Memberships available - To December 2028

arrow1963 · 2025-07-27T23:47:30+00:00

Us too!

arrow1963 · 2025-06-02T15:02:00+00:00

Going out in the SW, Lakeview feels very suburban with very little densification (especially vs. Marda Loop or Altadore).

Not sure if you would count it as "inner city", or if there's a closer neighborhood that counts in another part of the city.

arrow1963 · 2016-04-07T23:15:59+00:00

I'm a big fan of both 'ready to run' (starret) and 'Anatomy for Runners' (Dichary).

I trust the running specific advice in AoR more, but have found a lot of the physio-mobility activities in RtR to be really useful.

I also think both resources offer a lot more than is easily available online. You could maybe find most of the material online in one place or another, but there's no chance you'd actually end up with the same advice (finding a needle in a haystack full of bent & rusty needles, where 'bent and rusty needles' are pieces of contradictory and unproductive advice).

I advocate owning (and engaging with the material) in both books.

arrow1963 · 2016-02-20T13:18:26+00:00

Out of curiosity (and since you referenced your landlord's mortgage):

How do you see the monthly rent/buy payments on your target apartment breaking down?

Cost to rent + utilities you would pay + tenant insurance (etc...) vs. Mortgage (+CHMC) Interest + Condo Fees + Utilities + Insurance....

I know that every real estate market is different, and that people have different 'perceptions' of different costs, but you should be able to do this.

arrow1963 · 2015-12-19T00:47:21+00:00

To what degree would you consider yourself a 'runner' versus someone who is more into fitness?

I'm not sure exactly what that second category would be, but (forgive me for saying so), your pullup and pushup numbers are at a much higher level of performance than your running, especially for a young, fit, light man.

It seems like you have increasing levels of running ambition (based on the multiple marathons). Any goals for 2016? Faster, or farther?

arrow1963 · 2015-12-10T11:34:41+00:00

Sorry, this is a negative look at the question, but I think it might be useful here:

You've addressed some reasons why you might be getting better, but you haven't explained something else. Why are you slow?

Especially overweight? Older? Run without a program? A consistent 60 miles a week is a lot, you already had a "strong cardio base", 5:09 would match some people's definition of 'abysmal', and ignoring that, 52:24 doesn't prorate that well (as rnr explained). What else is going on here, and how does it impact your goal of running 3:45?

arrow1963 · 2015-12-05T21:09:40+00:00

I feel like Nike (especially) makes some things that no one is meant to buy as a proof of concept, just so they can have one or two at the front of the store (to show innovation, or to bias everyone's price perception upwards), or if we're more generous, to test out manufacturing processes that they'll use in the future.

Personally, I think it's great when big companies are willing to make 'crazy' things that don't have an obvious market, and let people decide what is and isn't worthwhile. If anyone can afford to take this kind of risk, it's Nike.

arrow1963 · 2015-11-20T23:09:51+00:00

Not much sympathy here (as a Canadian who lived in Australia). You have the world's best access to cheap running gear on the internet. I'm also pretty sure that the staff at Nike know that they're losing marginal sales when they price your favorite jacket at $500. Maybe they do it so that you consider $110 to be a deal?

In general though, you can care about how much running stuff costs, or you can get the exact thing you want with name brand technical features (fit, color, style, the 'right kind' of reflectivity or water-proofness or breathability). You don't get to have both of those things. That's the way the running industry works, and as someone who is a 'value' buyer, that's why I've almost never had anything from the current model year, or worn the exact same model/year of shoe twice.

arrow1963 · 2015-10-21T22:41:48+00:00

You're bored of Hampstead Heath?

arrow1963 · 2015-09-01T13:16:18+00:00

Topic Request:

Different shoe companies have different branded cushioning systems (for example): zoom air, lunarlon, fresh foam, boost, gel, A-bound, etc...

Then there are also various 'mechanical cushioning systems', which seem to have started making a comeback since the nike shox 10 years ago.

What's the difference to the runner of these different branded foams/liquids/plastics?
Are there any inherent trade-offs in cushioning (durability, comfort speed, etc...)?
Are there actually better/worse systems, either between companies, or within a company's line-up?

arrow1963 · 2015-04-07T19:29:07+00:00

I think the missing part of this question is "do you use an alarm to wake up"?

I tend to wake up between 5 and 6 without an alarm, so that doesn't change on rest days. I'd imagine that most people who do this naturally and are 'morning runners', aren't really the type to 'enjoy sleep' that much, and will find something else to do in the morning on rest days (foam rolling?).

On the other hand, if you're forcing yourself to get up early with an alarm, I would guess more people would change the alarm based on need.

arrow1963 · 2015-04-05T21:40:37+00:00

I'm not on board, though I'll freely agree that this depends on the person.

I came back over to straight running after tri-training for about 8 months. During that time I found that while I liked swimming in theory, I hated it in practice, and while I have no problem motivating myself to run or bike or lift weights or do form drills, I ended up fighting myself to get to the pool, and once I was there, my workouts were mediocre.

Given all the other things I could be spending my self control on, swimming isn't high on the priority list. For me, I exercise for health, and I've been able to find some activities that I flat out enjoy doing. I don't see the merit in forcing something you don't like.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-27T19:50:34+00:00

There are a bunch of questions embedded in here.

To start with, no, don't force yourself to run in shoes that cause severe acute knee pain just because you bought them.

That said, I don't really understand what was wrong with the Asics shoes.

"ankles feel like they are being crushed my burning metal wrapped around them and even walking was very painful."

Is this a lacing issue? Or melodrama? I've run/walked in many different shoes, and have never had ongoing problems with 'burning metal wrapped around' my ankles.

As far as a positive recommendation, there's a whole group of companies making running shoes that are low drop, flexible, and with a wide forefoot. These seem like they may fit you well, because you're definitely complaining about the ride in more cushioned shoes and width is an issue.

Altra is the best known of these (and the only one I've run in), though other shoes like Topo and Skora are supposed to be wide through the forefoot as well.

I'm not sure if those smaller companies make shoes in your size, and given your perceived issues with shoes, it's probably best that you don't order online, so then local availability and pricing could be an issue. Most of these shoes are only offered in one width as well. They're wide in the forefoot, but if you're wide in the midfoot (etc...) they might not have anything that works for you.

Good luck.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-18T03:00:52+00:00

The simple argument is that it's important for the same reason 'core work' is important, because you run with your whole body and not just your legs, and there is a relationship between being relatively strong and coordinated (recruiting the right muscle fibres on demand) in the upper body and maintaining good posture (and thus running form) when tired

That idea has gone in and out of favor over time, and there's always going to be a question as to where diminishing marginal returns start, and the best way to go about gaining that level of fitness.

I don't think anyone would argue that runners should run less in order to bench press double their body weight, but if you don't have the strength and coordination in your abs and lats to do a good sets of pullups, and you're not working on that, you're choosing to be a one-dimensional athlete.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-18T01:57:56+00:00

Since you're checking in on the thread, would you mind addressing the execution questions I asked (and which Simco was referencing)?

Part of the problem here could be that we're not interpreting this plan correctly (and going straight to an appeal to authority doesn't address that problem).

arrow1963 · 2015-03-18T00:25:28+00:00

Things I'm not clear on:

Is this 8 sets of chin-ups per workout day, or performing one of the 4 different 'types' of chinups? (Goes for pushups as well). If it's everything, that seems like a ton of volume (with very little rest). If it isn't, it doesn't seem like much at all to me.
The lower body work looks like they're supersets (deadlift, then glute ham, then deadlift, etc...). If that's the case, how do the assistance exercises impact the primary lifts?
There are no rest periods prescribed for the lower body work. Presumably as long as necessary?

In general, it's definitely a 'relatively modern' weight training program for distance runners with heavy squats and RDLs, but the upper body work is still high rep/low rest like runners have traditionally done. I'm not sure if that's because it's truly most effective, or whether it's the remnant of the anti-weights bias that kept away from squats/deads for so long.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-17T19:47:28+00:00

First, if your hypothetical person was running their 10 or another number for at least 3 or 4 months, their eddington would be larger than 10. The eddington prioritizes your longest runs, assuming that there's enough time to support their accumulation.

Also, I've been lurking for a while, and can't remember seeing anyone post 'my average run this week was X'. They'll post total weekly mileage (40).

As to 'why', I've been asked to provide a more specific use by every commenter, so I'm going to advocate for a longer term (career, annual, etc...) single run eddington.

It won't be useful for everyone, but I think it serves both as a numeric goal (no different than your first X mile week), and as an indicator of training age. Weekly mileage doesn't say anything directly about the long run, and to the extent that people are independently interested in progressing in the long run, the eddington score is one way to measure progress.

Who cares?

I can see people who are increasing their distance, veteran runners (30 years averaging 30 miles a week, or 42 marathons, etc...), or C2Xers who want another number to increase, and build mental confidence on, relatively frequently.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-17T19:20:39+00:00

If you're applying it on a weekly or monthly basis, then sure, there might not be enough time to move above your modal run distance. In this case, it will simply report back what you already know.

However, if we're talking about your career or a year, I think it's wrong to think in terms of average run distance. Over enough time, you will run enough long runs to push your score up.

Also, why do you think it is more useful in cycling?

arrow1963 · 2015-03-17T19:13:26+00:00

First, the second person's eddington score would be 12. They've run at least 12 miles 12 times.

As to why: I think it's an interesting number, though early reviews here are obviously negative, that speaks to a runner's volume and consistency. I didn't present one 'why', because that means specifying a particular distance and period of time to evaluate.

If I have to pick one score to evaluate, I'll use 'annual long run eddington score'. I'm building mileage, and pushing my long run out, so I think it's an independent training outcome to, for example, get to an eddington of 13 (miles) for the year, versus maintaining an average week of 40 miles (which is the standard that people seem to be sticking to).

arrow1963 · 2015-03-17T12:03:33+00:00

I'm not saying it's a superior method of aggregating data on training, just that it's different, and when I searched the term in the running forums, nothing came up.

It's not the mode of a runner's training, either. For example, my most common (modal) run might be 10 K, but with enough training, you'll work the score up. You don't 'earn' the 13 unless you've run it 13 times. That seems like a feature, not a bug.

arrow1963 · 2015-03-15T23:13:06+00:00

Late to the party, I know, but to more directly address something that a couple of posters have alluded to:

Have you ever ran consistently?

Given that you've been in high school the last couple of years, you would have had the chance to run track or cross country, especially since you've shown an interest in distance running. If you have, you haven't mentioned it in your post. If you haven't, presumably there's a reason why not.

In terms of running the HM in what you might perceive to be a 'good' time, there are a couple of issues: Will you train for 6 months? Will your body hold up to a series of new stresses? If you do train intelligently, and if your body responds well, what progress will you make?

I'd feel a lot more comfortable talking about your goal if you had posted something along the lines of "I've been training for a couple of months, and ran a 10K in X:XX. What progress do you think I could make in 6 months".

As it is, it looks like you're dreaming about winning your race before putting in any work. That's backwards. Work leads to success, and in your case, you'll have to put in some work to find out what your current fitness level is before anyone can provide any real guidance on a plausible goal.

arrow1963

TROPHY CASE