/ Change of behaviour

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
flour 26 Mar 2020

A plea to runners to think about others on their runs. Every runner I have come across in the past couple of days when I have been out for a short walk has refused to deviate from their course or wait until there is more room to pass. It's always me who has to stand aside or walk away to try and maintain a distance. Everyone has to modify their behaviour now.

Post edited at 11:02
Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

There are some crazy people out there. 
 

EA have banned all races to 31st May. 
 

I have stopped running completely. Nothing to train for and I have and will keep a base level of fitness for several weeks. It’ll just tail off a bit. 
 

I had a Facebook conversation with a running page owner who was advocating places where people could continue to train. 
 

Maybe go for a 5k easy jog round the block for half hour, but 13mile training runs at pace? Really? 

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

Interesting.  I haven't been out for a run for a week due to self isolation (but I escape tonight! ) but when I did last week other runners had already started skirting around people and so did I.

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Assuming you know a route from your house where you can maintain spacing (so canal towpaths and narrow paths are a bad idea) I see no reason why you should not run.  It's practically zero risk.

Post edited at 11:11
Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

From what I can see there’s a lot of people who have suddenly realised they’re prime candies for COVID-19 and they should do something to get fit. Lots of people who look like they’ve not been off the sofa in a few years. 

Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I see no reason to run. Certainly not at training pace that means you can’t stop or skirt round someone. It’s about perception anyway. If someone sees a runner heading towards them they don’t feel safe. 

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> From what I can see there’s a lot of people who have suddenly realised they’re prime candies for COVID-19 and they should do something to get fit. Lots of people who look like they’ve not been off the sofa in a few years. 

How's that a bad thing?

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I see no reason to run. Certainly not at training pace that means you can’t stop or skirt round someone. It’s about perception anyway. If someone sees a runner heading towards them they don’t feel safe. 

Well, they need to modify their perception, then, because it's incorrect.

Nobody should ever run in a public place where they can't stop if someone gets in their way, it's basic consideration.

Post edited at 11:20
Report
girlymonkey 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

My reason to run is that I feel good, is that not a good reason to run?

I am choosing areas to run where I can give space and less populated areas. I don't think anyone will feel unsafe with me running, I'm not the intimidating sort!!

Report
Wanderer100 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

> A plea to runners to think about others on their runs. Every runner I have come across in the past couple of days when I have been out for a short walk has refused to deviate from their course or wait until there is more room to pass. It's always me who has to stand aside or walk away to try and maintain a distance. Everyone has to modify their behaviour now.

Agree. I've modified my behaviour on runs and cross to the other side of the road if I see pedestrians or cyclists coming towards me.  Luckily I live in an area where the back lanes are very quiet and as I run in the direction of oncoming traffic it's no big deal to get to the other side or even run on the grassy verge if necessary. Basically I do what is necessary to maintain a minimum 2 meters distance. It's a basic courtesy. 

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Wanderer100:

Agreed, I'd avoid narrow paths, canal paths etc - best to run only in places where it's over 2m wide so that you can do that.

Some people seem to live in a perpetual state of fear of absolutely everything...how society could change this I'm not sure.  It leads to irrational decisions which cause deaths, e.g. people walking across 70mph dual carriageways in MK because they're scared of the underpasses (when the crime figures do not back this up).

Report
RX-78 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

A quick calculation would show a person running at 10kph and passing directly by you would spend less than 2 seconds within 2 metres of you. Exposure is typically measured with time as one component. Yesterday doing my shopping in Sainsburys I was within 2 metres of lots of other shoppers for a lot longer than that as the aisles are not made to cater for keeping such a distance between shoppers. At the till I had to get very close to the check out person. I gave blood on Tuesday, I had to let the NHS staff stay with touching distance none of whom had any PPE apart from gloves.

Post edited at 11:55
Report
John Stainforth 26 Mar 2020
In reply to RX-78:

But a runner is respiring more heavily than a walker.

Report
off-duty 26 Mar 2020
In reply to RX-78:

> A quick calculation would show a person running at 10kph and passing directly by you would spend less than 2 seconds within 2 metres of you. Exposure is typically measured with time as one component. Yesterday doing my shopping in Sainsburys I was within 2 metres of lots of other shoppers for a lot longer than that as the aisles are not made to cater for keeping such a distance between shoppers. At the till I had to get very close to the check out person. I gave blood on Tuesday, I had to let the NHS staff stay with touching distance none of whom had any PPE apart from gloves.

Worth bearing in mind that shopping for food is essential. Shops are trying to enforce 2m distances.

Running isn't essential. If you are going to do it, do it from home (don't drive to do it) and maintain 2m spacing. Imagine you are infected and try not to infect anyone else.

Report
RX-78 26 Mar 2020
In reply to off-duty:

I was trying to put the risks into perspective, neither is going for a walk essential. Any also showing it is not just runners who are breaking the 2m distance. Queueng outside Sainsbury's the other day plenty of pedestrians passed by within 2 metres. The path is not wide enough and the road is still fairly busy.

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to RX-78:

Probably depends on the definition of essential anyway.  I've got about 2 days' milk left, when that runs out I'm going to go and get some.  I *could* just have my tea black and not eat cereal.

As the Government specifically called out exercise as a reason to go out, I would suggest that means they feel it's important enough.

Post edited at 12:17
Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

>Some people seem to live in a perpetual state of fear of absolutely everything...how society could change this I'm not sure. 

 

It can’t, so those of us who recognise that people have irrational fears should make allowances. 

Report
deepsoup 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Interesting.  I haven't been out for a run for a week due to self isolation (but I escape tonight! ) but when I did last week other runners had already started skirting around people and so did I.

Congratulations on your imminent semi-freedom.

I've noticed a change in behaviour over the last few days, people around here are much more willing to leave plenty of space now than they were last week it seems.

As a runner coming up behind people walking, it's more than usually helpful to give them a shout to let them know you're coming, a cheery hello will do.  And it's worth bearing in mind that people who are hard of hearing like to go out for a walk too, so lets not assume that everyone can hear you coming even after giving them a shout.

Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes. They’ve taken that into account in their transmission models. 
 

There is a difference between exercising and training though. There are runners who will be out trying to beat their 5k time around the block and there will be additional people out on the streets exercising for whatever reason, if only because they’re going stir crazy. 

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It can’t, so those of us who recognise that people have irrational fears should make allowances.

Reasonable ones.  I think we differ on the definition of reasonable; I'm going with Government guidelines myself.  Those of course may change - if the NHS is getting overwhelmed it might well change to "don't go out at all for any reason" like in Lombardy - but I will follow that as and when it is announced.

If I followed what you said I'd never run, as I'd imagine people would be a lot more scared of me being 6' 4", 130kg and gruff-voiced (and presently bald-headed to add to it) than whether I might have coronavirus or not.  I will apply the same thing as I normally do which is avoiding walking/running close to people in a way that might scare them, particularly at night which is when I tend to run.

Post edited at 12:25
Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There is a difference between exercising and training though. There are runners who will be out trying to beat their 5k time around the block and there will be additional people out on the streets exercising for whatever reason, if only because they’re going stir crazy.

Yes, true.  But that fits with my standard view on Strava segments - they aren't for doing when it's busy, and if it's not but someone gets in your way, bad luck, try again later.

In all seriousness, anyone wanting to beat a Strava segment at the moment should go and do it at 4am or something.

Post edited at 12:28
Report
tjin 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

I heard people making jokes about me when I crossed the street so I could maintain distance from other runners. Sure the other side of the street is a bit far, but the middle bit is a road. 

Report
Neil Williams 26 Mar 2020
In reply to tjin:

I do that anyway so I'm not bearing down on others and scaring them.

Report
PPP 26 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> As a runner coming up behind people walking, it's more than usually helpful to give them a shout to let them know you're coming, a cheery hello will do.  And it's worth bearing in mind that people who are hard of hearing like to go out for a walk too, so lets not assume that everyone can hear you coming even after giving them a shout.

“Excuse me”

”Excuse me”

”SORRY”

I have been doing this for ages and nothing has changed with COVID-19. Some people will still take up as much space as they can and won’t budge. I always slow down in those cases as I don’t want to scare them. 
 

Runners seem to be getting a lot of flak lately, but we need to work together. I feel like it’s similar scenario as with road cyclists - some will be awful participants on the road and everyone gets the criticism collectively. 

Report
elliot.baker 26 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

I thought the unwritten law of the trail was the faster person takes priority and the slower person stops for them, e.g. walker stops for runner, runner stops for cyclist etc. 

Then there is the lowest amount of change of velocity for the group and it results in the fastest possible interaction for each given circumstance. 

Of course the faster person still should pass courteously and make people aware of their presence in a polite way.

Report
DancingOnRock 26 Mar 2020
In reply to elliot.baker:

Absolutely not. It’s written in law. 
Cyclists must give way to pedestrians. 

Post edited at 17:15
Report
elliot.baker 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Weird one that, slowing down from a faster speed to a complete stop so someone at walking pace can walk past you must take a lot longer and use more energy than you zipping past (safely) while the walker goes from 1ms-1 to 0ms-1, whole interaction over in a less than a second.

I'll take your words for it though.

Edit: I'm talking about off road here not on the road 

Post edited at 06:59
Report
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to elliot.baker:

What off-road would you be considering here?  They vary.  A dedicated mountain bike trail gives priority to mountain bikes.  A public footpath should not see bicycles at all.  The Milton Keynes Redways are to be treated like country roads where there just happen to be no cars there at the time.  The MK Leisure Paths are pedestrian priority but cycling permitted.  Bridleways I'm not sure, but mutual consideration is the best bet.

Post edited at 09:01
Report
elliot.baker 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

er Bridleways I guess as that's where 99.9% of my riding has taken place, to be fair since where I ride there is easily enough room to pass a walker without either person having to divert massively maybe that's influencing my thinking.

And if you're running and a walker is coming in the opposite direction they always in my experience happily step aside for you to run past, same as if you're coming up behind them they step aside so you can run past. It just seems to make sense - they barely have to break their stride to stand still for a second whereas a runner would have to completely stop then stand to one side so a walker can walk past at a much slower pace. This is also in the context of bridle paths. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years and they're cursing me behind my back! haha :-D

I'm not saying I'm running people off the road here and making them dive into hedges and stuff - it's all seemed very civilised for the last 15 years of MTBing and running....

Report
The New NickB 27 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

Limited personal experience, because I've been following the guidelines and we have not been in this situation for long. However, what experiences I have had, have been completely different to yours. As a runner, I have chosen routes that will as much as possible allow me to move to a good distance from other people without them having to do anything and at natural pinch points, either stopped, slowed down or sped up to avoid getting too close, on the occasions that others have done that for me, I have thanked them. As a walker, I have given way to runners were it was most appropriate for me to give way and I have had runners give way to me. Again, I have been thanked and I have thanked others.

Report
petestack 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I see no reason to run.

Physical and mental health. That's two.

Report
Yanis Nayu 27 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

I think that in general, the change in people’s behaviour has been nothing short of remarkable. The reduction in social interaction has been huge. There’s been a lot of focus on the incidences where it hasn’t happened, but we should acknowledge the positive efforts made by people. 

Report
colinakmc 27 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

> A plea to runners to think about others on their runs. Every runner I have come across in the past couple of days when I have been out for a short walk has refused to deviate from their course or wait until there is more room to pass. It's always me who has to stand aside or walk away to try and maintain a distance. Everyone has to modify their behaviour now.

I’m experiencing the opposite problem. I’m trying to keep a wee bit of fitness by doing 5 or 6 k 2-3 times a week, on quiet roads and pavements and lots of walkers just look uncomprehendingly at me while veering towards me as I try to avoid them. I’m old and slow so it ain’t a big problem but there’s a lack of awareness or cooperation about maintaining the two metres.

Report
Wainers44 27 Mar 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Yours is the same as my experience.  No problems, plenty of distance between etc. I stop running and walk around blind corners so as to avoid any near misses. Any excuse to stop running is a good excuse after a few miles!

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Not even a motorway gives priority of cars over pedestrians. Doesn’t matter where you are. Pedestrians have priority over vehicles. 

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to petestack:

It depends how long the lockdown is. 4-12 weeks of not running isn’t going to impact your health and mentally a walk is just as good. 

Post edited at 14:26
Report
petestack 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

People need to get out. People are still permitted to go running. What part of that don't you understand and who are you to make pronouncements on how long they'll be OK without or what else is just as good?

Report
elliot.baker 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

haha don't let this descend into this old story again. Don't they only have priority if they are already in the road, I don't think pedestrians are encouraged to walk out into motorways and the cars to gently give way for them.

I think we've got too much time on our hands.

Report
deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

>  and mentally a walk is just as good. 

Not for me it isn't, not even close.

In reply to thread:

Well, I've just been out for a run from my door for almost the first time ever (I drive out into the Peak somewhere usually), and around here at least I think there's been a very noticeable change in people's behaviour since last week.  I'm sure the sunshine helps to lighten the mood, but even so - people out walking were cheerfully giving me loads of space to pass them, and seemed appreciative that I was giving them space in return as I went by. 

And what I've never explored but always thought was a slightly grotty patch of urban woodland turned out to be much nicer than I thought and is criss-crossed by lots of little paths not on the map with plenty more exploring to be done.  Excellent.

Report
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

Perhaps it'd help to run a public information campaign in favour of exploring your local area?

Report
deepsoup 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Having only just discovered that little green oasis myself, I'm *waaay* too selfish for that. ;-)

It borders a fairly rough part of town.  This may be horribly snobbish (or perhaps invertedly snobbish) of me but based on the people I meet up that way and out in the Peak, I don't think the populace within a short walk of the place are the same ones who drive out to Curbar gap to walk the dog anyway.

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to petestack:

We will see when people are reduced to running round their coffee tables what’s essential and what isn’t. 
 

You don’t suddenly get health issues because you stop running for a few weeks. Really you don’t. It takes years to develop health problems. 

Report
petestack 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> We will see when people are reduced to running round their coffee tables what’s essential and what isn’t.

Most people's coffee tables are indoors.

> You don’t suddenly get health issues because you stop running for a few weeks. Really you don’t. It takes years to develop health problems. 

Like existing mental health issues alleviated by things like outdoor physical exercise.

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to petestack:

> Most people's coffee tables are indoors.

Exactly.

> Like existing mental health issues alleviated by things like outdoor physical exercise.

Covers a small minority of runners. As I say, going for a short easy gentle run is one thing. Trying to smash your 5k PB or do an interval session round the block is another thing entirely. It’s not hard to stop and walk past people.

Post edited at 15:09
Report
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Covers a small minority of runners. As I say, going for a short easy gentle run is one thing. Trying to smash your 5k PB or do an interval session round the block is another thing entirely. It’s not hard to stop and walk past people.

Which is fairly different to "don't go for a run"?

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Who said don’t go for a run?

Report
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You were certainly implying that people should not at one stage, or your posts gave that impression.

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Have another read of the second post on this thread. By me. Which you replied to. 

Report
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to petestack: totally agree.

its a respiratory virus. Our respiratory health is more important now than ever. My wife’s an MD and she thinks it is crazy that people are stopping running.

it’s also incredibly stressful and anxiety provoking time. Being outside, specifically surrounded by greenery is one of the best documented ways to battle stress and anxiety.

Report
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Can you get your wife onto the Spanish health officials (and actually the Spanish public) who are convinced that we'll all die if anyone goes running in the next few months?!  They're looking at probably 2-3 months of quarantine, so the state of public health after nobody has had outdoor exercise in that time is going to be horrendous.  Not to mention that at least adults can leave the house to go buy food--kids are inside 24/7.

I've been disappointed to see high profile athletes like Killian supporting this ban--this is exactly the time when it would be great for public health for someone like him to speak up and explain exactly how important outdoor exercise is.

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

Really, fitness simply does not evaporate that quickly. Ask anyone who has been ill or injured. I was out for nearly 23 weeks from September with a horrendous chest problem. I only just started running again in February. I was down a bit but still going better than 50% of my club who hadn’t had a break. 
 

There’s a lot of paranoia from people who think a break of one or two weeks is the end of their athletic careers. 

Post edited at 19:20
Report
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Not sure where to start with this one, but...no.  I don't have time to put together a whole textbook for you, but start with these:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29671031

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2692122

And, I also have a little experience with injury 

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

Maybe I wasn’t clear.
 

If you are a highly trained athlete and you stop training you will see a drop in your performance.

However. 
 

This drop in performance will only affect your ability to perform at your previous peak it will by no means impact your overall health. 
 

I can’t see anywhere in that study where is explains exactly what ‘significant’ is. Usually it means that they can say with high certainty that it has changed. Not that the change has a significant impact on your health. 

With 20 weeks of no running I was still able to run a 5k at an easy pace without stopping. I suspect the vast majority of the population cannot run 400m without stopping. 

Report
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29671031

This is the first link I gave you.  It has absolutely nothing to do with highly trained athletes.  It is about the negative effects on metabolic health from a short bout of sedentary behavior, which is very relevant in this situation because poor metabolic health is a big risk factor for poor outcomes from Covid19.

Other changes which could be induced from short-term sedentary behavior that would have particular relevance here would be loss of skeletal muscle (especially a problem for older adults) and a drop in vit D status from the loss of the time outdoors that you would otherwise have spent exercising.  And no doubt many others...

I included the second link, about V02 max, for your own benefit, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that stopping exercise for several weeks is no big deal for overall fitness.

Report
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

Yeah a friend is an Art lecturer in Barcelona and expecting his first kid this week, he's so stressed and would normally be out cycling. 

It is just crazy, even the french have relaxed it to some extent to allow exercise, even if they've limited it (is it 2 km from the house now?).

Isn't Killian in Norway anyway? I think they should be campaigning to allow exercise for sure. 

I don't think we've done enough to explain the science behind social distancing to everyone. In London people are still cramped in Tubes, yet people are losing it if some guy down the road goes for a second run of the day. 

I've seen people blatantly try to publicly shame people from other areas, basically xenophobia, and then be posting pictures of them working with their bosses kid, or visiting the vets for a limping dog for a second opinion. People just are not focused on isolating their own household. 

I saw one guy get the local catholic priest around to baptise his kid, a guy who probably spends his time giving last rights to people dying of coronavirus and one occupation most suffering in Italy through exposure to the virus.

It's maddening how we are picking and choosing what is acceptable and it is not based on numbers and data.

Report
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

In ageing research we've known this for a good decade. Periods of immobility remove weeks off your life. They are now pretty aggressive getting people back on their feet after major surgery for this reason. We now see all the cardiac walks in parks in the UK. 

Report
C Witter 27 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

A plea to every middle-class curtain twitching crank: blame the astounding stupidity of our government for the spread of C-19, by all means, but please stop going out of your way to find fault with people who are simply trying to maintain some small shreds of joy in the face of this lockdown. Whether a runner is one or two metres from you as they pass and/or perspiring heavily and/or going around their block or running across the moor will have a negligible effect on you, whilst the slowness of politicians to act, the inadequacy of the measures they've taken, years of underfunding the NHS and of actively creating a deeply unequal society will be the things that actually determine our collective fate.

Report
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Wow, I can't imagine having a kid on the way just now.  Good luck to them.

Yeah, Killian is in Norway, and that does make it extra insane.  What's the over/under on whether he's actually staying inside all day or just saying it to keep the sponsors happy...?

Report
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

We're due twins next week too, but we're not in a massive high risk zone and we're both off work (I'm teaching remotely now). Well my wife is an MD so she's doing tele-medicine. She's an oncologist (well hematology and oncology) so they are keeping their patients well out of the way as they are massively high risk. Most of her colleagues (they are all licensed internists first) have been drafted into the A&E's but she's at too high a risk with being 36 week pregnant with twins. 

So far any lock down in the US has very much allowed exercise and groceries. So far we are under guidance which we seem to be following.

Report
Planeandsimple 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Depends on your environment and pace doesn't it.

Report
elliot.baker 27 Mar 2020
In reply to C Witter:

Off topic and not a political comment but I wondered whether even without years of austerity we would have enough ventilators and ICU Beds. I assume we’d have more nurses and doctors and general nhs infrastructure etc but thought we might still be scrambling to make more ventilators because it’s such a specific need for a large amount of these.  Just a curious thought. 
 

FWIW I plan on running a half marathon this weekend and I don’t think I’ll personally put anyone or myself in harms way. 

Report
Planeandsimple 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

I would also say that having got the obvious that your training isn't going to help greatly. I landed the worst case out of my infected workmates.

I think this happened as I was already fatigued from large cumulative training load at the end of 4 weeks progressive loading. I didn't recognise the high temperature as my body always runs hot to repair. Consequently through training in ignorance until the day before I got properly ill I think I breathed it deep into my lungs.  I'm just out the other side of 14 days of feeling like I smoked 20 fags for breakfast.

Definitely feels like my lungs will take a while before I can run again, who knows about permanent damage. Still I got lucky and I'm thankful I had good lung capacity beforehand. 

My advice would be to back off the training load slightly to give yourself 3 days a week where you can assess your health without excess fatigue clouding the results, the fever temperature increase is very marginal, I found. 

Caveat. I haven't been tested officially but I have ticked pretty much every symptom, as have others at my work, pretty sure what it was. 

Report
alicia 27 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Did you see that someone on Twitter made a flattening the curve graph to compare having twins versus having one kid, with the sanity ceiling? Good luck!!

Report
Roadrunner6 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

haha my wife showed me that last night, thanks.

Report
DancingOnRock 27 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

None of them say what the ‘significant’ effect is. 
 

If I ran a mile in 4 minutes and lost 25% of my fitness and could only run a mile in 5 minutes. That would be sound very significant but I can’t imagine anyone would say you had become unfit. 
 

Running easy maintenance mileage would keep your endurance base ticking over no problem.

In 20 weeks my VO2max dropped from 48 to 42. A vo2max of 42 for a man of 50 years of age is considered ‘excellent’ compared with my usual ‘superior’ for anything over 45. 

Post edited at 21:36
Report
Neil Williams 27 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Really, fitness simply does not evaporate that quickly. Ask anyone who has been ill or injured. I was out for nearly 23 weeks from September with a horrendous chest problem. I only just started running again in February. I was down a bit but still going better than 50% of my club who hadn’t had a break. 

That depends how mentally strong you are in relation particularly to food.  I admit to having a fairly poor relationship with food, as do many people in the UK, and saying "just eat less" doesn't deal with the mental health aspects of the issue.

When I get injured, I end up eating the same as when I'm running, because I lack self discipline (don't answer that with "well get some self discipline" because if it was that easy the country wouldn't have an obesity problem).  Being a heavyweight, I burn calories running like there's no tomorrow - a not very quick 5 miler the other day for instance went well over 1,000 according to Strava, and a recent Scout endurance event (50 miles hilly walking) took nearly half a stone off in one go (which hasn't gone back on, so it's not glycogen storage or dehydration).

This being the case if I can't exercise I'll balloon really quickly, and I'm not the only one.

I do accept that if the present situation doesn't reduce cases far enough[1] for the NHS to be able to vaguely cope we may have to tighten further.  However, provided the measures are adequate, and doling out some 30 quid fines does help to rein in the stupidity of last weekend, I am very much in support of the UK Government's approach, and do agree with those saying that if you keep people in *all the time* that the obesity problem will get worse.  And, FWIW, obesity is a risk factor for COVID19.

[1] After 2-3 weeks from imposition due to the incubation period.  Bojo didn't say they would review (note, not lift) the measures after 3 weeks for a laugh, it's because it'll take that long to properly see what effect they will have.

Post edited at 22:53
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Again. You don’t get obese in a few weeks. It takes years. You may get overweight but you  don’t suddenly get obese. People are going to struggle to overeat anyway as you now have to queue for the shop and are limited to what you can buy. You can’t just pop out and grab some chocolate.

Post edited at 08:29
Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

In actual fact yes you can.  Supermarkets are not removing things like that from the shelves, and local shops are not full of queues, I walked straight into the one at the end of my road yesterday afternoon, there were 2 other people there and it was fully stocked.

Why do you persist in arguing against the Government advice?  Are you virtue signalling?

By the way, enjoy your fast metabolism and discipline with food.  But understand that neither of those are the same for everyone.

Post edited at 08:57
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Did you go back and read my first post on the thread properly? 
 

>Maybe go for a 5k easy jog round the block for half hour, but 13mile training runs at pace? Really? 

The government advice is to only leave the house for 4 reasons. The shopping reason is for essential supplies and this should be as infrequent as possible. 
 

The 4 reasons are exceptions and you should be minimising the time outside the home.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/

Post edited at 09:33
Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The government advice is to only leave the house for 4 reasons. The shopping reason is for essential supplies and this should be as infrequent as possible. 

And when doing so there is no practical reason not to buy unhealthy food, and people will be doing.

Your typical skinny, healthy eating climber/runner in here has a very odd perspective on how 90% of the population work.

Post edited at 09:42
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Online shops are being restricted too. I will be very surprised if people don’t lose weight during this epidemic. Their habits will be drastically changed. 

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

We are two weeks from Easter. Yesterday I went to Tescos. The aisles are full of Easter Eggs. No one was buying them. Usually they’d be flying off the shelves. I suspect people are also concerned about spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need. 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I still disagree with you.  I guess we will have to see what happens.

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Easter eggs are usually bought to give to others, not to eat yourself (though I'm sure some people do!)  At present, the only people you can give them to is people already living in your house, so there's no point grandparents, aunts, uncles etc buying them for their grandchildren, nephews, nieces etc.  That'll be causing the drop in sales.  They are, I suspect, most often bought alongside a normal food shop which is still going on.

Obviously some people aren't being paid at all and will need to heavily economise, but that's not everybody.  Many can work from home (practically the entire IT industry for one, and it's not small these days), many larger companies have the resources to continue paying wages, and many have been furloughed on the Government scheme, which does I admit only give you 80% of pay but you'll also be spending less on days out, fast food etc.

Post edited at 09:54
Report
Al Randall 28 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

I predict that there will be a huge increase in the number of divorces as well as a temporary spike in the birth rate in 12 months time

One thing that has surprised me is that I would have expected a huge increase in traffic on forums such as this but if anything it seems quieter.

Al

Report
digby 28 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

How is the virus mainly transmitted now? Who knows, but I'm sure it's not by solo running outdoors. It's straining at gnats to hammer down on running. Numbers of infected are still climbing in countries with draconian outdoor bans. 
People are still going to work, using public transport and going to shops, albeit much much less. I would think that transmission by touch is the most likely path. 
 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to digby:

The opportunity for spread outside if keeping distance is mostly through touching things like gates.  I'd suggest the best option is to choose a route where this is not necessary, and one where any path you use is more than 2m wide so you can pass at distance.

There is a small chance of airborne spread, but I understand it is presently considered small.  Round here it's blowing a gale, so I doubt it is staying in one place for any length of time.

Post edited at 10:24
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to digby:

The point of the thread is not to clamp down on people running. At no point anywhere has that been suggested. 
 

However, the hospitals are going to be full of people with COVID-19 and will be struggling. 
 

Runners often get injured when training. They sometimes bump into other people. 

People are racing about in cars and on bikes now the roads are quiet.

Physios are not now working.
 

Really, it’s not so much about catching and or spreading the disease, it’s also about being considerate and thinking of the consequences if you get injured or injure someone. 

Post edited at 11:18
Report
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

None of those injuries require essential physio though. People now won’t go to hospital with minor issues.

its probably why the Italian death rate is 10%, because anyone with mild symptoms is going anywhere near a hospital full of very sick people and risking getting Covid If they don’t have it.

Report
Al Randall 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

It's my understanding that most accidents occur in the home. This number is likely to increase with more people being at home because of the lock down so I'm not sure how that factors in.

Al

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Ha. There is a 20m queue of 10 people outside my small village shop now. I can’t see people queuing for 20 minutes for a bar of impulse buy chocolate. 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I walked straight into my local shop yesterday, there were 2 people there.

And don't underestimate the chocoholics :D

Post edited at 12:28
Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Al Randall:

> It's my understanding that most accidents occur in the home. This number is likely to increase with more people being at home because of the lock down so I'm not sure how that factors in.

I suspect that logic might be subtly mistaken. "Most accidents happen in the home" probably doesn't imply that home is actually a riskier place to be, just that people spend more time in the home than anywhere else. Per time spent, home is probably one of the safer places to be so counter-intuitively it might be true both that "most accidents happen at home" and that "spending more time at home reduces accidents".

I haven't actually checked out the stats, this is just intuition, which is always a dangerous game!

Report
Al Randall 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Just think of all those people, normally sat in an office, breaking out the power tools and getting involved in DIY, something they would not perhaps normally do. That includes me by the way

Al

Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The point of the thread is not to clamp down on people running. At no point anywhere has that been suggested. 

You keep insisting that you're not suggesting people shouldn't run at the same time as repeatedly making arguments that people shouldn't run!

Your very first post was saying that you've stopped running altogether and suggesting that any more than a gentle jog is certainly irresponsible, then you pointed people to that post as an example of how you weren't criticising running. It's the kind of double-talk worthy of a government minister!

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Yes, I'm finding this rather hard to follow.

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Where have I said people shouldn’t run? 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Can you clarify, in one post, what activity you see as acceptable, then?

Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You haven't explicitly said "people shouldn't run". You have said:

  • That you've stopped running yourself
  • That people find it intimidating to see a runner coming towards them
  • That a gentle 5k jog is maybe ok but running fast or running 13 miles definitely isn't
  • That running is likely to get you injured and make you a burden on the health service
  • That you see no reason to run
  • That a walk is just as good as a run for someone's mental health

Why have you even spent so many posts arguing that stopping running won't impact someone's fitness much if you're not actually advocating that people should stop running?

You can just about make a case that you haven't quite argued to stop running altogether but the thrust of your argument, over and over again, has definitely been that serious running (that is, anything more than a short jog) is irresponsible. And yet then you say, "The point of the thread is not to clamp down on people running. At no point anywhere has that been suggested."

How is suggesting that serious runners should restrict themselves to a slow, 5k jog not "clamping down on running"?!

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

A half hour easy run a day. 

That fulfils the government guidelines as far as I can see, and fulfils the original posters request to be mindful of others when you’re out and about. 

Remember, other people are more likely to be out as it’s also their only form of exercise if they’re working from home. 

If everyone doubles or trebles that then you start to see crowding. People forget that they are ‘the crowd’, they see the crowd as all the other people. Like when you’re in a traffic jam, you fail to see you are the traffic jam as well. 

One person in a park takes up 16m2, you can only fit so many people in the park. If that person then spends an hour in the park, that’s a half hour someone else can’t use that space. 

Consider, if you normally train intervals in a group at your club. Everyone now has to train those sessions on their own. 
 

It’s not all about you. 

Post edited at 14:02
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Thank you. I think you seem to understand my message now. 

Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I understood your message all along, what I still don't understand is why you kept insisting that it wasn't to cut down on running when it clearly is.

Report
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

"A half hour easy run a day. 

That fulfils the government guidelines as far as I can see, and fulfils the original posters request to be mindful of others when you’re out and about. 

Remember, other people are more likely to be out as it’s also their only form of exercise if they’re working from home. 

If everyone doubles or trebles that then you start to see crowding. People forget that they are ‘the crowd’, they see the crowd as all the other people. Like when you’re in a traffic jam, you fail to see you are the traffic jam as well. "

This is entirely you deciding what is deemed OK. That's not how society works.

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Nope. I’ve never said it wasn’t to clamp down on running. My first post is pretty clear on that. It’s always been agreeing with the OP about showing consideration to all the other people trying to exercise under very difficult situation. 
 

It’s selfish to think we can continue training as normal, especially when we have absolutely nothing to train for. 

Post edited at 14:22
Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

>This is entirely you deciding what is deemed OK. That's not how society works.

Apparently not.

But our government direction is to keep it as short as possible. That’s a direction, not a request. 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It’s not all about you.

Could you please stop implying that discussing the matter is being somehow selfish, because (a) it's not, and (b) it turns the discussion unpleasantly and unnecessarily personal.

I have in fact been out of the house precisely once in a week, and that was to go to the shop.

My personal view is max about an hour though the need for that will vary, if you live in the middle of nowhere even if you go out for 3 hours the impact is low.  Yours is 30 minutes.  Neither is right (because 15 minutes is minimising yet further) and so I don't see that that element of the discussion having further potential.

Post edited at 14:35
Report
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

From the guy who said he’d give 350 million a week to the NHS.

this should be an evidence based response. This is also the guy who has coronavirus because like Trump, he’s been in face to face localized meetings through all this...

but you are deciding the 30 minutes arbitrarily being an acceptable amount. 

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

You in general, not you personally. It’s about all of us. 

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

It is an evidence based response. It’s not from Boris, it’s from the Government. It’s from the team of advisors. 

Report
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Oh yeah the same team who had to keep changing their strategy every few days..

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yep. That’s what you do when faced with an unpredictable pandemic. 

Report
Roadrunner6 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams: It’s all about minimizing exposure. I’ve a treadmill in the basement. If I lived on a busy street I’d just run on that. As it is by running late or on local trails I see few if anyone. TBH my biggest danger is the local pan handlers on a street corner, obviously getting nothing these days as well poor buggers, so I have to cut around a building to keep my distance.

a friend lives on the edge of snowdonia, he would expose himself and others to less risk if he ran for 2-3 hrs than if others ran locally to them.

Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Nope. I’ve never said it wasn’t to clamp down on running.

You literally said precisely that, this morning! It was the post that persuaded me to respond to you because your level of self-contradiction had got ridiculous.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/running/change_of_behaviour-717514?v=1#x9161363

> The point of the thread is not to clamp down on people running. At no point anywhere has that been suggested.

For what it's worth, I can see your point about how exceeding the 30 minute limit could, in some areas at some times, be anti-social. What frustrates me about your posts is how you keep arguing a clear point whilst simultaneously denying it.

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> It’s all about minimizing exposure. I’ve a treadmill in the basement. If I lived on a busy street I’d just run on that. As it is by running late or on local trails I see few if anyone.

When I do go out, I've got a route in mind where if I go there after dark I am near-guaranteed not to even see another person other than if they're driving down the road.  And that's in (well, on the edge of) a town.

Post edited at 15:42
Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> For what it's worth, I can see your point about how exceeding the 30 minute limit could, in some areas at some times, be anti-social. What frustrates me about your posts is how you keep arguing a clear point whilst simultaneously denying it.

There is no 30 minute limit in the UK at the time of posting this.  Quite a lot of people are making it up, taking the figure from the Government's general (non-COVID19) suggestion that on average that's about the amount of exercise you should do a day.

Report
petestack 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It’s selfish to think we can continue training as normal, especially when we have absolutely nothing to train for. 

Some of us aren't 'training' but just running. There's absolutely nothing selfish about me running as I'm doing, and it's absolutely none of your business to set yourself up as arbiter of whether or not that's OK.

PS In case my meaning's not clear enough, I haven't been training for anything for nearly three years, but still have everything to run for!

Post edited at 16:21
Report
alicia 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> I suspect that logic might be subtly mistaken. "Most accidents happen in the home" probably doesn't imply that home is actually a riskier place to be, just that people spend more time in the home than anywhere else. Per time spent, home is probably one of the safer places to be so counter-intuitively it might be true both that "most accidents happen at home" and that "spending more time at home reduces accidents".

> I haven't actually checked out the stats, this is just intuition, which is always a dangerous game!

So I did actually check the stats last week. I could only find decently specific numbers for the US, and I couldn't find perfect data. But, making all estimates in favour of being at home being safer, there are 24 times more cases per year of home accidents which require hospital treatment compared to running injuries which require hospital treatment. We're only awake for 16-17 hours a day, so even adjusted for more time spent in the home, staying home is more dangerous than going running. And that's ALL types of running; no doubt if I had the data to separate road running from hill running, road running would come out even safer.

Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

> But, making all estimates in favour of being at home being safer, there are 24 times more cases per year of home accidents which require hospital treatment compared to running injuries which require hospital treatment. We're only awake for 16-17 hours a day, so even adjusted for more time spent in the home, staying home is more dangerous than going running. And that's ALL types of running; no doubt if I had the data to separate road running from hill running, road running would come out even safer.

Not quite sure about how you've come to that conclusion. Your comparison of 16-17 with 24 implies that you're assuming most people spend an hour running each day?

To be clear, I'm not arguing against running. I think the risk-benefit balance is well in its favour. But I don't think the stats you've presented here suggest in any way that it's safer than staying in the house.

Report
mrphilipoldham 28 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

I'm going to play devils advocate. Given that many on here are firmly of the belief that the NHS is chronically underfunded, can any one of those folk justify their cycling/running/climbing at all, especially post-Corvid? None of it is essential, and all seemingly likely to result in an unnecessary burden.

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> I'm going to play devils advocate. Given that many on here are firmly of the belief that the NHS is chronically underfunded, can any one of those folk justify their cycling/running/climbing at all, especially post-Corvid? None of it is essential, and all seemingly likely to result in an unnecessary burden.

By far the biggest cost to the NHS is obesity, poor health and poor diet.  So yes, they can be justified.

Highly risky climbing etc (soloing hard stuff and the likes) much less so, but it's hard to draw a line there so it's best not drawn.  And there are not *that* many climbers who do that sort of stuff.

This situation is very different from usual.  We are not trying to reduce cost to the NHS, it's basically been given a blank cheque as things stand.  We are trying to reduce peak demand.

Post edited at 17:02
Report
alicia 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

I was dividing the population into two groups, runners and inside dwellers, and yes, one hour a day average for runners seems normal? That means the inside dwellers as a whole group injure themselves at a higher rate than the runners when they're running. The problem is that we don't know how many people are in each group, so we don't know what the injury-per person-per hour rate is, which is obviously what we need. But with the numbers of people currently running in the world, they're not creating a higher burden on the medical system than people staying home. And of course we'd have to remember to offset the injury burden by the medical system costs saved from lower incidence of diabetes etc.

Report
mrphilipoldham 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

The only climbers I've personally known to have required the NHS following a climbing accident/injury are your bumbly types so insinuating that it's only those doing 'hard stuff' isn't right. 

Just for clarity, I wasn't in any manner trying to justify cycling/climbing/running in the current situation, merely musing the future. Will people tone things down, having come to terms with just how vulnerable an operation it is? Climb less, climb easier? For a short period before it slides in to distant memory and normality resumes?

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I'll be honest, the only time I've needed the NHS as a result of climbing was tripping over a rock on the awkward path at the bottom of one of the Portland crags, landing on a rock right in the middle of my leg...which didn't actually break it but somehow caused a DVT to form.  Which if you've never had it is as painful as a broken bone, except that the pain doesn't stop by not moving it.  And even better, when you go to get seen you get given 5 injections you have to stick in yourself while waiting for an ultrasound.

Not a lot of fun (and all respect to Type 1 diabetics who have to stick needles in themselves daily).

It's cycling that's had the most goes at wiping me out, but only one of those incidents has required the NHS, and the health benefits of cycling rather than driving (I don't do it as a pursuit, just as a mode of transport) probably offset that one incident in 40 years that did.

Post edited at 17:33
Report
Luke90 28 Mar 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> I'm going to play devils advocate. Given that many on here are firmly of the belief that the NHS is chronically underfunded, can any one of those folk justify their cycling/running/climbing at all, especially post-Corvid? None of it is essential, and all seemingly likely to result in an unnecessary burden.

Once we regain normality, I don't think "essential" is the relevant line to use. Very little of what anybody does is "essential" and even sedentary hobbies that border on zero risk often involve driving to get to them or to get supplies. Trying to live in a zero-risk world would produce very high mental health risks to an awful lot of people. It's one thing trying to get close to it for an uncertain but ultimately limited time during a crisis and quite another to propose it long term.

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Luke90:

Precisely.  My personal take (even though in life I'm probably on the risk averse side, really) is that people generally should be able to choose their own level of risk, and because most people don't want to die that is usually within vaguely sensible bounds, and the number of people for whom it's not (Alex Honnold and the likes[1]) is noise-level.

However *in the present situation only* I think there is a need to be near-totally risk averse.

[1] Of course he wouldn't need the NHS if he fell off, he'd need an undertaker.

Report
alicia 28 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> However *in the present situation only* I think there is a need to be near-totally risk averse.

But people are going wrong by only counting the risks they can "see" (possibility of injury) without considering opposing risks that are not visible but very much real (decrease in immune function and deterioration of metabolic health, among others).

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

That's probably true.

Report
petestack 28 Mar 2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52076856

'CPOC is encouraging people to take brisk exercise, stop smoking, maintain good nutrition and mental health and have alcohol free days to reduce their chances of becoming severely ill from the virus and over-burdening the NHS.'

My final contribution to this topic when I've only started posting to UKC for the first time since October because I've felt compelled to join in here...

I've just been for a 6.6-mile run on the West Highland Way, from my door to my door, with no harm done to anyone. I met two people on the street and two on the trail, and was able to acknowledge all of them without passing as close as two metres to any. I saw beauty in the hills I can't touch, and felt good about that when it reminds me why life's worth living through these troubled times.

The sooner pontificating, do-gooding ordinary people learn to leave it and start trusting other ordinary people, the saner we'll all stay!

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to alicia:

And other people are going wrong by overstating the loss of those things given the very short timescales involved. Especially when compared to the gains that normal sedentary people would make just by “walking briskly for 30 minutes a day”. 

Report
DancingOnRock 28 Mar 2020
In reply to petestack:

Indeed. They’re not suggesting people run marathons or train for non existent races. 

“Brisk exercise”. 

Report
Neil Williams 28 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

A reasonable guide (as they've been saying) is what you'd normally do if you said to whoever you live with "I'm just going for a run" or "I'm just going for a walk".

Report
Roadrunner6 29 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yeah I'm still training fairly hard, but with no goal race I'm kid of aimless and just ticking over on 70 mpw. I'm in a run free Grand prix, it is a virtual race series. Friday night I jumped on a local track and ran a solo 25 laps for a 10k, this afternoon someone will collate all the results from around the country. It's kept the runners in touch with each other, we're competing, we run in teams too, loads of banter and support. It has probably been the highlight of the social distancing so far. 

Report
digby 30 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> But our government direction is to keep it as short as possible. That’s a direction, not a request. 

And it's a fatuous edict. BJ, the health secretary and Prince Charles didn't get the virus by running 45 minutes instead of 30. 
They got it by being at work and not social distancing. 
Whatever level of running one personally wishes to undertake is fine. People are notoriously incapable of assessing risks, and the media is not good at analysing the data which is in any case not reliable. Focusing on people going out into the countryside is not rational. Look at workplaces, shops and hospitals.

Report
Neil Williams 30 Mar 2020
In reply to digby:

That's not why.  The point of it (once a day and minimise time) is to reduce the number of people out at any one time, particularly in cities.  So it probably matters more in London than it does in the middle of nowhere.

Post edited at 10:01
Report
wbo2 30 Mar 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:  What do you mean 'no race' - you think there's going to be no races ever, again?  You've never picked a target race a year out? 

Report
NBR 30 Mar 2020
In reply to flour:

There is a simple test for this.

Ask what would happen if everyone carried out the act I want to do?

If the answer is bad then don't do it!

So if everyone who wanted to felt they could go climbing at Stanage today as long as they only did 'easy stuff', it would be packed and a high risk of spreading the virus, therefore they can't and neither can you.

If everyone who wants head out for a serious training run, down their usual routes (which might have narrow bits), passing people close at speed (afterall its only brief) then this would increase risk for people trying to get minimal exercise through a short walk. So no you can't.

However if every runner only went for a shorter, lower level run, avoiding narrow places, being sure to give way and avoid people when needed that would not cause a substantial increase in risk for others so is probably fine.

Report
Neil Williams 30 Mar 2020
In reply to NBR:

Yes, this.  Consider the effects on others.

Canal towpaths would for example be a bad choice, partly because boaters live there and partly because they're almost always under 2m wide so maintaining distance while passing someone is impossible unless you're willing to jump in the drink each time.

Also better to choose a route without gates than one with.  Unless I was unfortunate enough to go flying, my usual running route involves nothing other than the bottom of my trainers touching anything I don't own.

Post edited at 10:42
Report
DancingOnRock 30 Mar 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Thanks. 

There was more confusion created yesterday when Gove tried to ‘clarify’ and said “People should continue to do the amount of exercise they would normally do daily.”

If I was to take that literally I don’t do a set amount of ‘daily’ exercise. 

Ultimately, people just need to be aware that carrying on normally isn’t really an option and we all have to make some allowances depending on our environment. I took the dog out for a 10mile run yesterday. My first run in two weeks. Saw 3 couples out walking. I don’t live in a city and don’t run in a park. It wasn’t a training run, it was an easy run. 

I’ll probably stop running again now until next week and continue with the dog walking every day. 
 

As I’ve said before, I’ll continually asses my requirement for exercise. 

Post edited at 10:47
Report
Roadrunner6 30 Mar 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> What do you mean 'no race' - you think there's going to be no races ever, again?  You've never picked a target race a year out? 

Just no goal race yet, it’ll be Boston. But I’d been at 70-75 a week with track sessions, long road runs, races etc for this Springs Boston, so cannot just carry on as I was certainly getting to that late stage marathon training tiredness.

I'm due twins thus week so I’m pretty much just kicking the running to do what I can, enjoy it, no stress. With  COViD, 1 nearly 3 kids, working from home I’m just not going to stress if I don’t do long road runs or track sessions for the next few weeks. I.ll do a few for the mile and 5 k race but I’m more just enjoying the change.

Post edited at 18:49
Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.