Running

Pross

I've entered the Cardiff Half Marathon in October having previously done the Bristol twice (2004 and 2005). My previous two efforts weren't great and both around 2 hours 15 minutes when at my least fit. The first time out I only did about 5 runs with the longest being around 5 or 6 miles, the second time I did more and up to around 9 or 10 miles but stupidly went on a diet the week before the race, had a late night the night before and bonked just after half way having been on target to easily beat two hours.

So this time I'm aiming to do it properly. I have been out twice this week over a 4 mile circuit - my first running of any sort in over two years. I needed a couple of walking sections on Saturday due partly to a stitch and also due to my legs aching but got around in 40 minutes. Last night I went over 2 minutes quicker with just one walking section (again due to a stitch).

I just wanted to pick to pick the brains of those of you on here who have done a lot of running for ideas of how best to train. My aim is to get under 2 hours as a minimum but ideally I'd like to get down to about 1.45 or 1.50 and my own brief training plan is:-

1. Start going out before eating so I don't get a stitch! :oops:
2. Stick with my current distance for a couple of weeks until it gets comfortable and I get down to around 35 minutes for the loop.
3. Start building the distance slowly.
4. Start introducing intervals (sorry 'Fartlek') into the routine and running faster on shorter sessions.
5. Add in some hill sessions.

Can anyone advise if the above is about right as the skeleton of a training plan and, if so, help flesh it out into a decent session plan please? I know there are training plans on running websites but they all seen very generic like the sportive training plans I've seen. I know that with 6 months to work at it I'll have no problem getting around so my aim is to get around as quickly as I can. I'm looking to get out 3 or 4 times a week - the beauty of running is that it is far easier to fit it in around everything else than cycling.

Daz555

How old are you?

Pross

41 but feel at least 60

DeVlaeminck

Years since I ran but if you can stay injury free 1.45 off 3-4 sessions a week should be a formality. However staying injury free is not. I would keep to easy running and build up the time gradually rather than try and get faster.

When you can go out and run comfortably for an hour lift the pace a little - experiment with 3-4 miles at race pace in the middle of a 6-7 miler or do mile on/off over/under race pace but limited amounts. I wouldn't bother with hills you will be strong on them from the cycling and they are a good way tp pick up calf injuries.

southdownswolf

I've not run Cardiff Half Marathon, but looking at the website it says that the course is predominately flat, so I wouldn't worry too much about hills for this event.
I'm currently coaching a couple of friends to do the Beachy Head Marathon in October, that has the odd hill or ten, so we are about to incorporate hill training :twisted:

As for a training plan, are you going to be doing plenty of cycling alongside the running?

If running is to be the main priority, then 3-4 times a week should soon see the fitness build up.
Rather than making a plan of what you will do each day, just try to incorporate specific training for the week.
I would stick to something like this to begin with
2 x 3-4 mile runs at a steady pace
1 x speed training
1 x long run - preferably off road.

For speed training I tend to run on the seafront and use the lampposts for measuring. Sprint one, jog one, sprint one, jog etc. A mile to warm up, 800m of speed training, a mile to warm down. Gradually build up the distance of speed training over time.
Long run - build up gradually, try to do this off road as much as possible to save impact on the joints, specifically the knees.
Don't get too obsessed with running each loop quicker than the previous session, just get miles under your legs at this stage. The speed training will make you quicker, not running a 4 mile loop.

Pross

Thanks both. I'm quite happy to give the hills a miss, they were something I'd seen previously in a generic plan. Cycling wise I'm probably going to limit myself to the commute a couple of times a week on non-running days and maybe a few longer rides but I haven't been doing much for quite a while now. Hopefully concentrating on the running for the next 6 months will make me look forward to riding again in the future!

ai_1

I did my first half marathon the weekend before last. I'd done a small amount of running on and off over the past 18 months. Rarely more than 3 or 4km and with no consistency. My only races before the half marathon were three 5km races and a single 10km last year which at the time was really beyond my range and although I managed a reasonable time I was in bits afterwards.

From the above you can see I'm no expert, sounds like you've more experience than I do but here's my experience:

In January I started running with 8km at a moderate pace on Saturday mornings on forest tracks and a couple of shorter road runs in the evenings during the week. Over 6 weeks I gradually increased my Saturday distance from 8km up to 15km. I was typically doing a fastish 4 or 5km on Monday or Tuesday night and a fairly easy run on Thursday night starting at around 6km and working up to 10km. Then I had to back off for a couple of weeks!
I hadn't been cycling much since Christmas but then increased my cycling in mid February. This had unforeseen consequences!!! My hamstrings and glutes tightened up as soon as I started doing more cycling causing pain in my hip and lower back after the longer runs. I went to the physio, got "dry needling" on my glute and started doing appropriate stretches. It took a couple of weeks during which I kept my runs short but by early March I was able to run 10km+ again without problems. I kept the early week runs short and fast and built up distance again on weekends (up to 17.5km by the week before the half marathon) and Thursdays (typically 9 to 13km)

In terms of pace I was doing around 5m30s to 5m45s/km pace for my long weekend runs. My short midweek runs varied from 5m05s to 5m20s/km pace and my longer mid week runs varied - some were moderate effort constant pace, some were fartlek with some hills.

I was aiming for a time of 1hr 55min for the event but reckoned that might be over-optimistic especially as the route is pretty hilly and has a particularly demoralising 3km long steepish hill starting at the 15km mark. On the day there was a bit of headwind too (It was one direction not a loop) so I was amazed and delighted to do it in just over 1hr 52min. I reckon on a calm flat course 1:48 would have been very realistic.

Anyway, I think I got this about right except for the inadequate stretching and ensuing problems when I cranked up the cycling. I started training with reasonable existing cardio fitness from cycling but the muscular demands and intensity of running are very different.

If you plan to continue riding a reasonable amount while training for the HM i think 3 runs a week is about right. Your plan looks compatible with the approach I took and you have more time so you should be fine. If you ran before you probably know but running definitely needs more attention to stretching than cycling does. Especially post run and cycle stretching.

With regards eating before running. I just gave myself an hour or so between eating and running and never had any problems.


P.S.
Wrote this reply before lunch and forgot to post it so it may be superceeded by other posts in the mean time!

southdownswolf

I find that with a lot of cycling my legs tend to feel heavy when running. Obviously cycling uses muscles in a different way and I soon notice if I up my cycling compared to my running!

One thing worth checking out are the Park Run series. These are located all around the country on a Saturday morning at 9am. They are FREE events, just register on the website, print off a barcode and turn up!
http://www.parkrun.org.uk/

They are 5k races, with people of all standards and ages running together. You get 90 year grannies down to 2 year old kids running and it is all about improving YOUR time, no Billy big b*ll*cks ego boasting.
I turned up at an "away" event once when visiting my mother and was beaten by an 11 year old girl...

Pross

By chance I registered for Parkrun this morning and aim to do my first one on Saturday with a target time of sub 30 minutes (should be doable based on my slightly longer runs so far). It's a slightly lumpy circuit but nothing much.

One thing I've noticed having recorded my two runs to date is that there seems to be far less ego on Strava amongst runners. The route I run is quite heavily used by running clubs and individuals but there were no segments at all (until I made a couple for my own benefit!).

feltkuota

Sir, Noting you were not at your fitest for @ 2.15 that equates to 10.17 a mile. Looking at a 1.45 is down to 8min miling. That's quite a big difference in pace to take off. I would suggest, as someone said above, 3-4 runs per week. One long run adding a mile per week. One steady 5 miles, one interval session of 10k with 6-8 intervals of 800m-1k taking a minute between intervals. Add another 5 mile steady if time allows. It's always good to have goals but I wouldn't set your target time for the event until nearer September once you know what you can do for a 10k and 10 miler. Basically, you'll need to be able to run around 75-80mins for 10 miles to target @ 1.45 for the half

southdownswolf

Pross wrote:

By chance I registered for Parkrun this morning and aim to do my first one on Saturday with a target time of sub 30 minutes (should be doable based on my slightly longer runs so far). It's a slightly lumpy circuit but nothing much.

One thing I've noticed having recorded my two runs to date is that there seems to be far less ego on Strava amongst runners. The route I run is quite heavily used by running clubs and individuals but there were no segments at all (until I made a couple for my own benefit!).

Strava hasn't been used much by the running community as it was originally for cycling only. It tends to be those of us that cycle and run that use it, rather than just runners. I'm sure over time that will change ;-)

mamba80

if you ve not run for 2yrs then a 4 mile loop is too much, you should walk/run to start with, running is a great way to pick up injuries, usually calf and shin splint stuff, your cycling has given you great fitness but has done nothing for your running form.
Hill reps are great to increase stride length and power, regardless of your target event.

southdownswolf

mamba80 wrote:

Hill reps are great to increase stride length and power, regardless of your target event.

Increasing stride length is not something that you should necessarily be looking at doing. A higher cadence with a shorter stride length is not only more efficient, but it also results in less injuries as the feet tend not to have as much impact as they hit the ground.
If you look at the top endurance runners, the majority of them will have a high cadence with shorter stride.

dave in swansea

Hi Pross.
I used to run a lot (a long time ago) and have found it hard to restart as I always had memories of how far and fast I used to run. Over the winter I trained following a "zero to hero" plan and ran a 5k in half hour.
With running the,importance of stretching and warming up cannot be under estimated. Mainly you are preparing your body for the impacts with running.
As you have plenty of time I would string together a couple of generic plans and go at it gently. In addition to fitness you have to train your joints and tendons to withstand the impacts.
Dave.

ai_1

southdownswolf wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Hill reps are great to increase stride length and power, regardless of your target event.

Increasing stride length is not something that you should necessarily be looking at doing. A higher cadence with a shorter stride length is not only more efficient, but it also results in less injuries as the feet tend not to have as much impact as they hit the ground.
If you look at the top endurance runners, the majority of them will have a high cadence with shorter stride.

Agreed. In fact I've made a point of increasing my running cadence to eliminate over-striding and heel striking. This along with adopting minimalist shoes has vastly improved my running form. My cadence is now typically 93 on an easy run or 95+ when I'm really moving. This felt odd for the first one or two runs but VERY quickly became a much more natural feeling way to run. I enjoy running much more now than I did before.

As above, start slow if you haven't been doing any running recently. When I started 18 months or so back I initially ran less than 1km per session for the first week and broke that into blocks of about 300 or 400m walking in between. I could have done much more but this eased me in gradually with less risk of injury plus a faster pace for a short distance is a good way to keep conscious of HOW you're running. Form deteriorates as you tire leading to bad habits and injuries. A gradual start will pay dividends. There's a particular temptation to overdo it when you're already fit from cycling but best to resist it.

Pross

Thanks again. On the subject of stride length I felt last night I should be working on lengthening it as it felt like my steps were short. My thinking was I'd cover the ground more quickly and efficiently and that it would take fewer steps to cover the distance therefore less impacts. Sounds like sticking to what feels natural is best. One good thing is I don't lift my feet far at all (sometimes to the point I almost trip) so hopefully that minimises impact. As I have a very high arch I've always been cautious of running 'hard' on the ground.

Just need to get new trainers now as my existing ones are reaching the end of their life. Ideally I want to replace them with the same model as they were recommended following gait analysis and did me well in the past with no real aches and pains. Hopefully a running shop can match them up as I know they are Adidas Response but not which particular model.

Oh, and I'm very aware of a lack of flexibility so I'm trying to stretch when I finish and then go for a walk to warm down. I couldn't believe quite how bad my flexibility has got though, I can only reach to the top of my ankles with my fingertips.

ai_1

Pross wrote:

Thanks again. On the subject of stride length I felt last night I should be working on lengthening it as it felt like my steps were short. My thinking was I'd cover the ground more quickly and efficiently and that it would take fewer steps to cover the distance therefore less impacts. Sounds like sticking to what feels natural is best. One good thing is I don't lift my feet far at all (sometimes to the point I almost trip) so hopefully that minimises impact. As I have a very high arch I've always been cautious of running 'hard' on the ground.

Just need to get new trainers now as my existing ones are reaching the end of their life. Ideally I want to replace them with the same model as they were recommended following gait analysis and did me well in the past with no real aches and pains. Hopefully a running shop can match them up as I know they are Adidas Response but not which particular model.

Oh, and I'm very aware of a lack of flexibility so I'm trying to stretch when I finish and then go for a walk to warm down. I couldn't believe quite how bad my flexibility has got though, I can only reach to the top of my ankles with my fingertips.

If you're trying to minimise impact then definitely don't try to lengthen your stride. It'll do exactly the opposite. Shorter but faster strides are much better both in terms of the loads involved and how you contact the ground. When you overstride your heel tends to hit the ground first with your foot ahead of you. Ideally you want to land midfoot beneath you. There's a lot of debate around what's most efficient and fastest but I think the consensus would agree with me regarding impact.
Ground clearance shouldn't be that critical to impact l think. It's vertical movement of your centre of gravity that will effect this as it determines the force required to launch and land. You need more altitude if your strides take longer thus higher cadence being better for lowering impact.

mamba80

did I say "aim to over stride" ? landing on your heel is usually bad, you need your arch to help absorb impact, lo/pro shoes take a bit of getting used to, my friend, a physio says their use has boosted her client base!
increasing stride length isn't about reaching fwd with your lead leg, its about increasing the time you are in the air, whilst always keeping body weight centred over the leg as it lands, preferably mid foot strike, so your cadence will stay the same or increase and the amount of ground covered with each stride is increased.
hill reps provide a higher landing point decreasing impact, increase strike rate (avoiding over striding) and boost leg strength but need to be done progressively and once good running form is built.
we all know nothing about Pross's running form, leg length or anything really, so advice is difficult to give - maybe a plan is to join a decent running club?

morstar

Eating. Running in a fasted state, as you suggest is something that longer distance runners can do to condition the body to using fat as fuel. It's effectiveness isn't uniformly agreed upon but it should only be used for LSR efforts. Not high intensity sessions.
Two things I'd recommend having gone from not running to ultra running over the last two years. Don't worry about speed yet. Just go far more slowly. 8 min miles aren't fast but unless you're eventually capable of 6 min miles, I'd say staring out with 8 min miles is a big ask for your body to adapt to. Run slowly, run / walk and get comfortable on your feet to the point where you don't get stitch and your body doesn't ache after running. Then introduce intensity gradually. This is the key to avoiding injuries. I started at 41 with speed objectives based on what I could as an 18 year old and had major disappointments. Speed sessions made me ache like hell.
Secondly. Do hills. They are you friend. Let you introduce high intensity work and shorten your stride without the hammering that speed work gives you.

I run 30 ish miles per week.
1 x hill reps. 4-5 miles
1 or 2 tempo runs 6 ish miles each.
1 x LSR. Usually around 18 miles.
Only do speed session occasionally. Tempo runs are solid runs where I'll often fartlek in a really hard mile or two when feeling strong.

In terms of expectation. If I were to run a road marathon I'd be expecting 3:30 -3:45 fish so were probably not dissimilar in ability. Trust me when I say 8 min miles are fast when starting out. Even if you did run sub 7 minute miles as an 18 year old.
Just to add. I run trails so my road running amounts to about 2 miles per week between trails. If you have countryside, use it. You'll become a far more versatile runner.

paultheparaglider

I agree with the above advice.

I used to be a keen runner until I broke a leg and ankle very badly that ended my running days. My half marathon times were around the 1 hr 20 to 1 hr 25 at Pross's age, so nothing really special, but a good club runner standard.

For half and full marathons there is no substitute for putting in the miles. The best advice I was ever given was to throw away my stopwatch and just put the miles in.

Add to this, the occasional hard session that really pushes the heart rate such as short hill repeats or fartlek sessions help build the speed, and the odd five miler where you really give it everything will help.

But, mostly, it is about slogging out lots of relatively easy miles. I would personally be running more than 3 times a week - more like 5 to get enough miles in including the occasional high heart rate session.

DeVlaeminck

Agree not to lengthen the stride and don't intentionally heel strike if you don't already (whether it's worth actively trying not to is a bit more debatable - probably not unless you want to run long term). Studies suggest motion control shoes do nothing to reduce injury and if it were me I'd choose a relatively light neutral trainer but not a minimalist racing flat - each to their own though.

Agree 8 minute miles are fast straight off - typical long run pace for someone aiming at a sub3 marathon. I still think injury free 1.45 is likely though - get 3 months regular running under your belt and suddenly you get a breakthrough when it starts feeling easy.

Still disagree about hills ask most cyclists who used to be runners why they gave up, injury is the first second and third most likely reason why you wont achieve 1.45. The fourth would be you have a crap running style (normally people who have been out of sport for a long time) and the fifth you weigh too much.

One thing about technique, the runner behind you should be able to see the soles of your feet (not both at once though!)

I'm happy to be wrong though - my advice is based mainly on the mistakes I made - and there were many.

ai_1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Agree not to lengthen the stride and don't intentionally heel strike if you don't already (whether it's worth actively trying not to is a bit more debatable - probably not unless you want to run long term). Studies suggest motion control shoes do nothing to reduce injury and if it were me I'd choose a relatively light neutral trainer but not a minimalist racing flat - each to their own though.

Agree 8 minute miles are fast straight off - typical long run pace for someone aiming at a sub3 marathon. I still think injury free 1.45 is likely though - get 3 months regular running under your belt and suddenly you get a breakthrough when it starts feeling easy.

Still disagree about hills ask most cyclists who used to be runners why they gave up, injury is the first second and third most likely reason why you wont achieve 1.45. The fourth would be you have a crap running style (normally people who have been out of sport for a long time) and the fifth you weigh too much.

One thing about technique, the runner behind you should be able to see the soles of your feet (not both at once though!)

I'm happy to be wrong though - my advice is based mainly on the mistakes I made - and there were many.

I agree with all of this unless you've a history of running injuries and poor running technique in which case I think footwear deserves a lot of attention. I'd strongly advocate less rather than more to address the cause rather than the symptoms.

On the subject of footwear:
I got gait analysis done several years ago when I started running previously and was advised to get heavily cushioned motion control shoes to "correct" some over-pronation. So, I did and they felt fairly comfortable walking around and pretty plush running. However they also allowed absolutely no feedback and rather than correcting anything they masked a whole host of bad habits. After a few months I had major knee problems and quit running for a while. I tried getting back into it repeatedly over the next year or two but every time my knees caused problems pretty much straight away. I saw a physio, got them scanned (no structural issues), tried strengthening excercises etc all to no avail. So I took up cycling instead!

Then in 2012 I decided to give running one more try but did some homework first. After spending a lot of time researching what info I could find I decided the minimalist approach made sense to me (although I don't buy into some of the more extreme views some proponents have!). My intention was to develop a better running style and avoid the causes of injury rather than continuing to run badly and compensating for my horrible technique with orthotics, stabilising soles and cushioning. Minimalist running shoes often get a bad press because a lot of people switch to them carelessly and start running 5km+ from day one. Thus the comments from physios that minimalist running is generating customers. In reality nearly every one of those customers are people who didn't transition gradually.
I used Merrell Barefoot Trail Gloves which are very minimalist shoes with no heel to toe drop or cushioning whatsoever. Initially I wore them around the house and for walks for a couple of weeks and then then I started running very gradually as I mentioned in a previous post. I ran less than 1km initially and did that in short 300 or 400m segments walking in between. I was concentrating on how I ran rather than how far or how fast. You MUST allow lots of time for your feet and lower legs to adapt. Tendons, ligaments and bone take more time to adapt than muscle so don't rush it. I was fine while running but my calves were quite sore and my achilles felt tight afterwards for the first few weeks. My feet would also get a little sore running off-road on broken, gravelly surfaces. So I don't think I was being too cautious! I can't remember exactly but I think it took me about 6 weeks to run 3km non-stop.
I was surprised how different it felt running in minimalist shoes and I really liked it. Within a couple of months my lower legs and feet felt far stronger and I was delighted to have no problems with my knees this time!
Initially I thought I might revert to normal running shoes for longer runs but when I put back on normal runners I absolutely hated them - the chunky heel made it impossible for me to run the way I wanted and I had no fluidity. So I got some Merrell Bare Access shoes which are still very minimal but have a little cushioning. These are what I used for the recent half marathon and I was perfectly comfortable throughout (well my feet were anyway!)

So what's my point!? :shock:
If you're still reading, my point is that minimalist shoes can work really well and I think they're a much more convincing approach to tackling a lot of bio-mechanical issues than orthotics and motion control shoes.
However; you do need to start very gradually and if conventional running shoes are working for you then there may not be much incentive to change. If you're curious, I'd highly recommend giving them a try - even if it's just for some technique work while doing your main runs in conventional shoes.

Pross

Thanks all. It looks like stride length is running's equivalent to cadence in cycling with contrasting opinion. I suppose the answer, as with cadence, is to stick with what feels natural and comfortable (certainly at my age!). In terms of the 8 minute miles, that's just a fairly random target based on needing to submit a target time (1.50) when entering and would be a best case scenario after 6 months of training. I'm currently around 9.30 over 4 miles so I realise it's a long way to go. My main aim is to go sub 2 hour which I feel is achievable.

The whole heel strike thing interests me. I first saw this mentioned a few weeks back and until then I had always assumed that to be a natural motion - foot down on the heel, rotate through to the toe and push into your next step in a sort of circular motion.

ai_1

Pross wrote:

The whole heel strike thing interests me. I first saw this mentioned a few weeks back and until then I had always assumed that to be a natural motion - foot down on the heel, rotate through to the toe and push into your next step in a sort of circular motion.

Jogging and running only became a common form of exercise in the western world in very recent history. Correct me if Im wrong but I think it would have been considered a pretty odd thing to do until well into the last century. As people took to sedentary jobs in the middle of last century it became popular among non-athletes as a way to keep fit and has stayed that way since. As a result the running shoe industry became big business and in the 70s the modern cushioned running shoe was invented. They started appearing with cushioned heels to combat the proliferation of injuries among inexperienced casual joggers with bad running form, i.e. heel strikers. They've gotten higher heeled and more cushioned over time as a response to the running style they encourage which is the very heel striking they're intended to protect you from.
Essentially modern running shoes companies got into a cushioning battle that resulted in shoes that make no sense. The problems they solve are largely the problems they themselves cause for a lot of people. They take the focus off prevention and instead provide only a partial cure. Loads of people heel strike and many get away with it but lots more who don't like me. It has become a normal way of running facilitated by heavily cushioned heels. It wasn't normal until quite recently and few people would suggest it's optimum. I think the vast consensus of opinion is that midfoot striking is the ideal. Less high heeled running shoes make this much easier to achieve.

The type of stride you describe is what I used to do and it felt normal. Having changed to a midfoot strike I now find that feels much more natural and fluid. I will never go back to my old style of running. It just feels clumsy, harsh and wrong now.

Disclaimer:
The above is from recollection and garnered from a variety of unverified sources. As such it may be riddled with errors. Feel free to let me know!

Mikey23

I've done Cardiff a couple of times and it's a pussy cat. Except when it's windy when it isn't. The problem with it is that it's very busy and it will take you until about half way to get into your stride which will be pretty frustrating and you will probably try to speed up to compensate. I've done 1.40 and 1.42. Once you've done the training, just be confident that you will get round and enjoy the experience

morstar

http://youtu.be/UDcXPIT380k

Bit cheesy but yes, hills are your friend.

Pross

First Parkrun completed in 28:49, fairly pleased with that considering it was only my third run. Gives me a target for next time. Tried to concentrate on not landing on my heels and running smoothly rather than pushing myself.

knedlicky

I’m a bit late here but I still thought I’d add my bit.

My running background - for over 20 years, until about 5 years ago when I had knee injuries (not from running but from skiing), I used to do a lot of running; I’ve done around 6 marathons, 8 half-marathons, and 70 10K races as well as 20 duathlons. All my half-marathons took between 1-25 and 1-45.

My advice is to first do about 4 runs a week:
(a) initially make one of these runs last about half the time in which you aim to do the half-marathon (so in your case 55 mins), and each week increase its duration by about 7 mins, so after 8 weeks, you are running for the same length of time in which you hope to do the half-marathon. Don’t worry about speed on this run, just aim to run without walking breaks.
(b) make another of the runs one in which you try to run at your desired half-marathon speed (so in your case, 5-15 per km). Initially make it only 5 km long, but each week for the next 7 weeks add on a km, so after 8 weeks you are running (or attempting to run) 12 kms at your desired half-marathon speed. When you can manage this distance at your required speed, don’t bother trying to run longer at that speed as training. Preface this run with a 10-min slower warm-up run.
(c) Make one run about 45 mins long, but at an easy pace.
(d) Make the fourth run about 30 mins long, including 2-3 hills, maybe each 20-30 m climb, also at an easy pace.

After 8 weeks, carry on with the runs as above and introduce a 5th run per week, where you do 45 mins of interval training. If you can’t manage 5 runs per week timewise, drop the one with the hills in favour of the interval training. A 10-min warm-up run is essential before doing intervals, otherwise you run the risk of a hamstring injury.

Having read all the other advice, I think my ideas aren’t dissimilar from those from a couple of others, like faltkuota, morstar and paraglider.

In order to test how well you pace yourself and to get some race experience, enter a couple of 10K races about 8 and 4 weeks before the half-marathon, and see if you can do them in 50 mins (which you’ll need to be able to manange if you hope to do the half-marathon in under 1-50).

It’s also very useful to do a race as part of your training in order to see how well you cope with other runners all over the place (especially if Mikey is right about how ‘busy’ the Cardiff Half-Marathon is), to see how you manage at feeding/water stations and learn how many bananas/how much water you need in a race, and to see how you are with pre-race nerves and with your own pre-race organisation.

DeVlaeminck

OK can someone tell me the rationale for running up hills? My reasoning against it is it stresses the lower leg muscles and soft tissues which is a common source of injury for novice runners, plus as a cyclist he will already be stronger on hills than the flat.

I honestly think a lot of this advise is too much too soon, I talked about this with my Mrs who is a runner and she agrees, just aim to stay injury free and you will get close to or beat 1.45. Too many runners over complicate things, have a look at this:

http://www.tacdistancerunners.com/uploa ... aining.doc

See how much steady running there is as a proportion of the total. Easy miles, then after a few months introduce a few faster miles, if you are doing Park Runs then everything else should be easy miles.

morstar

My personal preference is for hill work over speed work as the stresses are far less. You are working the running muscle groups and aerobic system in an intense workout without the increased biomechanical stresses of speed work.
If I run hills (which I do a lot) I don't suffer. If I do speed work, I am far more likely to suffer discomfort afterwards.
I can do high quality hill work after a 20 minute warm up. Speed work requires a full 45 minute warm up. Such are the joys of being 43.

knedlicky

Pross wrote:

Thanks all. It looks like stride length is running's equivalent to cadence in cycling with contrasting opinion. I suppose the answer, as with cadence, is to stick with what feels natural and comfortable (certainly at my age!).

It’s generally believed that a cadence of 90 for each foot is best. Obviously there are variations between individuals, but if you measure yours and think it too far off this value (many older runners tend to a cadence too low for best efficiency), you can try and persuade your legs to alter/higher their cadence by this method:

- having done a warm-up run, and now into your normal tempo/cadence for a while, for one minute run with a cadence 3-4 higher, then a minute at your normal cadence, then a minute with a cadence 6-8 higher, and so on, increasing the cadence bit by bit until the modified cadence feels uncomfortable (this will very likely happen at or before you've increased the cadence by 12-16). Then drop back one level and run another minute at that cadence. Then finish the rest of your run without attention to cadence.
- Repeat the procedure every second training session, until you actually start to automatically run with a modified/higher cadence.