Breakdown, go ahead and give it to me
After the last run, I spent the next several days nursing sore Achilles tendons (among other things, but most worryingly those). I didn't want to stop running, but you sort of need Achilles tendons to walk, and I didn't want to take any chances - I can't imagine anything worse than starting to exercise and immediately having to quit because of a debilitating injury.
The problem is, I'm not totally sure what to do. I walked about a mile and three-quarters today when Drew and I went down to the Diversey mini golf course; my legs were pretty tired by the time we got back, and I hadn't run a step. The Achilles, mercifully, are fine for right now, but now it's the knees and calves that seem worn out. I can't win.
One possibility is just that my feet are too flat. But then, I've always had flat feet, and I didn't have this same problem in 2002. I guess I wasn't starting from quite so much of a dead stop then as I am now, but that would seem to rule out the feet even more; if the reason is just "greater apathy to overcome" or something, that's at least doable without orthotics. It's also possible that part of the problem is just pounding the pavement, but if I have to run on a treadmill then the whole "save money by running outside" aspect of the plan is negated. Fat lot of good that would do me.
Maybe I just need to stick to walking for a while. (Tired legs I can deal with; aching Achilles = bad.) Sure, it's not as efficient a calorie burn as running; to cover the same amount of distance would likely take me three times as long. To put it another way, it probably took Drew and me an hour round trip to and from the Diversey course, which is roughly three-quarters of a mile away. If I were able to run as much as I wanted, I could cover that distance in what, ten minutes? Less? It's one thing to get home from work at six, prep for a half-hour or so, and then run for another 30-60 minutes (if/when I can run that much); it's quite another to get home at six, head right back out, and if you want to cover a significant chunk of ground, not get back for 60-90 minutes. Actually, I guess technically it works out almost exactly the same, but there seems like a difference in perception to me. Walking just takes a much longer time to do the same thing. And yeah, it's less stressful and I can listen to my iPod (I don't take the iPod running because it's kind of bulky and because I don't want to sweat all over the same headphones I take to work), but it's just not quite the same somehow.
Then again, maybe that isn't the worst thing in the world. If it burns the same amount of calories and is significantly easier on my legs, does it matter if it takes longer? It's sort of like one of those "Would You Rather" tests, like "Would you rather pay $200 for your favorite food, or eat a greasy piece of pizza for free?" In this case, the question is "Would you rather burn 300 calories in 30 minutes but feel totally wiped for the next several days, or in 90 minutes and feel more or less okay by the next morning?" Call me crazy, but I'd go with B, at least for right now. Maybe once I get a little more walking in there - and potentially on weekends I could go for sizeable walks - it'll enable me to build to running, kind of like how walking around the Northwestern campus probably assisted at least slightly in the comparatively seamless transition to running in 2002.
Thoughts are, of course, welcome. For the record, I have no plans to give up on running, I just think I may need to build to it a little more slowly, for my body's sake.
The problem is, I'm not totally sure what to do. I walked about a mile and three-quarters today when Drew and I went down to the Diversey mini golf course; my legs were pretty tired by the time we got back, and I hadn't run a step. The Achilles, mercifully, are fine for right now, but now it's the knees and calves that seem worn out. I can't win.
One possibility is just that my feet are too flat. But then, I've always had flat feet, and I didn't have this same problem in 2002. I guess I wasn't starting from quite so much of a dead stop then as I am now, but that would seem to rule out the feet even more; if the reason is just "greater apathy to overcome" or something, that's at least doable without orthotics. It's also possible that part of the problem is just pounding the pavement, but if I have to run on a treadmill then the whole "save money by running outside" aspect of the plan is negated. Fat lot of good that would do me.
Maybe I just need to stick to walking for a while. (Tired legs I can deal with; aching Achilles = bad.) Sure, it's not as efficient a calorie burn as running; to cover the same amount of distance would likely take me three times as long. To put it another way, it probably took Drew and me an hour round trip to and from the Diversey course, which is roughly three-quarters of a mile away. If I were able to run as much as I wanted, I could cover that distance in what, ten minutes? Less? It's one thing to get home from work at six, prep for a half-hour or so, and then run for another 30-60 minutes (if/when I can run that much); it's quite another to get home at six, head right back out, and if you want to cover a significant chunk of ground, not get back for 60-90 minutes. Actually, I guess technically it works out almost exactly the same, but there seems like a difference in perception to me. Walking just takes a much longer time to do the same thing. And yeah, it's less stressful and I can listen to my iPod (I don't take the iPod running because it's kind of bulky and because I don't want to sweat all over the same headphones I take to work), but it's just not quite the same somehow.
Then again, maybe that isn't the worst thing in the world. If it burns the same amount of calories and is significantly easier on my legs, does it matter if it takes longer? It's sort of like one of those "Would You Rather" tests, like "Would you rather pay $200 for your favorite food, or eat a greasy piece of pizza for free?" In this case, the question is "Would you rather burn 300 calories in 30 minutes but feel totally wiped for the next several days, or in 90 minutes and feel more or less okay by the next morning?" Call me crazy, but I'd go with B, at least for right now. Maybe once I get a little more walking in there - and potentially on weekends I could go for sizeable walks - it'll enable me to build to running, kind of like how walking around the Northwestern campus probably assisted at least slightly in the comparatively seamless transition to running in 2002.
Thoughts are, of course, welcome. For the record, I have no plans to give up on running, I just think I may need to build to it a little more slowly, for my body's sake.
posted by Flax at
10:31 PM
|
