cinder wrote:
In a 5K race I can overtake the person in front of me anytime I want and my legs will be fine but I'll have to slow back down because I can't breath.
At the end of a 5K race I ALWAYS always sprint finish because my legs are never tired, this is total anaerobic as it feels like I am holding my breath for 20 seconds.
.
This makes no sense. Do you actually randomly overtake people by running too fast?
This... just doesn't seem right. Anyone else?
sober wrote:
You are looking at it the wrong way. You see your lungs as been too weak but in fact it is your legs that are too strong. It is not your lungs holding you back in racing, it is your legs holding you back in training. You are running too slow resulting in your legs being over recovered and your lungs being under recovered. If you want to run at faster paces without suffering you have to train at faster paces and I guarantee that will break your legs down.
Remember your race performance is the total accumulation of your months and years of training so if you never run fast enough to break your legs down every week from higher aerobic work then your legs are always going to be stronger when you line up on race day.
I have the exact same problem. I may not get sore legs but sometimes after long tempo runs I can get sore ribs the next day! I can get a tight chest from training hard and I can feel it when I breath in. It just means our chassis is solid but our engines need to play catch up. People like this do well to race on slightly tired legs as it means they will not get that suffering feeling during a race because their legs will hold them back enough to prevent a cardio red line. I run my best races like this as my legs are usually a bit tired from running faster so my lungs are in an equilibrium trained state with my legs.
I agree. It seems like a letsrun joke post.
outsiderunner wrote:
I agree. It seems like a letsrun joke post.
Maybe the issue is we aren't doing enough Vo2 Max type work, so our legs are more developed than our cardio / HR systems. Was thinking about this on my run today.
Stop doing it wrong and do it right. Run fast/ bike fast without getting out of breath and you will keep improving. You will become technically more proficient, more efficient and recover much faster.
Maholo wrote:
Try racing the 800. Race as hard as you can especially the last 300. Shoot for 2:00 or under :) your legs should lock up and you breathing and you know what that is like. Everything will be slow motion including sound vision and legs. Pump arms and move your lead legs. With shorter distance your legs lock. Longer lungs. Maybe your have super genes that would allow you to be an amazing long distance sprinter. Let me know how it goes.
Given the OP's level of fitness, going for a 20mile run shooting for 2:05-2:07 with some hills should give him the "why can't I turn my legs if my breathing isn't even labored" experience.
That's the exact issue. I can't do that. It's like you didn't even bother to read.
what to do wrote:
Stop doing it wrong and do it right. Run fast/ bike fast without getting out of breath and you will keep improving. You will become technically more proficient, more efficient and recover much faster.
New10kRunner wrote:
Given the OP's level of fitness, going for a 20mile run shooting for 2:05-2:07 with some hills should give him the "why can't I turn my legs if my breathing isn't even labored" experience.
Yes, the extremely long runs, or the shorter runs will produce that feeling. But people (most people it seems) report that even in something like a 5K their legs are holding them back. That's what we are trying to figure out here.
So >800 and
No aerobic fitness? wrote:
Given the OP's level of fitness, going for a 20mile run shooting for 2:05-2:07 with some hills should give him the "why can't I turn my legs if my breathing isn't even labored" experience.
Yes, the extremely long runs, or the shorter runs will produce that feeling. But people (most people it seems) report that even in something like a 5K their legs are holding them back. That's what we are trying to figure out here.
So greater than 800 and less than a half is where the spot is that it's my HR/breathing holding me back.[/quote]
My post got cut off.
No aerobic fitness? wrote:
Yes, the extremely long runs, or the shorter runs will produce that feeling. But people (most people it seems) report that even in something like a 5K their legs are holding them back. That's what we are trying to figure out here.
So greater than 800 and less than a half is where the spot is that it's my HR/breathing holding me back.
My post got cut off.[/quote]
My new runner experience with an expected weak aerobic fitness was very similar. I was close to redlining on all 5k races, never thinking that I can't turn my legs fast enough.
I've gained quite a bit of aerobic fitness after my first hard cycle of Half marathon training. I've been surprised at not having that feeling during 5 mile threshold runs in training, and my legs getting a bit tired, but it may just be due to training volume.
I'm planning on racing a 5k as a fitness test in the next month, so I'm curious to see if anything has changed, but I doubt it. I'm honestly expecting to feel out of breath, just at a faster pace than before.
Considering that a 5k is run very close to max HR for what feel like an eternity, to me the feeling of being out of breath just feels more natural than tired legs for this distance. Granted, I don't know what I'm talking about, that's just how it feels to me.
Damn son wrote:
agip wrote:ok one more post
I think one reason we fail in races is that we push our heart rate just a couple beats above the redline. Could be to get up a hill, could be to close a gap. When the heart goes above that redline the body starts shutting down and we fade. I think we've all seen this and done this.
Doing workouts in hills fighs this syndrome -
it gets our body used to dealign with that redline problem. When running on a track we can control our heart rate, keeping it just below the redline, steadily. But in races or running on hills we can't have that kind of precision. Working out in hills teaches our body not to start shutting down if we venture a few beats to the other side of the redline. We learn to deal with it and recover and go on.
just how I look at it.
Do you normally just make up explanations for yourself?
Or perhaps you´re just too stupid to understand.
Healthy people are not held back by their lungs when they run and breath hard. We always inhale a surplus of oxygen. If you measure the exhale gases on someone running fast you will see that they contain oxygen.
What holds us back in 5/10k races is mostly the heart and the peripheral aerobic components.
well,. wrote:
Healthy people are not held back by their lungs when they run and breath hard. We always inhale a surplus of oxygen. If you measure the exhale gases on someone running fast you will see that they contain oxygen.
What holds us back in 5/10k races is mostly the heart and the peripheral aerobic components.
So it is the heart, then?...even though the sensation or feeling is in my breathing? Not criticizing your comment...just want to understand.
well,. wrote:
Healthy people are not held back by their lungs when they run and breath hard. We always inhale a surplus of oxygen. If you measure the exhale gases on someone running fast you will see that they contain oxygen.
What holds us back in 5/10k races is mostly the heart and the peripheral aerobic components.
Okay so it's HR/Legs then. Still it's a definite difference.
Might cadence have some sort of place in all this? Could you increase force applied (and therefore stride length) and decrease turnover to shift more of the workload onto your legs. And vise versa.
It certainly works in cycling, and it's very apparent. In cycling you are asking only a few muscle groups to put out a ton of force. Being primarily a runner, my quads are not developed enough to take full advantage of my aerobic capacity. They give out WAY before my HR gets up to a reasonable level. It's a pretty universal problem for runners on a bike. However you can mitigate that problem by increasing cadence. The reduced force saves the legs some, the higher spin rate is compensated for through a higher HR. The difference in power output between 90rpm and 100+rpm is huge for me.
It may not be applicable, force is applied differently and over a longer duration on the bike. But just a thought. At the very least, a runner on a bike is a clear example of what happens when muscular endurance and aerobic endurance are not balanced.
1 2 3 green wrote:
Might cadence have some sort of place in all this? Could you increase force applied (and therefore stride length) and decrease turnover to shift more of the workload onto your legs. And vise versa.
It certainly works in cycling, and it's very apparent. In cycling you are asking only a few muscle groups to put out a ton of force. Being primarily a runner, my quads are not developed enough to take full advantage of my aerobic capacity. They give out WAY before my HR gets up to a reasonable level. It's a pretty universal problem for runners on a bike. However you can mitigate that problem by increasing cadence. The reduced force saves the legs some, the higher spin rate is compensated for through a higher HR. The difference in power output between 90rpm and 100+rpm is huge for me.
It may not be applicable, force is applied differently and over a longer duration on the bike. But just a thought. At the very least, a runner on a bike is a clear example of what happens when muscular endurance and aerobic endurance are not balanced.
Yeah this would definitely work. In fact I have cited the bike as an example of legs fatiguing before HR. It's just curious to me how it's so inverse when it comes to running.
No aerobic fitness? wrote:
[quote]1 2 3 green wrote:
Might cadence have some sort of place in all this?
Also curious point, I typically run with a cadence of 178-180 according to garmin.
No aerobic fitness? wrote:
That's the exact issue. I can't do that. It's like you didn't even bother to read.
what to do wrote:Stop doing it wrong and do it right. Run fast/ bike fast without getting out of breath and you will keep improving. You will become technically more proficient, more efficient and recover much faster.
Or maybe you didn't explain it very well? Either way my advice still applies.
outsiderunner wrote:
One more post, since this subject is so interesting...
The only thing I do not like about running is running fast, i.e. 5k pace or faster. In fact, the 10k is worse than the 5k in that if I miscalculate, and go out too fast, the suffering seems like forever...the last two miles or more...awful. In a 5k, at least the suffering is over soon. Notice I did not say "pain," but suffering. That awful feeling I get when my heart rate is high and my breathing is too fast is a feeling of suffering. I do not feel pain anywhere. It is worse. It is suffering. It is a nasty feeling (nausea?) in the chest area, around the heart. I am somewhat hesitant to say "nausea" because in years of running races, I have never vomited.
At just above marathon pace, it feels as if I can run forever. I can do plenty of LT work, too. I can train hills, and run hard, mile after mile. Just keep me away from that awful fast stuff. That awful suffering.
I realy hate vomiting. Perhaps this is why I simply want to avoid anything that makes me feel that way.
A semi ancient post, but wow, this is ME!(save for the first part, as I actually find the 5k much more excruciating) If you still visit this site, may I ask if you happen to have a long lost twin brother? lol
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
What is the most stupid running advice you've ever heard?🤣(It can be funny)
Are Asics, Saucony, and New Balance envious of Brooks, Hoka ,and On?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion