|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/13/03 - 08:16 Post subject: Harder to run slower?
If Runner A runs 7 min miles @ 70% of his Max. HR and Runner B runs 14 min miles @ 70% of his Max HR, is Runner B putting more wear and tear on his body because it takes him twice as long to cover the same distance?
Example :: Saturday morning run... Runner A runs 7 miles in 1 hr. and is done. Runner B has to run for 2 hrs. to run 7 miles. Wouldn't Runner B be more worn down?
|
|
|
|
|
coachmarkos
my boys could swim
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 11387
Location: 1st in AFC West
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 08:59 Post subject:
You would think so.
I'm not real sure though.
According to some of the training plans I have seen for marathons, they have you train for a certain amount of time per day, rather than a certain number of miles.
Good question though...
|
|
|
|
|
Dancer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 2518
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 09:22 Post subject:
How long did it take you to come up with this scenario?
I'm with Coach-I have no clue.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 09:25 Post subject:
On paper, it would seem so. I have no idea though. As a slow runner, I'm more than happy to accept that logic. 
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 09:26 Post subject:
| Dancer wrote: | How long did it take you to come up with this scenario?
|
Just kicking around the idea of doing an Ironman someday and wondering if it's easier to do a 10 hr. IM than a 16 hr. IM. For some reason, taking 16 hrs. to do a race scares me, but the idea of a 10 hr. race doesn't sound so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Dancer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 2518
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 09:38 Post subject:
I'll let you know how it feels being on the longer end of an ironman. (Probably will take me around 14 hours. I'm sure it wouldn't take you 16 hours.)
|
|
|
|
|
flarunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 2230
Location: FLA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/13/03 - 12:54 Post subject:
Doing an Ironman is "run" completely different than doing a marathon. I'm assuming you're thinking marathon training with your two runners and their times.
Normally, when one trains for a marathon, the object is to run hard the entire way. Of course, "run hard" is very subjective, as evidenced by all of the flaming posts over on the Runner's World forums. 
Anyway, if Runner A is training for a 7 minute/mile marathon, then Runner A would try to "run hard" (for him/her) for that 3 hour time frame. On the other hand, Runner B is training for a 14 minute/mile marathon, and would try to "run hard" (for him/her) for the 6 hours it would take him/her to finish.
From what I've read about an Ironman, and from those who've done them, doing an Ironman is more about conserving energy and eating throughout the entire race.
My personal belief is that after swimming 2.4 miles in open water, then biking 112 miles, you're pretty much going to be worn down, whether you run 7 min/mile or 14 min/mile.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/16/03 - 09:31 Post subject:
I've got to believe since we all train on a limited amount of time, there are relatively few opportunites to log hours on end on the road. If we were all road race cash prize supported runners, we'd have the time to train 4, 5, and 6 hours a day...and we'd get used to it. I don't think pace has so much to do with it as where your finish time lays away from your "comfortable" long workout. Personally, I'm toast after 2-hours. And unless a radical life change happened, I'll never have the lifestyle to really log enough mileage/time beyond that. So everything after 2-hours for me is not happy time. I don't think there is an absolute to fatigue and pace, I do think it is determined by your training plan. And for most people pressed for time in their personal life, going faster to get done sooner makes the "toast-zone" shorter.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/16/03 - 20:04 Post subject:
I know mentally it is harder especially on my "mandated" easy days, I want to go faster but really have to work hard to keep it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/03 - 07:37 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | Dancer wrote: | How long did it take you to come up with this scenario?
|
Just kicking around the idea of doing an Ironman someday and wondering if it's easier to do a 10 hr. IM than a 16 hr. IM. For some reason, taking 16 hrs. to do a race scares me, but the idea of a 10 hr. race doesn't sound so bad. |
A 10 hour IM would be an incredible feat. Considering the winning times are in the 9 hour range.
I think PeterP did his in around 12 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
kobyj
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Jul 2002
Posts: 2370
Location: Lake Pine
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/21/03 - 22:40 Post subject:
I think it all depends on your training, physical build, and comfort level.
I train for and am comfortable at a 7-7:30 pace typically. Some of the people I run with only do a 9 minute pace. It is a tad uncomfortable and difficult to run the 9-minute pace.
Some physical builds are better for just chugging along at a 9 minute mile. Some physical builds are better for running a sub 6 mile. A sub-6 miler would have a very difficult time running a 9 minute mile. A sub-6 miler would be breaking his stride to an unefficient length for his build just to run a slower pace. The 9-minute miler would have to extend beyond his comfort level to get the sub-6 pace.
And then you have the comfort level. At the start of the race or run, you may feel comfortable at a 8-minute pace. By the end of the race or run, a 16-minute pace is comfortable. I know this from personal experience. I was happy to turn a 5-minute 400 after 21 of the 24 hours in my 24-hour last month. By the end of an Ironman, your stride would probably be feeling comfortable at a 10-14 minute pace.
That is just what I think on the matter. I also will admit that I don't have as much experience as some have so some of my logic may be flawed.
|
|
|
|
