The Pantman Resurrection Thread

I need your help to get up & running again...

641 to 657 of 657 messages
29/08/2006 at 23:22
so do i earl
i think i may have misunderstood your post?
29/08/2006 at 23:28
err, Earl.. I don't get it either..?
29/08/2006 at 23:53
Cath, unrelated to this thread but you have mail.

30/08/2006 at 00:00
You have reply! :)
30/08/2006 at 00:34

30/08/2006 at 00:41
Okay, just gone through a bucket load of posts- normally some of this stuff I'd just talk to Pants about, but seeing as I'll be posting anyway and this is a useful forum for debate on training and the like it should be interesting.

Firstly; I agree with Tom in that I personally think some boards get too "friendly" and "cosy" not so much this one whilst I used to be on it, but certainly at least one other I'm on no matter what you do you get a massive cheer, that's a part of the board and you have to get used to it, but there are a fair measure of caustic and sarcastic people on these boards and you do need to expect some posts along those lines and just ignore them. Generally though as long as someone posts a well reasoned question, then it's not being rude, it's accepting being part of the internet.

Problem with James Gilbert was that he raised some realistic questions and appeared reasonable, whilst also putting in some very personal stuff.

It is strange how people approach a set-back. Pants has obviously taken the route of making his attempts to get back into shape fairly public, whilst personally, I've more or less dissappeared from the boards whilst injured + trying to get back to fitness. Part of this is probably due to the hugfest/cosy nature of the forum. I ran a 35 minute 10k this year and in doing so took a SoE bronze medal- to me that's running badly and I know it and I don't want it explained away, I want to use the performance to remind myself that I don't want to be running like that again and drive forward ( no offence to any 35 minutes 10k runners, it's just how I feel about it the same way you probably would if you did your best and ended up with a 38/9 minutes 10k)(and no offence to 38/39 minutes 10k runners...etc!:P). Regardless- it's up to us all how we approach it and if Pants want's to start a thread on it-that's up to him. The title is actually pretty clear, if you're not interested in his recovery then just don't look!
30/08/2006 at 00:53
Okay, now back onto some training stuff :P

Secondly as it were...

I think one thing that you have to remain aware of is that pace is equivalent to stride length x rate. You also need to accept that 180-190 steps per minute is the rate that elite runners go at ( and I think we can fairly safely assume that they know what they're doing)- therefore if you want to run a sub 50 10 miler you need to get your stride length so that you can comfortably run 1.78 metres per stride. Therefore basic leg strength is a must because currently either a) your rate isn't fast enough or b) stride length isn't long enough as you don't regularly run at 5 minute mile pace (though appreciate you are working to get down there).

Which brings me to my main point- for someone doing so much mileage- I don't regularly see the things that make you an "athlete" as opposed to a runner. and to run under 50 minutes for ten miles I personally think you need to have some elements of being an athlete. Stuff like speed drills, strides, flexibility work, core work, it's all extremely useful and is perhaps what may allow you to avoid injuries when running at the fast pace.

Hadd I believe has said about lactate threshold- the aim is to learn to run without inducing lactate threshold rather than to learn how to tolerate it.

I'd say that your aim should perhaps be to learn how to run without inducing stress and working your muscular systems, rather than learning how to try and tolerate it. As some past injuries have shown- your aerobic system seems to be great, your ligaments and tendons seem to be fine ( probably thanks to the flats!) but the muscular system can struggle trying to run at pace

and the easiest way to do that without the classic speed-work of MD and LD runners (e.g. repeat 400s) is through drills and the like which develop the muscles and a fast running action without stressing the system overly. It just seems to me that as you're willing to put so much effort in- why not try doing some of the extra stuff that doesn't take long, but can make a significant difference to your performance.

Hope you keep posting Pants- email me your thoughts if not! Be interesting to see how things work out and looking forward to a race soon! Doing more of the right training now.
13/09/2006 at 22:46
I'll tell you what, I'm a half decent runner, but one hell of a thread killer!!
13/09/2006 at 22:52
roflol Bryn!

But you're a Very Nice Man.
13/09/2006 at 23:17
there was nothing more to add after your comprehensive post
13/09/2006 at 23:38
Bryn, sorry I missed your posting, I must be getting self obsessed as I get older.

Anyway just to say that I agree with everything you say. I always thought that the main reason I cruised the forum was for information and knowledge. Like you I don't see it in terms of motivation and support. Whilst I'm happy to be supportive of other runners, I'm not prepared to say things that I don't actually believe nor am I prepared to talk up ordinary performances. I wouldn't do it for myself so why would I do it for others. Self delusion was never my strongest point.

Regarding your comments about running speed and its relationship to stride length and cadence: If you are going to run faster, one or the other or both have to increase, which requires additional energy (ie increased fitness if fatigue isn't to interfere). If your stride length increases (I have an interest in this, having a short stride), then since your feet are in the air for longer you will take less strides per minute or in other words your cadence will reduce. As above, increased stride and maintained cadence require increased energy.

Presumably the other way of looking at it to try and improve stride length by removing the biomechanical resistance/inertia to achieving best stride length, by means of stretching and strenthening.That way you won't be wasting energy trying to overcome biomechanical resistance. A similar approach would be to improve running economy through pliometrics and improvements to core stability.

If you've got any further thoughts on this I'd be interested to hear them.

Hope your injury issues are now under control. In the long run, they won't really set you back. All that will happen is that you will add them, and the knowledge of how you overcame them, to your growing list of running knowledge, so that next time they occure you'll have the beating of them. The injuries that runners fear are the one's they've never had before, the recurring ones we can usually deal with.

All the best

13/09/2006 at 23:52
Just another response to your athlete/runner consideration regarding running 10 miles in 50 minutes.

If you are going to approach this sensibly a start point might just possibly be running 10 x 1 Mile reps off very short reps. As there aren't that many runners who could do that session, this highlights the size of the task before you. The maintence of 5 min miling has to be comfortable for at least two thirds of the distance, but this requires a level of basic speed which as you say has to be developed through training. I reckon that level is probably the ability to run a single mile in about 4:20. To be honest there aren't many runners around who could get near that on a diet of LT based steady running only. You are going to have to do some concerted speed/endurance training to develop this speed. For the really talented this probably wouldn't take too long, but for the average runner it's unlikely ever to be achieved. Moreover, the older you get, the less likely it's attainability becomes.
14/09/2006 at 09:08
Hi All,

Good points regarding training Bryn. I think many distance runners and coaches get so wound up in training the energy systems appropriately that the more 'mechanical' requirements of running get little training attention.

Once a runner can run a moderate volume safely and with decent form, i would introduce some faster running - i thinker CONTROLLED faster running is actually very good for encouraging efficient form.

Something like 400s at 10km pace, or 200s at 5km pace would be a very comfortable start - some exposure to faster paces, but really quite comfortable - i would do this type of work before doing tempo runs.


The aim would be to increase stride LENGTH, but not TIME, i.e. you increase the forward propulsion component without increasing the vertical.

14/09/2006 at 16:55
Tom- I've got plenty to say as always :)

Injury was totally under control, I've had almost two months of injury free running. I've now tweaked something in my groin/hip flexor which is a temporary set back.

I think the thing that I've really realised with the injury is TAKE THE TIME OFF, it takes veyr little training time to get back to the same level, and also it's so much easier to MAINTAIN fitness than it is to gain it.

SO with this injury rather than try and train through, I've cancelled this weeks training (tbh had already done the three main sessions though!!!), and now devoting time to getting it sorted and getting back inot a routine of drills and stretching, and once healthy again will resume my schedule again. (incidentally within 4 weeks of training again, I ran 16:16, only 20 seconds off my best over a very hilly course with no taper).

Thoughts on stride length/rate...

I think you've summarised it very well Tom, essentially, either you improve your energy systems to the extent that the energy requirements to overcome the resistance are easily met, or you decrease the resistance through flexbility/stretching, or you just devote more muscle and have better technique so again reducing resistance through drills.

However, once you're at your optimal rate (180-190), you need to work on how to improve your stride length and I think whilst there are various ways, drills are the best.

I'm hesitant about classic speed-work, as whilst it does develop the leg strength to the extent needed, it also takes up a lot of training time and effort as it also works the anaerobic system heavily. Great if you want to be a MD runner, but as a distance runner, you'd get more benefit from a LT or Interval session being the majority of the "stress" with the leg strength developed through drills/plyometrics.
14/09/2006 at 17:14
Okay, the practicalities!!!

Firstly- need to run a 4:20 mile- yes and no. Firstly you need a lot of speed and a 4:20 mile may well be a pre-requisite, howver...assuming there is a pre-requisite "time" (not saying what it is) if that time was accomplished off a very high lactate tolerance and anaerobic system ( similiar to that of a top class 800m runner), you'd need to go faster as basically, a lot of the components that make you a great 800m runner (i.e. anaerobic ability), compare very unfavourably with the abilities of a longer distance runner who runs that time off of a strong high vo2 max, who would need a lesser time. Though the factors of stride length + efficiency still come into play.

Basically, Paula Radcliffe can run say a 4:20 mile, and because of the way she's made, she'll be able to convert that very well. Kelly Holmes can run a lot faster than 4:20, but couldn't convert that time at all, as everything that lets her run a very fast 800/mile, doesn't convert well to longer distances.

Obvious stuff, but it needs to be taken into consideration! My 800 PB is 2:11 (2:08 in a TT) whilst my training partners is 1:59, yet he in now way has the pre-requisite time that he'd be able to make a good or even reasonable 10 mile runner ( to give you an idea he has a sub 2 800 and his best 1500 is over 4:30 (only just under 5 m/m)). On the other hand, I'd like to think that if I got my 800 time down to 2:01/2, I would have the prerequisite. That's assuming I didn't accomplish it through soley working my anaerobic ability!!

Tom- I sense a lot of Frank Horwill in that 10 x 1 mile- stripping it to the basics and then going at it.

I think it sounds like an excellent attempt to see how you can pace yourself and to determine just how much work you need- I know I could run sub 5 m/m pace for 10 x 1 miles, the question is how much rest would I need ( certain on this as I've run more than 10 4:30 1500ms!). At the moment I'd predict around 5 minutes recovery per rep needed.

However- whilst this would give me an idea and to be hoenst, its such a hard session it'd be very useful, I think that training scientifically, you could accomplish your goal quicker training in a different way.

Namely by improving these 3 aspects of your running...
1) vo2 max
2) LT
3) running economy

and there are certain ways to train each of these systems.

Alex makes a veyr good point when he talks about controlled intensity, the aim in training shouldn't be to run at 100%, it should be to run at 90% but controlled.

1) 3k-5k pace is that which improves your VO2 max hte most, so training at this pace for reps of 2-5 minutes, with half recovery times of work times with a total distance of 5-8k is a very handy device. This gets you used to running fast at pace as well.

2)LT training is also going to be extremely useful, and perhaps more so in this case! A session like 10 x 1 mile would really work it hard. Training at about the pace you could run at for an hour.

3) economy- apparently- there are three ways I've heard of that are meant to be effective in improving this

i) hard speedwork- mile or so pace, plenty of recovery, improves footstrike, leg strength etc.

ii) flexbility/ drills

iii) just plain running for a lot of years! improvements in mitochondria and the like help improve your running economy.

OKay, lot of credit I think going to mr Daniels. here!

Think a useful thing we could try coming up with on here, is a list of pre-requisites, and a plan for how to get someone to break 50 minutes for 10 miles. Be quite interesting I think!
14/09/2006 at 18:02
Bryn – very sensible approach to injuries.

I agree it could be interesting to discuss the prerequisites for a sub 50 ‘ten’ (or similar performances). No time now, unfortunately – but I will chime in later.

My personal preference would be to do this in a spin-off thread (maybe on ‘training’) that could stand on its own, rather than to keep this one going.

25/01/2007 at 18:41
This trhead is dead lol ;-)


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
641 to 657 of 657 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump