in: heyU; heyU > 2007-06-19;
| # Posted 2007-06-20 11:07:33 | |
| fletch: | so you're the opposite of most boneheads in the gym who have strong quads (coz they work on them coz they look good in the mirror) and weak hammies (and also strong pecs and biceps and no back muscles) |
| # Posted 2007-06-22 07:37:06 | |
| heyU: | looks like I've been doing it all wrong. Instead of running so much over the years I should have been poncing in the gym a bit more. Probably wouldn't have any trouble with my knees
|
| # Posted 2007-06-22 18:48:46 | |
| fletch: | Probably woudn't have been much of a runner either - although I suspect you were a good enough athlete that you would have run faster times than me at my best without ever training at all... |
| # Posted 2007-06-23 08:59:28 | |
| Craig: | Don't underestimate the work he put in to get that good fletch. A small sample. |
| # Posted 2007-06-23 11:53:56 | |
| fletch: | Yeah yeah - I know Terry trained the house down, but I suspect that for anyone who has 10km, half marathon etc PBs as fast has him, getting to the level I did would be almost instant...
How much work did you have to do when you started to get under 36minutes for 10 km Terry? (I'm happy to be proven wrong) |
| # Posted 2007-06-24 12:48:49 | |
| heyU: | I ran the Newcastle Herald Fun Run in 36:15 in 1980. That was a long 10k (10.2 actually) and would be about the first time that I ran at sub 36 pace over that sort of distance. Before that I ran a couple so-called 10k fun runs in 38 or 39 (when I was 18 or 19, I think) off a base of weekend orienteering, a bit of school XC training, and training for other sports.
The 1980 race was preceeded by 18 months of solid training with 11 weeks of 12+ hrs (max 14:15) in the first half of 1980 - the sort of volume that Grant was doing in that crazy challenge with Lazydave. A fairly typical week had 90min on Mon (with 4x1500), 80min on Tues, 2hrs on Thurs, 80min on Fri, 2.5 hrs on Sat, and 100min on Sun (as well as all the morning runs and a track race on Wed). By late 1981, I'd run 32:28 on the track (with another 12 months of solid training under my belt) |
| # Posted 2007-06-24 12:53:02 | |
| Rachel: | Wow that's an impressive 10k time- is it a PB or have you run faster?
Did you do a terrain run today? I mentioned to Craig how nuts you'd look if you gave up a run at Hill Park Dale but went for a run at South Ledge!! |
| # Posted 2007-06-24 17:56:47 | |
| fletch: | OK - I stand corrected... I wonder if that means that if I ever had a combination of the mental fortitude and a body that didn't fall apart as soon as training volume hits 60km a week I would actually be capable of runnig faster...
Either way - I'm not likely to find out now. |
| # Posted 2007-06-25 08:11:24 | |
| heyU: | I ran faster every year from 1982 to 1984, when I ran my last track 10k (32:13, 31:54, 31:19). I put it down to consistent training, being injury free, and having a body type that responded well to training (I didn't run well if I wasn't running every day). There were plenty of others who were naturally more athletic (i.e. ran faster on minimal training) but they either couldn't discipline themselves to do the training, or they got injured as soon as they started doing a decent amount. They probably didn't run to their full potential. I got really fit by running week-in week-out all year round, year after year, gradually improving all the time. The areas that I really missed out on were in core stability and the bio-mechanics of my running action, which wasn't nearly as efficient as it should have been.
I did run at South Ledge :-) There was fog and light rain when I started. It was great. And I was back home before 11. |
You must be logged in to add a message