|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Baka wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:03 -0600, Paul Cassel wrote: amh wrote: Badger_South wrote in message . .. A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or incidently after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic for quite a few after years or even sooner. How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up, down, stretch) with good shoes. Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense. -paul I have to agree that the sweet spot is just getting on the bike and doing it. Jim Fixx found the sweet spot, permanently, some years back. So much for that line of thinking. Jim Fixx found the sweet spot permanently because he refused to visit a doctor for something as simple as a checkup. This despite his history of obesity in his own life and heart disease his family's life. He would have been dead many years earlier from heart disease had he not taken up running. He would have lived many years longer had he seen a doctor. But that is the way I'd like to go, hopefully many years after now. Doing something I love, whether it be cycling, running, hiking...... Andy |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Badger_South wrote:
There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
wrote: Badger_South wrote: There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. This is the pace I ran, but to qualify my statement, it was 8:00 for the 10 mile, 7:10 for the 10K, 6:30 for the 5K (at 180lbs definitely a clydesdale). This is clearly middle to back-of-the pack pace. All jogging - though it felt like running to me, lol. Among runners, that pace is jogging. 9 min per mile for marathon distances is good, but for me, I needed the intensity _and_ the duration to find the endorphin rush. So 90 min at 7:20 pace, then, is jogging. Under 7 min is running. OK? Basically I'm saying I was never a good runner, not that I'm super. Decent jogger, b/c I was dedicated and ran hill repeats and stuff. -B |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Badger_South" wrote in message
On 22 Oct 2004 09:05:35 -0700, (amh) wrote: Running is different in that it doesn't react with the body. If you take measures to reduce injury (stretch, wear proper shoes, don't over do it, eat properly, etc) the body will adapt to the running just fine. I'd submit that stretching never prevented any injury, ever, but probably caused a few, certainly if done cold before running. Static stretching before exercise is worthless for reducing or preventing injury, dynamic stretching is not. -- A: Top-posters. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
wrote: Badger_South wrote: There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches. Bill Baka -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Baka wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Badger_South wrote: There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches. For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging" even *9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles at all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I ran! ) Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
wrote: Bill Baka wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Badger_South wrote: There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches. For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging" even *9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles at all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I ran! ) Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S. I repent. Sometimes I get in a hurry to go through all the posts. There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined. This thread (slightly unraveled.) has gotten me to wondering how fast I actually could do a mile. I do know that all the biking has helped but I wonder how much. Any biker/runners out there other than the OP? Bill Baka |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Baka wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Bill Baka wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n wrote: Badger_South wrote: There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace) I gotta call bull**** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon, easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.) Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S. I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches. For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging" even *9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles at all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I ran! ) Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S. I repent. Sometimes I get in a hurry to go through all the posts. There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined. This thread (slightly unraveled.) has gotten me to wondering how fast I actually could do a mile. I do know that all the biking has helped but I wonder how much. Any biker/runners out there other than the OP? That's fine, but just remember that running ONE mile is very different from running 5, 10, 15 or more miles. Kind of like the difference between a 5 km time trial and a 165 km road race? Bill "or something like that" S. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Take A Kid Mountain Biking Day--Oct 2 | IMBA Jim | Mountain Biking | 8 | September 30th 04 04:52 PM |
FS: 57cm Spot Singlespeed Cyclocross - MUST SELL! | Jon | Marketplace | 0 | July 11th 04 04:18 AM |
Vacation Biking and the Internet | Badger_South | General | 1 | June 3rd 04 07:46 PM |
Little biking accident | Badger_South | General | 11 | May 22nd 04 02:23 AM |