, or you might run quicker, or both. How much quicker or how much further will depend on the individual (goals, ability, availibility of time, etc).
So, 3/4 times a week I aim to do a run that for whatever reason isn't easy. This follows no set plan as such - I just believe that if I hit rough goals (a long run, a quick run etc) then the fact that they are 'quality' means I will improve.
The other two runs each week are recovery runs just to keep my legs turning over, and because I enjoy running
I may not be doing it right, but it seems to work and I'd rather do what works and enjoy it than fret about everything and it stops becoming fun.
On another point - I think Dips mentioned beginners not getting recovery runs right. I would agree as too many do them far too quickly. However, I think I was getting my recovery runs wrong, for a different reason. I think I was going too slow. I was running at a pace that was no effort at all - I don't think that's right. I think I should have been running at a pace that wasn't much effort. I know this is a tricky balance to get (and perhaps to explain) but I have started to go slightly quicker in my reocvery runs and this seems to be working better for me.
-------
"I just felt like running" - F. Gump |
|
|
|
PeteStockdale
416 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 10:44:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wicked D
I had a heated discussion with family member today that is PAYING for eating/exercise advice???? from an expert  just because one person thinks something works dont mean it will for someone else
I got a bit annoyed with the bit in Runner's World which took extracts from the forum asking what was the most important things for a new runner to pay for.
Essentially, one person said the right shoes, one said the right bra, the third said "a nutritionist"?!?!  What?!?! I can see why a nutritionist would want to try and drum up some business, but why did Runner's World print it when there are so many more things that beginners should be considering rather than paying for nutritional advice. 
-------
"I just felt like running" - F. Gump |
|
|
|
StephenPrice
2113 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2009 : 11:33:03 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by PeteStockdale
I think I should have been running at a pace that wasn't much effort. I know this is a tricky balance to get (and perhaps to explain) but I have started to go slightly quicker in my reocvery runs and this seems to be working better for me.
that's a good thought. I guess if you're running too slowly your running form will change and that may un-do some of the good work you've been doing in the harder sessions.
I've given up trying to tell begginers I know that they shouldn't come back from every run with a red face, they don't listen. |
|
|
|
AndyS
48 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 3:50:57 PM
|
An interesting thread.
It occurred to me while out running (why do the best thoughts always occur then?) that a lot of these wonderful new sessions are based on a sample of one, highly trained individual who has amended one of their sessions and got amazing results. We never hear of the ones that have tried it and found it does not work!
I would imagine that for most of us recreational runners, especially like me who have come to running later in life, the important thing is to build up a base level of fitness. This surely can only be done by putting in the time on the road, pool, on the bike etc.
An elite athlete swapping 20x800m intervals for 2x800 and finding an improvement in race performance would suggest to me that she was probably over doing it previously and her performance improved because she was less tired! I guess that had she not put in a lot of high rep sessions previously doing 2x 800 intervals in a session would have had naff all effect on her performance.
Remember the ultimate less is more is do no training and run a world record - it doesn't make sense. Don't over do it does!
Andy |
|
|
|
Laura Foster
1143 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2009 : 7:15:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by StephenPrice
I've given up trying to tell begginers I know that they shouldn't come back from every run with a red face, they don't listen.
When I was a beginner, I could only run at one pace - there wasn't anything slower, and it took everything out of me. I think beginners have to go through the pain for a few weeks/months before they can manage different paces and start to do different types of traing.
Having said that, I spend my whole time telling friends who are taking up running that they have to run slow. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Runners World "Running Rules Revisited"
