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

191–195 of 195 posts

Re: Running Speeds

#191

Post by Affric »

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…

I have been sitting on this for a couple of days because I didn't want to react too quickly.

One word: Craft.

People like their craft. People wish to hone and refine. Become better. Find themselves with some level of mastery.

Speed is inherently a part of the craft of running over any distance. It's the sign you're doing it well. Your diet is working. Your stride and gait are optimal.

(Almost) anyone can run. Our ancestors were selected for it. The amount of time you do it in is the only reasonable discriminant of performance when the distance is fixed.

Why learn to paint a painting? Why learn to play a musical instrument in time, in tune, and in key? Why learn to write formal mathematical proofs? Why learn to tell a joke?

People who run faster are better at running. Why not want to be as good at running as you can be?

Re: Running Speeds

#192

Post by jeltz »

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…

Distance makes little sense to me as a challenge, at least not without also a speed requirement. Once you get beyond a certain point of fitness running a marathon is trivial unless you care about your pace. To challenge myself in distance I would need to run more hours than I think is fun (12+ hours), and honestly that is more of a time challenge than a distance challenge.

So the reason I go for speed is that it is a good way to challenge myself. Plus running fast is fun.

Re: Running Speeds

#193

Post by glenngillen »

dhimes wrote: post #121
WkndTriathlete wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve not used a Fitbit since the first version they released, I continue to be a huge Garmin fanboy though. I’m very happy with my Fenix 5, though I’m semi-regularly tempted to upgrade to a newer one for the “body battery” feature which uses training load, intensity, sleep, and other stuff to work out a more accurate recovery efficiency between activities. I also use a mix of Strava and Garmin Connect for various other analysis things. Which I guess is part of the appeal, they’re pretty open with the data integrations so you might be able to put your data into something else if you need more specific performance analysis.

Honestly the only complaints I have with my Garmin is the best kind of complaint to have: they last so long. My previous forerunner I had for 12 years. This Fenix must be close to 5 already. I keep looking at these new ones and I just can’t justify it. Battery life is still many days, features are still great. It’s just an absolutely rock solid watch that doesn’t actually need to be upgraded. Which is ultimately why I chose a Garmin instead of an Apple Watch last time - I didn’t want another Apple device that might be on a 3 year upgrade cycle.

Re: Running Speeds

#194

Post by stefs »

raydev wrote: post #148

My take is that the author is focusing too much on "all factors", and the reason for the distribution is that the people who 1) realize they are "good" and 2) want to improve, end up putting in more training time to get even better, which leads to a natural gap in measured ability. Consistency may be the largest factor in peak performance, whether physical or mental. Sure, consistency alone won't get you to the Olymp…

i think the "all factors" comes into play at a higher level than the consistency factor. you need the consistency to become _really good_ and with consistency you could probably become _rather good_ (lacking any blockers), but to become the very best in a competitive environment you need "all factors" to line up after consistency has already been applied.

"all factors" lining up without the consistency makes you a natural talent that's quick to pick up the basics but then doesn't go anywhere.

Re: Running Speeds

#195

Post by dhimes »

glenngillen wrote: post #193
dhimes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve not used a Fitbit since the first version they released, I continue to be a huge Garmin fanboy though. I’m very happy with my Fenix 5, though I’m semi-regularly tempted to upgrade to a newer one for the “body battery” feature which uses training load, intensity, sleep, and other stuff to work out a more accurate recovery efficiency between activities. I also use a mix of Strava and Garmin Connect for various oth…

Excellent news- thank you for sharing.
Post reply on HN