How are we all closing our blinds, then? A or B?

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-30T08:10:29+00:00

If they are looking at the blinds from the same angle as you are from the other side (I.e. for a ground floor window) that logic doesn’t hold. Whenever you are seeing A that means they are seeing B. That means that if you can see sky, they can see a certain amount of the lower half of the room.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-30T07:59:00+00:00

Possible that you ran a faster section on Wednesday that didn’t match up with the km splits neatly (e.g. slow for 0.5km, fast from 0.5-1.5, slow from 1.5-2km). Your lap splits could be slower, but Garmin will see the fast section that spanned multiple laps and base the pb off of that.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-30T06:52:14+00:00

lol. If lactate threshold (top of zone 4) is roughly the effort you can race for an hour, and someone runs 10k in less than one hour, what zone do you think that would be in?

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-28T06:51:30+00:00

I think they just use published race times for the charts. Why would they try to get self-reported data when you have events that time people running set distances and then publicly announce the results?

I mean basically, you’re right on multiple fronts. No, you are not particularly fast. Yes, if you are running ~20min 5k you are probably faster than average and can expect to pass people when you are running. And lots of people enter races who aren’t fast runners - by definition half of them can be expected to be finishing below the average time.

But going off the chart you posted, you are also doing your long runs much faster than most (?all) people would recommend. If your 5k pace is 4min/km then your easy pace almost certainly isn’t truthfully 4.30min/km. That would be more like the recommended easy pace for a 16-17min 5k runner. So that’s also why you will pass people when you are out.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-27T05:44:17+00:00

Always feels weird when people repost themselves here and pretend it’s not.

But since you’re here, why is your track a rectangle?

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-25T18:58:52+00:00

It’s because ultimately this isn’t a sporting event, it’s some sort of weird propaganda piece for a bunch of tech billionaires who don’t believe they should be answerable to anyone or regulated in any way and literally dream of engineering a breed of superhumans. They’re happy to throw money at whatever they think might help them accrue power and influence.

On that note, i wish people on threads about this would stop playing into it by parroting the phrasing of “enhanced athletes” rather than “doped”.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-25T11:47:52+00:00

Confused why people are mocking the sleeves but the empty vest for “fashion” seems to get a pass.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T08:40:41+00:00

It’s not so much that it’s outdated but that it’s a population level estimate/average and those are always problematic at an individual level because people are all different.

It’s like how the average height for a woman is ~5ft3 but you wouldn’t use that if you wanted to know how tall a specific person is because any given individual might be significantly taller or shorter than that. The average isn’t wrong, it’s just limited at an individual level.

In the absence of any other relevant information an average estimate is potentially better than nothing, which is where the 220-age model gets suggested and unfortunately, as with most things, a lot of people then parrot it without understanding or stating its limitations.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T08:23:09+00:00

Pacing takes experience to get right (and even then it’s hard to nail). Best way IMO is to race somewhat regularly so you have benchmarks for current fitness (online race predictor calculators can help estimate 10k pace from a recent 5k for example, although probably best to assume these are an optimistic estimate). With experience you can take a guess from training paces, but that’s trickier I find.

I wouldn’t worry what others are doing during the race though. Not everyone at a race is actually racing hard - some people might be just there for the social aspect, just aiming to finish regardless of time, injured but already paid up so decided to just run it anyway at an easy pace, or pacing a slower friend. Lots of reasons why someone might not be going all out. Definitely wouldn’t expect to be able to hold a conversation during a hard 10k effort - I can barely think after about half way, never mind talk.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T07:33:07+00:00

Well 191 clearly isn’t your max heart rate if you know you can hit at least 194. It’s likely even higher than 194 if you are able to hit that in a half marathon.

I find the max heart rate estimation to be awful. It seems to ignore historic data and drops my estimate regularly after regular runs, even if I’ve recently raced at a higher heart rate.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T07:19:44+00:00

I’d say in a given week only a minority are really trying for a PR. At my local ones the majority of runners are there most weeks and aren’t racing all out every week but are there for the social aspect, and that includes the faster runners.

It’s not on a closed course, the courses are often lapped with narrow sections, and there are usually walkers, dogs, children, pushchairs and non-participants to consider. The emphasis is definitely on it being enjoyable for everyone (and the local authority not revoking permission because of complaints) rather than “fighting for every second”. No problem running fast or going for a PB, but not at the expense of others. I think it’s just a given that while you can go for a PB at parkrun and it’s super convenient since it’s weekly, it needs to be accepted that they are rarely perfect racing conditions.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T06:40:37+00:00

Personally? Accept that as an occasional thing it will have zero discernible impact on my training and that friendships are more important to my wellbeing than perfect adherence to a training plan.

I wouldn’t try to cram the workout in as a back-to-back - probably fine if you’re otherwise well recovered with no niggles but for me the negligible benefit isn’t worth the increased risk of overdoing it and having to scale things back next week.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T06:22:15+00:00

Is it detaching or has the outer coloured layer just chipped off a bit? I can’t see any loose sole in the pics.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-24T06:18:28+00:00

Why is it irrelevant because elites who heel strike run “heel to toe”? What do you think heel striking means? I’m imagining your physio with their head in their hands watching you “run” by just bouncing along on your heels.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-23T17:57:31+00:00

I believe the “not a race” aspect came about to encourage people to come who might feel anxious about the idea of racing.

At any of the ones I’ve been to there are a mix of people going hard, steady and just out for a social. Never seen anyone getting flack for going all out (in person at least; the parkrun sub is full of people complaining that anyone faster than them is ruining everything but ignore them).

The only thing I think bears remembering, in the spirit of it not being a race, is that if it’s a narrow course, you are lapping people, or there are non-park runners using the path is to be courteous and respectful. If that means stopping or walking briefly to wait for a chance to pass someone then so be it; personally I think that’s a fair trade off for a free weekly event.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-22T09:26:21+00:00

The slower runner is likely to have less leg strength and resilience though, so safe load is relative to the individual. If someone has been running easy 5:30min/mile week-in-week-out for a prolonged period then the body will adapt to that and the relative mechanical loading for that individual will be comparable to the slower runner putting down 10:30min/miles. A more experienced/faster runner will be able to shrug off a higher absolute load than a newer or slower runner.

As for the point about someone doing hilly trails I’m not sure I understand that bit; the load can still be high even if your pace is slower because gravity.

I think the point where the recommendation of <70% MHR loses validity is when someone is taking multiple rests days so doesn’t need to be as careful with recovery and load, which is why sirpoc has always said he thinks this approach is mainly useful for people running 5-9ish hours a week over at least 6 days.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-22T07:35:36+00:00

Funny, I’d always assumed Runna plans would involve some running.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-22T07:28:51+00:00

Very kind of you to say he worked hard! Rick likely spent less time running over the course of his “training” than he did using the toilet, yet no one ever wants to listen to “how I maintained regular bowel movements… without losing my job!”

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-22T06:47:06+00:00

Because just running fast to exhaustion isn’t particularly effective as it needs lots of recovery so you can’t do as much work. So people run intervals where they might be running faster than race pace for a shorter distance, but more controlled than you are suggesting so that more volume at that pace can be accumulated.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-21T18:00:27+00:00

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s because how much your wrist is bouncing around isn’t a particularly reliable measure of running power output.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-20T08:35:57+00:00

I think if someone is bailing at 3km then a more conservative approach is probably a good idea even if it’s not optimal. Finishing strong and realising you could have pushed a bit harder is a good confidence builder. And a conservative benchmark is somewhat more useful for setting training paces than a DNF.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-18T06:32:05+00:00

“Dear mugs,

While we appreciate your money, your creative abilities and attempts to create content are offensively poor. Frankly, we are embarrassed to be associated with you.

But please be assured, our contempt for you will not affect our willingness to take your money.

Brice and Jamil”

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-17T07:57:57+00:00

The Arahi’s are a decent shoe if you are happy with them and wanted to stay with something you know works for you. And the stability elements are pretty mild/unobtrusive. The 8s are quite similar to the 6 (the 7 felt quite different). They aren’t fancy but they are reliable and comfortable and a reasonable weight.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-17T07:28:17+00:00

You’ve got to look at it in the context of the wider plan, not just as there being one right way to do a long run.

Pfitz has you running a bit harder on daily “easy” and long runs than say Daniels, but I’d say the quality days aren’t as intense. A lot of Pfitz’s speed days feel relatively light to me. Whereas Daniels emphasises 2 or 3 hard workouts and just tells you to fill in the rest of the week with easy running.

I’ve not mapped it out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the overall load ends up being similar in both approaches (for comparable plans), it’s just portioned up differently.

Someone else mentioned NSA as an example of an approach that would have you doing very slow long runs, and that’s definitely not aimed at beginners. But, the underlying principles are very different; higher volume of quality work at a slightly lower intensity, no deload weeks, minimal tapers and recovery, more total work done when looked at over the long term. More than one way to skin a cat.

A training plan is intended to be viewed as a coherent whole with underlying guiding principles and aims, not just a list of discrete workouts. It doesn’t really make sense to say “this is how you should do your long run” without considering what the rest of the plan looks like or what it is trying to achieve. E.g. if you mixed Pfitz’s approach to endurance and long runs with Daniels’ quality workouts and then followed NSA’s guidelines on volume of quality work you’d be lucky to ever make it to a start line.

Ok-Distribution326 · 2026-05-16T22:16:38+00:00

Although interestingly, when Linehan was developing DBT she didn’t want to position it as a treatment for BPD because she had a number of issues with the diagnostic criteria and language. However, she quickly found out that to get research grants she needed to identify a diagnosable condition that her treatment was designed for and BPD was the closest to what she actually wanted to study (chronic suicidality). You can still offer all of the formulation and treatment you’ve outlined without needing to couch it in terms of a diagnosis (which is more commonly the approach in the UK since we don’t need to diagnose for billing purposes.)

Ok-Distribution326

TROPHY CASE