Prev Next
Timbikerun wrote:
eggplantOG wrote:
I like to run at least 9-15 miles every time I go out

... Then do that

Yes, because, guess what ... your 9-15 counts as one run

Someone else's 30:15 barely above the minimum counts as ... one run

Maybe you too should consider the Big Kahuna Challenge as well?

Quid Pro Cuervo
randymar wrote:
Timbikerun wrote:
eggplantOG wrote:
I like to run at least 9-15 miles every time I go out

... Then do that

Yes, because, guess what ... your 9-15 counts as one run

Someone else's 30:15 barely above the minimum counts as ... one run

Maybe you too should consider the Big Kahuna Challenge as well?

In fairness, you can sort the challenge by number of runs, by total time, by distance. See my next complaint is that everyone can be a winner depending on how you want to personally sort it. I tend to sort it by distance because I tend to lag in total number of runs!!!

Also to answer Brian Stover's question, we can't actually have two different thresholds inside the challenge (for example min 20 min for first run, min 15 min for second run). They all have to be the same.....soooooo....I have a beef that the programmer that designed the training log utility found a new job that pays him better than the zero that ST was paying him (well, I don't know exactly if it was zero, but I guess my beef is that slowman is not paying him more than the other company !!!)
desert dude wrote:
I think if i were to have my druthers and you may agree with my HOA that I may not have things my way, I'd make the rule state that if you run only 1x per day, it must be at least 20 min in duration. Any second run for the day must be at least 15 min in duration.

This allows a smarter build up for many people, with less risk of repercussions for not thinking things through before they start.

but being the planner I am, I might suggest a different modification to the rule, after I dab my eye dry.

I might suggest changing the rule to a minimal of 20 min duration if only running 1x per day and a minimal of 15 for the second run for the first 4 weeks. After the initial 28d period moving that first run minimal threshold to 30 min while keeping the second run threshold at 15min. record total running duration for that day on that day no matter what though.

x2 on this. I have tried the 100/100 challenge twice, and injured myself twice (I'm not very bright). I really like the idea of 20 minutes as the min for folks like me who, once started on a challenge, are mentally imbalanced and Type A enough to try and fight through pain in order to keep racking up points.

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Spot, why not just run slower?

I did this challenge on my own last season. I did 63 days straight then double runs for a total of 163 runs ib 163 days. I ran uncomfortably slow at times. More so for my ego. Some other tricks I used to vary things was; metronome, changing strides and shoes. Then again that was me and too each is own. btw I'll hit over 1400 mile this year.

James - est. as a Triathlete 1983
I want to try eating 100 bananas in 100 days.
Clarifying my reasoning for a mileage standard: BarryP's plan at 30 miles or 50 kilometers a week...short runs will be less than 30 minutes for many.
Quote:
Spot, why not just run slower?

A steep jump in volume increases injury risk
a Steep increase in the total % of faster running increases injury risk
Combining increases in both incurs a steeper than steep increase in injury risk

Running slower isn't a panacea for preventing injury when ramping volume.

Rotating shoes: This is a Most Excellent Point that everyone should heed. (Golf clap for Brothertri!)

Everyone should have at least 2-3 pair of different brands that they rotate through or at least different styles within the same brand.

People should not run in 1 pair of shoes until they die then get another pair and repeat the process.

Brian Stover
Accelerate3 Coaching
IG
desert dude wrote:
Quote:
Spot, why not just run slower?

A steep jump in volume increases injury risk
a Steep increase in the total % of faster running increases injury risk
Combining increases in both incurs a steeper than steep increase in injury risk

Running slower isn't a panacea for preventing injury when ramping volume.

Rotating shoes: This is a Most Excellent Point that everyone should heed. (Golf clap for Brothertri!)

Everyone should have at least 2-3 pair of different brands that they rotate through or at least different styles within the same brand.

People should not run in 1 pair of shoes until they die then get another pair and repeat the process.

Well, to the part in bold, I'll enter a grievance on behalf of my wife/family...."why does Dev need so many pairs of running shoes ????"....Answer, "Some guy on the internet who goes by Desertdude told him to run in 7 different pairs per week"

"Why is Dev listening to some guy in the internet called Desertdude instead of his family?"

....Answer, "No one listens to their family, there are always smart people on the internet whose words we can use to justify anything!!!"

Seriously though, agreed fully on the rotation of shoes scenario. It costs you no more than sequentially using one pair of shoes. Personally my rotation consists of a variety of shoes from several brands, not just the same shoe of different ages/aggregate mileage. Once in a while I will pull a pair of shoes I have not touched in 5 years. Often those shoes just fell out of the rotation because I had some niggle that seemed to be more pronounced in that shoe than others, so I put that shoe on the sidelines and long after the niggle is cleared up, the pair of shoes, did not make it back into the "starting lineup".
Timbikerun wrote:
8. There isn't enough hockey on TV

NHL Gamecenter. Worth it.
Timbikerun wrote:
So many grievances... Where to start?
9. Knicks suck

That's not a grievance. That's just a happy fact. My grievance is that the NBA exists at all.

John

HH wrote:
I want to try eating 100 bananas in 100 days.

I'm eating 100 liver sausage sandwiches in a 100 days!
7 pair, well beyond rookie status and into semi pro status.

call me when the rotation gets into double figures, or better yet have your wife call me so I can help you get out of hot water for too many shoes ;-)

Brian Stover
Accelerate3 Coaching
IG
BrotherTri wrote:
So the advocates of less than 30 minutes I proposed you just run slower.

Can't do. After about 12 years of racing track/xc and putting in enough miles to get pretty decent at it, my easy pace is 6:40. Even when I try to run slower, and if I'm only on 15 miles/week, I invariably get back to 6:40. Just the way it is. So I like the idea of a 4 mile threshold. But then again, I like the idea of sacking up and running an extra 0.5 miles to get to 30 min... Keep the rules as they are. Wussification be damned. If someone is too dumb to know this is a personal challenge that may need to be altered for their best interests, they deserve their comeuppance.
My peak shoe rotation was 16. Ridiculous...

Currently at 8 or so, with just about all needing to be replaced outside of the racers.

When we last moved, we needed 6 12-pair boxes for my shoes.

----------------------------------
"It ain't easy being green..."
xc800runner wrote:
Timbikerun wrote:

8. There isn't enough hockey on TV

NHL Gamecenter. Worth it.

You know what the best think about NHL on TV is?

Joe Buck doesn't do NHL

Quid Pro Cuervo
desert dude wrote:
7 pair, well beyond rookie status and into semi pro status.

call me when the rotation gets into double figures, or better yet have your wife call me so I can help you get out of hot water for too many shoes ;-)

LOL....I think there could be 20 in the rotation, but there are not enough days in the week. There are plenty of shoes sitting on the bench waiting to pinch hit if an niggle comes up and one or more pair get pushed out of the starting line up !!!

Now, ideally I need to get in the same scenario with bikes....there are two tri bikes, a folding bike, a spin bike, a road bike with the cranks that shall not be named, a trainer bike bolted to the Computrainer with clip on aero bars and a mountain bike in the "rotation". There is also an old softride beam bike which is in "project status" (not yet usable)....the crazy part is that I actually don't have a conventional road bike in the rotation as things stand.
randymar wrote:
You know what the best think about NHL on TV is?

Joe Buck doesn't do NHL

He's certainly no Doc Emrick. But I prefer Buck to Collinsworth.
xc800runner wrote:
BrotherTri wrote:
So the advocates of less than 30 minutes I proposed you just run slower.

Can't do. After about 12 years of racing track/xc and putting in enough miles to get pretty decent at it, my easy pace is 6:40. Even when I try to run slower, and if I'm only on 15 miles/week, I invariably get back to 6:40. Just the way it is. So I like the idea of a 4 mile threshold. But then again, I like the idea of sacking up and running an extra 0.5 miles to get to 30 min... Keep the rules as they are. Wussification be damned. If someone is too dumb to know this is a personal challenge that may need to be altered for their best interests, they deserve their comeuppance.
I like your point this is a personal challenge. Like I posted earlier I would be ok with a minimal distance of 4 mile. I am not the powers to be over that, if so I would make a minimal pace as well. I think overall that if people feeling like they will get injured they should not run. I think that plays to Paul's rant on stupid stuff.......

James - est. as a Triathlete 1983
You need to move 72 pair of shoes? That's beyond pro status and into I have a really big problem status! Well done!

Brian Stover
Accelerate3 Coaching
IG
I had about 30 pair of running shoes; 25 pair of my sneaker collection (Air Max 1s, Air Max 90s, Air Stabs, Pegasus 83s, Windrunners, etc.), then 15 pair of other assorted shoes.

Yeah. What happens when you work in the industry and part of your income is free footwear.

----------------------------------
"It ain't easy being green..."
I think overall that if people feeling like they will get injured they should not run. I think that plays to Paul's rant on stupid stuff.......[/quote]
YGBSM. So, trying to ramp up volume slowly so as to avoid injuries incurred in the past means people just shouldn't run? Huh?

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
If 10 minutes is that big of a deal in the make or break of possible injury then yes. That is in distance a possible 1 1/2 mile or about to a very slow mile. Those not wanting to do the 30 min run don't. You can do a 15 min in the am and 15 min in the pm (fast then slow). Whatever multiply runs to get your run on.

edit grammar and stuff

James - est. as a Triathlete 1983
Last edited by: BrotherTri: Dec 2, 14 13:40
The whole point, I thought, of the 100/100 run challenge was to help people who wanted to work on their run achieve some consistency, not make already good runners feel awesome about themselves. Now, for you, perhaps an additional 10 minutes is no big deal. However, you are, it appears, looking at it from a single day perspective. There isn't a whole lot of difference in running 20 minutes vs. 30 minutes for many people, if we're just talking about a single day. However, over the course of a week, it's 70 minutes more running; 210 minutes vs. 140 minutes. That can be quite the increase in run volume for many, and probably turns a fair number of folks off from even trying the challenge.

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
spot wrote:
The whole point, I thought, of the 100/100 run challenge was to help people who wanted to work on their run achieve some consistency, not make already good runners feel awesome about themselves. Now, for you, perhaps an additional 10 minutes is no big deal. However, you are, it appears, looking at it from a single day perspective. There isn't a whole lot of difference in running 20 minutes vs. 30 minutes for many people, if we're just talking about a single day. However, over the course of a week, it's 70 minutes more running; 210 minutes vs. 140 minutes. That can be quite the increase in run volume for many, and probably turns a fair number of folks off from even trying the challenge.

Spot

Spot is spot on....
spot wrote:
There isn't a whole lot of difference in running 20 minutes vs. 30 minutes for many people, if we're just talking about a single day. However, over the course of a week, it's 70 minutes more running; 210 minutes vs. 140 minutes. That can be quite the increase in run volume for many, and probably turns a fair number of folks off from even trying the challenge.

There is nothing wrong with running 15min every so often, it not counting in the total and finishing with 60 or 70 runs.

THe proposed change is not going to help the case you made. You still need to make up the missing 15min the next day.

I think people should accept that achieving 60 runs is an accomplishment and take a day off when needed or only run 15 mins.

Prev Next