Training Week Ending May 28, 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!
joe positive
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
My weeks end on Saturday again, so I can be first!
goals: continue slogging through mileage buildup; make it until my massage
therapist comes back from vacation week after next. Upcoming races:
probably a 3-miler and a 4-miler in mid-July; 15K Sept 2; marathon Sept 30.
Su: 20.06mi (8:17)
M: 8mi (9:43)
T: AM 14mi (9:23), PM 4mi (8:32) + 15min elliptical (1.87mi)
W: PM 10mi (8:00)
R: AM 10mi (9:38)
F: 12.15mi (9:12)
Sa: 14mi (8:46)
total: 92.15mi running, 1.87mi elliptical
yeah yeah, I know it's damn slow. I run faster with my pals (Wednesdays &
Sundays) but only manage a slow slog when I'm alone. After a few more
weeks of this I'll drop back to upper 70s and start working on strength.
good week all
Karen
--
live! vicariously!
frndt...@aol.com
holy shit! I guess you don't hold with the idea that anything over 45
miles a week is suppose to be moot?
peace
jeff
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards.
Claire Wolf
Phil M.
> holy shit! I guess you don't hold with the idea that anything over 45
> miles a week is suppose to be moot?
I think it depends on the person and what they're training for.
--
Phil M.
frndt...@aol.com
so I guess the question is,karen,what are you training for? Leadeville?
Wow, that is impressive. Kind of hurts thinking about it though.
peace
jeff
Now I don't know but I've been told
It's hard to run with the weight of gold
Other hand I heard it said
It's just as hard with the weight of lead
robert hunter
Dot
> Phil M. wrote:
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>holy shit! I guess you don't hold with the idea that anything over 45
>>>miles a week is suppose to be moot?
>>
>>I think it depends on the person and what they're training for.
>>
>>--
>>Phil M.
>
>
> so I guess the question is,karen,what are you training for?
you could read the goals portion of her post, where I think she answers
that question.
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
Charlie...@gmail.com
> holy shit! I guess you don't hold with the idea that anything
> over 45 miles a week is suppose to be moot?
Whose idea is that?
And what's the context for "suppose (sic) to be moot"? Race
performance? General cardiovascular health? What?
Charlie...@gmail.com
> My weeks end on Saturday again, so I can be first!
Mine probably has too, this time around. Damndest thing: a couple
hours after my easy run, standing up after eating brunch in the French
place down the street, I'm struck with pain in my lower lower back
(sacrum) out of nowhere.
Well maybe not nowhere: I've had just a touch of soreness in what's
probably my hamstring attachment a few days. A little ice, a little
massage, it seemed to be under control. I'm guessing it's probably
related.
Anyhow I'll probably end up taking tomorrow off. Too bad; I was
planning to be over 100 km again after four low weeks. Assuming no
Sunday long run, the week totals to
52.00 sacrally shortened miles, as
Mo AM: 5.10 recovery (from Sat race + Sun long run)
PM: 4.15 recovery; girl scout cookies not sitting well
Tu AM: 3.95 recovery
PM: 4.15 recovery; girl scout cookies force pit stop
We AM: 7.00 w/ 3.35 tempo. Effort was probably harder than it should
be (it was darn near all-out 3.35 time trial effort) but pace
was, as usual, slower (6:41, allegedly more like my 25k pace)
than most authors and pace calculators consider my tempo pace.
That's OK, just interesting to note that I seem to have a wider
gap between what I can do in a solo workout vs. in a race than
some.
Th AM: 6.50 easy
Fr AM: 8.50 w/ 5x840m intervals, 3:05-3:17. See note above regarding
slow workouts. 'Twas a bit muggy for the first time I recall
this year, but not *that* muggy. I just couldn't run fast, and
got slower at the same effort level each time around.
PM: 4.15 recovery
Sa AM: 8.50 easy - first half extremely easy, then merely easy. No
strain; felt fine during run including hamstring attachment,
which I iced afterward. Two hours later I'm uncomfortable
walking.
Su DNR (injury)
upcoming
--------
- race or two in June, haven't picked it/them yet
- goal races = Utica Boilermaker 9 Jul; NYCM 5 Nov
- epic road trip likely post-Boilermaker; watch out American
rec.runners!
frndt...@aol.com
http://familydoctor.org/147.xml
I'm certainly not presuming what is right and what is not. I am just
asking in reference to what seems to be at least somewhat discussed
elesewhere . And as someone who has only been running,er jogging a year
or so, I can appreciate what effort and intensity 90 plus miles a week
can be. Not to mention a great job.
peace
jeff
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=running+over+45+miles+a+week&btnG=Google+Search
frndt...@aol.com
Dot wrote:
> frndt...@aol.com wrote:
> > Phil M. wrote:
> >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>holy shit! I guess you don't hold with the idea that anything over 45
> >>>miles a week is suppose to be moot?
> >>
> >>I think it depends on the person and what they're training for.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Phil M.
> >
> >
> > so I guess the question is,karen,what are you training for?
>
> you could read the goals portion of her post, where I think she answers
> that question.
your right i see that. Thankyou. So one has to run 90 miles a week to
train for a marathon? ouch! I'll never be able to do that. shoot!
Doug Freese
<frndt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1148778770.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> so I guess the question is,karen,what are you training for?
> Leadeville?
It's Leadville ;) and no she is currently maxed at marathons although I
do wonder how many miles she would do if she did want to try a 50 mile
race much less a 100 at elevation.
-DF
Charlie...@gmail.com
> http://familydoctor.org/147.xml
Actually the tips in that "how to prevent an overuse injury" section
other than "there is little evidence that running more than 45 miles
per week improves your performance" all look good.
But as for that 45 mile limit, well, someone better notify the vast
majority of halfway serious distance runners from the mile on up.
Methinks you'll have trouble finding many contenders at decent sized
road races let alone nationally or internationally competitive road or
track runners who excel on less than 200 miles a month. Milage varies
(groan), but typically more like double or triple that for a top class
marathon runner.
In fact one of the first hits from the google search in yr message -
http://healthresearch.lbl.gov/alcohol.html - seems to specifically
advocate running better than 45 mpw in conjunction with a little daily
drinking. Good news for some of us, perhaps most notably Doug!
BTW, if you stumble over to the letsrun.com message board - home of
some very serious racers along with thousands of unemployed
twentysomethings living in their moms' basements pretending to be
serious racers - you'll learn that if you don't run a hundred miles a
week, you suck. ;-)
> And as someone who has only been running,er jogging a year or so
I'm a couple years ahead of you, recently passing my third year
anniversary of logging my miles - at about which time I impressed the
hell out of myself by going a whole three miles without stopping.
My experience was that it took a couple years for my body (muscles,
tendons, whatever else) to handle 40-45 mpw or more including some fast
bits *without* getting injured in the process. Well, my body and my
mind: a lot of that time represented a learning curve during which I
gradually - and with much help from the fine folks at rec.running -
sorted out many of the factors behind my frequent state of injury.
Speaking of which, surely you've read this 20 times recently but let me
add the 21st - running downhill is *brutal* on your body, moreso if
it's fast and/or hard surface. You need to do some of it to prepare
for racing downhill, but treat it as a poison to which you become
immunized in gradual increments, not just as a thrilling joyride.
That "10% a week" rule? It's one reasonable rule-of-thumb upper limit
but it's assuredly *not* an indicator of what you might be able to
sustain week in and week out. Anyone, and especially those of us who
aren't so young any more, who intends to really push the mileage
envelope needs to do so over a period of years.
Doug wrote:
> devil's food wrote:
>> so I guess the question is,karen,what are you training for?
>> Leadeville?
>
> It's Leadville ;) and no she is currently maxed at marathons although I
> do wonder how many miles she would do if she did want to try a 50 mile
> race much less a 100 at elevation.
Since Karen probably won't answer that, I will take a stab at it. (And
why not? As more-than-ably as she expresses her own thoughts, putting
words in Karen's mouth seems like a rr tradition by now... and I can
only hope she's bemused by it all. Karen, feel free to return the
favor any time; I'll even sit on your lap and move my lips in sync to
whatever you say.)
Probably about the same number of miles: as many as her body, mind, and
schedule will allow.
Which AFAICT isn't a terribly suboptimal strategy for racing any
distance from at least 5000m on up.
I'm gonna hafta pull a lance here and opine that you trail ultra guys
who consider 25 miles, a few hills, a few beers, and a pocketfull of
salt, on three days a week reasonable training for your thousand
milers, are out to lunch. Well, "reasonable" in the sense of
"maximizing one's potential", not "making it to both the start and
finish lines, and not interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
Phil M.
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
Day Mi Type
-----------------------------------------------
Mon 0.00 rest
Tue 2.47 rec
Wed 0.00 rest
Thu 0.00 rest
Fri 0.00 rest
Sat 1.31 walk
Sun 1.31 walk
-----------------------------------------------
Week 4.78
Year 1,000
I haven't done any real running since May 7th (3 weeks ago). I started
taking a 6-day dosage of prednisone on Monday. I'm not sure if the side
effects are worth the benefits. The tendonitis is very slow to heal. I
went running on Tuesday, which probably was not a good idea. I probably
caused more damage. On Saturday I went for a brisk (15:00 min/mi) walk.
There was some tightness in the anterior tib tendon and moderate pain.
My plan now is to simply walk until there is no discomfort. If I can
walk 3 days consecutively without pain, then I'll ease into running
again.
--
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
steve common
30+°C glorious sunshine but my ankle still hurts, lower achilles too, all
still in splints.
Dot
>
> I'm gonna hafta pull a lance here and opine that you trail ultra guys
> who consider 25 miles, a few hills, a few beers, and a pocketfull of
> salt, on three days a week reasonable training for your thousand
> milers, are out to lunch.
Charlie, you *know* there's no one here that fits that description -
not even close.;) All the r.r runners who run ultras run more than that.
And a "few" hills may be all that's needed when they have some size to
them = are larger than Central Park "hills".;) However, I am aware of
one runner (not r.r) that claims to train on about 20-25 mpw, hills are
the embankments to overpasses, does lots of cross-training, etc. But I
think the longest race he's done is 100 mi. But he does a fair amount of
races with some larger hills at altitude.
I do know of at least one person in Alaska that claims (media interview)
to train about 3xx miles / year and is one of our better mountain
runners (longest race about 24 mi, but most in the 5k range). But he
does 300,000 ft up in that distance. (yes, 1000 ft/mi is consistent with
topography in places with real hills) Mileage can be a really poor
metric for training, depending on your objective.
> Well, "reasonable" in the sense of
> "maximizing one's potential", not "making it to both the start and
> finish lines, and not interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
But perhaps "maximizing one's potential" in life *is* to optimize
training to make "it to both the start and finish lines, and not
interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
Or did you have another idea of "maximizing one's potential"?;)
Dot
Parker Race
T: off
W: 6
Th: 9.5 6 am 3.5 pm
Fr: 7
Sa:10 mile bike ride then 4.5 mile run
Su: 12 miles trails , going out for an easy 10 on the bike in a bit
Total 39 - lowest in a while
It was a weird week not knowing whether I was going to do the Marathon,
oddly enough I feel more beat up this week on less mileage?
Goals: big ?
2 5ks this month
1 mile on the track in July
Take some swimming lessons, maybe do a tri?
--
live! vicariously!
"SwStudio" <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nq_dg.75826$fd.6...@read2.cgocable.net...
Tony S.
> week and goals.
Run hr% Bike
05/22 off
05/23 0:51 69% 0:26
05/24 1:04 73% 0:26
05/25 1:27 78% 0:41 1,540' climb
(with 0:42 @ 83% hard 1180'^ 850'v)
05/26 0:43 70% 0:25
05/27 1:05 74% 0:25
05/28 2:29 77% 0:41 2,540' climb
(with 1:28 @ 79% 2200'^ 1900'v)
Tot: 7:39 3:04
All on trails, Thurs and Sun on harder and hilly singletrack. Feeling pretty
good, but my feet are sore, probably from upping my volume 3 weeks ago.
Thursday 20 mins in, the front edge of the ball of my left foot started
hurting with a sharp pain like a cramp. Since that was going to be my
midweek 'effort' day that got me angry. After walking a couple of minutes
with it still hurting, I decided to try to run through it, and when I hit
the harder trail section I started going harder than normal, still angry -
not the most intelligent thing to do. I realized I'd had this kind of pain
before, and I wrote it off to a cramp or a signal from some other part of my
body (reflexology hocus pocus). After I ran hard for 40 mins it felt
somewhat better, and by Sunday it was just a slight physical memory -- but
my feet are sore all over; will ice them today and this week.
Goals: Escarpment trail run late July, Vermont 50 mile? Continue at this
volume level if I can, maybe going up to 8+hrs/wk avg, big hill session next
week, more stretching, more weight to lose.
So far 103 hours running this year vs. 53 at this time last year.
-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
21 3:04 7:39 2:29 6
joe positive
> It's Leadville ;) and no she is currently maxed at marathons although I
> do wonder how many miles she would do if she did want to try a 50 mile
> race much less a 100 at elevation.
I have no intention of ever doing such a thing.
Karen
--
live! vicariously!
Charlie...@gmail.com
> Charlie, you *know* there's no one here that fits that
> description - not even close.
I'm taking a little poetic license. If I gotta miss my Sunday long
run, I reserve the right to stray from strict literal rationality a bit
and maybe wander toward good-natured provocation.
> However, I am aware of one runner (not r.r) that claims to
> train on about 20-25 mpw
Right, and from the little I've read here and there, low mileage ultra
training ain't exactly rare.
Which is fine: as runners, as a newsgroup, as a whatever, we've got a
big enough tent to accommodate people of all ages and paces and levels
of drive and variety of goals etc. More power, sez I, to someone who
runs as much or little as she feels, and who does or doesn't enter 5k
or 100 mile races weekly (or in Parker's case, hourly ;-), monthly, or
annually.
It's just that I'll also chuckle at any suggestion or implication that
people running more than 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 miles per week are
necessarily laboring under some misconception or unseemly compulsion,
and they'd be better served with fewer miles.
Or that, pick a number well under 100, let's say 50, mpw will pretty
much max out performance at marathon distance or longer, for an
otherwise healthy adult not more than a couple decades removed from the
prime of life. Or that, if X miles is optimal to run your best
marathon, you must need much more for a longer ultra or much less for a
10k.
Of course for all this, if exceeding a certain mileage causes an
individual overuse injuries or overtraining symptoms, that's obviously
a ceiling which defines the maximum possible mileage to consider
optimal. For now - because if this is a young and/or relatively
inexperienced runner, that ceiling will probably move up with time.
> But perhaps "maximizing one's potential" in life *is* to optimize
> training to make "it to both the start and finish lines, and not
> interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
Well sure. I meant the conjunction "not" to indicate that in fact I
did mean something different by "maximizing one's potential." ;-) In
this case: the best race performance of which one is capable.
And again: I don't insist that anyone make this his goal to the
exclusion of all else, or imply some moral superiority of someone who
does vs. the person with more interests or demands or a different
balance. I certainly agree with your Heinrich quote:
> "Success is different things to different people"
And success to me, today, is going to have a lot more to do with
getting my rib steaks and pork chops and wild boar sausage perfectly
grilled, than keeping a decent pace for a fifteen miler. :-)
Doug Freese
"joe positive" <kcol...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1296391.v...@positive.com...
> Doug Freese wrote:
>
>> It's Leadville ;) and no she is currently maxed at marathons although
>> I
>> do wonder how many miles she would do if she did want to try a 50
>> mile
>> race much less a 100 at elevation.
>
> I have no intention of ever doing such a thing.
Only time will tell.......... ;)
-DF
Tony S.
-Tony
Phil M.
> I'm taking a little poetic license. If I gotta miss my Sunday long
> run, I reserve the right to stray from strict literal rationality a bit
> and maybe wander toward good-natured provocation.
Well, since I missed this Sunday's long run, last Sunday's long run,
and the long run before that, and everything in between, what sort of
license do I get? May I assume the persona of macelroy, miss ann thope,
TBR, and ultra john all melded into one ultra-trolling monster of
other-worldly proportions?
...but I'm not bitter.
--
Phil M.
Phil M.
Tony S.
>...
> I'm gonna hafta pull a lance here and opine that you trail ultra guys
> who consider 25 miles, a few hills, a few beers, and a pocketfull of
> salt, on three days a week reasonable training for your thousand
> milers, are out to lunch. Well, "reasonable" in the sense of
> "maximizing one's potential", not "making it to both the start and
> finish lines, and not interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
Charlie slipping into troll mode again (as when last week you asked me if
more training would actually help me in the escarpment trail run [and I was
dumb enough to answer, as I am today]). But seriously if you want to check
out what an 'ultra training' 25 mile hill session is like, join Doug next
Saturday in Woodstock, I'm planning to be there - unless you're out of the
country or something. The reason some ultra people run less midweek miles is
the hit those extra long runs take out of them. What's the longest you've
ever run? After you've run a few times 5-6 hours with 5k+ climb get back to
us and let us know how your midweek mileage holds up (and your immune system
and general health).
-Tony
Charlie...@gmail.com
> what sort of license do I get? May I assume the persona of
> macelroy, miss ann thope, TBR, and ultra john all melded into
> one ultra-trolling monster of other-worldly proportions?
My vote is yes, yes, and a thousand times yes. As long as you keep it
entertaining... and this multi-headed hydra-troll certainly would be,
at least for your hopefully brief remaining recovery period.
> ...but I'm not bitter.
Phil, I feel your pain and my hat's off to you for having managed not
to kill anyone yet with your bare hands these last few weeks.
You haven't, have you?
If you have, I'm gonna hafta think twice about stopping in your neck of
the woods on the Pendejo world (well, lower 48) tour.
Charlie...@gmail.com
> Charlie slipping into troll mode again (as when last week you asked
> me if more training would actually help me in the escarpment trail
> run [and I was dumb enough to answer, as I am today]).
That one was a genuine question. With maybe just a touch of
trollishness and a generous portion of my own distractedness and
stoopidity such that I wondered the question aloud and hit "Post
message" rather than think it through myself.
And in fact you guys did reply with a bit of actual, interesting,
information. While - duh! - fitness is crucial for the uphills and
also for endurance in a sufficiently long race, clearly there is more
of a skill component(s) to technical trail running than a road 5k, and
therefore less of a simple correlation between "fitness" and race time.
> find out what an 'ultra training' 25 mile hill session is like, join Doug next
> Saturday in Woodstock
Oof, thanks but no effin' thanks. I'm a little sore after merely
reading that, frankly. And I hear you regarding the immune system too.
Pain in the (upper) ass (/ lower back) aside, a flat 20 would be
pushing it for me right now, let alone a hilly 25.
Dan Stumpus
Prequel:
Sat: 16 medium in Griffith Park. Started out ok, ended up just awful,
walked in.
Sun: 0 Yesterday was so bizarre I figured I'd better take a day off.
Quel:
Mon: 14 easy, 2000' climb. Felt normal.
Tue: 14 easy/medium, 2000' climb. Fine.
Wed: 7 very easy. 1000' climb. Felt wiped out (duh!).
Thu: 14 medium, 2000' climb. Very strong, pr on this course: 1:51.
Fri: 4.5 very easy, flat, felt like crap, cut it short. Why does mile 1
the next day after a great run feel so much worse than the last mile of the
great run?? Saw that tomorrow is race day for a race I haven't run in 20
yrs, will run on the spur of the moment.
Sat: 11.5 3+ mile warmup, Topanga 10k (1220' climb), 2 mile jog. Separate
rpt.
Sun: 13, 2500' climb to 4700' above Pasadena, reeeel easy, 2:05.
Total: 78 (yikes!)
Note to self: racing is fun, even untapered...
Dot
> Dot wrote:
>
>>Charlie, you *know* there's no one here that fits that
>>description - not even close.
>
>
> I'm taking a little poetic license. If I gotta miss my Sunday long
> run, I reserve the right to stray from strict literal rationality a bit
> and maybe wander toward good-natured provocation.
I assumed that and why I nibbled at the bait.;)
>
>>However, I am aware of one runner (not r.r) that claims to
>>train on about 20-25 mpw
>
>
> Right, and from the little I've read here and there, low mileage ultra
> training ain't exactly rare.
>
> Which is fine: as runners, as a newsgroup, as a whatever, we've got a
> big enough tent to accommodate people of all ages and paces and levels
> of drive and variety of goals etc. More power, sez I, to someone who
> runs as much or little as she feels, and who does or doesn't enter 5k
> or 100 mile races weekly (or in Parker's case, hourly ;-), monthly, or
> annually.
>
> It's just that I'll also chuckle at any suggestion or implication that
> people running more than 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 miles per week are
> necessarily laboring under some misconception or unseemly compulsion,
> and they'd be better served with fewer miles.
Agreed, but I still think the type of miles or duration / structure of
training program is at least as important as sheer numbers of miles or
hours, even for experienced runners. From the inexperienced end, I know
I tried some different stuff in mid and late winter this year because of
ice, then trail closures, which partly resulted in more miles / hours
than I've done in the past, but they didn't work that well for me - at
least this year. Combined in a different mix with more base and more
intensity and different goals, maybe they'd work in the future.
>
> Of course for all this, if exceeding a certain mileage causes an
> individual overuse injuries or overtraining symptoms, that's obviously
> a ceiling which defines the maximum possible mileage to consider
> optimal. For now - because if this is a young and/or relatively
> inexperienced runner, that ceiling will probably move up with time.
For this particular case, the runner has been doing ultras for a number
of years, but claims to get injured with more mileage. OTOH, most of the
summer races he does (Colo with many mtns), mileage is a really poor
metric, and the rock wall climbing he does is probably more specific.
Again, mileage tends to me more of a road thingy, and it does make some
sense there.
Many people can probably survive (without significant injury) an event
up to, say, a couple hours (probably different for different people)
even if way undertrained. But it gives them a taste of the distance or
elevation or terrain or whatever so they can train better for it another
time. But they may not be able to tweak the training appropriately
unless they know what the course is like. This may not be as much an
issue in road races as with trail. I know I like the adventure aspects
of some races and the unknown. (and sometimes fret about the same)
>
>
>
>>But perhaps "maximizing one's potential" in life *is* to optimize
>>training to make "it to both the start and finish lines, and not
>>interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
>
>
> Well sure. I meant the conjunction "not" to indicate that in fact I
> did mean something different by "maximizing one's potential." ;-) In
> this case: the best race performance of which one is capable.
That's why I was ribbing you ;) (with barbeque sauce)
And how do you know when you've reached your best race performance?
Should one not run the earlier, slower races since one didn't run their
best then?
Just a thought, and I can't remember where I read it (probably PP or
RRN) but it's been within the past year and was an actual study. They
took the non-responders (lower quartile) of the runners from some
training study and supplemented with weight training (or replaced some
of the miles/hours with some type of cross-training). (I can't remember
the details.) There were time improvements. This is a case where doing
something besides just running improved their times. I suspect these
were not elites. ;)
>
> And again: I don't insist that anyone make this his goal to the
> exclusion of all else, or imply some moral superiority of someone who
> does vs. the person with more interests or demands or a different
> balance. I certainly agree with your Heinrich quote:
>
>
>>"Success is different things to different people"
>
>
> And success to me, today, is going to have a lot more to do with
> getting my rib steaks and pork chops and wild boar sausage perfectly
> grilled, than keeping a decent pace for a fifteen miler. :-)
And my success was staying hydrated and surviving an easy bike ride.
Fallen trees, occasional rolling rocks on landslide (geez, I just wanted
to sit and watch the river for a bit when a couple rocks up above had
other ideas), fire bombers taking off from airport for wildfire about 25
miles upriver (their departure parallels the trail and makes a neat
rumble as they climb out - contrast with the normal 2-4 passenger
aircraft out of local airport). It's been hot (for us) and dry, then
winds picked up yesterday. Tinderbox waiting for a spark.
Dot
--
"Success is different things to different people"
anders
Charlie...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Mine probably has too, this time around. Damndest thing: a couple
> hours after my easy run, standing up after eating brunch in the French
> place down the street, I'm struck with pain in my lower lower back
> (sacrum) out of nowhere.
Just in case you were wondering: I find it rather unlikely you
contacted it via the Internet! My ailment struck while I was sleeping
on my back and restruck after I had lain prostrate for fifteen minute,
but standing up after sitting didn't cause any pain, and therefore your
virus must be a different strain.
> Well maybe not nowhere: I've had just a touch of soreness in what's
> probably my hamstring attachment a few days. A little ice, a little
> massage, it seemed to be under control. I'm guessing it's probably
> related.
Related to tightness of the hamstrings, no doubt - and that of other
hip area muscles, most probably. Stretch as if your life depended on
it!
I'd also recommend a couple of sessions of "löpskolning" (Swedish for,
roughly, "running lessons"): find about 30 metres of short gentle
uphill - a park slope would be perfect - and climb in turns by (1)
lifting your knees *very high*, (2) bringing your heels up into your
butts, and (3) taking *very long* and *very low* (your knee should
almost brush the ground) steps. Concentrate on peforming the movements
"to the extreme" at the cost of speed or stride frequency. Walk down
for recovery. Continue for 20-30 minutes. Repeat every three days at
first, then once a week.
Anders
anders
SwStudio kirjoitti:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
MON 90 min "Nordic Walking" (It's good for the mobility of one's
back)
TUE 90 min ditto
WED 30 min slow jogging, 30 min "löpskolning"
THU 110 min splendid running (Okay, I did go a bit overboard...)
FRI 50 min great running
SAT 30 min easy jogging, 40 min "löpskolning"
SUN 90 min fine running AM
90 min fine running PM
Reflections:
(1) the back problem appears to have been sorted out - and I hope I
learned the lesson - but I got an appointment with the osteopath just
to make sure that my SI joints aren't in a dire need of being crunched
back into place or something.
(2) it suddenly dawned on me that if I place the goal marathon _very_
late on the calendar - there seem to be suitable events as late as
Nov-Dec in France, Italy and Spain - I could spend a few more precious
weeks doing the kind of unplanned and unstructured running I'm
currently enjoying.
Anders
Doug Freese
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:ksleg.107906$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Charlie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm gonna hafta pull a lance here and opine that you trail ultra guys
>> who consider 25 miles, a few hills, a few beers, and a pocketfull of
>> salt, on three days a week reasonable training for your thousand
>> milers, are out to lunch.
:) What many do is roll a lot their weekly miles into a single run. It's
is very common for many to do a long run 20-40 miles and only hit 50-60
for the week. The long run is the bread and butter of survival for
ultras. I'll do 30 miles with 11,000 feet this weekend and maybe I'll
get to 55 total.
>
> However, I am aware of one runner (not r.r) that claims to train on
> about 20-25 mpw, hills are the embankments to overpasses, does lots of
> cross-training, etc. But I think the longest race he's done is 100 mi.
> But he does a fair amount of races with some larger hills at altitude.
Also remember that he logs his hiking miles separate and you have to
pull teeth to get him to confess. So if his long run is 40 miles and 35
is hiking he writes 5 in his log book. Power hiking is a necessary
ingredient in training and running ultras, he is the only one I know
that does this.
> I do know of at least one person in Alaska that claims (media
> interview) to train about 3xx miles / year and is one of our better
> mountain runners (longest race about 24 mi, but most in the 5k range).
> But he does 300,000 ft up in that distance. (yes, 1000 ft/mi is
> consistent with topography in places with real hills) Mileage can be a
> really poor metric for training, depending on your objective.
Does he run the 1000 ft/mi or just hike the hell out of it. I do 500 per
and I just can't picture twice as steep at least for very long.
> But perhaps "maximizing one's potential" in life *is* to optimize
> training to make "it to both the start and finish lines, and not
> interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
That's a mouthful of truth. I average about 50-60 and I know I could get
faster times if I cranked up the miles. OTOH, I don't think I would
doing it for 18 years if I did. More is better but only goes just so
far. So many ride the glory wagon for a few years and then cease to run
from injury or burnout and turn into overweight unhealthy people. So
maybe the big mileage crankers should ask themselves what, if any,
running will they be doing N years down the line. You know who you are!
;)
-DF
Dot
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
>
>>However, I am aware of one runner (not r.r) that claims to train on
>>about 20-25 mpw, hills are the embankments to overpasses, does lots of
>>cross-training, etc. But I think the longest race he's done is 100 mi.
>>But he does a fair amount of races with some larger hills at altitude.
>
>
> Also remember that he logs his hiking miles separate and you have to
> pull teeth to get him to confess. So if his long run is 40 miles and 35
> is hiking he writes 5 in his log book. Power hiking is a necessary
> ingredient in training and running ultras, he is the only one I know
> that does this.
Thanks. I knew there was a lot that he did that didn't show up in his
"20 miles", but was surprised when he finally 'fessed up to all that he
did. I think he does a fair number of short races also. OTOH, does
logging a lot of flat FL miles help that much for CO mountains? This is
where the xt makes sense to me.
>
>
>
>>I do know of at least one person in Alaska that claims (media
>>interview) to train about 3xx miles / year and is one of our better
>>mountain runners (longest race about 24 mi, but most in the 5k range).
>>But he does 300,000 ft up in that distance. (yes, 1000 ft/mi is
>>consistent with topography in places with real hills) Mileage can be a
>>really poor metric for training, depending on your objective.
>
>
> Does he run the 1000 ft/mi or just hike the hell out of it. I do 500 per
> and I just can't picture twice as steep at least for very long.
Both, I'm sure. That's the way our mountains are built here (Anchorage
area). If you're going to be running trails in the mountains, you're
going to be going up slopes at least 20%, at least on portions. Some
might have a flat approach to a steeper hill. I was just reading a race
report on another mtn race (3300 ft in 3 mi) and sounds like the leaders
were definitely running a substantial portion of it.
They need to be trained for.;) I'm pretty sure some of our better
runners can actually run Lazy all the way to the top (3000 ft, 2.1 miles
1 way, with 500m up in the first 1.5km according to my gps). If not all
the way, then 95% or more. That's an average of 30% slope. I know I've
seen Julie U. running on top, and I feel confident she ran the bulk of
the way. In the race, it's hiked, since there's another larger hill to
get up. A few years ago, I think I tried repeatedly running a short
portion at the base (probably 20%) (give me credit for recognizing I
couldn't run the whole thing ;) ), and could go up either 6 or 10 min
(can't remember which) and maybe did it 2-3 times (maybe 3 times at 6
min and twice at 10 min). I don't think I could now, since I haven't
been doing that type of training. I finally got smart and recognized
that I hike those in races, and there's other things that make more
sense for me to do.;)
Keep in mind that one of our elite mountain runners could jog portions
of Mt. Marathon (3000 ft in 1 mi). Reports that I read were that it
totally demoralized the other runners to have this guy jogging any of it
at all. Many of these mountain runners are competitve xc skiiers also.
What I've started trying to do if I can't get on the big hills is insert
some hill bounding / steep hills (aka Lydiard, they're a little
different) on the shorter hills. They help with some of my muscle
weaknesses and lack of power. When they closed my normal trails this
spring, I gingerly tried some of the road-grade hills (about 7%). They
might have worked if I had run them harder (afraid of asphalt and how
Cascadias would work), but they didn't satisfy the workout objectives
that I was looking for in short term. (Long term those kinds of hills
are useful, and I needed to see what type of training tool they might
be.) I might have done better in short term by keeping to the local 1000
ft hill and running that multiple times since my legs would be tired the
2nd time up.
For me, up to about 6-10%, I can run for awhile (30-90 min). 30% I'm
hiking if it's anything over 5-10 min. Of the trails that I regularly
use, we don't have any significant hills in the 10-25% range. Based on
my trails and some tm experiments, somewhere above 10% is where it seems
to shift from being mostly forward motion to having a large component of
vertical motion (at least for me) and uses muscles differently - and if
you have a pack of water on your back, it's that much more effort.
You should go up to the High Peaks region in the Adirondacks and hike
some trails like Mt. Colden (or one of the other ones off the lake
there). That's one of my favorite trails - and one of my first real
mountain trails.
>
>
>>But perhaps "maximizing one's potential" in life *is* to optimize
>>training to make "it to both the start and finish lines, and not
>>interfering terribly with the rest of one's life."
>
>
> That's a mouthful of truth. I average about 50-60 and I know I could get
> faster times if I cranked up the miles. OTOH, I don't think I would
> doing it for 18 years if I did. More is better but only goes just so
> far. So many ride the glory wagon for a few years and then cease to run
> from injury or burnout and turn into overweight unhealthy people. So
> maybe the big mileage crankers should ask themselves what, if any,
> running will they be doing N years down the line. You know who you are!
> ;)
April's issue of UR had an interesting article on the effects of aging
and had interviews with a panel of experienced male ultrarunners, mostly
mid 50s to mid 60s with one 48 and one 87. I was disappointed they
didn't include runners like Ruth Klein or Ann Trason (only mid-40s, but
many more years ultra running than Danny Ripka). They talked mostly in
generalizations, not specifically in terms of running xx miles then, now
yy miles.
It's also been interesting reading some of Lydiard and his experiments
where I think he went as high as 200 mpw and decided that didn't work
for him.
Dot
> I could spend a few more precious
> weeks doing the kind of unplanned and unstructured running I'm
> currently enjoying.
>
Fun, isn't it? ;) The funny thing is, I find it more effective than any
schedule I've tried - either from a book or something I put together.
Dot
somewhere above 10% is where it seems
> to shift from being mostly forward motion to having a large component of
> vertical motion (at least for me) and uses muscles differently - and if
> you have a pack of water on your back, it's that much more effort.
BTW, this is why I find selected xt more effective training than just
simply adding miles - or at least they seem that way to me, since they
do work the muscles I'll be using.
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 24 14.9 01h53' 4'44" 7:37 E :-) 74
----------------------------------------------------------------------
week 21 : 24 km 15 mi 01h53'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
last 8 weeks' average : 45 km 28 mi 03h41'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
year : 1213 km 716 mi 98h42'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my goals of running more mileage and losing weight weren't meet this
past week; on the contrary, we took 5 days vacations with the family: I
didn't run and stuffed myself instead with pastries...
goals : increase mileage, lose those 5 kilos...
m
marko
> (2) it suddenly dawned on me that if I place the goal marathon _very_
> late on the calendar - there seem to be suitable events as late as
> Nov-Dec in France, Italy and Spain -
Good to hear that you've got a goal marathon race in mind!
> I could spend a few more precious
> weeks doing the kind of unplanned and unstructured running I'm
> currently enjoying.
I'm like Dot, to me, this is also the kind of running that is both the
most enjoyable and the most efficient.
Go ahead, keep running like this and you'll go easily sub-3 !
m
Doug Freese
>> Does he run the 1000 ft/mi or just hike the hell out of it. I do 500
>> per and I just can't picture twice as steep at least for very long.
>
> Both, I'm sure. That's the way our mountains are built here (Anchorage
> area). If you're going to be running trails in the mountains, you're
> going to be going up slopes at least 20%, at least on portions. Some
> might have a flat approach to a steeper hill. I was just reading a
> race report on another mtn race (3300 ft in 3 mi) and sounds like the
> leaders were definitely running a substantial portion of it.
I guess we all adapt to our local conditions be it hills, heat, cold,
etc. I still find it amazing when the flat Floridian like you-know-who
can run and finish some very hilly races in high elevation. He is always
close to the cutoffs but gutsy anyway. He really uses all those races as
his training.
> You should go up to the High Peaks region in the Adirondacks and hike
> some trails like Mt. Colden (or one of the other ones off the lake
> there). That's one of my favorite trails - and one of my first real
> mountain trails.
I have some in my back yard that I have yet to climb. ;)
> April's issue of UR had an interesting article on the effects of aging
> and had interviews with a panel of experienced male ultrarunners,
> mostly mid 50s to mid 60s with one 48 and one 87. I was disappointed
> they didn't include runners like Ruth Klein or Ann Trason (only
> mid-40s, but many more years ultra running than Danny Ripka). They
> talked mostly in generalizations, not specifically in terms of running
> xx miles then, now yy miles.
I just finished the May issue, it was on top of my pile, and have not
read April yet - LIFO. ;)
I don't know where I'm at in the aging decline slope. While some of my
training is consistent about 30% varies from year to year. Sometimes I
race very little while others more. The length of long runs and amount
seen to fluctuate widely. For instance I have done in ther past
back-2-back long runs like Saturday run 30 miles and Sunday hike 15-20.
This Sunday I'm doing a 25-30 mile run and then doing the first 50k of
relay (laurel Highlands) the following Saturday. I using the relay as
long run for Vermont. Simply different and I have no idea how I will do
with type of effort or will I ever do it again. And worse yet, the
relay is a month before Vermont and I'm not sure what I'll do for that
month. I typically like a three week taper but I may do something less
hard two weeks before and then taper. A little fly by the seat of may
pants this year.
So you can say I train in a varied fashion almost every year. I try not
to let my training dictate my life but I do like to do a few races a
year. It will be a real test this year at Vermont with different
training and post MENopause(61) knocking at my door. ;)
-DougF
Daniel
rest day.
Tue 5.1 miles 09:24/mile 76% Max HR
Hills.
Wed 8.3 miles 10:41/mile 74% Max HR
Hills again.
Thu 0.0 miles
dnr - 2 mile walk along shoreline.
Fri 5.5 miles 09:47/mile 81% Max HR
Intervals: 100,200,300M; 485Yd,970Yd,485Yd; 300,200,100m.
(I run in lane 8.) Goal was 7:41/mile pace (race pace for a 5K in
23:55), and I was about 5% slow for all but the last 4 intervals.
Recoveries were active (run/jog) -- the balance of the lap for the
short intervals, 1 lap after the 485Yds, and 2 laps after the 970Yd,
which brought my HR from a peak of around 92%MHR down to
70(or so)% MHR.
Sat 5.6 miles 10:49/mile 75% Max HR
recovery run, slow and flat -- on American River bike trail in
Sacramento.
Sun 2.9 miles 10:56/mile 68% Max HR
Long day working on Dad's house yesterday. Still feel ti-i-ired!
Total miles this week: 27.4
Goals: 5K on June 11, 5K July 4 -- Plan to run these with out special
preparation as a fun hard run, not going for any particular time, just
to see where I'm at.
--
Daniel
deltae...@usa.net
--
It's not *really* free. They have a setup charge.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Dot
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:bCNeg.112377$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Doug Freese wrote:
>>
>>>"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>Does he run the 1000 ft/mi or just hike the hell out of it. I do 500
>>>per and I just can't picture twice as steep at least for very long.
>>
>>Both, I'm sure. That's the way our mountains are built here (Anchorage
>>area). If you're going to be running trails in the mountains, you're
>>going to be going up slopes at least 20%, at least on portions. Some
>>might have a flat approach to a steeper hill. I was just reading a
>>race report on another mtn race (3300 ft in 3 mi) and sounds like the
>>leaders were definitely running a substantial portion of it.
>
>
> I guess we all adapt to our local conditions be it hills, heat, cold,
> etc.
Yep. WMRT was awesome when it was held here - watching the best just
about sprint up those hills, although they did add switchbacks to reduce
the slope for international competition.
I still find it amazing when the flat Floridian like you-know-who
> can run and finish some very hilly races in high elevation. He is always
> close to the cutoffs but gutsy anyway. He really uses all those races as
> his training.
Yep. I think he's one of those where the goal is to be challenged by the
course itself. And if he can do one race, he'll find one that might be
tougher.
>
>
>>You should go up to the High Peaks region in the Adirondacks and hike
>>some trails like Mt. Colden (or one of the other ones off the lake
>>there). That's one of my favorite trails - and one of my first real
>>mountain trails.
>
>
> I have some in my back yard that I have yet to climb. ;)
Gosh. If you have 20% slopes on prolonged climbs in your back yard, just
go experience them first hand ;)
>
>
>
>>April's issue of UR had an interesting article on the effects of aging
>>and had interviews with a panel of experienced male ultrarunners,
>>mostly mid 50s to mid 60s with one 48 and one 87. I was disappointed
>>they didn't include runners like Ruth Klein
duh, that should be Helen Klein.
or Ann Trason (only
>>mid-40s, but many more years ultra running than Danny Ripka). They
>>talked mostly in generalizations, not specifically in terms of running
>>xx miles then, now yy miles.
>
>
> I just finished the May issue, it was on top of my pile, and have not
> read April yet - LIFO. ;)
I think I just finished Nov 2005 just before that. Random order.;) Been
trying to consolidate stuff around the house.
>
> I don't know where I'm at in the aging decline slope. While some of my
> training is consistent about 30% varies from year to year. Sometimes I
> race very little while others more. The length of long runs and amount
> seen to fluctuate widely. For instance I have done in ther past
> back-2-back long runs like Saturday run 30 miles and Sunday hike 15-20.
> This Sunday I'm doing a 25-30 mile run and then doing the first 50k of
> relay (laurel Highlands) the following Saturday.
Enjoy!
I using the relay as
> long run for Vermont. Simply different and I have no idea how I will do
> with type of effort or will I ever do it again. And worse yet, the
> relay is a month before Vermont and I'm not sure what I'll do for that
> month. I typically like a three week taper but I may do something less
> hard two weeks before and then taper. A little fly by the seat of may
> pants this year.
I recognize the feeling. Good luck.
>
> So you can say I train in a varied fashion almost every year. I try not
> to let my training dictate my life but I do like to do a few races a
> year. It will be a real test this year at Vermont with different
> training and post MENopause(61) knocking at my door. ;)
Pssst... Most of the runners said they started feeling effects in the
50-55 range. Which was interesting since an article I had read (maybe
PP) awhile ago had women feeling the effects around 50-55, iirc, and men
in the 55-60 range, iirc. Whatever the range, it was about 5 yr earlier
for women - and why I was curious about the lack of women in UR's sample.
rick++
of vacation runs.
I did hour runs in the clean, spring air of Alaska.
Monday Anchorage Jeffry Creek
Tuesday along the beach on the Homer plit
Wednesday rest day after four running days
Thursday Elias park HQ to Copper Center
Friday Valdez along the Richardson highway bike trail
Saturday Fairbanks along the Chena river (some rain)
Sunday Denali long the Neenana river
I tried to break up long drives by midday runs in scenic areas.
Another issue was getting enough sleep. Days are 19 to 21
hours long and you have go to sleep while it is still light if you
going get enough rest.
Piedmont Donald
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
Wed: 2.0 mile (3.2k)
Fri: 3.0 mile (4.8k)
Sun: 3.0 mile (4.8k)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Week total: 8.0 miles (12.9k)
Year total: 179 miles (288k)
Currently 232 miles (373K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my NEW 2006
goal of running "only" 1000 miles (1609K).
Training: Light. I'll probably jump up to 12 miles (19k) for the coming
week, then hold myself to adding 3 miles (5k) per week until I get
back to my "normal" mileage.
Racing past:
5K road race: finished
Racing future:
5000m track race in 1 week - Goal: approach or beat crappy track PR
Only 3 Tuesday night track meets left. I'm going to try to attend all
of them.
Peachtree Road Race 10K in 5 weeks - Goal: attempt course PR
Misc goals:
I've lost about a pound (.5kg), must keep losing...
Piedmont Donald
Frank Boettcher
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
>week and goals.
>
>
>
>cheers,
I was in Florida on vacation all week. What a great place to run.
Ran 26.2 miles on the hard surface. Walked 12.3 in the sand with some
dune climbs.
Total mileage 38.5
Was grand master winner in the Sandy Shoes 5K with a not so stellar
time. Youngest son won the race, oldest son was third. Family members
took 5 of the top eight finishes on the mens side and two of the top
three on the womens. Small race, only about 45 runners but lots of
fun, running with so many family members competing.
Frank