Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JBBury
No, it is not true. Do not listen to people who don't run. If you only ran every other day, the maximum days you could run per week would be 4. If you want to seriously improve and become competitive, you need to be able to run more than this. Whether you need a rest days depends on how far and how hard you are running. I try to run 4 or 5 days a week, with a rest day after any hard, long runs. Running 11 days in a row is not advisable, but it is fine to run everyday for 4 or 5 days on occasion. I will often run 4 days in a row. I always run every saturday and sunday, because it's the only opportunity I have to put in some long runs. But if your body feels tired and you have a lot of aches or pains, you need to rest. How much rest you need depends on the individual.
It seems a lot of people who don't exercise and/or are unfit tend to have bizarre views on health and fitness. I sometimes think they are slightly jealous of people who have an interest/passion and want to be good at something and just want to find a way to put them down or be negative about it. Just my opinion based on personal experiences.
|
Ahh, this is an example to illustrate just how approaches can vary with regard to attitudes to running. As I said in my original post (oh so long ago); advice will be
conflicting.
On this thread we've had reference to advice given by non-runners, which was then taken further by JB Bury's example of how to approach improvement and competitiveness (I realise at this point that things may be going beyond the bounds that Molly had intended... apologies
)
But then if we take things maybe to the other extreme (and I'll apologise here also to seasoned posters who may have heard all of this stuff before); when I was trying to improve and be truly competitive, there was
no such thing as a day without a run. My most successful period of competitive running came during the time when I ran
every single day for over
14 years. I'm not setting this out as an example for people to follow; but I feel a need to point out that if anyone wants, for example, to run for 11 straight days, and can do so without any ill effects, then there's no reason why that person shouldn't keep on adding days of running to that total. It all depends on the individual, and on the type of running that's being done.
This is in no way a condemnation or criticism of any of the advice given previously on this thread... It all has a sound base. It's just a proverbial case of "Horses for courses"... each to their own... What suits one runner isn't necessarily going to suit another... etc.
I have to admit (again) that I am constantly frustrated by what I perceive to be a
tentative approach to running these days. We, as a rule, are
physically capable of far more than we think we are. But
mentally we are held back by what we are
told we are capable of.
I don't know if it serves as a lesson or not, but a majority of our finest endurance athletes were successful back in the days before there was access to all the technical know-how and training theory that we now take for granted (I'm referring to the 60's/70's era). In essence they were "experimenting" on themselves with training techniques in a state that can, with hindsight, be regarded as "blissful ignorance". There was nobody telling them what
was and
was'nt possible, so they were often pushing themselves to limits which are regarded today as being ridiculous, and therefore unrepeatable; although the results gained from such "ignorance" cannot be ignored.
. 
That's why my advice for beginners is usually a load of rubbish! 
