A place for runners.
Confession: In my decade of distance running, I’ve never done a long run on any route but an out-and-back.
Imagine getting paid to write opinion pieces about why X is better than Y, when you've never even tried Y.
It sounds like they've done loops over shorter distances, at least. Just not their long run.
I dunno how they define long run, but for me that means roughly >14 km, because outside of my current 5 km every day challenge, my standard run tends to be 10–12 km, sometimes peaking a little closer to 14. And it's very easy even with my current short runs to find loops I can run.
(Now...I've been putting off today's 5k for the last 90 minutes...time to head out and do my run. 😅 I think I'll do a loop today.)
My longer runs were always predominantly loops and variations on different loops adjusted to change the distance I was doing. All of the points made are just personal preference they have of which i agree with none of it.
I like both for variation. 🤷
But it’s pretty hard to fully enjoy my chosen form of entertainment when I have to think about which street to turn onto next, carefully cross a road, wait at a stoplight, or take a detour around the latest construction site.
The entire article reads like someone who thinks the only two types of recreational running is trail and big city streets, and the invention of turn-by-turn navigation on your watch doesn't exist.
I've used turn-by-turn navigation on my watch precisely once, and I really don't recommend it. Last year I did some GPS art. First a small one to practise it, and then a larger one. The experience with my watch the first time was so bad that I carried by bike computer with me on the second one so I could use that for navigation instead.
But yeah, the article itself seems pretty terrible. It almost doesn't even make sense in the points it brings, because most of them seem to be assuming everyone runs precisely where and when she runs.
I frequently use navigation on my coros pace 2 to run different routes because I hate running the same routes all the time, it works just fine.
What watch did you use and what didn't you like about its navigation?
I have a Garmin Forerunner 935. The first problem was that because it's just giving turn directions and not showing a map (and tbh, a proper map on that screen size and on a wrist that's moving while running wouldn't be especially practical anyway), I missed turns a lot any time there were multiple possible options within a short space.
Then, when I had eventually just given up on relying on the watch and would stop, pause, get my phone out, and look at it for directions, the fact that it was trying to do GPS basically caused the watch to entirely crash. That's definitely a device-specific bug, but it's one that only showed up due to my workarounds to inherent limitations of the form factor.
Ah OK, it works differently on my watch. I actually have a simple route-map on the watch when using navigation and it works pretty well.
I'mma be honest, all of these seems hyper specific to the author of the article. I did an out-and-back threshold run yesterday (14th) as part of my 5k every day in September challenge, and the "back" felt so much harder, mentally. The act of turning around stopped my mental progress dead, and made me think "oh shit, I gotta do all that again‽" Had I continued in a loop, it would mentally have been way easier. That's points 1 and 2 which completely don't work for me (and which seem to basically be...the same point, expressed slightly differently).
3 seems just bizarre to me. I'll admit, as a cishet dude I'm not likely to feel unsafe wherever I run, unless the thing I'm afraid of is magpie swoops or tripping because I can't see the ground well enough in the dark. But this seems predicated on the idea that (a) random strangers you ran past would actually recognise specifically you, and (b) running closer to home is going to have more people around than further from home...which is just entirely dependent on your specific location.
4 and 5 are basically by definition dependent on your location. During my last marathon training, my basic 10–15 km out-and-back required crossing relatively busy roads a couple of times. My 20–30 km loop started in the same direction (so crossed those same moderately-busy roads once), and then proceeded to be pretty much entirely quiet streets or streets where I did not need to cross over. No stoplights. And that 20–30 km route might have required some mental energy, but for the fact that it was basically identical to a route I had ridden on my bike dozens of times. It was just as easy mentally as any out and back would be. Water was, admittedly, much easier to come by on my out-and-back. But if I had done my out-and-back in a different direction, or I had been starting it in a different part of that loop, it would have been harder. This is dependent on where you are and your local infrastructure.
For me, I have tended to mostly do out-and-backs over the past few years. My standard 10–15 km run distance just meant that I had the best access to water that way. But more recently I've been changing things up, trying a bunch of new routes, not planning, just heading out and wandering. I've had a mix of loops and out-and-backs. I like them both.
Agree on the mental challenge, though I would say it's also partially a boredom thing for myself. It's why the City to Bay is my favourite run of the year because it's a one way route from the Adelaide CBD down to the beach. Unless you go up to half-marathons, most other organised courses here are out-and-backs and they are always less enjoyable for me.
Yeah just this weekend Brisbane had the Bridge to Brisbane, from the southern end of the Gateway Bridge in the east, up over the (very tall) bridge, then straight along the river to just outside the CBD. Previously (from 2014 to 2020, I think?) it was a circuitous route from just northwest of the CBD up and down across various bridges in the CBD vicinity, finishing directly south of it.
Most races start and finish in the same place because it's logistically easier, and it's a good way to automatically be recognised as eligible for records and official PBs, since rules for road races included a maximum distance between start and end points equal to half the length of the total race, and a maximum altitude decrease of 0.1%. So often it's only "fun runs" like Bridge to Brisbane, Adelaide's City to Bay, and Sydney's City to Surf (no offence Adelaide, but that's just a better name than yours) that are point to point.
I'd argue Adelaide's is better because it is an actual place-to-place name, as opposed to Sydney's which is just made up AFAIK. But I am very biased!
I'm a sucker for alliteration, what can I say.
But I guess that makes Bridge to Brisbane the perfect name. It's alliterative and describes exactly what the race is (in its new and old-old form…the old-new route was a much better route, but a less accurate name).