90 minutes
I did a long run today, and for 1hr 20mins it was just like the old days. The knees felt good, and I felt comfortable. But with 10 minutes to go the right knee pain returned. It didn't get too bad - I didn't need to walk - but I was beginning to think the problem had resolved itself. The ITB was OK for most of the run. Just before the right knee flared up the ITB on the right got a bit sore. The left felt basically OK - just a bit weak.
I'll see how I feel tomorrow. When the knee pain occurs sometimes I wake up the next day and can't walk. I've got an anti-imflammatory pad on the knee. I'm not a big fan of them, but it would seem to be the best thing to do at the moment.
Update Two hours on...I pushed too much - the right knee is not good.
Labels: running
posted by GKK @ 2:33 pm
5 Comments:
Gordon, it would seem you have to be a lot more careful about how you increase your load. It seems you jumped up to the 1:30 after a previous max. of an hour in recent times. Maybe you need to go back to the 10% rule, or something like it. Given you had not run more than an hour for some time, then 75 minutes probably should have been about your upper limit, and that's exactly what the knee thought as well. Just a suggestion.
And curse you and your bike photos, you have now got me, an absolute NFI when it comes to bikes, noticing nice looking road/track bikes that don't seem to have any gears. I don't really know what I'm looking at, but they look nice!
You're right Steve, I shouldn't have run so far. Problem is, at my hour turn around point (which was were I was intending to stop) a really nice stretch of rubber-surface running path begins (on the Sumidagawa, up near the suposedly nonexistant area known as Sanya). So I thought I'd go just a bit futher to run on the rubber path - and then I notice they've put down 100 meter markers. So I started timing myself from marker to marker. Then I was near the end of the path, so I figured I'd run to the end. And when I turned it was 45 minutes.
As for the bikes I'm glad I could be of service. I've got two bikes now - a geared bike and a "fixed" single-speed bike. I find myself always going for the fixed bike - very light, easy ride and unlikely to be stolen. Word of warning to anyone contemplating buying a fixed gear bike - make sure you put a brake on it - the govt. has cottoned on to the fact that kids are riding these bikes without brakes (fixed gear bikes can be slowed by leg power - pushing backwards) and have introduced a ¥100,000 fine for anyone caught riding brakeless. Although, in Germany, the police confiscate your bike and sell it at auction - presumably to someone else who rides it brakeless and gets caught - a sort of permanent revenue raiser.
Re-reading my post it doesn't make sense, I meant to say that at the 30 minute mark, which is the hour turn-around point, where I was intending to head home.
And I spelt nonexistent wrong.
Hmmm... why would they not put brakes? Less weight?
Hope your leg is only a temporary setback.
Ahh, the "why wouldn't they put on brakes" question. If I was of the no-brakes persuasion I would answer that question this way.
Brakes are totally unnecessary on a track bike. By pedaling backwards I can slow a bike faster than with brakes on anyway, I can even skid. Brakes give people a feeling of false security anyway, better to be as one with the traffic, pedalling at just the right speed - and perfectly judging what is going to happen in front of me. Brakes are also just one more thing to go wrong - the whole idea of a single speed bike is to strip a bicycle down to the bare basics frame, wheels, direct drive, clean handlebars.
Which is all rubbish of course - one day a car pulls out on you and only by grabbing a handfull of brake have you got a chance of stopping.
Post a Comment
<< Home