A runner who leads every pack and then vanishes
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This blew my mind, as I'd heard about this car in the 90s from a car-nut uncle, during the time when nobody knew the story, just that the car had stopped showing up in the mid-70s and nobody had ever seen it again.
Only in 2014 did the owner reveal his secret. Ultimately his reason for laying low is much more lurid than simply being a pacer like today's clickbait headline.
(Ur jnf n pbc ol qnl, fgerrg-enpre ol avtug.)
https://www.dodgegarage.com/news/article/owners-clubs/2022/1...
For the curious and lazy
Honestly, I'm not sure why it was there to start with. Oh boy, the guy that drives a car for a living happens to enjoy cars
There’s a cool video on YouTube about it now.
1. Per https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/1970-71-dodge-chall...
The car is up for auction later this year:
https://monthly.mecum.com/2023/01/06/historic-street-racing-...
The purpose of a pacer for amateur runners is to set a consistent pace and provide encouragement to runners who may be running their first race at that distance. Or maybe someone trying to set a new PR. Since most courses are not flat, I actually try to run even effort, and explain that is the plan to the runners I'm pacing. So we slow down on the uphills and speed up a bit on the downhills.
Yes, runners can use a variety of electronic devices (GPS watches, heart rate monitors, accelerometers on your shoe) to try to set their own pace but none of these are perfect. They also require constant attention. And they don't provide moral support.
Even though I'm a fairly experienced runner (25+ marathons), I'll join a pace group myself when running a new course sometimes. A marathon can be mentally exhausting and it's sort of like being able to run on cruise control if you can just fall in next to someone else and rely on them to set pace.
Running in a pack is also just easier, not even considering the wind breaking potential depending upon speed and prevailing breeze.
On the 100 mile races, runners may have been on their feet for 12+ hours by the midway point and are starting to run into the night. Pacing those runners is really just about moral support and encouragement. Typically they are allowed to pickup a pacer after the 50 mile mark and I'll keep a single runner company for say a 12.5 mile lap and then they can switch to another fresh pacer. So they may get the company of 3-4 pacers in the second half of the race.
Another example is that large marathons have guide runners to help those who need assistance. Visually impaired runners. Maybe runners with prosthetics who are concerned about being tripped. Etc. I've never been a guide runner but I'd like to some day.
Pacing the 1:50 group in a half marathon:
https://i.ibb.co/4gRTjjT/FCC9720-D-4-E4-E-4-F74-91-EF-2-FCB2...
It is worth noting that for mid-d races it's not just about countering wind, but also air resistance. There is a significant performance impact even if it's not windy. See for instance https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20823445/does-draftin...: "Pugh runs some calculations to determine that at 4:30 mile pace, drafting one meter behind another runner on a still day saves about 80% of the energy you'd otherwise spend fighting air resistance. That corresponds to about 1 second per 400 meters at that pace, and more on windy days." (Highly recommend Hutchinson's other work on the running and sports science, btw.)
(I am sure you know this. I'm mentioning it for others, because it's applicable to Sowinski's work, far more so than your own pacing for the longer races.)
1m behind is also pretty close to be directly behind someone, you'd be liable to kick each other.
The article is talking about middle distance running, typically 800m-3000m, not long-distance running. 1s/400m is actually pretty huge in competition.
> you'd be liable to kick each other.
Front-to-back contact happens sometimes, even in professional races.
And that 2 minutes over the marathon is currently more than the difference between a sub-2 hour marathon (1:59:40) and not (2:01:09):
And Kipchoge is both the fastest and not an amateur.
It's good enough to be competitive at a state level (4:28 placed 7th in CT this year) but won't have D1 coaches salivating at the mouth.
D1 recruits typically have mile time of 4:15 or faster. Most high school distance/mid-distance runners compete in 5k in the fall and 1500 or 3k in the spring. D1 recruitable times for those are 15:00-15:30 for 5k (mile pace of 4:50), 3:50-4:00 for 1500 (equivalent of about 4:07 - 4:20 mile time), and 8:30-8:45 for 3k (mile pace of about 4:30).
Regarding air resistance and "drafting" off a pacer, this is definitely a real effect, although it's a much bigger deal outdoors especially with wind. Often in mid-distance races, there are multiple rounds and you need to qualify for the next by placing highly (not necessarily the same as "fast") in the prelims - it's common for early rounds to have slow times because of "tactical" races where every runner stays in the pack at a slow pace for 3/4 of the race, and then the "real race" happens on the final lap.
source: used to be sort of fast.
... the 800 is also not a race where the WR time is challenged on a regular basis. Championship 800m racing is a wait and kick affair which never lends itself to ultrafast times because the first 400 is loafed.
The scary thing about David Rudisha's WR set at the 2012 Oly was that it was a solo wire-to-wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEOjWEzVGs
That DOES NOT HAPPEN in championship middle distance racing. Does not happen.
Almost all middle distance records are set with precisely controlled tracks, weather, pacers, and racers to provide best conditions and drafting and temperature for the best times.
Rudisha showed up a the Olympic Final, threw down a gauntlet to the field, and blew them away.
You can see at the 500m mark of the video there were four or five runners who perfectly paced and tactically positioned themselves, where 999/1000 times the leader will fall off and get blown away by the chasers. What happens as a chaser is that instictive additional adrenaline surges as you chase down your quarry, and you're running through a draft for additional momentym.
At 500m, Rudisha accelerates and leaves these other runners, who perfectly placed themselves for the usual chasedown, and just leaves them in the dust.
Now consider he is losing 1 second a 400m without a draft/rabbit....
Also, I'd like to point out that the 800m is probably the most painful race of the track events. Typically you'll be well into anaerobic debt as you complete the first lap, and the second lap is allllllll pain. A typical 800m racer will hit 500m or so, his body is saying "HOLY SHIT STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING" and that's when the racer ... has to kick and exert maximal effort for the next 200-300m.
Rudisha as I understand wasn't a rift valley tribesman, the usual source of Kenyan elite distance runners who have genetic adaptations to altitude and efficient oxygen use / high VO2. He was a Maasai from the central lowlands.
Just an amazing race.
Now, I'm also a cynic of Olympic level performance, but that's for another day.
RE: D1 recruits at 15:00/5k: the NUTS part of that is that 15:00/5k is barely competitive pace for elite MARATHONs these days (under good conditions like Rotterdam, Chicago, or London). So you get recruited for D1 for running a speed for 3 miles that an elite racer keeps up for 26 miles.
Kind of along those lines, a lot of people don't realize how elite rabbits have to be just to run the proper pace for 1/2 to 1/3 the distance. They can't really go under the top 50 in the world to rabbit, otherwise they won't have the reliable talent to run the pace even on a so-so day.
In his 2012 Olympic 1:40.91 win (and WR) his splits were 49.28, 51.63, so he didn't accelerate. He slowed down less than the rest of the field.
In his prior 2010 WR of 1:41.01 his splits were 48.9, 52.1.
So in 2012 he went out slightly slower and then faded less in the second lap. Which is interesting because it's typical of the 800M to run positive splits, but he improved his time by running a bit closer to an even split.
From https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20800858/800-mete...
> In 2007, [exercise physiologist and Science of Sport blogger Ross] Tucker analyzed the 26 men’s world records set for 800 meters in the modern era. He found that 24 of the 26 were set with positive splits. In fact, the last time a world record was set with a negative split was in 1972, when Dave Wottle ran 1:44.3 to bring gold home to the United States. His last lap of 51.4 is also the fastest ever in a world-record race, despite the fact that record has fallen more than 3 seconds in the last four decades.
1:44.3 was at the US Olympic trials. Here's the 1972 Olympics 800 final (one of my favorites):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHid-nC45k
Wottle wins in 1:45.86 with a slight negative split of ~53.3, ~52.56. Here you could legitimately claim Wottle accelerated on his competitors (he's in last place at 500m), though mostly they went out much too fast and faded badly.
The 800 begins as a race at 150-200m. There anaerobic debt starts to rise in the next 100m, and by 400m we are officially in substantial anaerobic debt.
By "acceleration" I suppose I mean a more nebulous "increase in effort / selling out". At 500m in Rudisha's race, you can see the change in the leaders as everyone begins to try to exert effort above and beyond what their mounting anaerobic debt would sanely allow. I think what happens is that racers try to use the last mental and physical reserves at this point to gain momentum and transition to a sprinters stride in order to gain more RELATIVE speed over the last 300m.
The massive amounts of anaerobic debt in the last 300m, relative to the phosphate and no-debt first 300m of the race, will invariably be slow by the clock. But the speed produced relative to pain and physiological debt, it is much more stark.
Every runner will perceive "kicking" at the end in this manner. The sense of acceleration, real or otherwise, is in relation to an inability many runners don't have in these moments. Physiologically middle distance "kickers" have some sort of hybrid fast twitch muscles they can employ in situations like this that produce higher speeds under extremely high anaerobic debt than other runners. Whether this is also related to higher pain tolerance or other physiological aspects (reduced "lactic acid" release like they claimed Armstrong and Phelps had, etc).
Dave Wottle's victory, which I recall vividly described by Jeff Galloway in one of his books, was a fluke. Wottle was injured, and basically was limited to that speed for the first 400. It was almost as big a fluke as Rudisha's race. He was trying to simply not embarrass himself in the race. So he ran a careful first lap just to try to finish.
The 800m is such a painful event that relies so much on anaerobic tolerance and anaerobic energy stores, that essentially it is a crapshoot under most circumstances. You can't know whether or not that moment of truth: whether you still have kick/speed at 500-600m when everyone else starts also goes "all in" to try to win, whether you'll have the speed that day.
Wottle that day got lucky: all the people in front of him didn't have the stuff, Wottle was able to survive the first 400m and then adrenaline the last 400m. And perhaps the wind that day was particularly graceful towards someone running through the pack, since wind resistance is a factor where you are running 17-20 mph.
Even at the marathon distance it matters as we saw with Kipchoge’s Nike sponsored sub-2 run a few years back. Of course, Kipchoge ran that thing at 4:34/mi pace, not far off middle distance race pace!
I'm aiming to break the 2hr mark in my 3rd half-marathon next month. My last half-m in Oct 2022 took 2hr9min. I know, 9 minutes is a lot to shave off :-). I'll first aim to finish healthily.
Your message encourages me to join a pacer. (The last 5KM of a half-m feel endless.)
I also started last, ran down the 2hr pace guy, then tried to stay 100m ahead of him. It felt primal being chased down by somebody and kept the mind sharp.
I want do some strength training besides the usual bicycling and running 3-4x a week. But I keep dragging my feet with it.
I'm ~64KG and 180cm tall. And I feel light when running; I have almost zero excess fat. If I reduce more weight, it would be unhealthy. As it is, I could be called (healthy) "skinny". This is one thing that's unmissable with marathon and longer runners (including the "elites"): many of them look unhealthily thin. I want to avoid going that route.
• • •
I only trained once with an "isotonic gel" during a training run, and that time I took the gel right before the run. The gel is supposed to provide a small dose of carbohydrates as fuel. Now, during the (half-m) race, I put the gel in my back pocket (which I didn't try out in training). At around 15KM mark, when I reached for it, I felt the goddamned gel slowly leaking in my back pocket! I managed to fish it out and down the gel, but jeez, my hands were incredibly sticky for the rest of the 5KM. (Plus: the backpocket side of my running shorts was so sticky from the fricking gel-leak that whenever I sat down after the run, I had to forcefully detach my shorts from my skin!)
Now, I'm not even sure if the damn gel helped me. I suspect it even slowed me down a bit! (I'm judging this based on the pace of my last 5KM.) Luckily it wasn't a disaster, but an annoying distraction for about 5 KM. To be fair on the gel, my body was just not sufficiently used to it. I need to experiment more on how my body reacts to it. Some runners don't ... gel well with gels.
This is completely false. You deplete your carb stores after a few hours (depending on pace etc), and then YOU ARE RUNNING ON KETONES, whether you like it or not. You physically cannot eat and digest enough carbs to sustain your pace for any longer period of time.
Carb depletion can be a real shock for the first time. What happens is that your body is not accustomed to burning fat for energy, and so it just doesn't know what to do.
But if you prepare it will learn how to do it, and do it rather efficiently. Unless you are a pro athlete (in which case you have your own dietician anyway) you will benefit from going keto for long distance endurance sports. Yes, your sprints will be slower, but in exchange you will simply not be hungry, or feel loss of energy (actually, a marathon is not really that long distance, if you are fast enough you won't even deplete your carb stores!).
It takes a few days, maybe a week or two to switch to keto. You can speed up the process by fasting, it will not leave your body any doubt about what is going to happen :) You will feel very weak at first, but this will pass, and then you are in long distance nirvana. You just need to watch out for proper hydration (not too much, not too little) and mineral replenishment. You can even do your sport fasted, it won't make any difference! Highly recommended for those having digestive issues.
As a matter of fact, I'd rather say it is highly irresponsible of anyone doing endurance sports NOT on keto. But as many other things, this is not taught at school, and people have to experiment for themselves to find out what works for them.
No it isn't. The comment to stop eating carbs was aimed at someone who is trying to do a half marathon in less that 2 hours. Like you say yourself this is way to short to deplete your carbs, so to just stop eating carbs seems like exactly the "bad advice that needs a lot of heavy caveats" that the parent poster was talking about.
You don't have to worry about timing your meals, or "carb-loading" which is misunderstood and yet done by so many beginners just because they read about it and they disrupt / overload their digestive system, and causes more problems than has benefits (if any - guess how I know that).
I cannot really explain the feeling of not feeling exhausted after a few hours of "exercise" to someone who has not experienced it. Yes, your muscles are sore, yes you are thirsty (an unwanted side-effect of keto - you need to manage hydration!), yet your head is clear, your mind is fresh and you are ready to pounce. You feel like Duracell Bunny.
Is your experience different? I'd be happy to hear about it - maybe it doesn't work so well for everyone?
You're talking absolute nonsense.
Obvs if I’m racing then I use carbs.
Dylan Johnson does a great dive into fasted training on YouTube, which I’d highly recommend.
Why not train like a professional athlete and just eat a balanced diet, like their dieticians recommend? My partner has represented my country in the Olympics in a long distance track event and none of her support staff have ever advocated for keto as a responsible diet for her training needs.
I mean, the science says fat is less energy-available than a simple source of carbohydrates. It seems like a pretty easy choice if you want to hit target speeds during your workouts and become faster over time.
Because professional athletes are anything but "balanced". Professional sport is about abusing your body as much as you can possibly get away with, and then some more. For a normal person following a pro's training plans or diet could be the worst thing they could do to their body.
> science says fat is less energy-available than a simple source of carbohydrates
Yes, keto is not a panacea. If you do keto, you will most probably not be the fastest you can be. But you will be unstoppable. If you do carbs, your peak performance should be higher, but for a shorter time. Choose one.
I think what pros (eg. pro cyclists) do is that they try to find the best of both worlds - they train a LOT in lower intensity zones so they get very good at fat burning without actually reaching keto, but they then supplement it with the right type and amount of carbs during races so that they don't lose sprint power. But this is only my theory, I have never been a pro, and never been close to these circles.
I'm sorry, how much money do you think professional runners make that it affords them some crazy diet that the general public can't tolerate? Not even professional runners for that matter-- college runners, or even high schoolers. My partner and all of her colleagues that compete at the international level in Canada have part-time jobs. My partner is in grad school full-time at the moment, too. They aren't "abusing their body" as much as possible, they just do a lot of base mileage, two key workouts a week, and recover and eat properly-- and they've done that for years. That's the secret.
I eat with, and cook for my girlfriend, and I am a brutally normal guy in the military. We just use standard ingredients and try to cook things from scratch. We have pizza and/or go out to eat about once every two weeks or so. This isn't purely anecdotal, it's completely reasonable to run a 120km/wk and maintain a normal life-- that's most elite runners on the field, and I make that assessment as a guy who has been in these circles through my partner.
I would disagree with your assessment of "unstoppable" versus "fastest". You can certainly have both with carbohydrates. Moreover, given the parent comment wanted to get faster, I would probably not reach for keto under your recommendation.
You couldn't be further from the truth, especially in a race scenario, not to mention a stage race or a grand tour. Professional (and most well versed) cyclist will pile on carbs in the days leading up to a race, eat a pile the morning of the race and then continue to eat and drink a massive quantity of carbs. It has everything with them being able to replenish what's lost during a race lasting several hours, it is not at all sprint specific. They'll easily aim at 100+ grams of carbs per hour.
I would consider myself a well versed and well trained amateur cyclist. Depending on length of training session and intensity of efforts, I'll aim for 50-100g/hr. In a race my goal is 80-100g/hr from the second the race starts. I've done well enough in multiple 6-9+ hour races and training sessions.
From the little I know (which is nothing!), going the "keto" route needs a specialist advice[1]. Diet is a charged topic; it would do us good to stay grounded. It's tempting to dole out uninformed advice on the internet. Please resist.
The point you raised at the end is more sensible: people might want to (responsibly and carefully!) try things and see what works for their bodies.
PS: In the past, I wrote here[2] the training routine that worked for me. It also has a link to a "retro" of my previous half-m.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-tr...
...says he, and then links to a page of advice on the internet. The "Keto Diet Risks" section on that page is such an epic, "that it's not even worth refuting".
>> Fuzzy thinking and mood swings. "The brain needs sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability,"
This shows that whoever wrote this has never even tried proper keto. Because the brain does not need sugar (otherwise you would die after a few days of fasting), and fuzzy thinking is only for the first couple of days until your body adjusts and your brain gets enough fuel again.
It is in fact quite evil, because if someone starts keto or fasting and feels "confused and irritated" at first, they might just stop doing it out of fear of the unknown. Luckily in our modern society were are past such diseases as type-2 diabetes, right? So nobody should bother checking out something that might actually help with that.
But let me ask about your personal experience with keto or fasting. Did you try either? Did it work for you? I could link a hundred web posts about the benefits of keto, and another hundred about the dangers of it. In fact, anybody could google this for themselves, so I don't find this "I read this and that about something" contributing much to any discussion.
> [...] and then links to a page of advice on the internet [...]
There's a world of difference between an armchair internet-dietitian (no, I'm not implying you are one) and a registered dietitian that is the "director of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital" (the author of the said article). It's not appeal to authority—we have to start somewhere. That doesn't mean the said page is 100% accurate.
> But let me ask about your personal experience with keto or fasting [...]
No, I did not try Keto. Yes, I've done fasting before; and yes, it was beneficial. Personally, I'm disciplined with food; almost like a machine, I can happily maintain a healthy diet, without having to "negotiate with myself".
Please note, I'm not denying there are no benefits to Keto or fasting at all. I even recently listened to an episode on Keto on Huberman Lab Podcast to educate myself on it. I don't have personal experience of it, so I refrain to talk about it. Much less use data-points-of-one as a generalization.
For a while I was carb-reliant, would bring fruit with me to my workouts, felt like I couldn't do more than 30 min of hard effort without fueling.
Made a conscious effort to "go keto", ate more protein and fat, was hungry for 1.5 weeks, but a switch flipped and I can pretty much go forever now. I'm not strict about it anymore, but it definitely unlocked something for me.
I think my sense of exhaustion was coupled with the amount of easy sugar from carbs in my body.. taking the carbs away for a bit broke that dependency.
What do you mean, this is precisely why all professional runners and cyclists consume gels. Not only is it possible to not deplete your carb stores, it's actually pretty easy to keep them from depleting.
> What happens is that your body is not accustomed to burning fat for energy, and so it just doesn't know what to do.
Vast majority of professional cyclists and runners spend majority of their time training in low-instensity zones, where fats are the main source of energy. How then, would they not be accustomed to burning fat for energy?
That's not what happens anyway, the "bonk" is because your body was relying on turning carbs into energy, but the carb stores have depleted. If you try to keep the same effort, your body will be unable to provide sufficient energy to keep you going and you will "bonk". If you were to lower your effort enough for fats to be able to provide sufficient energy, you'd be fine. Anyway, the solution is to consume more carbs, to keep the stores from depleting and no to remove that fuel source entirely.
> Yes, your sprints will be slower, but in exchange you will simply not be hungry, or feel loss of energy.
Sure you won't feel a loss of energy, because you've never had that energy in the first place. I don't understand why you would remove a major fuel source entirely, is there any science behind this?
> Sure you won't feel a loss of energy, because you've never had that energy in the first place. I don't understand why you would remove a major fuel source entirely.
That's a bold statement. Have you ever tried it? Did you have energy?
Imagine that you don't bonk, no matter if you eat or not, and you can still keep roughly the same level of intensity for the entirety of your session, however long it might be. As a matter of fact, you feel just as fresh mentally at the end as at the start. That's why.
> Have you ever tried it?
I have not tried it. Can you provide some sources explaining how it gives any more energy than metabolizing fat does?
> Imagine that you don't bonk, no matter if you eat or not, and you can still keep roughly the same level of intensity for the entirety of your session, however long it might be. As a matter of fact, you feel just as fresh mentally at the end as at the start. That's why.
You don't need to be ketogenic for that though, you just gotta keep it slow. One of my very last outdoor rides last year was like that. 100km ride where I kept it strictly in zone 2. It felt easy and I had a blast. Can't say I felt just as fresh as at the start though.
As a trained amateur, I'm much closer to a pro athlete than an untrained person is to me.
And yes, I don't bonk during long runs/rides/etc. because I do the same thing pros do and eat carbs.
Runners have been eating "gel" for years during races. You don't run out of carbs if you properly prepare for a marathon
There is zero evidence that keto or low carb/high fat diets improve running performance. There's actually consistently reproduced evidence that it impairs performance at high intensities. Studies: https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP278928, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16357078/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553488/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497061/
Summary if you don't want to read all the studies: https://trainright.com/should-endurance-athletes-go-keto-ket...
You would likely get the same results and time drop just by running consistent training mileage for 2 months instead of a big diet change like this.
Most children happily run around all day and rarely develop any issues. Adults have an unfortunate habit of becoming quite sedentary, losing any conditioning they had and then going out and running distances their body isn't prepared for. Then people will blame their shoes or even the activity itself when the most significant factor is doing too much too soon.
This interview with Daniel Lieberman[1], an evolutionary biologist out of Harvard, is a good read about the misconceptions associated with human activity and what studies of our historical behaviour can tell us about what is and isn't important in staying active.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/daniel-lieber...
I am an adult and I definitely have kept issues from things that I did as a child.
Now, seriously, isn't the body weight to joint surface ratio completely different for children and adults?
What can be done to fix such injuries?
Prevention is key for these-- particularly by familiarizing your body with the loads incrementally. While some may have the aerobic fitness to complete a 5k (even if they're new to running-- a cyclist or swimmer, perhaps) the musculo-skeletal adaptations involved with consistency haven't occurred yet, and injury is a lot more likely. Even elite runners, when they're "getting back into it" start with alternating run-walks to avoid the "too much, too fast" loading.
Most of these can be addressed by seeing a physiotherapist, and normally involve cutting mileage or pace significantly and/or strengthening weak supporting muscles.
That is bad for your knees.
[edit] I highly recommend the book Born to Run by Cristopher McDougall.
FWIW, I've read nearly every running book there is including that one. I still have healthy knees at 51 and have run tens of thousands of miles on them over all sorts of terrain.
Repeated stress of right intensity makes bones, joints and tendons stronger. Avoiding all stress is a bad advice I have heard many times in my life I am sick and tired of it. It is the stress that causes the body to need to recover and it is during recovery that it becomes stronger.
The only really important thing to remember is that the right intensity is crucial and that it is very easy to suddenly overload a part of your body you have never even been aware of. Even a slight change in technique caused by something like different shoes or an aching toe can shift forces to places that are not ready yet and cause an injury.
That's why good running technique is crucial -- because it is nothing else as a discipline to put your body through predictable motions in response to predictable loads. If you can do it you can now make sure your loads don't change too much over time and you should be relatively safe from injuries.
Lots of injuries are caused by people running for longer duration but slipping with their technique because, for example, their core muscles get fatigued through the run. And this shifts loads to new places and causes things to get overloaded.
[Citation needed]
I wouldn't recommend speeding up on the downhills for beginning runners. But if you're well conditioned, running slightly faster on the downhills in a relaxed way won't hurt your knees. It all depends on the slope of course. On very steep hills, it simply isn't be possible to run fast downhill.
> I highly recommend the book Born to Run by Cristopher McDougall.
It's an entertaining read, but that's about it. The science is to be taken with a large grain of salt. (I've run more than 50000 km since reading it.)
I try to place the insole in a way that avoids vibrations when hitting the surface and the ankle to work at a correct angle.
Running injuries come from overload or overuse (or bad health). Both causes can be prevented by being conscious of what causes overload and overuse and then training in a way that will prevent it.
If all you ever do is run flat asphalt and then you suddenly decide to run hills then yes, the downhill can be bad for your knees -- but that's just because you stupidly decided to introduce a new load your joints and tendons are not adapted to.
Same happens whenever you change technique or have some kind of imbalance -- your body will adjust by moving loads from one place to another but your brain may not be smart enough to realise the new place may not have had enough time to adjust to it.
Anybody can write a book, I guess. But don't take any running books as gospel. Nobody really understands everything about running (well... maybe Phil Maffetone does).
I run with severed ACL in one of my knees and so out of necessity I have to be much more knowledgeable to be able to keep running safely and keep my legs in good shape.
Yes, those devices do require constant attention, usually by glancing at watch, what is rather distracting. But, something that mostly resolved this deficiency, at least for me, was Garmin Varia Vision - tiny heads up display mounted to sunglasses. it can keep in your eyesight all the relevant metrics. It is a great help for me in outdoor runs
But I also use a GPS watch and Stryd pod to monitor my pace in real-time and keep track of my 1 mile and 5K splits.
Generally though, runners tend to go out way too fast in a race because they are very excited and should have gone through a taper, so it feels easy while running too fast at the start. Because it's not a race for me, I can avoid that excitement. Then toward the end, they slow down because they went out too fast. Since the entire race is at a relaxed effort for me, I can avoid that too.
I also probably haven't spent the last 10 days tapering, so I don't have to really adjust my feel.
That said: a few years back I ended up pacing the 4:30 marathon group which was almost 3 minutes/mile below my race pace and I was constantly having to check myself. My preference when pacing is to be close to my easy pace for the distance, not to fast, not too slow.
for running, lowering your pace to "just above walking" speed will help you run much longer, and develop the muscles needed
This is paid but also very good. https://uphillathlete.com/product/at-home-strength-training-...
The main thing 90% of people will benefit from is learning to activate their glutes, then strengthening their glutes. Clamshells are a great place to start.
A lot of people hurt their knees because their glutes don’t activate and are weak from sitting all day. This forces them to become quad dominate, which puts more strain on the knees.
1. Run slower. Then run slower again.
2. Run a shorter distance/time and gradually build up over time (weeks/months).
3. Lose weight (on average, people are overweight). If you're underweight, then eat more.
How do you expect to have strong knees without squats, lunges, etc? It's like saying you're bad at math and expect to magically get better at it, without actually practising math.
Even doing a few sets of squats every day is better then nothing, and for some reason most newbie runners think they can do nothing, with zero sports background, and still run every other day.
Now that I'm in my 40's I find if I get knee pain, its almost certainly tight muscles around the knee.
That means I haven't' been stretching, drinking water, foam rolling or squatting and deadlifting enough. As you get older I find almost all ailments are a sign of not taking care of your body, not a sign of age related decay.
Switched to trail running and it's been a life saver. It's a lot easier pace, but the hills/mountains really help stabilize the glutes and core. I'm running longer/further and still close to my 5k times from being a road runner
I mean, how do I know if it's the bacon, the coffee, or the cheese, etc?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095814/
>History of Running is Not Associated with Higher Risk of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study from the Osteoarthritis Initiative
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179322/
>Running does not lead to knee osteoarthritis, may protect people from developing disease, experts say
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141116094058.h...
When I was doing triathlon, I was in the Clydesdale division because I had a physique more like a football player than a runner. I've often wondered if my leg/knee problems of today are casually related to my choice to seriously do an exercise against body type.
I had patellar chondromalacia for about a year after one of my Ironmans and I couldn't get it to go away. I started doing a mat pilates and it went away within a could weeks.
Then I had back problems kinda like sciatica, and that was solved with the leg presses, but I feel the leg presses helped make the knees even healthier.
The other issue with running as a triathlete, especially a clydesdale, is that you may be excessively heel planting. It can be hard to transition to midfoot planting for a big dude, but it is much much easier on your knees.
You'd have to do some sprinting on your toes, very unorthodox for triathlons, but even then it is very hard to change the fundamental style of running.
0. Unless you've been running for a long time or done some other endurance sport, your aerobic system is probably in terrible shape. Even if you are already a runner, it's likely your aerobic system is still in terrible shape. If your pace zones don't match up with your heart rate zones, e.g. you are out of breath no matter how heard you run and your HR shoots up the moment you start running then you need to improve your aerobic system. If you are stressing yourself on every run then you have a much higher chance of injury. On most of my runs I go <Z2, which is about 6.30 min/mile for me at the moment but could easily do a marathon at that pace and not be too stressed about it. I can breath through my nose at that pace and assuming I warmed up sufficiently, then breathing feels very easy and I can carry on a conversation with my running partners. Recovery feels almost instant after stopping. If your aerobic system is poor then you'll be dipping into anerobic territory which stresses the body a great dealand lengthens recovery time. I only work anerobically about 20% of the time. Teach your body to be a better fat burner, your aerobic system will thank your for it and you'll feel generally better overall in daily life. Learn about the aerobic threshold and the anerobic threshold. The secret to fast, injury free, easy running is to push your aerobic and anerobic thresholds as high as possible, so you can run fast whilst burning fat and not accumulating excessive levels of blood lactate. You can achieve this by doing most of your training below your aerobic threshold and the remainder at or above your anerobic threshold. Determining your aerobic thrshold can be tricky - some people say it's the pace you can run at when breathing through your nose. If you have a blood lactate monitor then it's the pace/HR when lactate starts appearing in the blood samples. It's maybe easier to do a metabolic test though. Read Phil Maffetone's book to learn more - it's a good introduction.
1. Make sure your form is good. The main things are: 1) don't overstride. If you overstride, you'll land on your heel instead of mid/fore foot and put quite a bit of stress through your legs. Instead, increase cadance and lower stride length so you are landing mid foot. 2) You see a lot of people running with their ass sticking out, which pulls centre of gravity backwards and makes running much more difficult - overstresses quads, shins and knees. Your centre of gravity should be directly over the foot in the stance phase. Try to make sure hips are forward and level. There's tonnes of stuff on the internet about running form. I think you can get most of the way there by increasing cadence and shortening stride. Running should feel like you are gliding over the road... People walking should be surprised when you beast it past them at 5 minute mile pace because your feet hardly make any noise when they touch the ground.
2. Make sure that all your muscles groups are strong and balanced, in pcarticular the glutes. Most people have weak glutes, specifically the glute medius, which will cause the knee to bend inwards when running, resulting in quite a bit of pain as it compresses the knee on one side and stretches it on the other. Many runners think strength isn't relevant for running but it really is. You need to keep on top of it and do strengthening exercises at least a few times a week. There's tonnes of blogs on the web which teach you the kinds of exercises you need to do. E.g. side leg raises, clam shells, squats, single leg dead lifts, glute bridge, marching bridge...
3. Recover properly. Any "tightness" after a run is probably because you've overworked some muscle group. Learn how to do self massage and maybe use a theragun or similar device. Cold therapy also helps. Try to sleep well (no alcohol before bed, no food three hours before bed, no caffeine in afternoon) and if you don't feel great or are ill then either don't run or do only active recovery that day. From experience you are way more likely to injure yourself on a day where you don't feel great.
4. Whenever you are going to do a hard session, warm up properly with some light aerobic exercise and mobility exercises. You want to make sure all the main muscle groups are activated and ready to go before you run. On slow days this is less of an issue. A hard session is anything above Z2. Always run at least 5 minutes in Z1 before starting any run. Alsways do at least 5 minutes in Z1 at the end of a run.
5. Diet. Don't eat refined carbs or any sugars. Focus on a high fat diet and only eat cars when you need to fuel before a hard session or race.
6. Up training distance gradually. Track things like resting heart rate at night or HRV to check whether you are over-doing it or not. Gut feel for this is probably more useful though. If you feel exhausted or you get pain then cut back on running and do more strength exercises.
Carbs are fantastic, eat them.
Sugar is good, take some during long runs and hard training sessions to aid recovery. It’s also absolutely necessary as a fuel source during long races.
Point 0 is one that I've had to learn and re-learn several times, because it's a hard pill to swallow. When you don't have much time to train (and I've never felt like I had time for more than 20 miles per week as an adult), it's tempting to feel like you can make up for it by training harder. Oddly, the Army actually teaches that we should run no more than three times per week, and no more than a few miles, but to make those runs faster, to reduce injuries. I don't know why. Whenever I've gotten hurt, it was due to trying to run faster than I was ready for.
Point 1 reminds me of my favorite passage in Daniels' Running Formula: "If a group of beginners were required to start running 100 miles a week, two things would probably occur: Many runners would hurt themselves, and many who didn't get hurt would adjust to taking quicker, lighter steps." I read that book after my first ten years of running and made a radical change to a forefoot strike with something closer to his recommended 180 steps per minute.
Best i can do is 5km @ 7:15 and i'll be dead running 190bpm+ for the whole duration (and sometimes 200)
must be the genetics.
1. Genetics that allow their bodies to push harder and recover faster (at the elite level) than an average human.
2. Years upon years of building up resilience by increasing distance, time, intensity in a semi-controlled manner.
That said, there's millions of people worldwide who run far below the elite level whose bodies don't crumble to bits. It's a total myth that running destroys your knees.
In the first phase of my running career, I used to struggle with achilles tendon problems, nothing any shoe or podiatrist or orthopedist was able to properly diagnose or fix.
Eventually I saw a PT. The PT clued me in that I had a weak core and bad biomechanics. To use an analogy: I was like a car with an out of alignment suspension. And I had been trying to fix it by changing the tires. When what I needed to do was fix the suspension. The suspension is everything above your feet, but in particular your hips and core. And mine were in terrible shape from years of sitting before I started running in my late twenties.
So I had to re-invent myself as a runner.
Originally I started with the exercises the PT gave me for my hips and core. I got rid of my motion-control shoes and my prescription orthopedic inserts. I switched to just a basic cushioned shoe. Shoes are like unsprung mass on a vehicle. I didn't want any more weight on my feet than I absolutely needed, especially since I wear size 11-12 shoes.
I started to pay attention to and work on my form. I found the PT exercises boring so I ended up joining a Crossfit gym for a couple years which worked for me, but I don't recommend Crossfit as generic advice since Crossfit gym and coach quality varies widely. But it worked for me.
With my form and strength in better shape, it enabled me to start putting in more mileage. Whereas previously I couldn't run more than 35 miles/week w/o risking injury, I was now able to comfortably run 65-75 miles/week. That allowed me to take on the types of training routines that I needed to achieve some of my time and distance goals.
Now, I know some folks who never cross train and don't get injured and maybe they just naturally have good form.
But for me it was something I had to work at. And the best kind of professional I know for advising you on this is a PT who is themselves a runner and works with runners.
The image I keep in mind when I'm thinking about running form is Mo Farah's:
https://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/14th+IAAF+World+Athletic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxf1gEkm_EE
Here's some of the exercises he does to have and maintain that form:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2i6TKMi1A
And for comparison, here's Ed Whitlock in his 80s:
https://mindmotionmatter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ed-runn...
The thing about ultra-distance races is that the exhaustion can affect the judgment, and the runner and the race are better off having somebody with judgment unimpaired along.
Edit: I should add that the course took runners over Massanutten Mountain in the dark. Perhaps the real beasts managed it in daylight, but it was a nighttime leg for lot of good solid runners who were going to get the belt for finishing under 24 hours.
It's probably more obvious to this crowd than to the general population, but I'll say: because most of a cyclist's energy is spent fighting air resistance, (road) cycling as a sport is almost entirely about drag management and drafting other cyclists. That's also what makes it a team sport. Riding right behind someone ("on their wheel") in the right circumstances can save ~25-40% energy, and riding in the middle of a well-developed pack can save quite a lot more.
This is very back-of-napkin, in the real world of course varies with many factors: because drag is a square of velocity, this is exceedingly relevant on fast and flat courses but almost totally unimportant at the low speeds of climbs, and of course wind direction influences the outcome greatly, etc. But this is why you see pros riding within inches of each other's wheels. Whether you're trying to stay with foes or are being carried along by friends, you're trying to save energy and avoid being out in the wind.
What you see when you watch your local criterium, or the Tour de France, is teams trying to shield their sprinter from the wind to conserve energy ("save their legs for the sprint"). There are lots of things one can do along the way, from sabotaging other teams' efforts to do the same, to breakaways, etc. But that's the basic idea. Your local group ride of experienced folks isn't too different; they'll generally run "pacelines" and rotate on/off the front, taking turns sharing the workload of pile-driving into the wind ("pulling"), and move everyone along much faster as a result. It's a skill, but when you learn to do it well and have the choreography down, you can ride your bike silly fast. Technique matters at least as much as power.
90% of the people in the TdF are unsung heroes, aren't there to win. It's only natural to assume that the people on the front are winning the race, but, in view of the energy budget in the above theory, they're not. Outside of the last 200 metres or so, anyone on the front of the pack is definitely not winning, and would never win that way. They're working hard for someone else. And for most of them, that's their career right there.
I'm amazed how risk-tolerant my teenage self was, in retrospect.
I had to follow up with a Wikipedia search where just the usage of the term “pacemaker” or “pacesetter” made things more clear.
Link: https://halfmarathonforbeginners.com/what-is-a-pacer-in-runn...
Races want runners to run fast times, because that makes them prestigious. Runners want to run fast times, for obvious reasons. So races provide rabbits which lures fast runners to those races.
Without Googling, did you know what a patternmaker is?
I’m sure you run then, because again I have no idea what you mean by “splits”
Holistically, pacers are just experienced runners that provide even splits over their distance. In a marathon context, running in a group can be quite pleasant and motivating, but there is definitely nothing stopping anyone from just using a GPS watch.
In theory, you can pace yourself with a watch and a map. “Splits” are (distance, time) pairs that correspond to a targeted finish time. For example, if you were targeting a 4:00 finish at an even pace, you’d want to be crossing the halfway point at 2:00.
In practice, it’s mentally much easier to pace yourself off another person. The implicit peer pressure to stay with the pack helps when you might otherwise start to lag behind and helps you resist the temptation to blow up your plan because “you’re feeling good” and want to go for broke.
eg: https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/forerunner245/EN-US/...
You have pacers in most "official" races. Plenty of pacers in 5K's, 10K's, 15Ks, and Halfs. People want to focus on running their time at a constant pace and not having to speed up and slow down every mile.
I assume a patternmaker is someone who focuses on making patterns, probably novel, with sewing and crocheting. I'll google it and edit this post once I confirm it.
Edit: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patternmaker
Yep, seems close enough. Amazing what one can do with basic logic.
So you confirm that this term is obvious for people who are familiar with races in general. I’m not and don’t even know what units those K’s are in. I’m going to presume kilometers, but who knows.
> I assume a patternmaker is someone who focuses on making patterns, probably novel, with sewing and crocheting
> Yep, seems close enough. Amazing what one can do with basic logic
The only thing they have in common is textiles. This is as close as saying people who know how to edit HTML/CSS are coders or scriptmonkeys are hackers.
No shit I know the word pacer means someone who keeps pace. What that means in context and culture is a different thing.
You are on a social media platform where many people would gladly say that these claims are true.
Anyway I looked it up on wikipedia and my guess still holds up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patternmaker_(clothing)
The only thing I didn't bring up was the software that modern patternmakers might be using, but the core idea is still correct.
>> A patternmaker is a skilled worker who produces patterns on paper or fabric for use in the clothing industry.
> No shit I know the word pacer means someone who keeps pace.
Good, so you recognized that there is very little thought required to match "racing" and "pacers"
Especially if you're running at the top end of your pace.
Unless there is a pacer none of the runners really want to be in front and eating all the aerodynamic drag. So the race slows down. This greatly favours runners with a faster sprint at the end.
Do the race organizers request a specific pace knowing what they know about the competitors? Do they ask for input from the various coaches before the meet? Or does he just always run the exact same pace and other racers pace themselves faster or slower just in comparison to him?
> Meet directors pay him
Based on these incentives and discussions with the runners (and coaches) the pace the pacesetters run is set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lqa36sQhmg
BTW it's career suicide for a rabbit to keep running and try to win the race
Because they’re not actually running the race; they’re staff for the event paid to run part of it at a set pace.
“Finishing”, especially in a top spot, would take the spotlight away from the actual winning participants.
It would be inappropriate for non-competing event staff to take away the spotlight from the competitors. It would be equally bad if one of the motorcycle cameramen did anything but what they were paid to do, and tried to get personal attention. “Rabbits” who run part of the race are not finishing, just like the motorcycle cameramen are not finishing (despite the fact that both might be there at the end).
(From the article, and some other comments, I thought that the "rabbits" were running only part of the race.)
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30152339/pacer-wins-abu-d...
Not sure why it's career suicide. Usually pacers can't hold that pace for the full distance but if they can, more power to them.
It eliminates an entire dimension from the competition: managing oneself and being aware / humble enough to not push unsustainably hard at the start only to run out of juice later on.
Using a pacer essentially reduces the race to an artless treadmill grind.
As an observer, the paced portion of the race is stupidly boring. The entrants don't make interesting moves at all for the paced duration, it's as though the race hasn't actually begun until into the third lap in a 1-mile race (only 4 laps total).
Example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lqa36sQhmg&t=111 (thanks to @m348e912 for the link)
Edit: @infamousclyde: Thank you for sharing some of the upsides. Valid point even if still boring for viewers.
Pacer or not, you still have to run the run and that's not nothing.
https://www.rookieroad.com/boxing/can-pro-boxers-compete-in-...
I don't follow boxing so not sure what the deal was there.
Pacers in the Diamond League, for example, maintain an exceptional pace that regularly leads to new World Records for participants, because the entire race is fast from the gun.
I don't disagree with your sentiment. Just adding some nuance.
The classic example here is the 2016 Olympic 1500m final (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grf_62s_95w). Centrowitz should not have won that on paper. It ironically seems to have revolutionized the event, in a sense - championships have gotten really fast since.
That doesn't mean everyone played their hand well in 2016 - clearly they didn't. By the way, check out Centrowitz's little shimmy at maybe 450m to go/2:50 in that race - he made sure to be in front when it got going, that's what makes his run brilliant and not just lucky.
For real examples of leading being a cost in a fast race, see the most recent two major championships - worlds 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcRrBYx2XG8 and the Olympic final of 2020/21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us9bM_WGYlY. Both are really fast as championships go, and in both the leader for much of the race loses. Would they still have lost if someone else had been in front? ...Maybe. But I think it would've been closer.
part of it comes with the territory, I mean a marathon is pretty boring all the way through, and only now and then do we get an exciting finish.
but on this topic, i'm with you all in favor of questioning the sportsmanship and "is it really racing?" aspect, but the paced portion of the race is generally being run at a faster pace than it would be if the the runners were self-pacing (I think), where the other alternative is running slower, or that self pacers would screw up and run too fast at the beginning and then finish more poorly; i.e. while being more pure, it's not clear the race would be more fun to watch (racers holding themselves back for fear of burning out?) or set as many records.
the part I think I object to is that a pacer's pace might be "tuned" for a particular racer to the detriment of others.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35834628/
That translates to a 3-6 minute benefit in a marathon.
It's not like when people finish a marathon they used all their energies. And their "output rate" per time (or per mile) may be limited by other factors.
Kipchoge broke the marathon WR with a team of fresh runners to draft off of.[0]
[0] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/10/06/drafting-can-save-...
In fact Kipchoge's legal world record (the 2:01:09, not the 1:59) had pacemakers for the first 25km (of 42.2).
Guinness recognises it as "Fastest marathon distance (male)" and "First marathon distance under two hours" despite these factors.
Kipchoge currently has the WR for both.
The whole controversy for the "fastest marathon" is they kept cycling fresh/new runners during the run for Kipchoge to draft off of and conserve energy. These pacers (like the aforementioned runner in the HN article) provide an aerodynamic boost.
How is that not sprinting? :-)