|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troutslayer
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: How far do you run on the treadmill? |
 |
|
I'm just curious about what others are doing....
I'm not setting records or anything but I do 4 miles in 40 minutes, but I walk/warm up about 5-7 of those minutes.
It is hard for me, since I'm not a "natural runner". But, I'd like to be able to get it down to 2 miles in 17 minutes.....3 miles in 25 mintues, someday.
Anyone?
slayer of trout |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a little confused when it comes to the speed when I run on thread mills. In my home country I usually ran 3 km in less then 11 minutes (10:30 is my pb) on a few different thread mills I've used. But with the tread mills here I seem to run a lot slower. On average I would guess that I run 3 km/h slower on Korean thread mills than back home. It looks a bit like the tread mills I use here are inclined slightly up-hill, but it's weird since I have worked out at a few different places. I'm also sceptical about the tread mills back home since 10:30 sounds pretty fast for 3000 meter. I should really try running outside so I know exactly how fast I run, but I'm not sure if my local running track is 400 meters. The shape looks a little off and there is no numbering showing the distance. I know there is a track along the river with distance marking, so I'll test it out as soon as I recover from the swine flu (probably just a cold, but I like to be dramatic).
Anyone else experienced speed differences on thread mills? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conbon78
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject: treadmills |
|
|
| I think the treadmills are programmed for kilometers because the speed is very different from what I ran at home. I also think that they do not calibrate the machines correctly or timely which is why they are not consistent. I could run on one treadmill at 11.0 and barely break a sweat, but the one next to it at 9.5 I felt like I was dying. Just depends I guess. It definitely isn't as reliable as home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No matter how fast or how far I try to run on those machines it feels like I'm not going anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I used to run on the treadmill "a little"..... used to give people advice too but nowadays the only advice I can give is go for "time" and not "distance".
Run how you feel or if available about 60-65% of max. heart rate. Take 220 bpm - age to get an approx. of your max heart rate. Most reasonably normal 30 year olds should run at about 120-130 bpm.
You have to train your fat burning system and not that of glycogen (which you do by running faster and putting stress on your system and thus beginning a terrible cycle of stress on the body which leads to lots of running related problems. ) But for "not natural" runners - the treadmill is wonderful and much better than outdoors. for many reasons....
Here's some inspiration also!
http://languagelink.ning.com/video/ok-go-here-it-goes-again
PS. about calibration of treadmills. they are notoriously off. but if you think you are going faster/further than you can outdoors - you are probably right. If you think you are going less distance/slower - you are probably wrong (however 95% of treadmillers believe so...the power of positive thinking!).
but to test calibration, get the manufacturer's mat specs (how long the mat is). divide that into a kilometer for how many rev. / kilometre. Start the treadmill and test it out . Does it say one kilometer when the number of revolutions are done? Calculate from there.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drkalbi
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| about 12 inches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: Re: How far do you run on the treadmill? |
|
|
| Troutslayer wrote: |
It is hard for me, since I'm not a "natural runner". But, I'd like to be able to get it down to 2 miles in 17 minutes.....3 miles in 25 mintues, someday.
Anyone?
|
I'll assume that you enjoy running distance and that it gives you pleasure, because I can't think of any other reasons to run steady state when there is so much compelling evidence for high intensity interval training. Still, if you want to get faster, run faster. With that in mind, do this kind of workout and I'll bet you'll run faster and you'll burn more fat:
4 minutes--jog
1 minute--relatively fast walk (4 or 5/10)
30 seconds--sprint (at 8 or 9/10 subjective speed rate)
90 seconds--rel fast walk
30 seconds--sprint
90 seconds--rel fast walk
30 seconds--sprint
90 seconds--rel fast walk
30 seconds--sprint
90 seconds--rel fast walk
30 seconds--sprint
90 seconds--rel fast walk
30 seconds--sprint
4 or 5 minute cool down, fast walk is fine.
This will get you running faster and burning fat by kicking your metabolic system into gear. No joke. Too many studies to support it.
On a treadmill, this translates into about 6.5 km/hour walk and 16 km/hour run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Run how you feel or if available about 60-65% of max. heart rate. Take 220 bpm - age to get an approx. of your max heart rate. Most reasonably normal 30 year olds should run at about 120-130 bpm.
|
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work well for me. I can stay above 170 bpm for one hour of running, so getting any real work out at 130 bpm I think I would have to run a marathon. I can probably get 150 bpm by walking... Every person is different yes, but if you give them the advice to stay at that intensity level I think a lot of people fooling them self to not work out as hard as they should. But especially if you want to lose weight I agree that it is good to have long work out sessions, but these people who are not breaking a sweat are doing it wrong (imo). I also think interval training is good. If I wanted to lose weight I would have gone for a combination |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: |
| I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work well for me. I can stay above 170 bpm for one hour of running, so getting any real work out at 130 bpm I think I would have to run a marathon. I can probably get 150 bpm by walking... Every person is different yes, but if you give them the advice to stay at that intensity level I think a lot of people fooling them self to not work out as hard as they should. But especially if you want to lose weight I agree that it is good to have long work out sessions, but these people who are not breaking a sweat are doing it wrong (imo). I also think interval training is good. If I wanted to lose weight I would have gone for a combination |
Uknows,
If you want to get fit - stick with your fat burning mechanism. The workout described above is just ridiculous for burning fat. Fitness isn't about being macho but scientific. Gippik, there is evidence for anaerobic exercise being beneficial to speed but none whatsoever for it raising vo2 max over long periods of time or contributing to anything but injury if done without periodicity (that's the key exercise term to understand here).
Google Maffetone to read in depth - I'll try to find a few articles online to post or some stuff I've written. I do have the running background to know what I'm talking about. Of course there is individual variation but the principals remain the same.
You start slow, dead slow. It should be easy. but if you keep doing it consistently, you will go further and further distance at the same bpm and time. Say the first time at 120 bpm you go 4 km in 30min. After 8 weeks, you'll be going 6 k or more in 30min. Same heart rate. That's fitness, covering more distance efficiently at the same heart rate. If you want to run records - sure do speed. But only as sharpening and at specific periods.
Stay within your fat burning levels. It worked for Mark Allen, probably in his day, the fittest aerobically of any person who ever was. If you push it like you are saying 170 bpm etc... you are burning more calories for the time you are on the machine but it is much better to teach your body to burn fat for when you are off the machine. You'll be off the machine much longer than on.
Sorry, don't have the time to go into the physiology but read some |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teddycakes21
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: Re: How far do you run on the treadmill? |
|
|
| Troutslayer wrote: |
I'm just curious about what others are doing....
I'm not setting records or anything but I do 4 miles in 40 minutes, but I walk/warm up about 5-7 of those minutes.
It is hard for me, since I'm not a "natural runner". But, I'd like to be able to get it down to 2 miles in 17 minutes.....3 miles in 25 mintues, someday.
Anyone?
slayer of trout |
My school is on the side of a mountain, and I've been here for about 18 months. I didn't run that much before coming to Korea - maybe once a week - tops. When I first got here, I was at about the same as you. I think the run down the hill to the connecting street is 2.5 miles, and I am now making it back to my place in around 38 minutes. That's about 5 miles. I'm not the fastest guy in the world, but I like to think I'm at least pushing myself as hard as I can. There is a student at the school who recently beat me by 30 seconds. That sucked, but I realize I'm not Prefontaine or something.
Anyway, it's a pretty kickass run. Not in an exciting view kind of way, but because the way back up the hill is a mother. It's a son of a gun in the winter, but I force myself to do it because I refuse to diet.
Glad to hear other people are working hard also. Keep up the good work.
=D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree that large amounts of low intensity work out is very good for your body. Professional cyclists and cross country skiing (the sport I have most experience with) all have a large amount of low intensity workout, but they also have high intensity workouts. The problem is that I don't have the time to do the amount of work out they are into, and with my limited time I don't think a low intensity workout would give me as much health benefit as a workout which pushes my body a little. 130 bmp is probably walking speed, and I've been walking for an hour every weekday from I was 7 years old until I was 22. (We don't drive to school where I come from). I simply don't think it will be much exercise unless I do it for 3+ hours, and that's not something I have time to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Gippik, there is evidence for anaerobic exercise being beneficial to speed but none whatsoever for it raising vo2 max over long periods of time or contributing to anything but injury if done without periodicity (that's the key exercise term to understand here).
|
Okay, dubel. First, raising VO2 rates over long periods of time may be useful for marathoners or other long distance athletes, but the question at the end of the day is this: Why is anyone doing the exercise? Is it for increasing VO2 rates to a certain level, which can benefit athletes in long distance events or is it because they believe it is the better form of exercise for what they want to do? Too many people jump on this or that bandwagon because the latest study indicates they should, but do they need to? If they're interested in fat loss and improved functional fitness, then steady state forms of aerobic exercise are unnecessary. Do most people need this form of VO2 endurance? Unless, they enjoy it. And I still do occasionally. You'll certainly lose calories this way, but not many. And your metabolic rate won't be affected, so once you stop running steady state the calories stop. Resistance training is probably a better way to go if that is what you're after--coupled with a form of HIIT. Your metabolic system is engaged and you'll continue burning calories for many hours after you've stopped exercising.
Also, periodicity is an absolute must for any form of intense exercise, not only HIIT. That doesn't mean injury is inevitable unless you don't stretch properly and injure a hamstring OR you are not physically fit enough to do HIIT's in the first place. If this is you dubel, keep on steady state running. Nothing wrong with it. It's exercise.
That said, HIIT needn't only be running. You can do metabolic conditioning through bodyweight exercises, compound exercises, supersets. There are many ways to get the added advantages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troutslayer
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My school is on the side of a mountain, and I've been here for about 18 months. I didn't run that much before coming to Korea - maybe once a week - tops. When I first got here, I was at about the same as you. I think the run down the hill to the connecting street is 2.5 miles, and I am now making it back to my place in around 38 minutes. That's about 5 miles. I'm not the fastest guy in the world, but I like to think I'm at least pushing myself as hard as I can. There is a student at the school who recently beat me by 30 seconds. That sucked, but I realize I'm not Prefontaine or something.
Anyway, it's a pretty kickass run. Not in an exciting view kind of way, but because the way back up the hill is a mother. It's a son of a gun in the winter, but I force myself to do it because I refuse to diet.
Glad to hear other people are working hard also. Keep up the good work.
=D |
Thanks! Not all Americans are lazy and do try to get some exercise.
It is never easy for me, running. But I do enjoy it....................getting the music going, getting a good sweat worked up............
Oh, I also forgot to mention that I run at an elevation of 3700 feet. It does make a difference, trust me.
But, I've kind of gotten into a rut where I have not pushed myself too much lately. I try to run a quarter mile in under two minutes, sprints and such. But, I like to keep at a steady pace BUT gradually setting the pace higher as I go along....I hate peaking early.
Good stuff guys....thanks!
slayer of trout |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I've been out of the Army for over 20 years, but the adage used to be that if you want to run a faster couple of miles, then practice...yup, you guessed it...running a couple of miles. We did a lot of running, but seldom more than 5-6 miles at a pop. Ancient history, anyway...
For weight loss, it's tough to beat interval training. Plus, personally at least, I have found that doing intervals on a machine is less of a complete friggin bore. Nothing could be more boring than running 4 or 5 miles on a mill. Having said this, the ol' mill is great for over the winter until you can get back outside.
Major props for getting off the sofa. More people should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 3 miles, 24 to 28 minutes, depending on the day. Sometimes 5 miles in 45 minutes if I am especially motivated that day. I run five or six days per week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
