Not long ago I was telling a friend who runs about it seeming odd that I've only bought close-out sale shoes for running, none of which were probably well-regarded examples of standard contemporary technology, not even medium performance level shoes. Then with some research it turned out that the last close-out sale pair I'd bought were actually "real" running shoes, a now-dated version of New Balance Beacon 3. That indirectly led to re-visiting running training and equipment themes.
And also my Dad, who just had both knees replaced with artificial joints, recently told me that the condition is genetic, and that running is one of the worst things you can do for your knees--no secret there. Since I'm 54 now I'm conditioning to stay in good health, but the typical age for me to experience such problems is drawing closer now that I'm on the later side of middle age.
 |
older than last year's model at this point |
I'm not a serious runner. I've been running for four years now, but weekly distance has been limited, and training approach is non-existent; I run whatever I run. Nothing here should be taken as actionable advice, and it would probably be more interesting to non-runners than runners, who would already know more than I do. To maximize training effect I was using an interval theme for quite awhile, running a 2 mile loop (around a square city block, on a running track), at near maximum speed for one 800+ meter segment. That essentially goes against the main standard training theories and approaches, running that short a distance, and emphasizing running one part faster on every run. I'll add a little about reviewing running training theories here later.
That early intention related to replacing spending 20 minutes on a cross-country simulating exercise machine, which didn't seem effective at all, with a half hour or so of light running. Later that was much more pleasant, but early acclimation to running isn't a great experience.
Skipping ahead, looking at online Youtube channels about running themes naturally led to me wanting to upgrade my shoes, not the decent new pair I just cycled into rotation with two others, but replacing those others. Eventually a performance and biometric tracking sports watch would seem essential, but I've resisted that part up until now, because I don't want to run in that kind of structured way, to be up against a clock and training theme every day. It's nice running by feel, and I'm not training for any set purpose, like achieving a race time.
Since I did run cross country and track in high school I'm not afraid that I'll get something completely wrong, or injure myself; to me it's just running. Injury risk is real, and I've experienced two minor injuries, so the point is that I want to be careful but I don't feel like I need to follow running culture consensus input to be safe.
Back to the shoe theme, the main thread here, New Balance shoes are well-regarded, in general, but it seems like Hoka maximum cushion shoes are more trendy now, maybe with a few other brands catching up over the last few years. A range of carbon-plate energy return racing shoes are one of the recent themes, with varieties of designs and foam types (and uppers, the top, and so on) evolving every year. And Asics shoes are especially well regarded, and all the more attractive since I've ran mostly in Asics and New Balance shoe versions so far.
After local shopping, including a trip to an outlet, I found an especially highly praised "shoe of the year" contender on sale through a local online outlet, and bought a pair of Asics Novablast 3 (the first photo). After one outing I can already say that they feel great; it's like running on a stiff trampoline. [Edit: make that two runs in two days; I'm so excited about the new shoes it might be hard not overdoing it.]
How my running is going
As to the training side I still don't have a performance tracking watch, so I don't know details people normally would, like heart rate, but I at least did recently carry a phone to track how fast I'm running now. It had always been telling me about how many steps I walk a day, without me asking, so that only involved clicking on a pre-installed app that I hadn't been using.
I'm running at about 6-6:15 minutes per kilometer, or 9:40 and up minutes per mile, across varying distances. I tracked half that two mile circuit at about that speed, then a 6.25 km run, then 9.8 km run, all the same. It's a normal pace for me now, it seems. Messing around with bumping distance and frequency have screwed me up a little, not always with positive effect, but that 6 minute km range is comfortable, so I'll stick with that for awhile to normalize the experience further, then add in limited faster runs later.
 |
the local palace that I run around |
Looking at those stats in 9 days I've ran a relatively comfortable pace on that 6.25 km loop (two rounds) in 43 minutes, then 40, 39, and 38. Those times are a little faster than they appear for that time including a short 4 minute warm stretch after the first mile or so (1.5 km, roughly), a step that I added after an injury years back. I've ran 6 times in 9 days, lots more than my earlier 2 or 3 outings per week.
I've been working on slowing down the runs in order to get out more often, and I think instead I've trained to where roughly the same pace that had seemed more challenging earlier now does feel slower, that 6 min / km / 9.5 min / mile range. It doesn't really follow a training theory, but I've been at least hearing about those more lately, if not actually putting them into practice. I don't think I've conditioned significantly more in the last two weeks, to be clear, it seems instead that relaxing more while I run makes a big difference, which is easier said than done.
To someone who hasn't been a "jogger" for a few years it might seem odd that I keep placing myself on the level of a "couch to 10k" training non-runner, after four years of running several times every week, when I just said that running a 10k distance in an hour is just a moderate intensity training run for me. People who run, whether they are or aren't serious about it, would get it, that there are a variety of levels.
Intermediate training level runners, people who race, and take training moderately seriously, put in more mileage, and generally start to experiment with different running paces, training themes, and heart-rate based approaches, which I'm not experimenting with. Or on to trying to adjust cadence and breathing patterns, mechanics, or any number of details. Running 10 miles per week isn't much conditioning base, and I haven't been averaging that prior to just now. I've only increased from 4 miles to 6 on longer runs within the last month or so. I just ran 36.5 km in that 9 days I'd mentioned, by far the most I've covered in that time, or 22 miles, but that's still not even 20 miles per week.
A word of warning, which probably should be more of a starting point: randomly messing around with these themes and variations is a good way to get injured. I think that even though that limited-distance higher-intensity segment I practiced, for well over a year, or maybe 2, isn't a good approach for conditioning for cardiovascular capacity improvement, it probably did still build up muscle and connective tissue strength. Because I had worked up to increasing intensity for a year or two first I didn't get injured (two minor injuries came earlier, in the less demanding build-up period), but I was probably still lucky. That approach is surely terrible for routine training in relation to impact on your body, and as a result I would run at most every other day, a cycle I've been having trouble moving past. In general 5 or 6 days running a week seems to be more of an intermediate level norm.
People serious about running might just run and run, 50 to 100 miles a week, even though that sounds unsustainable. How? I don't completely get that part. It might be that they condition to tolerate more and more volume, that being better and better acclimated to it keeps reducing the impact on your body. It's easier to learn about details for training approaches than it is about training experience progression, which I'll cover next. Two main inputs (parts of that explanation of tolerance for higher miles), which I don't cover much here, are building up to any degree of running intensity, frequency, and distance, and how helpful it is to just not be in your 50s.
In my 20s I would go out snowboarding however often it came up (living at a ski resort), working labor intensive jobs in the days or evenings, or both (restaurant server, bellman, whatever it was), and after adjusting to the demands I didn't experience any muscle soreness day to day. I could go hike 16-18 miles, going up a 14,000 foot high mountain with no preparation, and just felt a little sore the next day. Now I experience recovery as more of a concern, exercising much less, more consistently at lower intensity over a long period of time. I think older people (like me) can train to do challenging things, it's just that the process is really slow compared to when you are younger.
Running training theories
On to the theories and standard approaches then. A very basic and standard idea that comes up is an 80-20 approach, running relatively slowly, well within your conditioning limits, 80% of the time, and mixing in faster running for the rest. This video goes into levels related to that, identified by heartrate, by a charismatic, "non-elite" runner (his characterization) and popular Youtuber nicknamed Kofuzi. It's funny how he can run a sub-3 hour marathon--equivalent to four under-45 minute 10ks in a row--and still feels a need to qualify the intermediate level that places him within.
Of course it's not nearly that simple, just "80-20," and there are competing versions of training theories and approaches. One part that should be kept clear is that many of these approaches are sophisticated and advanced practices that probably wouldn't be relevant for people without a sufficient training base (which of course I don't have, or at most am only now approaching; in six months to a year I maybe could be ready for more serious training).
Back to training approaches; another common theme is low heartrate training, moving further towards reducing intensity. The idea is that it's possible to add considerable training volume (mileage) if you just moderate experienced heart rate to a lower level than many people training for races might intuitively take up (see that earlier video reference for a range for that, or a lot more detail in this one, Floris Gierman of the Extramilest Youtube channel). On the positive side per many accounts this seems to work, and it's a natural fit for people new to ramping up training routines, from taking no formal approach to including more of that. It's not framed as a beginner practice though; it's said to work for advanced, previously conditioned runners as well, an approach that people might have good results from as an intermediate.
Per that account I've linked to only after reaching a plateau of conditioning "gains," which could take quite awhile depending on history and training volume, are faster runs and higher heart rate running re-introduced. That's also covered in detail in a first person account here by Gareth King, there interviewed on that Extramilest Youtube channel. He reduced his marathon time from 3 1/2 hours to 2 1/2; pretty impressive. I'll probably never train to run that distance in the first place. As I mentioned recovery times are slower at my age, and I'm surely not going on hormone replacement or taking drugs just to post daily training results and race times on Instagram and Facebook.
In one last example of training theory (not last in the sense of this is all there is, since it keeps going, just the last I'll mention) Jeff Cunningham covers "the five pillars of distance training" on the Nick Bair podcast. A lot of that overlaps with what I've already mentioned, adding more about recovery and other themes, especially related to other levels of varying intensity training between "light and heavy." That's not just about shorter distance speed work, but about sustained training tied to varying heart rates, oxygen capacity levels, and in relation to lactic acid removal threshold. It's good stuff. Too advanced for me to do much with, but still interesting. Jeff mentioned in deciding if Nick would be suitable for training that his prior marathon experience, dedication, high weekly mileage capacity, and ability to run a 5 minute mile all factored in as positives. Right...
The continually recurring theme of capturing biometric and running results data in all those references sounds interesting and also negative to me. As an engineer--industrial, but they all kind of apply--I like functional stats and data as much as the next person, but for undergoing human experience I don't necessarily want to try to "hack" my exercise responses, or any part of my life experience. Maybe someone could see fasting as that, but I don't.
As I'm able to run more I'll improve in conditioning, and I can run slower and faster, varying distance and theme outings, without adding any theory at all. I'm more concerned about injury, or dropping dead, the big injury. I'm not even sure when I'll get around to running any kind of race, or what I could run for a decent 10k time right now. Under an hour, for sure; I just ran that as moderate intensity training. I'd add in more speed work to drop that current 9 1/2 minute comfortable mile time range, but since I'm already pushing it recently for increasing both frequency and distance I'll get to it when I get to it.
Conclusions
What's the take-away from all this? Running is a cool experience, after you move past hating it on to craving it. There is as much theory as you would ever want to learn about, ten times as much, and it's kind of practical to put it in practice just by going out and running, a fairly natural activity, after some initial acclimation.
Then of course people have to go and make it weird by adding countless levels of things to buy, not just shoes and high performance biometric tracking watches, but also special clothes and socks, nutrient gels, electrolytes, recovery gear (foam rollers, and the next 100 inventions), yet more biometric tracking stuff, knee braces, exercise bands, and it just keeps going. God forbid you might go out and run in an ordinary cotton t-shirt (which I do, in 90+ degree tropical weather; it's nice after it seems more normal). Then beyond the Insta and FB posts people join running clubs, attend races, join social media discussion groups, anything at all that can promote that identity for others to appreciate.
So it goes, the information age. I write here; I'm not completely different. And I've watched a bit of a shoe review channel with an associated podcast that I like, Believe in the Run. Those content creators are personable, and bring the ideas to life in engaging discussion, as Kofuzi also does. As someone progresses in training they would probably learn from content that is more and more applicable to them, which I'm not really onto yet, it's as much for entertainment.
There are countless shoe review channels, and plenty that offer lots of tips on running, how to optimize breathing, change stride or other mechanics, on through range you'd never even consider. It's interesting watching videos about how famous and accomplished runners train, even though it's probably better to not see that as practical input.
Now that I think of it two people I knew were into that ultra-marathon theme way before it ever became popular, in the early 90s, both running the local Leadville 100 (miles, of course). Somehow they did that while the internet was in its infancy, never mind contemporary social media, which didn't exist yet. As I recall they just ran a lot to train. I remember one telling me that he would drink a beer or two while running that, because he desperately needed calories but it became disgusting just drinking sugary drinks, Gatorade and whatever else. He said that the alcohol would just metabolize right out. Too bad that he couldn't buy the for-purpose gel tubes people eat now.
As for advice to others who want to start, but aren't sure how, that's the easy part: walk before you run. Literally; spend 45 minutes walking a few times a week and once that's quite comfortable get some ok shoes and check out jogging. I'm not sure if it made any sense but I wanted to experience the mechanics of jogging at moderate speed early on, instead of slowly, to continue with that later, so I was running somewhere around a 10 minute mile pace from the start, stopping to walk as often as I needed to in order to keep it up. Roughly; I wasn't timing that, so maybe it was 12, and just felt faster to me.
I don't think that works as advice for a good approach, but the idea of making it your own still might. It might work to run at a faster pace you want to get to later and walk often enough to make that comfortable, and then do other runs at a slow pace, so you can experience those running mechanics part of the time, and actually build up a cardio base the rest.
If you push it for intensity, duration, or frequency an injury will let you know when you've exceeded your limits, and it's nicer to not experience much of that. I had a knee problem right when the pandemic hit, a bit over a year into running, so right when half of Bangkok took up running I took six weeks off, letting my knee recover on its own. Pairing running with plenty of stretching, yoga, light weight training, or swimming might help with avoiding that. Or just run slow, and not far, taking breaks to walk some; that would work.
Past a certain point it's addictive, and then it's on to managing not ramping it up too fast again, but in a different form. People would probably break in one of two main directions related to placing the social aspects, joining a running group or else avoiding that, but to an extent that part doesn't matter, taking up secondary aspects or connections that are either appealing or not. Experiencing races might be nice; eventually I'll get to that.
