Question for runners: Are some people just not capable of running?

I ran from 4th-12th grade. In high school, I won 8 varsity letters running, along with other awards. In college, I ran some, but just for fun. It helped me to clear my head, connect to my inner wisdom, and to get grounded.

I had some blocks related to things I believed that others told me, ie., limiting beliefs ("girls can't run as fast as guys," etc.). I also was super thin until my sophomore year of high school--I got my curves and so many people told me I'd never be fast again. What hogwash to put it politely. My physique is perfect for running actually :)

I took up bicycling in 1995 with mtn. biking and then, mtn. bike and road racing on and off since then. I have to say that it wasn't until I raced and trained that I learned what it truly was to push myself physically.

So, yes, I'm a natural runner...I'm making a slow return to it after a many year hiatus. I'm going to cross-train with my cycling disciplines and well, yoga too :)

I'd consider myself a Zen Jogger now though...I focus entirely on my breath when jogging. It's one of my many forms of meditation :)

I talk up Chi Running so much, people must think I work for them, but really, I'm not even a real runner, and they would be embarrassed to have me working for them.

I'm with many of the rest of you. I run because * I want a different workout one or two days a week, * I like the challenge, and most of all, * because it's a cardio workout I can take with me wherever I go, and running ONLY once or twice a year on vacations just hurt too much. But I will never be a real runner. Probably just because I'm not committed enough to it to improve - in three years I've taken a whole three minutes off my 5-mile time. :rolleyes:

But because I'm interested in technique in whatever I do, even if I'm not serious about the activity, I signed up for a Chi Running workshop this spring, and it totally changed my life :cool: Problems I had with my body mechanics that affected me doing aerobics and cycling - and even standing and walking - are improving. I can see in the mirror the difference in the muscle balance in my quads.

And while my time hasn't noticeably improved, my heart rate for the same pace has dropped by 5-10 bpm.

(I've read many places, BTW, that your max running heart rate is *supposed* to be higher than cycling. And cycling is higher than swimming. It's just that way.)

So check out Chi Running, maybe it will change your life too :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

But I will never be a real runner.

---

If you run, you're a runner!

I think a lot of us hear this voice in our head that says we're not legitimate at something (running, cycling, writing, playing music, cooking, whatever!) unless we're up to some standard we assume others are imposing.

Enough! :) Give yourself some credit! ;)

If I tried to be a "legitimate" runner, I'd never run. I'd always be comparing myself to someone better. It took me years to get away from that in cycling. I won't let it happen in running. That's why I mostly run alone. And so far, don't track my time. I just go out and run. Eventually, I hope to be comfortable enough to run with other people, and maybe even enter a few races - not to be competitive, but as a motivation to train. I want to feel good about running, not stressed out. So far, so good. And it surely helps to read these threads about how other women feel about running. I don't feel so alone. Thanks, all.

Annie

Really important to keep up with the shoes. Use your shoes only for running.

Shoes wear out fairly quickly and can cause running to be painful and uncomfortable.

Interesting thread. My question is more like, "are some people just not capable of decent speed at anything?"--I have done swimming, running and cycling and been rather slow at all three (10-11 min/mile running, never got below about 32 seconds in the 50-yard freestyle, do well to average 12 mph on the bike). I also seem to get my heart rate really high more easily than most people in decent shape, especially with running. The only thing I seem to be faster than average at is walking, including hiking, but that is something that generally doesn't involve being anywhere near maximum effort. What are the factors (besides being out of shape, which isn't the case here) that affect general speed when it comes to sports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Interesting thread. My question is more like, "are some people just not capable of decent speed at anything?"--I have done swimming, running and cycling and been rather slow at all three (10-11 min/mile running, never got below about 32 seconds in the 50-yard freestyle, do well to average 12 mph on the bike). I also seem to get my heart rate really high more easily than most people in decent shape, especially with running. The only thing I seem to be faster than average at is walking, including hiking, but that is something that generally doesn't involve being anywhere near maximum effort. What are the factors (besides being out of shape, which isn't the case here) that affect general speed when it comes to sports?

---

1. Exercise-induced asthma?
2. Muscularity (a bit difference than being "out of shape", which I would consider more of an endurance thing).
3. Power to weight ratio.
4. Heart problems (hopefully not!)

I'm similar to you -- I've been a semi-fast rider in the past when I was riding a LOT, but I have never been a fast runner at all. I am a fairly fast hiker, but nothing spectacular. I have EIA, am not all that muscular, and am very small (102 lbs). I get passed by larger, more muscular female riders on my mountain bike fairly often, which I think is can be an example of #3.

Emily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily_in_nc

1. Exercise-induced asthma?
2. Muscularity (a bit difference than being "out of shape", which I would consider more of an endurance thing).
3. Power to weight ratio.
4. Heart problems (hopefully not!)

I'm similar to you -- I've been a semi-fast rider in the past when I was riding a LOT, but I have never been a fast runner at all. I am a fairly fast hiker, but nothing spectacular. I have EIA, am not all that muscular, and am very small (102 lbs). I get passed by larger, more muscular female riders on my mountain bike fairly often, which I think is can be an example of #3.

Emily

---

Well, maybe my issue is just due to not being very muscular as well (5'2" and 105 lbs)--I don't have asthma, and definitely no heart problems (thank goodness!!). Actually, next week I am participating as a healthy control in a research study that involves a VO2max test and body composition analysis in the screening visit, so maybe that will shed some light on the situation. Should be interesting at least.

Well, I'm seriously thinking about giving up running all together. I am going to Race Walking 3-day Clinic in Austin in December... and I hope I can learn the technique so I can walk FAST!

I had to come to the realization that I suck at running... and nothing I do (getting a coach- running 80 miles a month- etc.) is going to fix how much I suck. My body just rejects running.

But I have always been a fast walker and I think with some training I can get really fast. I can walk a 13:30 minute mile now (flat terrian)... if I can get that down to a 12 or 11 minute mile... then that's how fast I was running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSH

But I have always been a fast walker and I think with some training I can get really fast. I can walk a 13:30 minute mile now (flat terrian)... if I can get that down to a 12 or 11 minute mile... then that's how fast I was running.

---

KSH - I know you are a triathlete so the running thing must be frustrating! Do some triathletes do race walking instead of running? I am ignorant since I've never witnessed a tri, other than the Ironman on TV.

It sounds like you have a good plan, though! :)

Emily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily_in_nc

KSH - I know you are a triathlete so the running thing must be frustrating! Do some triathletes do race walking instead of running? I am ignorant since I've never witnessed a tri, other than the Ironman on TV.

It sounds like you have a good plan, though! :)

Emily

---

Well... they do when they get tired and can't run anymore... ;)

Seriously though, top triathletes run. They run FAST. I have come to the realization that I will never run fast. And since I'm so bad at running, why not take up race walking?

Now, I do know of one guy around these parts who walks all his run portions. Even at his Ironman's... and he beats a lot of people out there.

In the longer events, the Half Ironman and Ironman... people train to run the 1/2 or full marathon, but get out there and end up walking most of it. And they walk slow because they are so tired.

At my Half Ironman, I came in 36 out of 52... and that was walking a 1/2 marathon at a 14 minute per mile pace (it was HILLY!). I was trucking along walking and people would comment how fast I was walking. :)

So anyways... I tried Plan A... to become a runner. Plan A didn't work out.. time to move to Plan B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSH

At my Half Ironman, I came in 36 out of 52... and that was walking a 1/2 marathon at a 14 minute per mile pace (it was HILLY!). I was trucking along walking and people would comment how fast I was walking. :)

So anyways... I tried Plan A... to become a runner. Plan A didn't work out.. time to move to Plan B.

---

That's pretty good walking there!

I decided today, I am going to make "finish and not be last" my life motto...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinerabbit

That's pretty good walking there!

I decided today, I am going to make "finish and not be last" my life motto...

---

My motto is, "I won't die" or "It won't kill me". :)

I'm working on a theory here. I actually haven't been running since I crashed my bike last month (pain at first, but a whole lot of other stuff in the last few weeks). I'm hoping to get out for a run later today. But anyway here's my idea:

Cyclists are used to nice LONG workouts. It's not even worth getting all suited up and going out the door unless we're going to ride at least an hour, and that's a really short ride. We prefer two hours on work nights and a whole lot more than that on weekends. Am I right so far?

So then the cyclist decides to go running. But our running muscles just aren't in the same kind of shape as our cycling muscles, besides the fact that even slow running is pretty intense cardiovascularly (whereas on a bike, if you want you can just take the pace down and pretty much cruise forever, long after you feel like your muscles are done).

So we're reaching our running lactate threshold at a HR that doesn't even begin to challenge a cardiovascular system that's in pretty good shape from cycling.

And SO... because we're going out to get some freakin' CARDIO, we keep our running at a pace that we can maintain for 45 minutes to an hour. It ain't even what we'd consider a minimum workout on the bike. But otherwise, we have this idea in our head that it wasn't worth the time to put on our shorts and two layers of high-impact bras and tape up all the blister-prone areas on our feet. We probably don't even think that we're limiting the pace. We just think that that's all the faster we can run, just because that's all we can maintain for five or six miles. Am I still right so far?

But then, as the saying goes,.... train slow, race slow.

I think just maybe, in order for a cyclist to learn to run, we have to be willing to go out for really short runs. Warm up, do some one-minute intervals at a seven-minute pace, then cool down and quit. (Or eight minute, or nine, or whatever's just SHORT of all-out.) Even if we've only been out for 20 minutes. Do it as the warmup to our strength day or Pilates day, or before a shorter bike ride, if keeping a workout so short would result in temper tantrums, insomnia, fighting with the spouse, inefficiency at work, or just general cranial detonation. Then incrementally increase the pace, length and number of the intervals, while leaving the rest periods the same.

That's my new training plan, anyway. I'll let you know if it works. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

So then the cyclist decides to go running. But our running muscles just aren't in the same kind of shape as our cycling muscles, besides the fact that even slow running is pretty intense cardiovascularly (whereas on a bike, if you want you can just take the pace down and pretty much cruise forever, long after you feel like your muscles are done).

So we're reaching our running lactate threshold at a HR that doesn't even begin to challenge a cardiovascular system that's in pretty good shape from cycling.

---

Everyone's different, but I have the opposite problem when I'm in good biking shape, but then start running again after not doing it regularly for some time.

My legs will be capable of maintaining a faster pace than my heart and lungs will permit, because running at a moderate/high intensity is more cardiovascularly challenging than cycling at the same intensity. Typically I'll have a lot of muscular endurance from cycling and I'm used to keeping a high cadence on my bike, so my running turnover is quick, which increases speed. But at a certain point my hr just goes through the roof because I'm not in cardiovascular condition to maintain the pace I'm running, and I have to slow down, even though my legs are not feeling heavy at all.

It takes me a few weeks of regular running to get back into cardiovascular condition to maintain a challenging pace, evenly, over distance. Some of it, also, is that you have to develop a sense of pace for running, and unfortunately having a good sense of pace for cycling doesn't necessarily transfer to running, you sort of have to get the feel back.

But the other thing you mentioned, about thinking about running workouts differently than cycling workouts, that never occurred to me because I was a runner before I was a cyclist, but it's definitely true. Running burns more calories per distance or per time period than cycling, thus it is comparatively a more intense workout. Think about it: cycling 26 miles is no big deal, right? but how many of us could get up tomorrow and run 26 miles without training? not me!!! And up to a certain point, you can build cycling mileage pretty quickly -- you can go from riding 10 miles to riding 20 miles, or 20 miles to 40 miles, or 30 to 60, without too much trouble (up to a point). But that's much less the case with running I think. Once you get much past 3 miles you can't really reasonably double your distance all at once anymore. It takes a long time to build up the endurance to run for two or three (or more) hours -- much longer than it takes to build the endurance to ride for the same amount of time. Even though the same training principles apply to both, you really need to think about them differently when considering how fast to build.