Can you beat Judd's time?

Remove this Banner Ad

Juddbemetron said:
no you wouldn't
you ran at a slower speed over a shorter distance
you ran- 2.5km at 16.6km per hour
judd ran- 3.2km at 18.228 km per hour
Click to expand...

I do believe the fellow was illustrating his relative level of fitness, and suggesting that he would be even fitter - and fitter than Judd - if he was part of an AFL clubs fitness program.

It appears your fawning disposition is making you write embarrasing things! It's ok if a few people on Bigfooty might be capable of running 3.2km faster than Judd... really, it is.
 
Muscle fibers are actually trainable too. In that sense that you some muscle fibers are interchangeable between type I (slow twitch oxidative) and type II (fast twitch glycolytic).

When someone trains over distances, their oxidative fibres provide a greater contribution to the work performed. Over time weeks, months the system makes central and peripheral adaptions to better adapt to the overload.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Clokey34 said:
Muscle fibers are actually trainable too. In that sense that you some muscle fibers are interchangeable between type I (slow twitch oxidative) and type II (fast twitch glycolytic).

When someone trains over distances, their oxidative fibres provide a greater contribution to the work performed. Over time weeks, months the system makes central and peripheral adaptions to better adapt to the overload.
Click to expand...


It is spelt "fibres", that is when I stopped reading.....
 
Clokey34 said:
Muscle fibers are actually trainable too. In that sense that you some muscle fibers are interchangeable between type I (slow twitch oxidative) and type II (fast twitch glycolytic).

When someone trains over distances, their oxidative fibres provide a greater contribution to the work performed. Over time weeks, months the system makes central and peripheral adaptions to better adapt to the overload.
Click to expand...
*scratches head and wonders what the point of that post was*
 
ummmmmmmmmmm im be lucky to even run 3k im not fat or chubby im normal but sooooooo unfit.
i think i read one of the sydney young players ran 10 or somethin in the 3k.
 
I followed the 60km speed limit and drove 3.2km in 3mins 20 this afternoon!

As fore running, it would prob take me a good hour to go the journey! the beer breaks kill my times!
 
Geez theres alot of crap in this thread, Judds not a small bloke, and hes far from built like a distance runner, his time is very impressive!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SaintSyd said:
What a load of crap! An up and down course that evens itself out is not the same as a flat course???? So if the first 200m of a running track was uphill and the second half was downhill, world class athletes would be running the same times? I DON'T THINK SO!!! :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common misconception.

Firstly we can assume that wind resistance is equal in both scenarios.

So when you are running uphill you need to produce a force in the forward direction as well as to counter a larger fraction of gravity (downwards) than as if you were running on a flat. Therefore the first part of the uphill will be slower compared to the flat course however things change in the second half. When coming downhill that same portion of gravitation force, which is a constant, that you were fighting against is now helping and you are running faster than someone on the flat course.

The reason running tracks are flat and not hilly is for practical reasons only. A 400m running track has to service events that are a fraction of 400m, but that doesn't detract from the fact that physics and the laws that govern the conservation of energy, work and momentum do not lie.
 
pansies said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common misconception.

Firstly we can assume that wind resistance is equal in both scenarios.

So when you are running uphill you need to produce a force in the forward direction as well as to counter a larger fraction of gravity (downwards) than as if you were running on a flat. Therefore the first part of the uphill will be slower compared to the flat course however things change in the second half. When coming downhill that same portion of gravitation force, which is a constant, that you were fighting against is now helping and you are running faster than someone on the flat course.

The reason running tracks are flat and not hilly is for practical reasons only. A 400m running track has to service events that are a fraction of 400m, but that doesn't detract from the fact that physics and the laws that govern the conservation of energy, work and momentum do not lie.
Click to expand...
nahh i reckon he's right dude.

i used to run 400m for VIC team (which i previously didnt mention because there are so many shit talkers here, who knows what to believe!) and i could not see myself running a full tilt 200m up a hill and then be able to make up the time on a downhill.

Your forgetting a whole heap of different factors here. You did mention wind resistance, but there's lactic build up, traction etc etc.

MAYBE at a certain distance and a certain angle of hills MAYBE, but otherwise, no.
 
that is impressive for a 20 yr old who is 197cm bellzy
big season coming up for lachie and i heard it was actualy a 10.13
 
I think the big point is that the guy isn't purely a runner. For someone who also needs to more diverse form of fitness and heavier body mass, it's an impressive run.

Could I do it? Now, no way.

When I was younger however, I was training for a marathon...My target was a bit over 3 hours. ( Yes, I was a pretty serious runner..generally did ~70km/week and was building that up. ). That works out to ~14kph. I probably didn't quite have the legspeed to match Judd's time, but I would have been close, but A, I was VERY fit,and B, I was 6ft tall and weighed about 70kg, so there wasn't much 'wasted' body mass there.

( tale of woe, my knee couldn't handle the extra training load and blew out, I never really ran again ).
 
I have run Princes Park 2-3 times a week for the past year or so and my best is around 15 and a half mins, have cut it down from about 18 and a half a year ago.

I'm 25, 173 and about 66kg.

10.5 mins is pretty good considering he's a built up footballer rather than a motram type rake.

I'm aiming at 14mins or so sometime next year.
 
Vince Van Mackay said:
Marathon runners have slow release tendons, sprinters have fast release tendons.

That is why one is better at one than the other.

Not only that, sprinters are much bigger than Marathon runners, they are too bulky for Marathon running, not only that the training and conditioning sprinters do is suited to sprinting not marathon running. Am I losing you yet, maybe I can get a picture book for you?

So to recap, Usain Bolt is too big, too bulky, does the wrong training and has the wrong type of muscle tendons in his legs to be an Olympic champion marathon runner.

Oh wait, better at some smilies :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Oh and I know you were being sarcastic, but the other guy wasn't.
Click to expand...

Actually I was being sarcastic...hence the emoticon with it's tongue poking out!

I know Usain Bolt would not be able to run 3.2kms in just over 5 mins...:rolleyes:

Someone posted a comparison that Bolt can run 100m in 9.69sec, so I thought I'd be smart and multiply that by 32 (32 x 100m = 3.2kms). Make sense Vinny boy?
 
gouldy_34 said:
nahh i reckon he's right dude.

i used to run 400m for VIC team (which i previously didnt mention because there are so many shit talkers here, who knows what to believe!) and i could not see myself running a full tilt 200m up a hill and then be able to make up the time on a downhill.

Your forgetting a whole heap of different factors here. You did mention wind resistance, but there's lactic build up, traction etc etc.

MAYBE at a certain distance and a certain angle of hills MAYBE, but otherwise, no.
Click to expand...

I guess they also have physics classes to supplement the athletics.

Well since we live in a democracy looks like I'm out voted considering the 2 guys who would back up my argument are dead. You may have heard of them, one's called Newton the other is Einstein.

On a more serious note though, lactic acid build up has recently been proven to not be the cause of muscle failure as was the old theory. It is actually the opposite, lactic acid can be used as very valuable fuel source for the muscles. Secondly traction will be improved going up hill as you not only need to push backwards to move but also down to counter gravity. On the downhill if traction was a problem it means you would be sliding downhill which if became severe enough would mean you were no longer running but free falling.
 
pansies said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common misconception.

Firstly we can assume that wind resistance is equal in both scenarios.

So when you are running uphill you need to produce a force in the forward direction as well as to counter a larger fraction of gravity (downwards) than as if you were running on a flat. Therefore the first part of the uphill will be slower compared to the flat course however things change in the second half. When coming downhill that same portion of gravitation force, which is a constant, that you were fighting against is now helping and you are running faster than someone on the flat course.

The reason running tracks are flat and not hilly is for practical reasons only. A 400m running track has to service events that are a fraction of 400m, but that doesn't detract from the fact that physics and the laws that govern the conservation of energy, work and momentum do not lie.
Click to expand...


Have you ever run down a hill? If it's steep enough you actually have to work to slow yourself down. It's not like riding a bike where you can fully make use of the gradient. If a 400m metre track was slightly uphill and then slightly down then it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. But running uphill slows you down much more than running downhill speeds you up and the difference is more stark the steeper the hills get.
 
pansies said:
I guess they also have physics classes to supplement the athletics.

Well since we live in a democracy looks like I'm out voted considering the 2 guys who would back up my argument are dead. You may have heard of them, one's called Newton the other is Einstein.

On a more serious note though, lactic acid build up has recently been proven to not be the cause of muscle failure as was the old theory. It is actually the opposite, lactic acid can be used as very valuable fuel source for the muscles. Secondly traction will be improved going up hill as you not only need to push backwards to move but also down to counter gravity. On the downhill if traction was a problem it means you would be sliding downhill which if became severe enough would mean you were no longer running but free falling.
Click to expand...

What about rhythm? Running is all about rhythm and it's pretty hard to achieve running up and down hills mate. Switching from high intensity uphill running and then downhill running totally stuffs you!!!!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Can you beat Judd's time?

Similar threads

Wormkilla
What’s your weekly training schedule look like?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
the_interloper
the_interloper

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top