years back when I first started, I was under the impression that speed (regardless of distance) was the only factor on whether you were good or not. For example, I had a 12:00 3k and a 40:00 10k as equivalent performances.
years back when I first started, I was under the impression that speed (regardless of distance) was the only factor on whether you were good or not. For example, I had a 12:00 3k and a 40:00 10k as equivalent performances.
That it would, someday, get easier.
That I would, someday, achieve a "runner's high."
That the completely enjoyable run happened more than 25% of the time.
That running the fastest 400 I could for the first lap of a mile would translate to a fast mile.
I didn't realize how many fast people there were. I figured if you ran 4x a week for 2 years you could be top 10 in any race you entered.
I underestimated how good I could get over time with solid training.
I had misconceptions of what fast people looked like and was surprised when I could beat people that looked more athletic, even in the sprints.
thepeacefulwarrior wrote:
That the completely enjoyable run happened more than 25% of the time.
It does, at least for some of us.
In my case...I had no idea that being faster allowed different training paces to be accessible. Guess I had this idea that running training was jogging around at 9 or 10 minute paces and that whoever did more of it could run faster at a race.
That it was possible to run a time that even resembles 15 or 16 mins..let alone 12:37.
I still am clueless about most things
jamin wrote:
I still am clueless about most things
+1
That I needed to run as far as I could on every single run. My first four workouts were 12, 14, 16, and 18 km (8-11 mi or something like that). I didn't run in the six months that followed that attempt to become a runner.
I did not start racing until my 30s. I thought that a BQ was a major accomplishment that only sub-elite runners could achieve. Then, I thought that a 3 hour marathon was the same.
I honestly thought cross country meant that you would run across the country.
I thought that it was impossible to get injured.
I also thought that every run, every day would always hurt. It was a good year until I had easy days that actually felt easy.
I thought the best way to train for a 5K was to run a 5K every day as fast as you could. Fortunately, I had coaches that set me straight.
That Suzy Favor Hamilton would never be...
what was the question again?
I thought the average adult who runs road races was much faster. (Now this was 16 years ago and the average runner was much faster than the average runner is today but they still were much slower than I thought)
Girls would be impressed.
People cared.
I was good.
If I out worked the competition I would beat them.
All wrong.
That because I was one of the fastest guys on my soccer team I was a sprinter. Only broke 53 once but I always had a great kick ( relative ) im races.
Another one: That speed mattered at all. Just figured the better fitness you had the faster you could run and the easier that pace would feel.
That anyone could be good if they tried hard enough.
The Schnide wrote:
Girls would be impressed.
People cared.
I was good.
If I out worked the competition I would beat them.
All wrong.
Yep. I do think people took notice, but it was more of a "this guy is strangely serious about his running, best to leave him alone" vibe.