Recreational Running

[Tanarthur]

Seems like very complicated...

 

Anyway, the 30mins is due to the route I took... I can go on longer but I choose not to... I set a limit for myself as I don't want my knees to give way... I doing it as recreational so if I push too hard, won't be fun anymore...

[mechwira]

Seems like very complicated...

 

Anyway, the 30mins is due to the route I took... I can go on longer but I choose not to... I set a limit for myself as I don't want my knees to give way... I doing it as recreational so if I push too hard, won't be fun anymore...

 

perfectly understandable.

 

for weight management only, apparently the recommended amount is total of 150mins per week in the 60-70 zone. and this 150 mins is cumulative, meaning its the same if you do 5 days of 30mins each, or 5 x 20mins and 2 x 25mins, or 3 x 50mins; and it doesnt matter what exercise you do, whether running or treadmill or cycling. so long you clock total 150mins per week in the 60-70 zone.

[ticks]

Hi mechwira. How do u set a certain measurable bpm for a certain age. I understand for eg I'm 26 so my max heart rate should be around 220-26=194. So by saying 60-70% is that 70% of 194bpm?

 

Btw after changing to no more heel strike, it's much nicer to run. Thanks!

[mechwira]

Hi mechwira. How do u set a certain measurable bpm for a certain age. I understand for eg I'm 26 so my max heart rate should be around 220-26=194. So by saying 60-70% is that 70% of 194bpm?

 

Btw after changing to no more heel strike, it's much nicer to run. Thanks!

 

thats right, set your lower limit to 60% of 194 and upper limit at 70% of 194. a disclaimer is that all the formula are only estimates and different people of same age will have slightly different MHR. so your actual % might be a little bit off from the calculation. but generally its about right, and if you maintain 60-70 you find you are not panting, its about correct.

 

and yeah i also feel like a completely different runner ever since i converted to mid-foot or fore-foot strike

[Tanarthur]

Every run I go sure pant... So if that's the case, maybe I am going too fast? Average speed is 6.15min/km...

[mechwira]

Every run I go sure pant... So if that's the case, maybe I am going too fast? Average speed is 6.15min/km...

 

you cannot gauge whether your pace is too high based on your actual speed. a seasoned marathoner or triathlete can probably go below 6 min/km and still breathe normally.

 

the first method to tell whether your pace is too high is heart rate which i explained. you cannot exceed 70%. if you think its still too high, target 65%.

 

the second method is the "talk test". basically once you're well into your run, try to talk out loud and see whether you can:

 

1)Speak a full sentence.

2)Short phrase of a few words only.

3)Cannot talk, breathing too hard. At most just one word.

 

if your pace is correct, it should be between 1 and 2. If your talk test is 3, definitely too fast. 2 should correspond to a heart rate of 70%, whereas 1 is about heart rate of 60% and below.

 

its important that your focus is not how far you manage to run, but how much time you spend running. 30 to 40 mins of 60-70, dun care wat distance you manage to cover. and when you finish, your breathing should immediately become normal, there should be no panting recovery time. dun worry if you find it 'slow' or 'no kick', thats precisely what its supposed to be.

[Tanarthur]

If that's the case, since I am still figuring out my HRM. I shall use the "talk test". Currently is between 1and 2. Maybe should go a bit slower...

[ticks]

What happens if someone were to run at 80% max bpm. Any adverse effects?

[mechwira]

What happens if someone were to run at 80% max bpm. Any adverse effects?

 

there are no adverse effects, but your targeted zone determines exactly what you achieve out of the training.

 

regular long runs at 60-70 trains stamina and burns fat. you will find that you slim down and you have the stamina to go further and further.

 

70-80 is purely building pace for middle distance, like 5km. you will not burn as much fat, nor will you improve your pace. frankly this rate is "neither here nor there" kind of benefit; not harmful but neither is it useful unless you just include this in a weekly mix purely to get used to race pace. this should be your heart rate when doing ippt 2.4km. but if you only do this pace 3 or 4 times a week at 3km each for ippt training, honestly i found it completely useless.

 

you go at above 80, quite frankly the human body and heart cannot sustain for long. this is only short distance. and if you try hit past 90, if you can last 1 minute either you're damn good or your mhr calculation is off. but interval training at where you hit high 80+ to low 90+ in about 300m repetitions build your body's maximum ability. this is what improves your 2.4km timing but you really need to push it high; if after interval training you dun feel like you are going to drop dead, you didn push high enough.

 

for just fat burning, best is just 60-70 for total 150mins a week. for ippt 2.4km training, i suggest 2 x 70-80 over a 3km distance and 2 x interval training per week. and if you're training for half-marathon and above, apparently you should do 2 of each every week, on the advise of a friend.

[MR BIKER]

No wonder you are a wira (warrior), but I think you must change to wiraman. Not only you know much about bike but also about human endurance. i was a frequent jogger with 3 finished marathon and 2 half. trained myself like crazy and best i had for a marathon was 4hr 45 minutes. but what happened was i kept jogging and now at a tender age of 50, i am finally feeling the effects of my years pounding the streets.

i wore the proper shoes and attire. but what i should have considered also in my training my genes and my types of training. i should have known my mother's side, she got osteoarthritis easily. my steps training going up 10 floors and down using staircase surely did not help my body.

My 2 cent advice. RUNNING is addictive. but know your limitation early on

[Tanarthur]

I think I shall go and figure out how my HRM works ASAP.....

[mechwira]

No wonder you are a wira (warrior), but I think you must change to wiraman. Not only you know much about bike but also about human endurance. i was a frequent jogger with 3 finished marathon and 2 half. trained myself like crazy and best i had for a marathon was 4hr 45 minutes. but what happened was i kept jogging and now at a tender age of 50, i am finally feeling the effects of my years pounding the streets.

i wore the proper shoes and attire. but what i should have considered also in my training my genes and my types of training. i should have known my mother's side, she got osteoarthritis easily. my steps training going up 10 floors and down using staircase surely did not help my body.

My 2 cent advice. RUNNING is addictive. but know your limitation early on

 

thanks for the compliments, i'm just someone who likes to read a lot and practice what i read whenever i become interested in something. so ten years ago when i started riding i also started reading a lot about bikes and practiced whatever i read. so 3 months ago i picked up running and i also end up reading everything i could find about running, and try out watever i read.

 

you're right, running is addictive, but the minute any sign of injury crops up, you should immediately stop to analyse the injury and figure out what to change, because if you change nothing or worse do more of the same then the injury will just keep getting worse. bones and joints do not become stronger, only muscles become stronger.

[Tanarthur]

Finally knows how my HRM works. So now my 65-75% is between 119-138. So when I set my HRM max heart rate, I set it at 138 or? And when I monitor, I will do so after maybe 5mins and every 5mins since "Runkeeper" update me every 5 mins when I should reached "the target zone". So I shall look at my average heart beat, current heart beat or maximum heart beat? Thanks. Novice here...

[mechwira]

Finally knows how my HRM works. So now my 65-75% is between 119-138. So when I set my HRM max heart rate, I set it at 138 or? And when I monitor, I will do so after maybe 5mins and every 5mins since "Runkeeper" update me every 5 mins when I should reached "the target zone". So I shall look at my average heart beat, current heart beat or maximum heart beat? Thanks. Novice here...

 

dun quite get your description of how your hrm works, but definitely you want to be looking at 'current heart beat'. you need to observe your current hear rate while you are running and slow your pace the minute it climbs above 138. if it can give an alarm beep when it exceeds 138, thats the most convenient. usually its about lowering your pace coz the heart rate climbs above; when you're jogging its unlikely to fall below 119.

[Tanarthur]

I read somewhere along the thread that you set your maximum heart beat to the level you want to achieved. Mine will beep when exceed. Thanks. Will experiment tmr...

[Tian3068]

I read somewhere along the thread that you set your maximum heart beat to the level you want to achieved. Mine will beep when exceed. Thanks. Will experiment tmr...

 

I used to set it to max heartbeat but don't be too ambitious as it can stress the heart unnecessarily.

 

I try to make it 80% .. just to err on the safe side

[mechwira]

just to keep this thread going, i tot it'd be great if we could give personal reviews about various gear we use. some gears can be expensive and i always go online to read reviews before i commit to an expensive gear, especially if different brands carry the item.

 

but to start, i tot i'd try writing about a simple, cheap, small gear: running visors.

[mechwira]

Personal Review: Running Visors

 

I have and use two different brands of running visors:

 

New Balance

http://images2.bidorbuy.co.za/thumbnail/615/2127615/2127615-1903487014-l.gif

Price: ~$12

Where: New Balance Store

 

Nike

http://cdn.running.competitor.com/files/2011/10/nike-blue-dri-fit-feather-light-visor.jpg

Price: ~$22

Where: Nike Store

Note: I use the one labelled 'Unisex'; there is a similar looking model labelled 'Womens' which has a shorter 'beak' so read the label when you take it off the shelf.

 

 

 

First, a bit of background. Obviously visors shield your eyes and upper half of your face from the sun. But i never tot of its secondary function: channel sweat away from your forehead so that it doesn run down to your eyes, a problem i had when running with sun shades. i actually considered using a head sweatband but tot it looked gay

 

Performance and Comparison

First of all, both of them do NOT effectively channel 100% of your sweat away from your eyes; i'd say they both successfully channel 70% of the sweat. not perfect, but enough to be very noticeable and now i never run my long and middle distance without them, regardless of weather. not short distance HIIT coz that one when sprinting i prefer my body to be as 'free' as possible.

 

so the end result with both is the same, but they do it differently. the NB has a thicker headband and therefore holds more sweat than the Nike. the Nike uses a thinner Dri-Fit material for the headband and becomes completely soaked very quickly, and thats where 30% of your sweat 'escapes' and runs into your eyes. but then again, that dri-fit also absorbs sweat more quickly than the NB, and in the NB the 30% of the sweat 'escapes' because the headband does not absorb it quickly enough even though it can hold more sweat.

 

Which would I recommend?

Like i said, the end result in both is the same: 70% of sweat is channeled away but 30% escapes and runs down into your eyes. and for both, you need to run with your head slightly dipped so that the sweat is channeled down the 'beak' and then drips off the edge of the 'beak'. which is kind of cool coz u can see how much sweat would have run down into your eyes if you had not been wearing the visor. but the nike just wins it for me because its thinner material just makes it a little lighter and a little more airy. is it worth the extra $10 over the NB? considering the final price is only $22, i'd say yes.

 

 

A final note: i want to show this Headsweats brand visor:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/HEADSWEATS-SUPERVISOR-COOLMAX-RUNNING-TRAINING-TRIATHLON-CAP-HAT-VISOR-NEW-WHITE-/00/s/NzUwWDc1MA==/$(KGrHqV,!qcF!b-wPwbPBQIKR!54bQ~~60_35.JPG

the brand is supposed to be 'headsweats' but the manufacturer lets various other brands or events or organizations take this visor and put their own logo. you will see them with 'Newton' logo or 'Triathlon' logo, but they all spot the 'headsweats' logo at the side.

 

Apparently marathoners and triathlete friends claim this is the one running visor that wicks away nearly 100% of your sweat. but it costs like $42 at stores and can only be found at specialty stores. i have never seen one at any store i've been to, but a fren is ordering one for me thru his lobang so maybe once i get it i'll share how well it performs.

[Tian3068]

i used to skimp on good running shoes but once you buy a $200 pair of running shoe you can feel the difference.

 

its truly you pay for what you get. especially for running (impacting the knees), you want to get the best support cos no point saving the extra tens and then running into all sorts of lower limb injury.

 

I bought the asics range (is it kayano?) and i felt it was worth every penny although heartpain at the cashier at first.

[keyxblade]

i have no doctor to share, but like i mentioned in my first post, i used to experience terrible knee pain and shin splints, and am now convinced that it was due to the overly bulky and over-cushioned SAF New Balance shoes circa 2001, coupled with my running style with those shoes. and mind you at that time i ran only 3k to 4k three times a week.

 

so i'm suggesting it might be your shoe and your running style. what shoe may i ask? including in the past.

 

but i only suggesting, i no way qualified to diagnose your condition. whether its the shoes or not, its also possible that your condition is aggravated over several years and by now need surgery or injection. then again, it might also be a minor and temporary condition that can be corrected with better shoes or better running style or leg strengthening exercises.

 

but i can tell you that even now with what i believed to be improved running style and 'better' shoes, my joint pains are gone BUT i still cannot tackle steep downslopes. downslope is the one that damages the knees. and downslope running needs proper technique, which i am still trying to find. it takes me just one steep downslope with wrong technique and immediately i feel a discomfort in one or both knees.

 

I been jogging for 6 months every week only once, as my shin hurts after the jog and it takes about 1 week to heal. any running shoe to recommend?

[ticks]

I been jogging for 6 months every week only once, as my shin hurts after the jog and it takes about 1 week to heal. any running shoe to recommend?

 

If your shin hurts its most probably down to your running style as I've discovered. Do u do heel strike when u run? Heel strike is probably the mother of all cause to shin splits. Lol. But after I changed to flat foot then I've no more shin splits d. Running style was covered in the earlier pages of the thread.

[vyruz]

Personal Review: Merrell Vapor Glove

 

Merrell's Vapor Glove is their most minimal running shoe. With 0mm heel drop and only 2mm cush, it is very minimal. I understand shoe shops in Singapore do not carry this particular model, which is why I had to buy online.

 

http://barefootrunninguniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/merrell-m-connect-vapor-glove-front-quarter.jpg

 

Purchase details: S$130 delivered. Bought from eBay (US$79 + shipping). Size chosen based on http://shoefitr.com/ recommendation. Amazon also sells them, and you can get free shipping if you spend at least $125.

 

Fit: I got the US 8.5 size based on shoefitr's recommendation and based on my US 9 size Merrell Bare Access 2 (which you can try on in Royal Sporting House). Fits perfectly. It is crazy light and very breathable.

 

Performance: These things have taken me to a new level. I started with 7km runs on them, then 10km, then 15km and have done two training half-marathon sessions on them. No injury to speak of. Yes, my calves are sore, but that's fine by me since the soreness goes away after a day or so, and muscle soreness is so much more bearable than injury pain (e.g. shin splints). It is so counterintuitive. The more minimal the shoe, the better I've been able to keep running. Definitely this has a lot to do with the shoe forcing me to recalibrate my running style (less impacts, more efficient pace etc), but let's not forget that I'm only recalibrating because the shoe kinda forces me to do so. The shoe forces you to run in a more 'natural' way since any attempt at heel striking or landing sloppily will be punished immediately with pain (contrast this with cushioned shoes, which will dull the immediate pain of incorrect landing, but this ends up adding up into more serious pains and injuries, e.g. shin splints for me). So you end up with a much high cadence pace, lighter foot falls and a more 'springy' feeling run, more tired muscles, but little to no injury to hold you back or frustrate you.

 

The sole is Vibram, which is amazingly durable despite the thinness. Contrast with Saucony's Virrata, which has a thicker sole but wears out SO much faster.

 

They are so good I have already bought another pair (in the awesome colour scheme below), so that I'll have my replacement ready to go when the current one dies off.

 

http://cdn.sneakerreport.com/m.php/2013/01/OR-Day-1_2.jpg

 

Disclaimer: I'd strongly suggest not moving immediately to these shoes if you're on a more traditional cushioned shoe at the moment. Take a more transitional shoe first - I used Merrell's Bare Access 2. You also have Merrell's Road Access, which is more minimal than the Bare Access but more cushioned than the Vapor Glove. Once you're up and going with a transitional shoe (0mm drop, minimal cush), and you've readjusted your running style, the Vapor Gloves will take you to new ground.

 

Good luck fellow runners.

[mechwira]

I been jogging for 6 months every week only once, as my shin hurts after the jog and it takes about 1 week to heal. any running shoe to recommend?

 

Disclaimer: i am not an elite runner, or an expert, or a doctor. i only share wat i read and wat i practice and discover myself.

 

first, like @ticks mentioned,you should focus on changing your running style. 'correct' shoes (as found by me and like-minded runners like ticks and vyruz) are supposed to complement and aid this 'correct' running style; any shoe i suggest will not by itself get rid of shin pain or knee pain, or 'suddenly' make you run with the 'correct' style.

 

so wats the 'wrong' method of running? "Heel Striking":

 

1) when your foot lands, the heel contacts the ground first.

2) your foot lands in front of your knee.

 

Whats the 'correct' method? Please view the great video posted by vyruz at post #43 "Born to run coach Eric Orton". that vid explains way better than anything i can type.

 

so what shoes are good at helping you run this correct method? i mentioned this earlier:

a recent popular method is to choose based on whether your running is heel strike, mid foot strike or forefoot strike. conventional shoes are mostly 12mm heel drop, and for heel strikers. some are as high as 16mm, or can go lower to 8mm. if you want to try change your running to midfoot strike, find shoes with 4mm heel drop. any higher than 4mm, i find quite difficult to do midfoot strike. if you know you can naturally run with midfoot strike, go for 0mm drop. you can all the way to shoes labelled 'minimalist' but i dun recommend it unless you really know your strike pattern and what the minimalist shoes will do.

 

shoes with 4mm drop include:

 

Saucony Kinvara

Saucony Mirage

Skechers GoRun 2 and GoRun Ride

Mizuno Wave Evo

 

i personally used the Kinvara 4 when i first started my change, and it worked wonders. it costs like $150, but you can find the Kinvara 3 for

 

Be warned: do not try shoes labelled 'minimalist' at this stage. these include:

 

New Balance Minimus Zero

Skechers GoBionic

Vibram Fivefingers

 

these are strictly for advanced runners well into forefoot strike. even @vyruz cautions against these shoes in your transition stage. i have the NB Minimus Zero purely for advanced forefoot strike training, and even after 4 months of changing and adapting to the 'correct' running, i still cannot use them for ippt 2.4km or any distance above 8km. but as running strike trainers they are perfect, AFTER i adapted.

 

Good Luck

Edited November 27, 2013 by mechwira

[mechwira]

Personal Review: Saucony Kinvara 4

 

http://www.believeintherun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/kinvara4-pro.jpg

 

Price: ~$150

Where: Almost any store that carries Saucony. Royal Sporting House, etc.

 

Comments:

 

This is the shoe i bought and used 4 months ago when i first decided to transition into mid/forefoot strike. and it works great for anyone beginning your transition. it has a heel offset of 4mm, and being completely new, i could feel that it was low yet was not totally alien. plus a completely flat bottom outsole with no mid-gap, i could also feel that this was more flexible than conventional shoes i was used to previously, yet has a somewhat conventional cushion. soft ride.

 

what it all means is that this is low and flexible enough for anyone attempting a mid/forefoot strike, yet retains enough cushion at the outsole and heel to be forgiving enough for when your running gait is not yet 'correct'. this will be your do-it-all transition shoe, from long distance >10k at steady casual pace, to a fast 5km, or ippt or even high pace interval sprinting.

 

the upper is thin yet comfortable, and very breathable. i'm not so sure about going sockless in this though.

 

 

Other similar shoes to consider (not tried any):

Saucony Mirage (also 4mm drop but apparently with some pronation control)

Skechers GoRun 2

Skechers GoRun Ride

New Balance M1010

New Balance M3090

Brooks PureFlow 2

Brooks PureCadence 2

Newton Energy

Edited November 26, 2013 by mechwira

[mechwira]

Personal Review: New Balance Minimus Zero

 

http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=dHbWzmRY9CEzwM&tbnid=S74F6KbMASbovM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwADgw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportissimo-us.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FMinimus-Zero-men.jpg&ei=LbiUUsStGsn_rAeuhoDYBA&psig=AFQjCNH0H22tk5J0W2d2OrVD8Tti4PLhAA&ust=1385564589503551

 

Price:

 

Comments:

 

this is a zero drop barefoot shoe. 0mm drop, 12mm sole, vibram outsole. anyone new to mid/forefoot strike need not apply. if you're new to barefoot shoes, the best way i can describe this one is a sock with a thin rubber slipper glued to the bottom.

 

this is my first ever barefoot shoe. i wanted one purely for foot strike training, even if i find the shoe unsuitable for long distance or ippt. considering that most true barefoot shoes are only found at specialty stores or can only be bought online, this was exactly what i was looking for. the

 

the best thing about this shoe is that its meant to be worn sockless, and feels absolutely great without socks. very light and airy. the sideways tongue flap also aids the sockless comfort; you really dont feel any shoe.

 

when i first wore the shoe, i had already adapted to mid/forefoot strike after a month of using my transition kinvara. on my first ever run, i discovered how extreme barefoot shoes are. this forces me to do forefoot strike every single step; land anything close to a heel strike, and you will feel it. in fact initially it was too much: my usual cadence is 160/min (i believe mid/forefoot strike cadence shd be 170-180); on my first few runs i hit a cadence of 190/min. and had intense calf soreness for three days. and this was all after i adapted. but of coz, this is my first barefoot shoe.

 

at the end of the day, if you're looking for a barefoot shoe readily found in local stores, this one is worth it especially with its stock clearance price tag. i donno wat the price tag will be when the revised 2014 model is launched, or what changes they will make. this is great as a foot strike trainer. i cant use it for anything else, but thats probably because my running is not yet 100% efficient and not the fault of the shoe. but it does highlight the fact that you can only use this shoe with 100% running efficiency.

 

 

Other similar shoes to consider (not tried them myself):

Mizuno Wave Universe

New Balance Minimus Hi-Rez

Skechers GoBionic

Brooks PureDrift

Vibram FiveFingers

VivoBarefoot

Merell Vapor Glove (read review by vyruz)