Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Running Speeds

allendowney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: Running Speeds

#121

Post by dhimes »

WkndTriathlete wrote: post #107
voisin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> practice barefoot occasionally I would add that “barefoot” means, literally “barefoot”. I had convinced myself that “barefoot shoes” would be sufficiently the same because I was running outdoors and didn’t have the guts to do actual barefoot. I recently bought a new Assault AirRunner (curved motorless / manual treadmill) and run on it actually barefoot. The difference in my running form and sudden introduction of n…

Apple Watch is probably Apple falls to Garmin in two areas: battery life and software. Sleep affects recovery, so planting a watch on a charger every night is a non-starter. Garmin's performance analysis software is also years ahead of Apple's. Apple could fix both of those things but that would require investment which I'm not sure they are willing to make.

Do you happen to know how Garmin compares to Fitbit in terms of performance analysis? Fitbit made some changes that I'm unhappy with and they refuse to offer us a way out. I'm thinking of talking to Santa Clause about this.

Re: Running Speeds

#122

Post by js2 »

nlh wrote: post #68

I have what may be a silly (or even ridiculous) question: Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much? Background: I went through a phase of long-distance recreational running - I ran lots of half-marathons, marathons, and even the Disney Goofy Challenge for a few years (half marathon on Saturday, full marathon on Sunday). It was all fun! Training was satisfying, the running itself was tough but rew…

> Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much?

Some of us to achieve our PB. Others to BQ:

https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/qualify

Some of us also engage in longer distances to find our limits. If you want a mostly chill crowd of runners, start running ultras.

Speaking of finding limits, this past weekend the backyard ultra record was broken again. It now stands at an amazing 108 hours (that's 4.5 days of running) and 450 miles:

https://backyardultra.com/

Read Laz'[1] updates for the final 5 laps:

https://backyardultra.com/hours-103-108/

Everyone was sure Ihor was going to win. Watching the race it didn't seem possible Harvey could do it again. And then, just like that, Ihor broke and Harvey recovered. And he won himself another Backyard.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Lake

Re: Running Speeds

#123

Post by lr4444lr »

nlh wrote: post #112
lr4444lr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People gain a natural satisfaction out of seeing progress in pretty much allof their pursuits, leisure or otherwise. Catching a bigger fish, closing a bigger deal, growing bigger muscles, cooking a more elaborate meal, etc.

I think this is it. It is indeed satisfying to see and feel progress. For me, that progress was being in less misery with each subsequent run (and losing weight). I can see how time improvement would give others that same satisfaction. Thanks!

For the record, I hate running - at any distance, any speed - but I do a 1.5 mile Cooper Test 3 or 4 times a year just to get an honest assessment about my cardiorespiratory fitness level, and adjust my other exercises accordingly. Much to my dismay, there is no other exercise modality that quite stresses me the same way as plain running.

Re: Running Speeds

#124

Post by ip26 »

nlh wrote: post #118
ssgodderidge wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, time (and therefore speed) is a measure of fitness. I don’t care about beating others. I like to see that I am getting more fit than I previously was. The notion of “could I run 26 miles?” is the same to me as “could I run 26 miles in 4 hours?”

That makes a ton of sense. My measure of improvement has always been "how much pain am I feeling" ;) but that does correlate to speed I suppose.

That’s exactly the thing to me, the fastest runners always seem to be feeling the best. I see plenty of people who sign up for ultras and basically struggle through it by willingness to suffer instead of fitness; I see no value in that. I’d rather run a 10k or half really fast and feel amazing than drag myself through an ultra and be miserable, so that’s my training goal.

Re: Running Speeds

#125

Post by z2h-a6n »

nlh wrote: post #68

I have what may be a silly (or even ridiculous) question: Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much? Background: I went through a phase of long-distance recreational running - I ran lots of half-marathons, marathons, and even the Disney Goofy Challenge for a few years (half marathon on Saturday, full marathon on Sunday). It was all fun! Training was satisfying, the running itself was tough but rew…

It could largely be sampling bias.

The people who care about speed talk about going faster, while the people who don't care about speed don't talk about it, rather than talking about not caring about it.

(Edit: typo)

Re: Running Speeds

#126

Post by JJMcJ »

nlh wrote: post #68

I have what may be a silly (or even ridiculous) question: Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much? Background: I went through a phase of long-distance recreational running - I ran lots of half-marathons, marathons, and even the Disney Goofy Challenge for a few years (half marathon on Saturday, full marathon on Sunday). It was all fun! Training was satisfying, the running itself was tough but rew…

Years and years ago I saw a TV show about the Boston Marathon.

One of the people they interviewed was the last runner to finish. A physician, I would guess around 45 to 50. It was already dark out! So he was not fast, maybe not much more than a walking pace, but he seemed happy so nothing to complain about.

The original book on Aerobics, the author emphasized you can get all the aerobic exercise you need at an ordinary walking pace if you take enough time. Especially important for older people and the overweight.

The obsession with "20 minutes of vigorous exercise" may well do more harm than good.

Re: Running Speeds

#127

Post by sieste »

> Here’s why I think speed depends on a product rather than a sum of factors. If all of your factors are good, you are fast; if any of them are bad, you are slow. Mathematically, the operation that has this property is multiplication.

Nice explanation of the difference between additive and multiplicative.

Re: Running Speeds

#128

Post by senkora »

WkndTriathlete wrote: post #107
voisin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> practice barefoot occasionally I would add that “barefoot” means, literally “barefoot”. I had convinced myself that “barefoot shoes” would be sufficiently the same because I was running outdoors and didn’t have the guts to do actual barefoot. I recently bought a new Assault AirRunner (curved motorless / manual treadmill) and run on it actually barefoot. The difference in my running form and sudden introduction of n…

Apple Watch is probably Apple falls to Garmin in two areas: battery life and software. Sleep affects recovery, so planting a watch on a charger every night is a non-starter. Garmin's performance analysis software is also years ahead of Apple's. Apple could fix both of those things but that would require investment which I'm not sure they are willing to make.

My solution to the Apple Watch charging problem is to start charging it as the first step of my bedtime routine, and put it back on my wrist as the last step. This works because it takes about 45 minutes to charge.

Re: Running Speeds

#129

Post by aziaziazi »

low_tech_love wrote: post #105

I’m not a fit person but when I see someone running like that (the Freeze in the video) it just looks so beautiful to me. Seeing a human body functioning at such a high performance, thinking about how many hours and how much effort that guy went through to get to where he is, I just feel like tapping him on the back and saying “great job dude”. It’s a bit like when I see some great feat of engineering, like a big bri…

> I get so annoyed when I hear people say things like “I like dogs more than humans.”

Perhaps focusing on dogs awesome qualities may help you not getting annoyed. You seems to value a lot complex systems, imagination and willpower and yeah some humans are great at that. Most dogs beat us flat on group cohesion, kindness and perseverance. People value that, too.

Re: Running Speeds

#130

Post by michaelt »

patrick0d wrote: post #77

>height and weight, fast- and slow-twitch muscle mass, cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility and elasticity, and probably more. When we try to figure out how to measure someones speed (say to compare Usain Bolt to another high quality sprinter) we will look at factors like height, stride length and strength. But in terms of all the factors that need to be measured to describe the function of someones running speed…

> a good teenager might run a time of 10.70

Considering that 10.71 seconds is the all time Scottish national under-17 male record, I would say 10.70 would be a very good time. A one-in-a-million level of sprinting ability.

Post reply on HN