Training Week Ending May 21, 2006
SwStudio
week and goals.
cheers,
--
David Hirsh, director
www.urbanburn.com - half marathon, full throttle!
www.hcatrailseries.com - Get off the road this season!
www.absolutelyaccurate.com - Hamilton's summer series!
steve common
Mon-Sun 0:00 0km 0miles DNR. Sprained ankle will be in splints for
another few days. Physiotherapist reckons
3 weeks off running. I got off lightly huh?
Stupid stupid bastard :-(
Phil M.
Join the club, although it is getting a little crowded in the club house.
--
Phil M.
“Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year,
but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I
quit, however, it lasts forever.” - Lance Armstrong
Phil M.
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
1
fuw
Day Mi Type
-----------------------------------------------
Mon 0.00 rest
Tue 0.00 rest [core]
Wed 0.00 rest [weights]
Thu 0.00 rest
Fri 1.31 easy [core]
Sat 0.00 rest [weights]
Sun 0.00 rest [core]
-----------------------------------------------
Week 1
Year 993 (ly-794)
Training:
Yep, 1 mile, that's it. NSAIDS are not working. I have scheduled an
appointment with the doctor on Monday, since that's the only way I can
get my fix of prednisone. The anterior tib tendon was feeling relatively
good on Friday. Also, I got my new Forerunner 305, so I was itching to
try it out on something other than a car ride. On the first step I felt
some pain, not bad pain, but it was there. I ran around the block for a
total of 1.3 mi. Other than the tendon, I felt good. All the little
pains I had, such as sciatic nerve and knee pains were gone. I guess a 2
week taper will do that for you. However, I think my little run set me
back a few days. So based on last year's bout with ATT, and with the
prednisone (assuming that's what they give me), I should be back to easy
running within a week to 10 days.
The Forerunner 305 worked great on its initial epic voyage around the
block (very little tree cover). Set at 1 trackpoint per second, the GPS
drew a near perfect line following my route on the side of the road, even
following me into the house. The HRM had no unusual blips (seemed to be a
problem with my Polar). I can't wait to try it on the trails.
Goals: Get better. Stay positive. I've failed at my initial post-injury
goal of not gaining weight. I finally got the nerve to get on the scale.
I've gained 10 pounds in 2 weeks. So I guess it's back to counting
calories.
Have a great week rec.runners.
Parker Race
Biking will help with the weight if you can do it and if you don't coast
,just keep spinning the whole time you're out there.
How about swimming?
I find it harder to control my eating when I don't exercize.
Hope you heal soon.
PR
Doug Freese
"Phil M." <pm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97C9B7ED39...@216.77.188.18...
> steve common wrote:
>
>> That one's easy.
>>
>> Mon-Sun 0:00 0km 0miles DNR. Sprained ankle will be in splints for
>> another few days. Physiotherapist reckons
>> 3 weeks off running. I got off lightly huh?
>> Stupid stupid bastard :-(
>
> Join the club, although it is getting a little crowded in the club
> house.
Are you guys from the Lance school of training? :)
-DF
Frank Boettcher
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
>week and goals.
>
>
>
>cheers,
30.25 miles with a mid week interval session and a long run of 6.
Today is off.
Next Saturday is the Mexico Beach Sandy Shoes 5K. Should be 7 or 8
family members running it (sons, daughters in law, nephews, etc.).
Goal is to win Grand Masters (small, unsanctioned race, it is my only
real shot at a Grand Masters win all season)
Frank
Parker Race
Tuesday - 6.0 3 x 1 mile @ MP - 10 - 7:18, 7:15, 7:28 (all too fast)
Wednesday - off
Thursday - 8.5 2 mile wu 3.5 mile race 24:18 3 mile cool down
Felt like crap before the race, it was humid and felt like I couldn't
breath.
I knew it was going to be tough to even run sub 7. Basically it was good
experience running hard when you feel exhausted.
Friday - 15 10.5 am 4.5 pm, both very easy
Saturday - 8 very easy
Sunday - 8 + on trails easy with 1 minute hard after 20 minutes and then
every 10 minutes for the duration.
Total: 52
Goals -
Vermont City Marathon - My Original goal was 3:21 - 3:25, but if the weather
forecast turns out to be correct it may be tough to BQ and even set a minor
PR. If it looks real bad I may just run a hard half Marathon and call it a
day.
"SwStudio" <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ylLbg.39199$Hk1....@read1.cgocable.net...
joe positive
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
goals: survive the marathon build-up without losing all my speed forever.
upcoming races: couple of short races in July; 15K Sept 3; marathon Sept
30.
Su: 18.01mi (8:08)
M: 8.02mi (9:25)
T: AM 9.5mi (9:11), PM 5.5mi (8:32) plus 15min elliptical, 15min stair
machine
W: PM 10mi (8:25)
R: 8mi incl 10x100m strides
F: 12.4mi (9:16)
Sa: 14mi (8:46)
total 85.4 miles running + 30min xtraining
After Saturday's 14-miler I needed a 90-minute nap, and still my legs were
tired and tight all day. I was really discouraged, thinking that all this
mileage buildup was just flogging myself all these miles only to get slower
and more tired and sore and, well, slower. Then this morning, for no
reason at all, I was able to run 20 miles with my pals at a reasonable pace
(8:18) and my legs felt 200% better than yesterday. So the moral of this
story is that some days are just gonna suck, and others are gonna rock.
good week all
Karen
--
live! vicariously!
steve common
>Are you guys from the Lance school of training? :)
Nah, I did my ankle in while walking in the street, not running too much
OR doing violent sports. Then again I was blind staggering drunk and it
was some time between 4 and 6am, so maybe that qualifies as even riskier
than playing squash. It'd get me pole position on "Jackass" anyhow :oP
steve common
>Join the club, although it is getting a little crowded in the club house.
Same in our club too, with about 5 out for long periods. Maybe to do with
the Earth's magnetic field weakening ? :-P
Strangely, the day after I hurt myself was Saint Achilles day... wild.
joe positive
> Strangely, the day after I hurt myself was Saint Achilles day... wild.
There is a St Achilles Day? That's cool. What day is it exactly? I'd like
to make St Achilles my patron saint and honor him accordingly.
Karen
--
live! vicariously!
Phil M.
> Phil M. wrote:
>> Goals: Get better. Stay positive. I've failed at my initial
>> post-injury goal of not gaining weight. I finally got the nerve to
>> get on the scale. I've gained 10 pounds in 2 weeks. So I guess it's
>> back to counting calories.
>>
>> Have a great week rec.runners.
>>
>
> Biking will help with the weight if you can do it and if you don't
> coast ,just keep spinning the whole time you're out there.
I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle. I used to cycle somewhat
seriously, but that was so long ago. Almost like another life. I think the
stationary bike would be more convenient and maybe a nice change of pace to
get out of the summer heat, even when I'm not injured.
Phil M.
Any recommendations?
--
Phil M.
steve common
>There is a St Achilles Day? That's cool. What day is it exactly?
May 12th, shared with running friend Nereus - they legged it and went AWOL
from the praetorian guard no less - according to this:
http://www.dailysaint.com/saints
Donovan Rebbechi
>> I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle.
>
> Any recommendations?
I know a "real cyclist" (competes, does 3hr+ rides routinely, etc), and he
prefers using a bicycle trainer to a stationary bike. Says it's much closer to
the real thing. I think this is what cyclists generally do.
Something like this, for example (this model gets good reviews):
http://www.trisports.com/cymatr.html
You will be able to find a lot of helpful discussion about these by googling the
cycling forums.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Phil M.
> On 2006-05-21, Phil M. <pm...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle.
>>
>> Any recommendations?
>
> I know a "real cyclist" (competes, does 3hr+ rides routinely, etc),
> and he prefers using a bicycle trainer to a stationary bike. Says it's
> much closer to the real thing. I think this is what cyclists generally
> do.
Thanks for the inut. You've got me thinking now... if cyclists use a
bicycle trainer to more closely emulate the cycling motion, then maybe I
should be getting something that more closely emulates the running motion,
like an eliptical trainer. Whadayathink
--
Phil M.
Tony S.
> week and goals.
run hr% bike
m: off
t: 0:50 67% 0:27
w: 1:06 70% 0:27
t: 1:25 74% (with 0:20 @ 82%)
f: 0:52 66% 0:25
s: 0:41 73% 0:40
s: 2:38 77%, 3200' climb, rocky singletrack
(with 6x480' hill repeats in 12:10 avg @ 83%)
Training is progressing well for the escarpment trail run (end of July) and
other Summer/Fall races TBD. After 6 weeks of averaging over 6 hours/wk,
then an easy week, the last 2 weeks I've upped it to 7.5, and it seems to be
ok, though my legs were dead yesterday, but they were decent for today's
med-long run after an especially hearty meal last night. My weight is down
10 and I have 10 more to go in the next 2 months. If the rain ever slows
down I'll get in some more biking and that will help.
-Tony
2006 Summary
hrs hrs long
wk bike run run runs
01 3:33 0:50 0:25 2
02 1:39 2:18 1:05 3
03 3:17 3:01 1:15 4
04 1:37 3:05 1:32 3
05 1:14 4:24 1:55 5
06 0:20 4:36 2:07 4
07 1:08 3:24 1:14 5
08 0:26 5:15 2:28 4
09 1:49 1:33 1:01 2
10 3:17 3:43 1:21 5
11 1:56 6:10 2:49 6
12 2:20 4:16 1:21 5
13 2:52 6:03 2:15 6
14 1:47 6:32 2:43 6
15 3:12 6:21 2:09 6
16 1:57 6:09 2:35 5
17 1:58 9:04 4:28 6
18 3:41 3:59 1:21 5
19 1:44 7:42 2:39 6
20 1:59 7:32 2:38 6
Donovan Rebbechi
I don't think you're going to get very close with any piece of gym equipment.
Running is all about the in eccentric motion associated with both impact and
rapid acceleration -- especially hamstrings (beginning of stride -- to stop the
leg hyperextending), calves (contract on impact), and quads (again, on impact).
You lose most or all of that when you go with non-impact. The quads and calves
obvoiusly, the eccentric hamstring work is also largely eliminated, because non
impact usually means that you both slow the movement down and constrain
movement (e.g. by fixing the foot to something like a pedal).
Pool running is about as close as you can get and even that's some way off.
Tom B.
> > I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle.
>
> Any recommendations?
Phil, I've been battling this stress fracture for 6+weeks now (with a
few more to go, thanks to some dumb choices in trying to come back too
soon). I can STRONGLY recommend the Schwinn Airdyne Evolution for
cross-training.
This is not the old-school Airdyne, with the giant metal-bladed fan for
a front wheel. The Evolution has a much smaller diameter front wheel
fan, but it's wider, to produce the same resistance. It also uses belt
drive instead of chain drive. Much much quieter than the original
Airdyne. The seat is even better (for me, at least).
I see at least one vendor has it for $700 with free shipping:
http://www.homefitnessclub.com/jump.jsp?itemID=5117&itemType=PRODUCT&path=318%2C332&iProductID=5117&ppc=2&kwd=schwinn_airdyne_evolution
You might be able to do a bit better locally -- I got mine about 7-8
years ago as a floor model for $550. I will say though, that in all
those hours of hard use (at 250+ watts), I have managed to shear one
pedal axle, and one large carriage bolt in half.
For some reason, I've never found the Airdyne to be as soul-crushingly
boring as most other indoor cardio. Everyone's got their system, and
mine is to set up a huge random playlist on my mp3 player, turn the
volume way up, and rock out. You will need a big fan pointed right at
your head and torso.
I've also found that I can go much longer on the Airdyne than I can on
a conventional wind/mag/fluid trainer stand for a regular bike. I can
only manage about an hour on those, but can go 2+ hours on an Airdyne.
It's a great machine, and I have noticed NFL running backs warming up
on this exact bike on the sidelines.
However, if you think you'd rather use a regular outdoor bike on a
trainer, no offense to Donovan, but this one's the king (the Road
Machine):
http://www.analyticcycling.com/Kinetic/KineticTrainerProducts.html
It's by far the best trainer I've ever tried, and I've tried a lot of
them. IIRC, they use inductive coupling between the roller and the
(sealed) fluid resistance chamber, so no fluid leaks ever. That has
been a problem with some of the CycleOps units.
I got mine from Analytic Cycling -- they had the best price, and I was
happy to send some business to Tom Compton as thanks for hosting such a
great website. (if you're at all into the science of cycling, check it
out!)
Anyway, I think some form of cycling is probably one of the best ways
to keep fitness up and weight under control while you're off running.
I've actually lost a couple of pounds during this forced layoff.
Phil M.
> On 2006-05-21, Phil M. <pm...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-05-21, Phil M. <pm...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle.
>>>>
>>>> Any recommendations?
>>>
>>> I know a "real cyclist" (competes, does 3hr+ rides routinely, etc),
>>> and he prefers using a bicycle trainer to a stationary bike. Says
>>> it's much closer to the real thing. I think this is what cyclists
>>> generally do.
>>
>> Thanks for the inut. You've got me thinking now... if cyclists use a
>> bicycle trainer to more closely emulate the cycling motion, then
>> maybe I should be getting something that more closely emulates the
>> running motion, like an eliptical trainer. Whadayathink
>
> I don't think you're going to get very close with any piece of gym
> equipment. Running is all about the in eccentric motion associated
> with both impact and rapid acceleration
And probably part of the reason I'm injured.
> You lose most or all of that when you go with non-impact.
Right now I need to go non-impact to avoid the pain, so I was thinking at
least the elliptical gives me some of the running motion without the
impact. Of course I've never tried one, so I have no idea what I'm
talking about.
--
Phil M.
Charlie Pendejo
> Training is progressing well [...] After 6 weeks of averaging
> over 6 hours/wk, then an easy week, the last 2 weeks I've upped
> it to 7.5
Hey Tony, it's good to hear from a rec.running regular who is uninjured and
training well. It'll be real interesting to follow how your 2006 training
scheme works out.
Though now that I think about it, I wonder how well a race like Escarpment
correlates with fitness? The part of your and Doug's descriptions which has
stuck with me is of such a gnarly trail that both technique and fearlessness
might be bigger factors than fitness. I mean, obviously physical condition
must be a factor and better training can only help; but does it make less of
a difference to your finish time than it would in a road race? Any
thoughts?
Charlie Pendejo
Mo AM: 6.00 easy, back in Dnipropetrovsk, missing Odessa
Tu AM: 8.00 easy, exploring the other side of the river
We AM: 7.50 easy
Th DNR - travel day (and I mean ALL damn day)
Fr AM: 6.50 easy + 10 x 20"-30" strides, back in Brooklyn
Sa AM: 9.00 race: 2 up, 10k, .8 down. I didn't win a healthy kidney.
Su AM: 15.8 fairly brisk long run (~7:48/mi after first 1.5 warmup)
2006 YTD mileage: 1010 (2005 through 21 May: 447)
Eager to get back to some doubles - I really enjoy the rhythm of twice a day
runs and have missed the evening runs. As well as more mileage, structure,
and hard (interval, tempo) workouts.
Hope I didn't overdo it with the long run today, especially after
yesterday's race - that's a considerably faster pace than I've run my long
runs before, but then my easy runs have been similarly faster for the same
effort, and I just felt like moving at a good clip. I'm hoping for a decent
round of intervals Wed morning.
upcoming
--------
- race or two in June, haven't picked it/them yet
- big goal races = Utica Boilermaker 9 Jul; NYCM 5 Nov
Tony S.
news:11482407...@nntp.acecape.com...
Rough trails limit your speed, especially on the downhills, but fitness and
weight are hugely important in the ascents. Doug says the escarpment trail
has 10k climb, but I'm pretty sure it's more like 6-7k having measured it in
various ways. In a race that's over 4+ hours (for me) running and hill
fitness will make a big difference. The race has 3 main ascents, one of
which all sane people power-hike 90% of it. Most of the other 2 can be run
if you're fit enough. This year I can do sustained uphill running that I
couldn't touch last year, and in the race last year I ran about 60% of the
first hill, and essentially power-hiked the other 2. So I expect to be able
to run much more uphills this year.
Also, the fitter you are, the faster you can go on the downhills because to
run the downs fast you need to move your feet a lot and it's an exertion to
switch sides on the trail, skip, etc., to take the best line; hence fitness
pays there too. I wouldn't say fear is a factor for most, but
hesitation/confidence is. Because I've been doing these kinds of trails for
25 years, I don't need to slow down much if any for rougher or steeper
sections, and this was a problem last year getting caught behind people who
did hesitate and slow down. So if I'm fitter I'll be able to start closer to
the front and take that first long uphill better, (still without taking it
out too hard), and then I won't get stuck behind as many people.
-Tony
Phil M.
> 52.80 Bruklanian miles, as
Lemme get the 'ol atlas.
> Fr AM: 6.50 easy + 10 x 20"-30" strides, back in Brooklyn
Where? Never heard of it.
> Eager to get back to some doubles - I really enjoy the rhythm of twice
> a day runs and have missed the evening runs.
Myself? Working on those two-a-months. Although I should probably cut
back since it's hurting my tendon.
Just so you know I'm doing *something* besides whining, here's my weight
workout today using my new Forerunner 305. Doesn't really work too well
with weight lifting. ;-)
HR - http://i4.tinypic.com/10cufkz.jpg
GPS - http://i4.tinypic.com/10cusee.jpg
Doug Freese
"steve common" <stevenZ...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:6m2172t1n0gclelgb...@4ax.com...
> "Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you guys from the Lance school of training? :)
>
> Nah, I did my ankle in while walking in the street, not running too
> much
> OR doing violent sports. Then again I was blind staggering drunk and
> it
> was some time between 4 and 6am, so maybe that qualifies as even
> riskier
> than playing squash.
Not in my book but the real way to go down in flames. I can relate!!!
:)
-DF
Donovan Rebbechi
>> I don't think you're going to get very close with any piece of gym
>> equipment. Running is all about the in eccentric motion associated
>> with both impact and rapid acceleration
>
> And probably part of the reason I'm injured.
Yep, and that's the whole rehab dilemma right there -- to get
specificity, you need to stress exactly the systems that you
need to rest.
IMO your best bet is to focus on maintaining a good level of general aerobic
fitness and not worry too much about specificity.
>> You lose most or all of that when you go with non-impact.
>
> Right now I need to go non-impact to avoid the pain, so I was thinking at
> least the elliptical gives me some of the running motion without the
> impact. Of course I've never tried one, so I have no idea what I'm talking
> about.
Elliptical to me feels a lot like biking out of the saddle and not very
much like running.
The elliptical is really good all-round exercise, especially if you can get
one with handles.
The bike trainer has the advantage that it's cheap, doesn't require
much in the way of maintenance, not likely to break, easy to dispose of
when it does break/if you don't want it any more, and doesn't draw
any power.
Donovan Rebbechi
> After Saturday's 14-miler I needed a 90-minute nap, and still my legs were
> tired and tight all day. I was really discouraged, thinking that all this
> mileage buildup was just flogging myself all these miles only to get slower
> and more tired and sore and, well, slower. Then this morning, for no
> reason at all, I was able to run 20 miles with my pals at a reasonable pace
> (8:18) and my legs felt 200% better than yesterday. So the moral of this
> story is that some days are just gonna suck, and others are gonna rock.
I get this sort of thing a lot when I'm doing high mileage (~80 or so) -- some
days you feel terrible, especially when you've just done 30-40 miles including
a workout in the space of 48hrs, but all that mileage does wonders for your
recovery, so you bounce back really quickly. Another thing would happen to me
a lot is that I'd often be stiff before a run, but after loosening up, I could
run quite well.
As for the nap, I think if I had an additional 10 hours a week of free time for
running, I'd spend at least half of those on extra sleep.
Tony S.
> > Training is progressing well [...] After 6 weeks of averaging
> > over 6 hours/wk, then an easy week, the last 2 weeks I've upped
> > it to 7.5
>
> Hey Tony, it's good to hear from a rec.running regular who is uninjured
and
> training well. It'll be real interesting to follow how your 2006 training
> scheme works out.
That depends on what you mean by injured. If it's not being able to run,
then yes, so far this year I've been ok. OTOH, attention to the aches and
pains is ongoing and important. I have a right calf that requires daily
(extra) stretching and massage; a somewhat sore lower right achilles (from
the mountain run a month ago) that makes me have to watch how I plant that
foot on rocky trails; a left hamstring that can act up without proper
stretching; a right hip that sometimes gets very tight and sore as the week
wears on, requiring extra stretching and re-alignment; and knees that can
get very sore from downhill running. These are all areas that have gotten so
bad they forced me to cut back my training in past years. I think running
trails is generally helpful in avoiding overuse injuries, but it can lead to
the stressing of certain areas, like the lower achilles near the heel, and
the knees.
This year I've done more kinds of stretches and alignment techniques, and I
do them after *every* workout where I skipped them some days in years past.
I'm held back from doing faster running by a combination of ongoing
conditions, but I'm encouraged that I'm able to manage them better and
handle more volume than in past years. I don't run with pain, but I'm very
aware of each problem area and try to avoid doing things that will aggravate
those.
I'm sure most runners have similar issues, and to the extent that you learn
to be proactive about them, you can train through a lot. I know it's a fine
line and I could miscalculate and be sidelined at any time. Regardless of wh
at you think of Lance Armstrong, he makes a great example of someone who's
success came as much from his consistency, ability to stay healthy, and
attention to detail - as from his talent and training. 7 Tours de france and
not one major health issue either in training or during the race, when such
things sidelined his closest rivals almost every time. It was his
concentration on the details and balanced program that let him keep his
health and succeed. It's a hard thing to do, but we can all learn from his
approach.
-Tony
Doug Freese
"Donovan Rebbechi" <ab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrne71nds...@panix2.panix.com...
> As for the nap, I think if I had an additional 10 hours a week of free
> time for
> running, I'd spend at least half of those on extra sleep.
Just think about those elite/financially-sponsored runners that don't
work and run two or three times a day with a nap and/or massage between
efforts.
-DF
Doug Freese
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11482407...@nntp.acecape.com...
> Tony wrote:
> Though now that I think about it, I wonder how well a race like
> Escarpment correlates with fitness? The part of your and Doug's
> descriptions which has stuck with me is of such a gnarly trail that
> both technique and fearlessness might be bigger factors than fitness.
Be it 7K or 10k of elevation gain and loss, it takes real fitness to
snag this race. The shitty footing is simply another ugly variable that
you can learn to cope with by running on the course or similar footing.
As Tony said the downs are a bitch. Sme people can train everyday on
that course and only improve their downhill technique a small percent.
The truly fast folks are fit and fearless. You can't learn to be
fearless in my book.
> I mean, obviously physical condition must be a factor and better
> training can only help; but does it make less of a difference to your
> finish time than it would in a road race? Any thoughts?
If you're not really fit the course will eat you alive, much more than
any road race.
-Doug
lance...@aol.com
not one major health issue either in training or during the race, when
such
things sidelined his closest rivals almost every time. It was his
concentration on the details and balanced program that let him keep his
health and succeed.
_
Interesting that you left out something Tony, "Sports Psychology".
Educate yourself deeper into Lance and you'll learn he credits his
mother more than anything and Sports Psychologist as much as anything
to his success. Note Lance's mother is a motivational speaker. She
makes a living framing the set of minds as she did her son all her
life. All she does professionally is address how she raised such a
champion through what amounts to psychological training and tactics.
Tony S.
news:1148249820.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That's a really good point. I didn't know about Lance's mother's role, but
it's clear to anyone who's 1/2 followed Lance's career that his winning
attitude is far above his peers. My point was only that without robust
general health and the ability to do continuous training, he never would
have won any tours de France, let alone 7. Though he got stricken with
cancer, since then he seems to be either lucky or otherwise uncommonly
healthy. Psychology could play a big role in this also, but he's a
well-known detail freak and I'm sure this helped him to stay healthy also.
-Tony
Tom B.
>
> Elliptical to me feels a lot like biking out of the saddle and not very
> much like running.
>
> The elliptical is really good all-round exercise, especially if you can get
> one with handles.
>
> The bike trainer has the advantage that it's cheap, doesn't require
> much in the way of maintenance, not likely to break, easy to dispose of
> when it does break/if you don't want it any more, and doesn't draw
> any power.
Not to hijack this thread into a bunch of cross-training talk, but
since I'm not running right now...
The question I have is: what's the least expensive elliiptical out
there that lasts like an Airdyne? I've got 2 machines at home, Airdyne
bike and Concept 2 rower, and it's probably no accident that they are
very similar in a lot of ways.
Both machines are non-motorized and work upper+lower body, both use
wind resistance (plus a flywheel for the rower), both between $500 and
$1000, both have been around for ages mostly unchanged, and both are
built to last.
It seems to me they could build an elliptical the same way. It
wouldn't be fancy and programmable, but I don't need that, and I'd
rather not have a bunch of extra crap that can break anyway. I agree
that the elliptical (with synchronized handles) is a great workout, but
it seems like a decent unit costs over $2000, with a lot of proprietary
electronics to break. If I could find something like that, I'd almost
definitely buy one.
ultra...@webtv.net
fuck you w
Dot
I'd suggest trying one first in a local gym to see if it's even close to
what you're looking for - and looking at options of various kinds. Karen
can probably tell you more, but the little bit I've used one (for more
than 1 min), it did not feel like running. Got my hr up, but it almost
made me seasick - up/down motion while going forward (elliptical
motion). Maybe there's an adjustment. Some have settings for hills -
both incline and resistance, while others may only have resistance, but
they all felt the same to me.
Something I've found with some of the machines is that the arm portions
are a little forward for me. If I use them for balance (not sure how to
do some of these without holding on), I need to lean forward a little or
use a different arm motion than normal (more forward and not enough
back). One of the things I've been trying to work on is good posture, so
passed on them unless really desperate. I spent some time in a local
fitness center in December (free day pass) *really* trying to find
something that would work for icy days. The tm seemed the closest.
I think the best you can do is look at aerobic conditioning separate
from running (so you don't re-stress things) and do rehab (or other)
exercises to strengthen / stretch so you don't have a re-occurrence.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
Tony S.
news:Xns97CA8C461C...@216.77.188.18...
> Parker Race wrote:
...
> >
> > Biking will help with the weight if you can do it and if you don't
> > coast ,just keep spinning the whole time you're out there.
>
> I've been looking at getting a stationary bicycle. I used to cycle
somewhat
> seriously, but that was so long ago. Almost like another life. I think the
> stationary bike would be more convenient and maybe a nice change of pace
to
> get out of the summer heat, even when I'm not injured.
>
> --
> Phil M.
Biking is far better in summer heat than running, even in mid-afternoon. The
only thing that keeps me from riding more is traffic, and 2 crashes
involving cars is partly what got me back into running again. But I would
rather become a sloth than try to do a lot of biking on a trainer or
stationary bike. Find a nice rail to trail where you can bike (or better yet
a lake you can bike around) where you can find great scenery -- or lots of
women running or rollerblading or whatever. I have such a place and I've
gotten lots of general fitness and fat-burning enjoying the scenery there ;)
-Tony
The Trailhead
Doug Freese wrote:
> As Tony said the downs are a bitch. Sme people can train everyday on
> that course and only improve their downhill technique a small percent.
> The truly fast folks are fit and fearless. You can't learn to be
> fearless in my book.
I disagree to a point. By regularly training/running technical/rocky
downhills I think you can build enough technique/confidence that you
eventually loose enough fear to significantly improve your performance.
But then again only the very young and very stupid are totally without fear!
Tony S.
news:44714B4...@yahoo.com...
I think Doug's right about the *truly* fast folks over very technical
trails. Running down very rocky/rooty 20% slopes with numerous near vertical
ledge sections fast does take a fearlessness and skill that you either
acquire in youth or are born with. These are some extremely nasty trails and
they require very acute concentration and skill even for mid-packers like
me, and I've been doing it since age 15. No doubt you can improve your speed
some through practice; it's probably like the martial arts: after a long
period of practice you can do the movements precisely with pure reflex
action -- but running these trails once a week wouldn't achieve that, though
it's enough to maintain the skill once acquired.
-Tony
Charlie...@gmail.com
> Next Saturday is the Mexico Beach Sandy Shoes 5K. Should be 7 or 8
> family members running it (sons, daughters in law, nephews, etc.).
> Goal is to win Grand Masters (small, unsanctioned race, it is my only
> real shot at a Grand Masters win all season)
Well then, best of luck Frank!
Where's Mexico Beach? Top few google hits indicate Florida. Is it
that one?
I can't help thinking that if you really impress the crowd as you fly
past the rest of the field to a Grand Masters victory, people will call
you, well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_Flash
Doug Freese
>
>> As Tony said the downs are a bitch. Sme people can train everyday on
>> that course and only improve their downhill technique a small
>> percent. The truly fast folks are fit and fearless. You can't learn
>> to be fearless in my book.
>
> I disagree to a point. By regularly training/running technical/rocky
> downhills I think you can build enough technique/confidence that you
> eventually loose enough fear to significantly improve your
> performance.
On most race courses I would agree. What makes this course difficult is
the frequent 2-5 foot drop-offs without visual warning. You can count
the number of switch-backs on a finger or two and only to avoid a
multi-hundred foot drop. When they lay out a trail in these mountains
they use a chalk line. Local runners train frequently on the course and
commit the course to memory and do improve but only so much. For the
once or twice a year runner, the percentage is smaller.
> But then again only the very young and very stupid are totally without
> fear!
By young you must mean less than 40. :) I did the race each year from
age 40-50 and trained frequently on the trail and could do no better
than 3:4n and could run a 3:0N marathon. For me to go faster would
entail wearing a pamper to capture my fears. ;)
-DougF
anders
SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
MON 0:50 1/2-effort
TUE 1:00 1/4-effort
WED 1:50 1/2-effort out, 3/4-effort back
THU 1:00 1/4-effort
FRI DNR
SAT 1:00 1/2-effort
SUN 1:10 1/4-effort, 1:30 1/8-effort
Since this was the fourth consecutive week of quite modest volume, it
wasn't any surprise that the body was ready and willing for some faster
running and that the mind welcomed it, too.
However, the week ended on a minor note when my back dealt me a sudden
blow in the back: on SUN I woke up at 4:00 with my lower back in some
kind of spasm. After fifteen minutes of very easy stretching I was
confident enough to put on my running gear; running went passably,
albeit with 5-10 beats higher HR than normally, but then the muscle(s)
suddenly tightened up again and I had to walk-jog back. Maybe I
shouldn't have expected the problem to go away by running?:-)
The funny thing was that the spasm wasn't at all like someone poking me
with a redhot iron - on a 1-10 scale it wouldn't warrant a 2 - but It
very effectively robbed my legs of any power (and caused a kind of
tingling sensation on my quads). I took a muscle relaxant (one of my
father's medications) and a pain killer mainly as a precaution, slept
very well - and woke up again at 4:00 in the same condition!
Oh well, I hope and expect to get rid of this nuisance as soon as I
get to sleep in my own bed: I'm blaming it entirely on the in-law's
ridiculously soft mattress!
Anders
anders
steve common wrote:
> (...) Physiotherapist reckons 3 weeks off running. I got off lightly huh?
> Stupid stupid bastard :-(
Doctors are wrong less seldom than physiotherapists. Yes. Yes.
Would this be a splendid opportunity for doing loads of core stability
and strength exercises?
Anders
Daniel
planned rest
Tue 3.5 miles 09:17/mile 78% Max HR
with 8 ea 100M fly-ins
Wed 9.5 miles 10:47/mile 76% Max HR
Hills
Thu 0 miles
"unplanned" rest
Fri 3.5 miles 09:45/mile 78% Max HR
with 5×400M at 8:06/mile pace -- the goal was 6 each at 7:42/mile pace
but . . .
Sat 9.5 miles 09:59/mile 77% Max HR
Only 72°F but high humidity -- drinking lotsa fluids
Sun 0 miles
Total 26.0 miles
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Teresa Bippert-Plymate
SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
> cheers,
> David Hirsh, director
Goals: local Grand Prix race series, 5 more to go but the
next isn't until Sept.
Mon: Rest Day
Tue: 6 mi on treadmill. 1 mi warmup, 2 x 1/4s @ 7:30, 2 x
1/4s in 7:24, 2 x 1/4s in 7:19, 2 x 1/4s in 7:13 with
1/4 rests inbetween. Hard because of the heat, 96F outside
and 89F in this room. Unfortunately no cooler in here!
Wed: 6.3 mi @ 9:00 pace. 87F and overcast! But no rain :-(
Thur: 6.3 mi 9:27 pace. 97F, slight breeze. Easy day
Fri: Rest Day
Sat: Cross-train, rode horses for 2 hours!
Sun: Tucson 5000, ran it in 23:02, no PR but decent. Report
later.
Total: 21.7 mi (Eew, pretty low this week!)
Teresa in AZ
steve common
>Would this be a splendid opportunity for doing loads of core stability
>and strength exercises?
Very true. I did some core stability and strength playing the red-assed
macaque up our cherry tree this weekend. Wheedled 30kg of cherries out of
the damn thing and there's still almost 10 up there for the birds.
Do I seem to be avoiding the subject? Your right I should be doing
something actively about this, but work just came back and punched me in
the kidneys too so I just don't have the energy. Mood swings too. Hmmm.
I'm seeing the doc on Wednesday anyway so I'll ask him what he thinks is
safe, but I know I've no excuse for not doing ab/dorsal belt at least,
except that I *hate* it of course.
steve common
>I'm blaming it entirely on the in-law's
I thought you were going to stop there :-)
Any osteopaths in your neck of the woods?
marko
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
day km mi time time/km time/mi type feel %HRavg
Tue 11 6.8 00h50' 4'37" 7:26 MP :-) 76
Wed 11.3 7 00h56' 5'00" 8:03 E :-) 73
Fri 16.1 10 01h21' 5'04" 8:10 E :-) 71
Sun 6.8 4.2 00h31' 4'40" 7:31 E :-) 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------
week 20 : 45 km 28 mi 03h40'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
last 8 weeks' average : 50 km 30 mi 03h46'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
year : 1188 km 738 mi 95h56'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goals : increase mileage, lose weight
HM PR in the fall
m
anders
steve common kirjoitti:
> Any osteopaths in your neck of the woods?
I believe there are three competing schools of osteopathy here:-) If
diligent stretching (of hamstrings, buttocks, hip extensor and
iliopsoas) doesn't help like I expect, I'm prepared to throw myself in
the capable hands of an osteopath who sports a neat 1980's gay
moustache.
Anders
onemarathon
SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
a little late, but better now than never (or is it?).
my week:
su-weights, no run, core workout
m-2:00 long run, and it felt great
t-no run, rest, core workout
w-:60 tempo run, core workout
th-no run
f-:60 tempo run, core workout
sa-:45 swim (early prep for Aug. triathlon)
su-weights (upper body only), no run, core workout
***NOW IT'S TAPER WEEK for my half marathon this coming Sunday
GOALS:
eat and hydrate properly, get lots of rest, stretch lots (hamstrings
are a bit of a problem these days, just on the verge of cramping up
near the end of my runs)....
I AM READY for this race, and am so looking forward to it. the weather
forecast is for warm and sunny weather, but i'll believe it when i see
it. we've had rain and clouds and winds and cold for about two weeks
straight. i would like at least a warm race day..... rain i can handle,
but i am in no mood to race with (er, INTO) high winds, nor have to
dress as though it's the middle of February.
now to stick to REAL foods this week. i've been into the junk food far
too much during this training, and though i've lost some weight, i know
that it's the nutrients that i need more than empty calories.
Cam
steve common
>I'm prepared to throw myself in
>the capable hands of an osteopath who sports a neat 1980's gay
>moustache.
That would indeed be a fine indication of the seriousness of your
condition.
Mine's a blond lady with warm, soft hands <contented sigh>
Charlie...@gmail.com
> I'm prepared to throw myself in the capable hands of an
> osteopath who sports a neat 1980's gay moustache.
You're sure it's 80's - it's not one of these? http://tinyurl.com/od89w
Piedmont Donald
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
Mon: 2.0 mile (3.2k)
Thu: 2.0 mile (3.2k)
Sun: 3.1 mile (5.0k)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Week total: 7.1 miles (11.4k)
Year total: 171 miles (274k)
Currently 227 miles (366K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my NEW 2006
goal of running "only" 1000 miles (1609K).
Training: Pretty light. Did a 3 day "taper" for my 5k race and finished
5 1/2 minutes off of my PR. I did, however, meet my goal of finishing.
Doubled my mileage from the prior week, which was double it's prior week
(which was only 2 miles [3k]). I'll probably jump up to 12 miles (19k)
for the coming week, then hold myself to 15% per week until I get back
to my "normal" mileage.
Racing past:
5K road race: finished
Racing future:
5000m track race in 2 weeks - Goal: approach or beat crappy track PR
Might try some of the Tuesday night track meets in this time period iff
my foot is feeling better.
Peachtree Road Race 10K in 6 weeks - Goal: attempt course PR
Misc goals:
Exchange my gained fat back to muscle.
Piedmont Donald
Robert Grumbine
Daniel <deltae...@usa.net> wrote:
>Mon 0 miles
>planned rest
>
>Tue 3.5 miles 09:17/mile 78% Max HR
>with 8 ea 100M fly-ins
>
>Wed 9.5 miles 10:47/mile 76% Max HR
>Hills
>
>Thu 0 miles
>"unplanned" rest
>
>Fri 3.5 miles 09:45/mile 78% Max HR
>with 5×400M at 8:06/mile pace -- the goal was 6 each at 7:42/mile pace
>but . . .
>
>Sat 9.5 miles 09:59/mile 77% Max HR
>Only 72°F but high humidity -- drinking lotsa fluids
>
>Sun 0 miles
>
>Total 26.0 miles
It's late, but a few thoughts:
75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
hard to be easy, too easy to be hard. The upshot is that it leaves you
too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
harder.
Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
rest may be telling you exactly this.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Dot
> In article <tkh3725kl5umhoc3n...@4ax.com>,
> Daniel <deltae...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Mon 0 miles
>>planned rest
>>
>>Tue 3.5 miles 09:17/mile 78% Max HR
>>with 8 ea 100M fly-ins
>>
>>Wed 9.5 miles 10:47/mile 76% Max HR
>>Hills
>>
>>Thu 0 miles
>>"unplanned" rest
>>
>>Fri 3.5 miles 09:45/mile 78% Max HR
>>with 5×400M at 8:06/mile pace -- the goal was 6 each at 7:42/mile pace
>>but . . .
>>
>>Sat 9.5 miles 09:59/mile 77% Max HR
>>Only 72°F but high humidity -- drinking lotsa fluids
>>
>>Sun 0 miles
>>
>>Total 26.0 miles
>
>
> It's late, but a few thoughts:
>
> 75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
> hard to be easy, too easy to be hard.
Playing devil's advocate here. It's no-man's land only in some training
approaches (eg Daniels). Others (eg Lydiard) use the full range of
aerobic effort (conversational effort with varying lengths of sentences,
phrases) during base and incorporate harder workouts during race
buildup. Also, while Daniel's averaging 7x%, I think on some he is
cycling a fair range of high vs low hr within a run, but on the average
comes out in the so-called no-man's land, which is actually a
comfortable zone for some. As a side note, 75% max hr is about the
lowest average effort I've ever logged. But my training zones fit
reasonably well with some of the heart rate reserve zones (Benson, %
effort column) I've seen. I run mostly every other day still, but do
"something" most days (ski, bike, trail or yard work).
http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
>The upshot is that it leaves you
> too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
> pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
> some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
> harder.
That could be. Or it could be the length of the runs. Looks like the 9+
mile runs were a jump this week, and he did 2 of them. Or he's fatigued
from some heavy moving (not sure if this week). It looks like he's got 2
planned days of rest. He's been traveling, been sick, dealing with
higher temperatures. For some people, 7x% max hr isn't that hard an
effort. Combined with larger volume or more intense workouts, the person
may be able to run at lower effort eventually.
FWIW, I've found my averages come out not all too different across runs,
but the distribution of efforts within the workout can vary substantially.
>
> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
> 7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
>
> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
> days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
> speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
> or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
> rest may be telling you exactly this.
It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
that combination of workouts.
Tony S.
news:127ov6i...@corp.supernews.com...
>...
> 75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
> hard to be easy, too easy to be hard. The upshot is that it leaves you
> too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
> pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
> some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
> harder.
What did you think of the Hadd coaching articles that were talked about here
last year? Hadd uses runs in the 80-85% range for extended periods in liew
of harder training, at least for the first part of his program. I've found
these to be quite effective.
-Tony
Robert Grumbine
Apparently I've hit on almost the same verbal descriptions --
see http://www.radix.net/~bobg/run/hr.html
Unmarked (unremarked) is that I pay attention to HRR, not %HRmax.
The latter, especially given the ubiquity of 220-age and how badly
that works for me, I keep forgetting about. (My max says that I'm
25 years old. Much as I like to think that way, the calendar informs
me otherwise).
I also found the higher end efforts much easier than his description.
39.9 for 200s is something that I've just about done already in my return
(it was 40.7 average), and my 5k is far over 20:43 at this time (something
like 27). ('close to full sprint speed' is the part far off the mark.
When I was in good 5k shape, a 70 second 400 was not too hard to knock
off, nor a 31 second 200m. Without making much effort at speed, I've
hit 38.5 and 83.4 already. If I bothered, those should drop rapidly to
35 and 75.)
>>The upshot is that it leaves you
>> too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
>> pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
>> some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
>> harder.
>
>That could be. Or it could be the length of the runs. Looks like the 9+
>mile runs were a jump this week, and he did 2 of them. Or he's fatigued
>from some heavy moving (not sure if this week). It looks like he's got 2
>planned days of rest. He's been traveling, been sick, dealing with
>higher temperatures. For some people, 7x% max hr isn't that hard an
>effort. Combined with larger volume or more intense workouts, the person
>may be able to run at lower effort eventually.
>
>FWIW, I've found my averages come out not all too different across runs,
>but the distribution of efforts within the workout can vary substantially.
Distribution within workouts is certainly a factor. I do believe in
running at an assortment of effort levels, including within workouts.
At least I will when I get back in to condition to have more than one
pace.
Don't know about his prior weeks.
>> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>> 7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
>
>I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
>to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
>rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
Especially when, as happened here yesterday, you have a sudden heat spike
on the day of your track workout. Easy 10% penalty to speed.
But for us track types, the time/distance/pace approach has some attractions.
Tracks are flat, and we pick our season to be one in which the weather doesn't
matter so much. It becomes important, then, to hit the 200m in 38 and
not 40 seconds, while effort level might be hard pressed to distinguish
where you are. Rather, by design of a track interval workout, the first
few won't feel very difficult and it is the last few that have you turning
green. (Incomplete clearing of lactic acid, for instance.)
>> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>> days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>> speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>> or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>> rest may be telling you exactly this.
>
>It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
>demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
>at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>that combination of workouts.
Much to work out and pay attention to, to be sure. I was (am) hoping
to be raising questions, not declaring that he's doing everything wrong.
Appeal to the running log to decide what's best.
Dot
> In article <fD0fg.114762$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
>
>
> Apparently I've hit on almost the same verbal descriptions --
> see http://www.radix.net/~bobg/run/hr.html
>
Must mean it's true!! I'd forgotten about your page since you haven't
posted that much until recently, although I thought I remembered at
least one page besides Benson that had those zones.
> Unmarked (unremarked) is that I pay attention to HRR, not %HRmax.
Theoretically with proper HR max, the training zones should be the same
(different %, but hr and effort should be the same). Since HRR works for
some (you, me), does that mean most of the ones based on HR max alone
are screwy? (note: changing the actual resting hr a reasonable amt does
not have substantial impact on zone calculation) Or that the whole hr
zone thingy is a big hoax - esp. when one considers how many different
kinds of zones and boundaries are used by different authors? (I don't
think it's a hoax, but I do think the zones need to be aligned with the
effort descriptions.)
> The latter, especially given the ubiquity of 220-age and how badly
> that works for me, I keep forgetting about. (My max says that I'm
> 25 years old. Much as I like to think that way, the calendar informs
> me otherwise).
One of the formulas has my max about where my LT usually is. But the
more complex ones that include lifestyle work fairly well. Problem is
for a person new to hr training, they don't know which is valid, unless
they do some sort of test.
>
> I also found the higher end efforts much easier than his description.
I obviously ignore the pace column of Benson's chart. ;) Actually, I
seldom train above LT with my low base. I may try to top a hill near
high end of LT, then maintain that effort (if it's a flat top, rather
than downhill). Mostly I keep things short of the gasping stage, so far,
since I don't like taking the needed recovery to do it again. As I get
more of a base and adjusted to summer, I may consider expanding and have
some ideas, but not there yet. I tend to modify workouts on the fly to
achieve whatever my objective for that day is.
>
>
> Distribution within workouts is certainly a factor. I do believe in
> running at an assortment of effort levels, including within workouts.
> At least I will when I get back in to condition to have more than one
> pace.
I know the feeling well. Now that the ice has melted and they've opened
some of my trails again, I can get the hill training in like I normally do.
>>> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>>>7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
>>
>>I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
>>to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
>>rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
>
>
> Especially when, as happened here yesterday, you have a sudden heat spike
> on the day of your track workout. Easy 10% penalty to speed.
I was also hoping the OP would respond to question of his changes, just
for discussion, to see why he changed either the way he's training or
the way he's reporting the training. Sometimes it's just a matter of
where someone is training (trails vs track), a training pgm (Daniels
pace vs Benson or Lydiard effort), they saw someone else do it that way,
or just random variation.
>
> But for us track types, the time/distance/pace approach has some attractions.
> Tracks are flat, and we pick our season to be one in which the weather doesn't
> matter so much. It becomes important, then, to hit the 200m in 38 and
> not 40 seconds, while effort level might be hard pressed to distinguish
> where you are. Rather, by design of a track interval workout, the first
> few won't feel very difficult and it is the last few that have you turning
> green. (Incomplete clearing of lactic acid, for instance.)
FWIW, I do use farm fields for this (about 400-600 m length, although
the 180 at each end and a few obstacles make it a little less precise),
then just set base times / hr for whatever the conditions (usually
pretty cruddy since the main trails are probably too icy to run, which
is what drives me to the fields; frequently in the dark). Sometimes I do
them constant, sometimes accelerating, sometimes easy out/hard back -
whatever seems to work for that day. ("out" is usually slightly uphill
and/or into the wind)
>
>
>>> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>>>days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>>>speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>>>or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>>>rest may be telling you exactly this.
>>
>>It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
>>demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
>>at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
>>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>>that combination of workouts.
>
>
> Much to work out and pay attention to, to be sure. I was (am) hoping
> to be raising questions, not declaring that he's doing everything wrong.
> Appeal to the running log to decide what's best.
>
Right, and that's why I proposed alternative thoughts for discussion,
since we haven't had such a discussion here recently.
The reason I raised the alternate thoughts was that late winter this
year I've had some things respond differently than I was expecting.
There were some obvious training type things that *might* have caused it
(since I tend to do many things against the book) - or it could have
been lifting and hauling heavy boxes downstairs on my "rest" days that
was keeping my legs tired and why I couldn't get any snap from them. But
since I don't have a clone, I'll never know. Except I have made sure not
to lift heavy boxes the week before a race.
Robert Grumbine
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> In article <fD0fg.114762$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
>>
>> Apparently I've hit on almost the same verbal descriptions --
>> see http://www.radix.net/~bobg/run/hr.html
>>
>Must mean it's true!! I'd forgotten about your page since you haven't
>posted that much until recently, although I thought I remembered at
>least one page besides Benson that had those zones.
I think at least one other is out there -- pponline (somewhere)
has some similar discussion of effort levels as well.
His description of 75-80% (and mine, for that matter) is one
which, to my mind, is a sign that you don't spend much time there.
The part about 'preparing for transition between aerobic and anaerobic'.
I do like to have transition and to ease in to things. But it doesn't
take much time, in my experience at least, at the higher end of aerobic to
prepare for lower end of anaerobic. If there's a good aerobic base,
the earlier parts of anaerobic come fairly naturally.
>> Unmarked (unremarked) is that I pay attention to HRR, not %HRmax.
>
>Theoretically with proper HR max, the training zones should be the same
>(different %, but hr and effort should be the same). Since HRR works for
>some (you, me), does that mean most of the ones based on HR max alone
>are screwy? (note: changing the actual resting hr a reasonable amt does
>not have substantial impact on zone calculation) Or that the whole hr
>zone thingy is a big hoax - esp. when one considers how many different
>kinds of zones and boundaries are used by different authors? (I don't
>think it's a hoax, but I do think the zones need to be aligned with the
>effort descriptions.)
The changes I have in resting heart rate from untrained (68-72) to
good training (42-46) do lead to fairly significant changes in heart
rates for the zones (7 bpm at 75% HRR, with the 7 itself being a 5%
shift in effort level).
I suspect that if one got in to the details, we'd find that each
of the zones has fuzziness, same as HRmax estimates have fuzziness.
And that, like HRmax estimates, the magnitude of fuzz is large. That's
a reason I do prefer the verbal descriptions to the numbers.
HRR corresponds to something fairly physiological -- VO2max Reserve.
Percent of HRmax is merely an easy number to compute, as far as I've
seen. I think that physiological correspondance is also why it seems
to work so much better. That, and the lower effort levels -- where
we should be spending most of our miles -- are exactly where it makes
the most difference to consider resting heart rate. (At 65%, the
difference for me is 10 bpm between untrained and trained. 65% of
HRmax is 25 bpm lower than the 65% HRR for me at 72 resting heart rate,
and is extremely difficult for me to run slowly enough to stay at.)
>> The latter, especially given the ubiquity of 220-age and how badly
>> that works for me, I keep forgetting about. (My max says that I'm
>> 25 years old. Much as I like to think that way, the calendar informs
>> me otherwise).
>
>One of the formulas has my max about where my LT usually is. But the
>more complex ones that include lifestyle work fairly well. Problem is
>for a person new to hr training, they don't know which is valid, unless
>they do some sort of test.
Yes, that's partly why I have it that on my HR page, you can enter
your actual heart rate on the corresponding effort level and it will
compute an estimated maximum. (Then you hit 'compute' and it finishes
the table for you.)
>> I also found the higher end efforts much easier than his description.
>
>I obviously ignore the pace column of Benson's chart. ;) Actually, I
>seldom train above LT with my low base. I may try to top a hill near
>high end of LT, then maintain that effort (if it's a flat top, rather
>than downhill). Mostly I keep things short of the gasping stage, so far,
>since I don't like taking the needed recovery to do it again. As I get
>more of a base and adjusted to summer, I may consider expanding and have
>some ideas, but not there yet. I tend to modify workouts on the fly to
>achieve whatever my objective for that day is.
Sounds good.
[snip of other agreements]
>>>> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>>>>days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>>>>speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>>>>or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>>>>rest may be telling you exactly this.
>>>
>>>It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
>>>demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
>>>at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
>>>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>>>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>>>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>>>that combination of workouts.
>>
>> Much to work out and pay attention to, to be sure. I was (am) hoping
>> to be raising questions, not declaring that he's doing everything wrong.
>> Appeal to the running log to decide what's best.
>>
>Right, and that's why I proposed alternative thoughts for discussion,
>since we haven't had such a discussion here recently.
Yes, trying to figure some things out myself, too.
>The reason I raised the alternate thoughts was that late winter this
>year I've had some things respond differently than I was expecting.
>There were some obvious training type things that *might* have caused it
>(since I tend to do many things against the book) - or it could have
>been lifting and hauling heavy boxes downstairs on my "rest" days that
>was keeping my legs tired and why I couldn't get any snap from them. But
>since I don't have a clone, I'll never know. Except I have made sure not
>to lift heavy boxes the week before a race.
:-) Yes, that's why you have postdocs/ grad students/interns!
Robert Grumbine
I spectated on those threads, but haven't tried the system myself
so, basically, dunno. A major qualifier is how extended the extended
is, and what else is going on in the week. Probably also a question
whether that's 80-85% of heart rate reserve, or of max heart rate.
I spend a lot of my time in that range relative to max heart rate
(156-166, which is about my 70-75% level in HRR), but not relative
to HRR.
One of my favorite sorts of somewhat hard day training runs is an
hour run that starts off at slow pace and accelerates to the the last
couple miles being at elevated effort. Elevated, now that I check
HRR, is in the 80-85% range. But it isn't the full hour in that
range. Similarly, tempo runs are around there, but limited to
20-30 minutes.
The training log is the place to look for what constitutes
the personal no-man's land. And it's probably a combination of
both the pace/effort level and of the distance. 2 miles at 82.5%
is a different affair than trying to do the entire hour there.
My main idea was to (re)introduce the notion that there is
indeed such a thing as the no-man's land. One way of identifying
it is that you don't have the speed for your speed days, and
your long days become increasingly difficult even without
increasing their distance or speed.
Frank Boettcher
>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>> Next Saturday is the Mexico Beach Sandy Shoes 5K. Should be 7 or 8
>> family members running it (sons, daughters in law, nephews, etc.).
>> Goal is to win Grand Masters (small, unsanctioned race, it is my only
>> real shot at a Grand Masters win all season)
>
>Well then, best of luck Frank!
>
>Where's Mexico Beach? Top few google hits indicate Florida. Is it
>that one?
>
On the Gulf Coast of Florida, about 45 miles east of Panama City and
just west of Port St. Joe. Borders Tyndall Air Force Base. Small
Coastal town, not over developed. They way Panama City, Destin, and
Fort Walton used to look 40 years ago.
Dot
> In article <vZmfg.197107$eR6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <fD0fg.114762$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
>>>
>>> Apparently I've hit on almost the same verbal descriptions --
>>>see http://www.radix.net/~bobg/run/hr.html
>>>
>>
>>Must mean it's true!! I'd forgotten about your page since you haven't
>>posted that much until recently, although I thought I remembered at
>>least one page besides Benson that had those zones.
>
>
> I think at least one other is out there -- pponline (somewhere)
> has some similar discussion of effort levels as well.
>
> His description of 75-80% (and mine, for that matter) is one
> which, to my mind, is a sign that you don't spend much time there.
Right. For me, it's probably close to my race pace (35 min to 2.5 hr).
My biomechanics there looks more like running than like slogging. And I
think I should probably spend more time there than what I did this past
year. (see table and discussion below)
> The part about 'preparing for transition between aerobic and anaerobic'.
> I do like to have transition and to ease in to things. But it doesn't
> take much time, in my experience at least, at the higher end of aerobic to
> prepare for lower end of anaerobic. If there's a good aerobic base,
> the earlier parts of anaerobic come fairly naturally.
Right. But some of it may be the mechanics at running at the different
efforts.
...
>
> The changes I have in resting heart rate from untrained (68-72) to
> good training (42-46) do lead to fairly significant changes in heart
> rates for the zones (7 bpm at 75% HRR, with the 7 itself being a 5%
> shift in effort level).
>
> I suspect that if one got in to the details, we'd find that each
> of the zones has fuzziness, same as HRmax estimates have fuzziness.
> And that, like HRmax estimates, the magnitude of fuzz is large. That's
> a reason I do prefer the verbal descriptions to the numbers.
Right. But to compare the calcs at a couple points, most any value for
resting hr seems to provide better numbers (for me, anyway) than max hr.
My resting hr is probably around 60 (70 when sitting), but used 40 also
just to see if it made much difference.
max rest60 rest40
60% 108 132 124
65% 117 138 131
70% 126 144 138
75 135 150 145
80 144 156 152
85 153 162 159
90 162 168 166
95 171 174 173
The difference between calcs using max vs resting hr are fairly large,
for the lower efforts. While the 2 resting calcs are different from each
other, they are closer than the max calcs - as you point out later also.
But, at least for my training, I don't worry too much about
distinguishing zones below, maybe 73% - or at least I didn't in the past
since I couldn't run much slower than that. Near the upper end, they all
converge. The vast majority of my running is around 62-73%, using the
rest60 column. When reasonably conditioned, the upper end of my LT (on
verge of gasping) is usually near 160.
I looked at some of my volume numbers, just for kicks, since my feeling
was I ran more volume but lower intensity this year and felt stronger,
but less aerobically fit. It seems harder this spring to hit my "Easy"
zone and "Recovery" zone now feels like "Easy" did last year, when I
couldn't even run in Recovery zone. I looked at % in various zones in
the last 6 months vs same period last year (12/2004-6/1/2006). I've
tweaked some zones slightly to account for some natural breakpoints in
my running or to distinguish certain training effects.
"Zone" HRR % 2005 2006
Recovry 55-67% 28% 45%
Easy 67-75% 44% 38%
Moderat 75-80% 18% 12%
LT 80-89% 8% 4%
Abv LT 89-95% 1% 0%
Max >95% If I'm here, I'm about to pass out.
2005 4 wk avg: 13:37hr 4271 ft 48 mi
2006 4 wk avg: 19:45hr 6200 ft 67 mi
Most of the "recovery" zone is actually at it's upper end, say 63-67%.
But anything below 55%, I don't include in my main reports since there's
probably no aerobic benefits at that point and probably represent ice
negotiations, pit stops, or whatever.
As it turns out, I probably did close to similar amounts (hours) of runs
above 75%, but they were a lower % of total volume. Of course, a lot of
the winter I was focusing on building for an early season race - just
getting the time on legs, rather than worrying about any higher efforts,
esp. considering the ice. If I was going to be concerned about speed in
the first races, I probably should have backed off the volume increase
earlier and started trying to do more higher end work - but it would
have been on ice or tm, neither of which I considered good options.
>
> HRR corresponds to something fairly physiological -- VO2max Reserve.
Right.
> Percent of HRmax is merely an easy number to compute, as far as I've
> seen.
Right.
I think that physiological correspondance is also why it seems
> to work so much better.
Right. Most refereed literature seems to base intensities on VO2max or
sometimes on LT. Sometimes this is represented by hr, but I can't
remember seeing anything based on max hr alone.
That, and the lower effort levels -- where
> we should be spending most of our miles -- are exactly where it makes
> the most difference to consider resting heart rate. (At 65%, the
> difference for me is 10 bpm between untrained and trained. 65% of
> HRmax is 25 bpm lower than the 65% HRR for me at 72 resting heart rate,
> and is extremely difficult for me to run slowly enough to stay at.)
Right. See my table above for my data. Some programs that I've seen
divide the aerobic zones into smaller ones. But other programs pretty
much have the aerobic zones as one big zone, and don't get too specific
about targets until you get near LT (near 85% hrr), when the hrr numbers
are fairly close anyway. IOW, I consider the fuzzy factor.
>
>
<snipped points of agreement>
or it could have
>>been lifting and hauling heavy boxes downstairs on my "rest" days that
>>was keeping my legs tired and why I couldn't get any snap from them. But
>>since I don't have a clone, I'll never know. Except I have made sure not
>>to lift heavy boxes the week before a race.
>
>
> :-) Yes, that's why you have postdocs/ grad students/interns!
>
Actually, I was sorting some boxes of samples and piles of papers and
moving them a short distance to where farm crew could get them with a
front end loader and take them to the dump or recycling.:):) I was
grinning the whole time. Retirement is great.:) (I told them I'd move
the stuff during breakup when the main trails would be too muddy to run
and I'd be running at the farm anyway.) Doing the same at home now,
making a major run to recycling center this afternoon.:) (all that green
striped paper and computer cards - if we'd only had better pc's and
storage about 8 yr earlier and digital cameras about 15 yr earlier,
entire boxes of data would fit on a DVD, not to mention shelves of
journals and piles of journal articles, etc)
Tony S.
Since the Hadd articles don't present a completely straightforward training
plan, I won't attempt to summarize them here, but there was some very
interesting stuff in there. I'll just say that they included a coaching
example that had the runner doing a couple of extended runs (something like
a couple of hours a week) in the 80-85% range, changing somewhat as his
training progressed. The explanation of why he had him doing what when was
very interesting, you might want to read it sometime.
> One of my favorite sorts of somewhat hard day training runs is an
> hour run that starts off at slow pace and accelerates to the the last
> couple miles being at elevated effort. Elevated, now that I check
> HRR, is in the 80-85% range. But it isn't the full hour in that
> range. Similarly, tempo runs are around there, but limited to
> 20-30 minutes.
So to refresh my memory, % of HRR is % of max-resting? For me 80% of HRR
would then be about 160 (40+.8*150), which is 84%max, whereas 80%max is 152.
For me, I consider my "junk zone" to be 75%-80%. It also depends on the
length of the run. If I'm doing a shorter tempo run I might run it at
85%max, but if I'm going over an hour, I can do it at ~80% and not get worn
out. I think both types of run have similar benefits. When I do "effort"
fartlek runs I'll vary it from 80-90%max, with most of it in the lower 80s.
> The training log is the place to look for what constitutes
> the personal no-man's land. And it's probably a combination of
> both the pace/effort level and of the distance. 2 miles at 82.5%
> is a different affair than trying to do the entire hour there.
>
> My main idea was to (re)introduce the notion that there is
> indeed such a thing as the no-man's land. One way of identifying
> it is that you don't have the speed for your speed days, and
> your long days become increasingly difficult even without
> increasing their distance or speed.
It's something important to remember; you can fall into your junk zone when
going comfortably feeling good all to easily.
-Tony
Daniel
wrote:
>In article <tkh3725kl5umhoc3n...@4ax.com>,
>Daniel <deltae...@usa.net> wrote:
[referring to May 15 through 21, 2006:]
>>Mon 0 miles
>>planned rest
>>
>>Tue 3.5 miles 09:17/mile 78% Max HR
>>with 8 ea 100M fly-ins
>>
>>Wed 9.5 miles 10:47/mile 76% Max HR
>>Hills
>>
>>Thu 0 miles
>>"unplanned" rest
>>
>>Fri 3.5 miles 09:45/mile 78% Max HR
>>with 5×400M at 8:06/mile pace -- the goal was 6 each at 7:42/mile pace
>>but . . .
>>
>>Sat 9.5 miles 09:59/mile 77% Max HR
>>Only 72°F but high humidity -- drinking lotsa fluids
>>
>>Sun 0 miles
>>
>>Total 26.0 miles
>
> It's late, but a few thoughts:
Never too late. Thanks for taking the time. Teranews was having
domain issues last week to add to the turmoil.
>
> 75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
>hard to be easy, too easy to be hard. The upshot is that it leaves you
>too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
>pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
>some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
>harder.
I may be introducing some confusion because the HR in my training
reports is average for the complete session. I have the entry-level
Timex HRM so no downloadable graph, but for the fly-ins on Tuesday I
was cycling between a high of about 90 percent and low of about 65
percent.
Looking at my notes, though, I do spend time in your "no-man's land",
especially on hills, between 80 and 85 percent.
[Daniel shrugs his shoulders and rolls his eyes.] Actually my whole
"training" regimen has been in a kind of no-man's land since last
fall. I have been in a kind of survival mode -- survive the winter
rains, survive a handful of "real" world issues, and keep running
because I like to run.
> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
Let's see...Friday . . . the pace was the suggested pace for those
reps from the Portland Marathon training site (www.teamoregon.com)
pace wizard -- which has since been removed/replaced -- (based on a
hypothetical 24 minute 5K race pace), and the number of reps was based
on not wanting to do more than some percent of weekly miles . Did 5
not 6 because was at track with daughter who had an appt.
This is my own method: Recovery is HR based. I drop a brightly
colored bean bag on the outside edge of the track, do my lap, pick up
the beanbag, and "cool down" to 70 percent MHR or less, drop beanbag,
repeat. That usually took a lap or less.
> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>rest may be telling you exactly this.
The 9.5 on Wednesday was unplanned (a symptom of my non-plan training
plan). It was going to be 5.1, but it was *such* a nice day and I
felt *so* good, and then it was going to be 7.2 miles but at *that*
turnaround point ditto -- with the result that I ended up at the top
of a little promontory at sunset with Mt. Tamalpais in the nortwest
and Mt. Diablo in the southeast, and I wouldn't have missed it for all
the fish tacos in New York. Got no sleep and worked extra long hours
next day! Whee! Breakdown!
I see your point, though, and that *was* a killer week! More on
plans, etc. in responses below.
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
--
It's not *really* free. They have a setup charge.
--
Daniel
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> In article <tkh3725kl5umhoc3n...@4ax.com>,
>> Daniel <deltae...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Mon 0 miles
[snip]
>>
>>
>> It's late, but a few thoughts:
>>
>> 75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
>> hard to be easy, too easy to be hard.
>
>Playing devil's advocate here.
Here I must supply a devilish grin ;-}>
> It's no-man's land only in some training
>approaches (eg Daniels). Others (eg Lydiard) use the full range of
>aerobic effort (conversational effort with varying lengths of sentences,
>phrases) during base and incorporate harder workouts during race
>buildup. Also, while Daniel's averaging 7x%, I think on some he is
>cycling a fair range of high vs low hr within a run, but on the average
>comes out in the so-called no-man's land, which is actually a
>comfortable zone for some.
Correct. And, wow, you actually read those little things I post!
> As a side note, 75% max hr is about the
>lowest average effort I've ever logged. But my training zones fit
>reasonably well with some of the heart rate reserve zones (Benson, %
>effort column) I've seen. I run mostly every other day still, but do
>"something" most days (ski, bike, trail or yard work).
>http://www.coachbenson.com/ebtcorr.pdf
>
>
>>The upshot is that it leaves you
>> too fatigued to run your hard workouts hard enough (such as 8:06
>> pace instead of the desired 7:42 pace). If you can back off
>> some on the easy days, you should be able to hit the hard days
>> harder.
>
>That could be. Or it could be the length of the runs. Looks like the 9+
>mile runs were a jump this week, and he did 2 of them. Or he's fatigued
>from some heavy moving (not sure if this week). It looks like he's got 2
>planned days of rest. He's been traveling, been sick, dealing with
>higher temperatures. For some people, 7x% max hr isn't that hard an
>effort. Combined with larger volume or more intense workouts, the person
>may be able to run at lower effort eventually.
>
>FWIW, I've found my averages come out not all too different across runs,
>but the distribution of efforts within the workout can vary substantially.
I *am* guilty of violating the rules-of-thumb in that I added "speed"
while at the same time increasing distance.
>> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>> 7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
>
>I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
>to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
>rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
The pace idea is that I can possibly develop economy of movement at
something more like a "race pace". While I am keeping an eye on pace,
I am still primarily a slave to my heart rate monitor, and will pull
the plug on speed when HR hits 92 percent of so of maximum.
>> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>> days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>> speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>> or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>> rest may be telling you exactly this.
>
>It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
>demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
>at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>that combination of workouts.
>
>Dot
Right. Gee Dot, you must read/analyze info for a living! But my
"schedule" has been so spur-of-the-moment, ad hoc, and random, that I
don't know if I want to get back to something as much as find a way to
jam some intelligent training into my available time.
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
--
It's not *really* free. They have a setup charge.
--
Daniel
Various sub-max stress tests, the Londerlee formula Dot posted once
before, and the effort based descriptions all confirm the same maximum
heart rate for me. If that MHR is correct, then 80 percent MHR is
sub-LT effort-wise, but 85 percent is into coarse breathing, and 93
percent is hitting oxygen debt territory.
>> Distribution within workouts is certainly a factor. I do believe in
>> running at an assortment of effort levels, including within workouts.
>> At least I will when I get back in to condition to have more than one
>> pace.
>
>I know the feeling well. Now that the ice has melted and they've opened
>some of my trails again, I can get the hill training in like I normally do.
>
>
>>>> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>>>>7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
>>>
>>>I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
>>>to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
>>>rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
>>
>>
>> Especially when, as happened here yesterday, you have a sudden heat spike
>> on the day of your track workout. Easy 10% penalty to speed.
>
>I was also hoping the OP would respond to question of his changes, just
>for discussion, to see why he changed either the way he's training or
>the way he's reporting the training. Sometimes it's just a matter of
>where someone is training (trails vs track), a training pgm (Daniels
>pace vs Benson or Lydiard effort), they saw someone else do it that way,
>or just random variation.
Sorry, I was unable to get any newsfeed late last week. The change
lately is sort of a going back to the pattern I had up to November
2005. The schedule through my 5K at end of October called for 3 easy
runs in the 3 to 6 mile range, one "long" run (at that time the peak
was 8 miles I think), and one "fast" day using various intervals or
tempo run of up to 3 miles. (I am making a mental note that it would
be an interesting exercise to see how my actual training weeks
coincided with my recollection of the plan!) Through the monsoon
season here in Northern California, I did pretty much nothing but
slow/easy miles 20 to 25 miles a week. Just miles. Not quality
miles, not fast and slow miles, just miles. Time On Legs, as Dot once
said. The variation was distances and hills vs. flats. Last summer
was loosely based on Hal Higdon's intermediate 5K training plan.
These past weeks have been cobbled together like a frankenstein, or
like someone who saw an elephant -- once -- trying to draw one. Plus,
other things have kept interfering. Yuck.
Anyway, I am entering some 5K races but I don't have the
mental/spiritual fire in the belly about achieving a fast-for-me
sub-24-minute 5K (last year I would have said a 23:59 5K would be my
goal for 2006). Blah. So I did a kind of goals calculus and realized
that I really enjoy both the hard track workouts and my long weekend
runs. So that's where I'm at, sitting here dreaming about races in
the 5K to 25K range . . .
[some polite snips]
>> But . . .
>
>FWIW, . . .
>>
>> . . . Much to work out and pay attention to, to be sure. I was (am) hoping
>> to be raising questions, not declaring that he's doing everything wrong.
>> Appeal to the running log to decide what's best.
>>
>Right, and that's why I proposed alternative thoughts for discussion,
>since we haven't had such a discussion here recently.
>
>The reason I raised the alternate thoughts was that late winter this
>year I've had some things respond differently than I was expecting.
>There were some obvious training type things that *might* have caused it
>(since I tend to do many things against the book) - or it could have
>been lifting and hauling heavy boxes downstairs on my "rest" days that
>was keeping my legs tired and why I couldn't get any snap from them. But
>since I don't have a clone, I'll never know. Except I have made sure not
>to lift heavy boxes the week before a race.
>
>Dot
Since I don't have a clone either, I'll just try to make the best of
the training time I have! The Dr. Sheehan line: "We are each an
experiment of one."
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
--
It's not *really* free. They have a setup charge.
--
Daniel
wrote:
>In article <fD0fg.114762$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>>that combination of workouts.
>
> Much to work out and pay attention to, to be sure. I was (am) hoping
>to be raising questions, not declaring that he's doing everything wrong.
>Appeal to the running log to decide what's best.
I welcome the questions, and none of the comments are getting my nose
out of joint. Questions and conversation might lead to clarity and
improvement!
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
--
It's not *really* free. They have a setup charge.
--
Dot
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 19:00:27 GMT, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <tkh3725kl5umhoc3n...@4ax.com>,
>>>Daniel <deltae...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mon 0 miles
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> It's late, but a few thoughts:
>>>
>>> 75-85% is something of a no-man's land for training. It's too
>>>hard to be easy, too easy to be hard.
>>
>>Playing devil's advocate here.
>
>
> Here I must supply a devilish grin ;-}>
>
>>It's no-man's land only in some training
>>approaches (eg Daniels). Others (eg Lydiard) use the full range of
>>aerobic effort (conversational effort with varying lengths of sentences,
>>phrases) during base and incorporate harder workouts during race
>>buildup. Also, while Daniel's averaging 7x%, I think on some he is
>>cycling a fair range of high vs low hr within a run, but on the average
>>comes out in the so-called no-man's land, which is actually a
>>comfortable zone for some.
>
>
> Correct. And, wow, you actually read those little things I post!
Well, if truth be told, since Bob had raised some questions on an issue
that hadn't been discussed here recently, I thought it worth continuing
the thread. I went back and looked at your prior training weeks, just to
see what you had been doing. That's also when I noticed a change in how
you report your training. I wasn't sure if it was just a change in
reporting style or reflected some underlying change in approach.
>
>
>
> I *am* guilty of violating the rules-of-thumb in that I added "speed"
> while at the same time increasing distance.
oh, oh :( ;)
>
>
>>> Other thing is, what selected your goal of 6 repetitions? the
>>>7:42 mile pace? What was your recovery?
>>
>>I noticed some of his earlier posts were based on hr fartleks but seems
>>to have switched to paces now. So, good question. (training by pace,
>>rather than effort, has never made any sense to me, but that's me)
>
>
> The pace idea is that I can possibly develop economy of movement at
> something more like a "race pace". While I am keeping an eye on pace,
> I am still primarily a slave to my heart rate monitor, and will pull
> the plug on speed when HR hits 92 percent of so of maximum.
I just call them "race effort" and still go by my hrm so I don't have to
mess around with distance measurements. I find my biomechanics at "race
effort" tends to be different from those used when slogging.
>
>
>>> It's also odd that your two longest days are both after
>>>days you're trying to do speed work. If you're doing a good _hard_
>>>speed work day, your legs are kind of beat up and want an easy
>>>or off day before you try to go long. The Thursday unplanned
>>>rest may be telling you exactly this.
>>
>>It could. OR the speed days are short (looks like 30 min), and the legs
>>demand to run longer the next day, then need a recovery day. Maybe not
>>at that duration -looks like about 90min, if I'm translating properly -
>>and intensity and heat/humidity. It also looks like his past few weeks
>>have had a lot of other things going on and may need another week to get
>>back to 5 days/wk or maybe 5 days in a row doesn't work for him with
>>that combination of workouts.
>>
>>Dot
>
>
> Right. Gee Dot, you must read/analyze info for a living!
Actually, it's called taper. ;) (and it was a thread that I'd thought a
lot about this past winter)
(actually I am retired from such a position, though)
But my
> "schedule" has been so spur-of-the-moment, ad hoc, and random, that I
> don't know if I want to get back to something as much as find a way to
> jam some intelligent training into my available time.
Boy, that sounds similar to my thoughts. I go with the flow in winter,
but in summer I try to schedule things, a least the mountain runs, since
the snow-free season to do those is so short - 2-3 months. Areas that
aren't snow free yet could have snow by late August.