site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   3470 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 10, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll return to my broken-record endorsement of running. Why roll out of bed and run? Well, if I don't, I'll be slower than I was before. But if I do, I'll be faster than I was before. Sometimes I'll beat people in races and sometimes I'll lose, but I will be satisfied with being able to compete either way.

If competition holds no appeal to you, we're too far apart in natural inclination for me to offer anything of use.

I tried running for 4 months. Like proper HIIT, not just a light jog (insert 4chan greentext about Anon who doesn't realize that runners don't normally run, and is disappointed when he can't sprint several kilometers a day as he thinks the guide he followed demands of him a few weeks in).

Suffice to say I did not enjoy it in the least, and all I had for competition were curious villagers, cattle, small motor vehicles and cobras, not necessarily in that order. I didn't even notice any massive changes, I was still as conked out with sore legs on my usual route 4 months in as I was at the end of the first.

Ah - the problem there is that you were doing proper HIIT, not that you weren't. If you're wanting to physically develop to the point where running isn't miserable every time out, it requires lot of easy effort, not lots of high effort. Elite athletes that put in huge miles are typically running about 80% of it as a fairly low effort. The majority of aerobic fitness gains come from relatively easy effort, with higher effort providing additional VO2Max, lactic threshold, or neuromuscular power (depending on the workout). For me, a typical week during a non-marathon training block is something like:

  • Monday - Recovery day: Easy 45 minute bike ride, easy 4 mile run (9:00/mile pace)
  • Tuesday - Track intervals: Warmup (3 miles, some strides mixed in), 12x400m (start at 10K pace, progress to 3K pace by last interval, 400m easy jog recoveries between), cooldown (2 miles easy)
  • Wednesday - Recovery run: 6 miles easy (8:30/mile pace)
  • Thursday - General aerobic: 10 miles at moderate effort (7:40/mile pace)
  • Friday - Lactic Threshold: Warmup (3 miles, some strides mixed in), 3x2 miles@LT (6:00/mile pace, 2 minutes float recovery at 7:00/mile pace), cooldown
  • Saturday - General aerobic: 8 miles at moderate effort (7:40/mile pace, but feel free to pick it up if I feel good)
  • Sunday - Long run: 14 miles @ moderate effort (7:40/mile, likely to run harder the last few miles)

If you've developed the fitness for it, all of the recovery and general aerobic feels relaxing and not very difficult. Pop in a podcast, spend an hour outside, drink a beer when I get home. The workouts are hard but satisfying.

For someone starting out, I would basically suggest zero interval work. Accumulating base mileage just has a much larger impact on aerobic fitness with much less risk of injury and burnout. If someone isn't consistently running ~30-40 miles per week, they will probably gain more running fitness from adding more time and mileage than from running harder more frequently.

Hmm, you probably have a point here. I hated running, so I thought that if I could get the whole thing over with quickly with HIIT instead of ambling along for hours, it would get me fitter and faster.

Rest assured I run around enough at the hospital, or so my sore legs, ass and back tell me today.

How fast would you say an average man should jog?

A while back, I started one of those couch-to-5k routines. It was all intervals. Great, I’m ramping up jog time, 3 minutes, 5, 8. Then suddenly—20 minutes, 2 miles. Huh? I wasn’t even doing my short intervals at 10-minute-mile pace. It was like a cliff for me.

I can’t figure out if I should be pushing up my pace or just reaching for that longer interval.

Longer and easier, the improved speed and fitness will come in time. There really isn't a pace that can be set externally without respect to where you're currently at. Some of the legit fast guys in my running club (roughly 2:35 marathoners, so guys that are running 6:00/mile pace for 26.2 miles) are perfectly happy to trot along at a 10-minute pace on brewery run nights so they can hang out with slower friends. Obviously they do speedwork as well, but there's a lot of value in low aerobic effort running all the way up the ladder. Getting to the point where you're genuinely comfortable at literally any pace that is still a running gait for a half hour is a better starting point than getting frustrated by the fatigue of going too fast. If that pace is 11:30 miles for the moment, then the pace is 11:30 miles for the moment. In a couple months, it'll be 11:00 minute.

I cannot overstate the extent to which comparison is the thief of joy. There's always people that are faster, don't worry about what you feel like you should be able to do. For a guy that didn't pick the sport up till later, I'm pretty decent, occasionally win small races, and it's still super easy to get sucked into being bothered that I'm not as fast as the other guys. The only solution to it just getting accustomed to that.

Thanks.

I’ll try to push up my duration while holding the current pace.

If competition holds no appeal to you, we're too far apart in natural inclination for me to offer anything of use.

Males typically enjoy competition provided they have some chance of winning. I've never met a male who continues to enjoy a competitive activity in which they consistently lose. (For footraces this means near last-place finishes.)

To find meaning it's important to find a competition within an arm's length of your competency. See: eudaimonia, or flow state.

You're never going to win 'em all, or even win above some level of competition, but for the average random guy, it's entirely feasible to become reasonably competitive in small local races. Probably more importantly, I have plenty of fun competing in things that I have zero chance of winning - I'm still racing against the people that I'm closed to, and we've run together enough that we all know each other at this point, so it's all in good camaraderie.

Obviously running specifically won't be for everyone. If someone else wants fighting, lifting, or whatever other sport, more power to them. I do think there's something special about endurance sports, but I have a fair bit of bias in that direction that isn't objective. In any case, pick a sport, work hard at it, compete and build friendships, and that's a pretty good way to find day-to-day purpose.

reasonably competitive in small local races

If you have those in your area.

I'm still racing against the people that I'm closed to

Requires having such people.

If you live in the United States or United Kingdom, you probably have small local races at least somewhat nearby.

But sure, it is true that some locales are better than others for this sort of community, as with all types of communities. It's one of the things that I love about the city I'm in and would be disinclined to tradeoff for the advantages of other areas.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats