Just started doing 3km thread mill runs on rest days to get a little bit of cardio. Decided to do the first run as a sort of middle effort, tiring but not exhausting session to establish a baseline. Came out at 16 and a half minutes.
My question is what sort of progression should I use? Is shaving of 30 seconds each time fine? Also post 3km times so I have something to compare against other than world class athletes please.
Other urls found in this thread:
track6.mixtape.moe
military.com
strongerbyscience.com
strongerbyscience.com
rossedgley.com
tandfonline.com
twitter.com
I know some of you faggots run cmon
nobody here runs dude
track6.mixtape.moe
also, fuck the treadmill
But the treadmill helps me plan my run exactly, dead easy for progression
Thanks for links though
What's your goal? If cardio then you should slow down a bit.
I don't actually like cardio but see it as necessary. Goal is sprinting I guess, I figure raw power works better with all the squats and what not, marathon runners tend to be too scrawny. Plus it might turn out useful I dunno.
Do you mean slow down and still run the same distance?
>marathon runners tend to be too scrawny
Gee, I sure wonder why?
>I don't actually like cardio but see it as necessary.
Why? Not trying to be a smartass--answer will change optimal strategy. If this is a health thing, regular brisk walks will be fine; park farther away from your job, start commuting by bike, whatever. If this is for hiking with /out/ gf, different strategy; if for mountain biking, different yet; if for Army PRT, different yet. And so on.
>Goal is sprinting I guess,
Can you be more specific? Do you have time goals for a particular distance or event?
>I figure raw power works better with all the squats and what not,
1) a lot of sprinting is technique; "raw [anaerobic] power" is probably better trained on an airdyne. Or by lifting weights.
2) given that you're already training anaerobic power by lifting, it arguably makes sense to focus on entirely opposite energy pathways for your conditioning.
(versions of both of these points are made quite well here: strongerbyscience.com
>marathon runners tend to be too scrawny.
Causality runs both ways here.
>why
Bare minimum health reasons of course, but I'd also like the ability to sprint competently just in case I need it. I do some heavy hiking from time to time (20 kg backpack, 2-3 days) so I figure I need strong legs.
>specific
above mostly. But sprint-training also means I can be done with my cardio in a short time, which I like. No events or anything.
Actually sprinting has minimal cardio benefits.
Basically, anything faster than 6min a km is a run, anything faster than 5 mins is quite good.
You got between those. Work on your speed until you can do 3km in 15 mins.
Increasing the distance would also be good.
Running is the easiest thing to train at as long as you do it incrementally
It's not really sprinting except the last few hundred meters maybe though. It's still 3km.
if you want to get better at sprinting and cardio, do fartlek training, or tabata, high intensity intermingled with slower steady state cardio
rossedgley.com
keep doing your weights, eat sufficient calories, and you wont lose muscle mass
losing muscle mass is advantagous for long distance runners because it is less weight to carry around
but you can be muscular and be an endurance athlete
hmmm ok.
sprinting (as in running) complicates things a bit, because it's high-impact and requires a lot of technique. I'd advise working up to half an hour's easy jogging 3-4x/week to build durability, then moving to hill sprints 2x/week or so. Something like 30 seconds up/walk down x 10. Hills are a bit less impactful than sprinting on flat ground and should therefore interfere less with whatever else you want to do. Alternatively, something like hill sprints Monday/30-45 minutes easy Wednesday/400-800m repeats with full recovery Friday would work well, but probably be more taxing. Might also be able to use sled drags or sled pushes in place of hill sprints from time to time if logistics permit.
If we want to relax the requirement that this all be via running, hard intervals (say 00:20 on/1:40 off x 6-8, or maybe something like Tabata) using lower-impact modalities like the fan bike or the rowing machine would work well. And I think there's still an important place for one longer, low-intensity, steady state session per week of something like incline treadmill walking, say half an hour at a conversational pace.
I'm saving this to my exercise notes, thank you. Thing is though, at least for now this is way to complicated. My main focus is still on lifting and I just wanted an easy cardio thing to do on the side. Is there are a way to combine elements of this with the relatively straight forward "just do 3km progressively faster" I had planned? I might do a more serious approach when I get more into it but for now I need to keep it easy to motivate myself.
Good to know, thanks
>30 minutes easy 3-4x/week (preferably on non-lifting days)
>work up to doing this for a month without getting hurt
>hill sprints 2x/week, 30 seconds up, walk down, x 8-10 total
>run faster, find a steeper hill, or add more if it's too easy
that's pretty simple, doesn't require a lot of thought, and while I don't know what your personal recovery circumstances look like it should be easier than 3km as fast as possible, especially if you run outside rather than on a treadmill. if that's too much, idk, just stick with your original plan and have fun, I guess.
Fair point user. Winter is coming though and I'm expecting heavy snow, what kind of incline would constitute a starter hill sprint?
Running is dumb for long term on joints
skip rope is better, takes less time and easier on joints PLUS gives you the boxer's stamine
eh, don't sweat it too hard, if it feels less impactful than sprinting on the flat you're good. play around with the hills close to your house and see what you think.
>Running is dumb for long term on joints
somewhat overstated but all in all a fair point
>skip rope is better, takes less time and easier on joints PLUS gives you the boxer's stamine
this on the other hand makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. first, boxers run a whole lot and spar, do bag work, etc. second, the mechanical differences between skipping rope and running are pretty small; to the extent that skipping rope is lower impact than running it's 1) because you do it in a boxing ring (you do skip rope in a boxing ring, not on concrete, right user?) and 2) nobody skips rope for six hours a week (who isn't a boxer and therefore also running a lot anyway). third, skipping rope only takes less time if you do less of it than you would run, which there's no particularly good reason to do; to a first approximation, heart rate is heart rate regardless of activity.
if you're looking for less impactful cardio, walking, rowing, swimming, and cycling are great, and you can do some fun things with kettlebells too.
Nothing will happen to your joints even at the high mileage if your form is good.
this is an awfully glib statement, especially in light of the fact that you can always no-true-Scotsman your way out of any proposed counterexample ("Paula Radcliffe didn't really have good form", etc.)
I suppose there are values of "nothing" and "good form" for which it might be true, and I agree that having good form is important, but I wouldn't consider it a useful principle, let's put it that way
Nobody cares about times on the treadmill dude, do them outside
There is literally no research suggesting that running damages the joints.
tandfonline.com
of course, you may not think this is sufficiently suggestive, or you may think it's not the right kind of damage. (or you may think that the people studied didn't have good form.). whatever, it's a free internet. in any case, if you're a serious runner, you know that you get hurt sometimes.