Seemingly trivial things that cheer you up
Comments
-
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
0 -
It is now. When I was at it, the lowest tier was 3rd cat or (restricted gearing) junior, now there's a 4th.rick_chasey said:FWIW, I think the racing level in cycling is ludicrously high.
I watched that GCN+ documentary about getting these guys to race and the pace was unbelievable at the lower levels.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?0 -
I'm by no means remotely talented on the bike but I am keen and I do it a lot.pinno said:
It is now. When I was at it, the lowest tier was 3rd cat or (restricted gearing) junior, now there's a 4th.rick_chasey said:FWIW, I think the racing level in cycling is ludicrously high.
I watched that GCN+ documentary about getting these guys to race and the pace was unbelievable at the lower levels.
No chance I could realistically keep up in a 4th cat without a much bigger training commitment, even in my 20s.
One part of the sport that has really disappointed me. I love racing bikes. Never been able to do it properly. Just a few sprints to the top of the hill or the bus stop sign.0 -
It's slightly quicker than the pace I ran Parkrun in last Saturday so certainly feels like it should be very achievable for a sportswoman at the peak of their fitness. It almost doesn't seem worth bothering with it as a criteria to be honest (and doesn't feel very relevant to cricket where you are performing very short occasional bursts of speed.surrey_commuter said:
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?
For context I think the current minimum requirement for the British Army is 11:15 for 2km which seems ridiculously easy (other tests such as the loaded march are probably tougher and more relevant though).0 -
I'd guess that West Indian spinner won't be able to manage it.surrey_commuter said:
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?0 -
The thing I noticed most when I decided to try racing again after a 12 year break was the amount of people coming into the sport with high levels of fitness but lacking the experience of riding in a group. I'm pretty sure that was why there were far more crashes, when I first started out beginners (myself included) got shelled out early and there would only be maybe 20-30 left at the end. My thinking when I tried to get back into it was that I had a couple of seasons to get fit again before becoming a vet and being able to be competitive, that was when I discovered that a lot of the top local riders from my first stint had never stopped racing and despite now being vets they were still winning regularly against 20 year olds so the vets racing wasn't the easier option we hoped. I think in general as a population we've got a majority that are getting less fit and healthy but at the other end a group of people who are fitness obsessives, at that time I tried to get back into bike racing (2009-2013) cycling was the fashionable sport for those people to take up. I'm not sure if that is still the case, it's still far more popular as a hobby than it was in the late 80s / early 90s but I've lost track of the local race scene - I'm not sure there are that many events anymore especially 'proper' road races.pinno said:
It is now. When I was at it, the lowest tier was 3rd cat or (restricted gearing) junior, now there's a 4th.rick_chasey said:FWIW, I think the racing level in cycling is ludicrously high.
I watched that GCN+ documentary about getting these guys to race and the pace was unbelievable at the lower levels.0 -
i take your point about the relevance but it is for limited overs and I think the presence of a "pub cricketer" could cost you a lot of runs.Pross said:
It's slightly quicker than the pace I ran Parkrun in last Saturday so certainly feels like it should be very achievable for a sportswoman at the peak of their fitness. It almost doesn't seem worth bothering with it as a criteria to be honest (and doesn't feel very relevant to cricket where you are performing very short occasional bursts of speed.surrey_commuter said:
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?
For context I think the current minimum requirement for the British Army is 11:15 for 2km which seems ridiculously easy (other tests such as the loaded march are probably tougher and more relevant though).
The fact that is is "very achievable" suggests it also weeds out those lacking commitment0 -
It would make more sense to have a beep test requirement. That's more suited to determining if someone is able to sprint hard for 50m chasing a ball, recover for a minute and then do it again. Being able to run steadily for 2k isn't really a good measure of whether someone can do that either way (they could be missing someone who is very quick over short sprints as well as accepting someone with now speed off the mark).surrey_commuter said:
i take your point about the relevance but it is for limited overs and I think the presence of a "pub cricketer" could cost you a lot of runs.Pross said:
It's slightly quicker than the pace I ran Parkrun in last Saturday so certainly feels like it should be very achievable for a sportswoman at the peak of their fitness. It almost doesn't seem worth bothering with it as a criteria to be honest (and doesn't feel very relevant to cricket where you are performing very short occasional bursts of speed.surrey_commuter said:
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?
For context I think the current minimum requirement for the British Army is 11:15 for 2km which seems ridiculously easy (other tests such as the loaded march are probably tougher and more relevant though).
The fact that is is "very achievable" suggests it also weeds out those lacking commitment0 -
It's the sort of thing that is doable just with flippin' guts though isnt it.
A fully fit person would do it easily, but an unfit person with drive could also do it collapsing over the line in tears of rage. Both things are important. (It could even be argued that the latter is more important)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ok so here's my fitness breakdown:Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
Peak fitness (to me) was probably 2018 - 31y/o, just pre kids, just off 8 months commuting in London, 11 miles each way, every day + a solid 2h chaingaing twice a week (one regents park, one london dynamo). Did the RL100 in 4:25, dropped from my first (and only) cat4 race at Gravesend (for those who know).
Did a 70mile ride around East Anglia ave 20mph, did the Tourmalet, Club des Cingles de Mont Ventoux among others. Felt fit as a fiddle.
Joined a chaingang in Cambridge - barely held on.
Since then I have had 2 kids, pretty much stopped riding altogether, commute 1 mile (maybe 2) to work so took up a bit of running off and on. We're talking 10k per week (2x5) maybe 20k if I can do a 10K as well. I am about 6ft 75kg, waist size 33in - so always been very much 'medium build'
I would target 4:45-5m/km, but then since October I got some new shoes and a Garmin watch, upped the distance and intensity (bad idea) but would also turn myself inside out once a week doing intervals (new max hr of 196). I can run a KM in about 3:40 and I think I was pretty close to going sub 20 for a 5k. My speed has increased so much in such a short space of time, I could hardly believe it.
Have now got some knee damage so all bets are off but assuming I can get back out again, my 2023 goal is a half marathon in 90. I think it's achievable.
0 -
as you say none of those things are specific to cricket and does not sound that onerous so seems more of a message that you must turn up in shape.Pross said:
It would make more sense to have a beep test requirement. That's more suited to determining if someone is able to sprint hard for 50m chasing a ball, recover for a minute and then do it again. Being able to run steadily for 2k isn't really a good measure of whether someone can do that either way (they could be missing someone who is very quick over short sprints as well as accepting someone with now speed off the mark).surrey_commuter said:
i take your point about the relevance but it is for limited overs and I think the presence of a "pub cricketer" could cost you a lot of runs.Pross said:
It's slightly quicker than the pace I ran Parkrun in last Saturday so certainly feels like it should be very achievable for a sportswoman at the peak of their fitness. It almost doesn't seem worth bothering with it as a criteria to be honest (and doesn't feel very relevant to cricket where you are performing very short occasional bursts of speed.surrey_commuter said:
Could I ask an opinion of you runners.Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
South Africa ladies cricket have a selection criteria of being able to do 2k under 9:30. My question is - is that harsh or something any professional sports person should be able to do?
For context I think the current minimum requirement for the British Army is 11:15 for 2km which seems ridiculously easy (other tests such as the loaded march are probably tougher and more relevant though).
The fact that is is "very achievable" suggests it also weeds out those lacking commitment0 -
-
I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.0
-
Runners are people on the verge of being injured or are injured in a permanent basis it seems and will be cripples by the time they are 55.shirley_basso said:
Ok so here's my fitness breakdown:Pross said:
I've been running regularly for about 7 years now doing around 1000 miles on some of those years (dropped off a lot in the last year or two as my motivation disappeared) with over 180 Parkruns and several other 5ks under my belt plus numerous half marathons and about 8 marathons. You're already over 2 minutes quicker than me! When I was cycling regularly and racing back in my late teens and early 20s I had the physiology that I should have been finishing near the front and could hold my own on climbs when I was in the mood but lacked the mental capacity to push when it got hard which combined with poor bunch positioning meant I counted not getting dropped as a good result. Even now I look around in running races and wonder why I'm not beating most of those just in front of me who are older, fatter or both and the only rational answer is that they are prepared to push harder when it starts to hurt.shirley_basso said:
After 3 months of taking running a bit more seriously, I got to 54 last month - and by serious, I mean 2-3 runs per week with some structured intervals etc, got my 5K pb down to 20:15 (so comparatively slow). As per the other thread - a lot of it just comes down to physiology.rick_chasey said:
Nice. I scored that when I was commuting every day plus club runs in my 20s, so that’s very good going!!Pross said:With VO2 max getting discussed elsewhere this cheered me up. The number itself doesn’t seem much but I do like the description (appreciate Garmin just makes an estimate but I get very similar results using a bleep test or Cooper’s test as well)
Peak fitness (to me) was probably 2018 - 31y/o, just pre kids, just off 8 months commuting in London, 11 miles each way, every day + a solid 2h chaingaing twice a week (one regents park, one london dynamo). Did the RL100 in 4:25, dropped from my first (and only) cat4 race at Gravesend (for those who know).
Did a 70mile ride around East Anglia ave 20mph, did the Tourmalet, Club des Cingles de Mont Ventoux among others. Felt fit as a fiddle.
Joined a chaingang in Cambridge - barely held on.
Since then I have had 2 kids, pretty much stopped riding altogether, commute 1 mile (maybe 2) to work so took up a bit of running off and on. We're talking 10k per week (2x5) maybe 20k if I can do a 10K as well. I am about 6ft 75kg, waist size 33in - so always been very much 'medium build'
I would target 4:45-5m/km, but then since October I got some new shoes and a Garmin watch, upped the distance and intensity (bad idea) but would also turn myself inside out once a week doing intervals (new max hr of 196). I can run a KM in about 3:40 and I think I was pretty close to going sub 20 for a 5k. My speed has increased so much in such a short space of time, I could hardly believe it.
Have now got some knee damage so all bets are off but assuming I can get back out again, my 2023 goal is a half marathon in 90. I think it's achievable.
I used to get the runners coming to my Table tennis sessions in winter for fitness (as they said) and they were the slowest, least flexible and most flat footed individuals you could ever try and teach Table Tennis to. I could wrong foot them blind folded.
So Shirley Basso (all 75kg's) wants to chug along 20km's of tarmac with fancy shoes on after seeing the Haile Gebrselassie's and the Mo Farrah's et al glide along at silly speed and want to emulate them except.... Haile was 54kg's.
Dennis Kipruto Kimetto: 55kg's.
Kenenisa Bekele 56kg's
Marathon and half marathon runner - Eliud Kipchoge: 52kg's.
You're asking your body to do something it isn't designed to do.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Who said anything about emulating Haile Gebreselassie?
You sound like one of those people slagging of cyclists for wearing pro jerseys.
There's more to life than table tennis, Forrest Gump.1 -
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
0 -
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease0 -
Lol.shirley_basso said:Who said anything about emulating Haile Gebreselassie?
You sound like one of those people slagging of cyclists for wearing pro jerseys.
There's more to life than table tennis, Forrest Gump.
There's irony there given that Forrest Gump waned to run and keep on running...
I understand why some cyclists want to switch to running, especially when they are time limited.
There is also a rough height to weight ratio guideline (see bottom link).
So distance is determined by body weight, no?
https://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank01.html#:~:text=However, a distance runner needs,124 lbs to 117 lbs.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Do you think Warne have been able to do it? Would you have dropped him?surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease0 -
How about David Boon or Mike GattingTheBigBean said:
Do you think Warne have been able to do it? Would you have dropped him?surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 -
He's never going to pass with ease. Maybe it will mean he moves a bit better in the field, maybe it means his knees give up sooner.surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease0 -
I think he would have done it easily. But taking your point I think he would have made sure that he did.TheBigBean said:
Do you think Warne have been able to do it? Would you have dropped him?surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease
Or do the test as a competitive run and if you can't beat Warne then you dn't get picked0 -
I think he would have passed at some points in his career and failed at others.surrey_commuter said:
I think he would have done it easily. But taking your point I think he would have made sure that he did.TheBigBean said:
Do you think Warne have been able to do it? Would you have dropped him?surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease
Or do the test as a competitive run and if you can't beat Warne then you dn't get picked
There was a story about how Michael Clark's form dipped considerably on one tour because he was going out with Warne most nights. He eventually came to the same realisation as everyone else that only Warne could get away with it.0 -
Isn't that just giving an optimum weight to height ratio? I've run regularly for around 7 years and don't think my weight has ever been below 182 pounds (6' 1") in that time and has been over 200 pounds (albeit that was partly because I wasn't running regularly). I've probably generally been between 185 and 190 when racing regularly and I certainly perform better when my weight is lower. I've read that you can gain 2 or 3 seconds per mile for every pound less you carry which seems fairly well reflected in my times but it's hard to judge as my weight is generally directly related to my fitness.pinno said:
Lol.shirley_basso said:Who said anything about emulating Haile Gebreselassie?
You sound like one of those people slagging of cyclists for wearing pro jerseys.
There's more to life than table tennis, Forrest Gump.
There's irony there given that Forrest Gump waned to run and keep on running...
I understand why some cyclists want to switch to running, especially when they are time limited.
There is also a rough height to weight ratio guideline (see bottom link).
So distance is determined by body weight, no?
https://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank01.html#:~:text=However, a distance runner needs,124 lbs to 117 lbs.
However, despite being heavy for a runner and also not getting any younger I haven't had any joint related injuries and the only issue I really get is very tight calf muscles which were also a problem when I used to try to run in my late teens when I was all of 150 pounds. Shoe choice and running style probably have more affect on injury than weight but the biggest cause of injury is almost certainly people doing too much too soon.0 -
difficult to guess whether he would have stuck two fingers up at the authoritanian nature of it or whether that would have been crushed by his competitive nature.TheBigBean said:
I think he would have passed at some points in his career and failed at others.surrey_commuter said:
I think he would have done it easily. But taking your point I think he would have made sure that he did.TheBigBean said:
Do you think Warne have been able to do it? Would you have dropped him?surrey_commuter said:
Being more mobile in the field will save runs. I think one of India's problems is having too many liabilities in the field such as Rohit and Ashwin. I would also support an argument that it shows a poor attitude from a professional sports person that they turn up out of shape.kingstongraham said:
Apparently it's 8:30 for men, and Magala missed matches because he could only do 8:42 until last November. Fair play if he can do that now, but why would you want him to?kingstongraham said:I can't imagine Magala doing 2km never mind in 9:30. So not sure why you'd axe the captain because she can't run for that long.
Surely anybody who cared would be timing 2kms runs all the time so they knew they could pass with ease
Or do the test as a competitive run and if you can't beat Warne then you dn't get picked
There was a story about how Michael Clark's form dipped considerably on one tour because he was going out with Warne most nights. He eventually came to the same realisation as everyone else that only Warne could get away with it.0 -
Currently using a (very long) free trial of Apple Music.
It cheers me up that it blends songs into one another as though a dj is playing.
No idea if it’s a really complex or stupidly simple bit of coding but it works so much better than disjointed gaps.0 -
When Waze sends you on a rat run to avoid motorway standstill and you pop out 50m ahead of the police who have stopped all lanes.0
-
rick_chasey said:
When Waze sends you on a rat run to avoid motorway standstill and you pop out 50m ahead of the police who have stopped all lanes.
It's less satisfactory when it does the same a bit later in the timeline and too late realise it's sent you down the same single-track road (with passing places) as everyone else, from both directions. The knack is to try to get well away from the obvious diversions, if you have local knowledge.0 -
Ha, my January 'lectric consumption, which includes heating, was £2 less this year than last.0
