| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2006 23:33:46
From: Dot
Subject: RR: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Event: Kincaid Tues Night Race
Date: 9/19/2006 6:30pm
Organizer: Municipality of Anchorage Parks & Rec.
Course: Rolling hilly loop going through a bunch of various trails.
Trails varying from some single track to wider xc ski trails, some
really wide. Many of these had single track dirt through mown grass
(without embedded horse prints), so it was easy to pass people in most
places. It was an honest course. Many of these morainal courses have
such steep up and downs, it’s climbing upward then controlled free-falls
on the descents, whereas most of this course was gentler and you could
actually run. No free rides.
Tuesday night race series has 9 xc races in the fall with 3 leagues:
Lightning (competitive), Farm (recreational), Munchkins with the
Lightning having distances up to 9k and Farm up to 7k. Distances and
course are not announced until start time. I’m trying to do a different
one each year to run on different trail systems. This race had 801
runners, a record by over 18%, and they ran out of timing cards (don't
use bibs or chips). I really like the simplicity of these races - and
the $5 cost is right.
Kincaid Park has been the site of international xc ski competitions and
is where the Snowshoe Nationals were held in 2005, so I had run at least
some of the trails here before - although with snow cover.
Weather: About 50F, calm, overcast - perfect - but I still wore tights
;) I had warm, agile legs the entire race.:)
Goals: Duh, I’m not sure I even thought about this before hand. I guess
to run another trail, do another “Tuesday night race”, provide an excuse
to do some errands in Anchorage (or maybe the errands provided the
reason to do *this* Tues night race rather than next week’s).
Plan: Go light - no need for water, gear, etc.
Start: We gather round the course setter who describes the courses
(“about” 7k for Farm, 9k for Lightning - not measured) in terms of trail
names, which may make sense if you’re familiar with the trails, but
doesn’t to those of us not familiar with them. But hopefully it’s just
a matter of following the pink ribbons for Farm. While people are still
milling around, the fog horn goes off for the race start. Duh.
Since I had gotten close to the speaker so I could hear, I was much
closer to the front than I normally position myself (which is dead last)
as this mass of humanity (800 runners) starts down a wide, gentle slope
(from stadium) - no steep uphill to separate people quickly. There’s
nothing to do but go with the flow - or be trampled. How do I get myself
into these things? Ok, we split off from the Lightning, and the crowd
thins a little as the trail accommodates about 4 wide rather than 8, but
still not really space to drop back too much out of the crowd. Oh, heck,
it’s only a 7k (about 1hr or so is what I anticipated), let’s see how
long we can survive. Gasp. We can do this. Cough, sputter, more gasping.
Oops, I was ready for a walk break about 10 min in (also noticed hr was
around 92% max). I just backed off a tad - at least down to
just-gasping level, and kept running. The terrain is easier than what I
normally run on, the trails are wide (side-by-side skate ski?) in many
sections, and the hills aren’t as steep. And it should only be about 1
hr. I can survive most things for 1 hr.
I was always near other runners. I tried not to let myself get boxed in
on the downhills, so I could keep my rhythm and not brake for others,
which has really cost me in the past. For some reason, either people are
afraid to run downhills (but these weren’t that steep), burn out on the
uphills, or whatever. If people slowed on the downhill, I pulled out and
passed them.
There was one narrow section with a short, steep hill, and there was no
choice but to walk behind the people in front. Ok, that was my 20-sec
walk break (maybe 30 min into race). Mostly just kept running. Came to
the fenceline hills, and ran up the 1st 2 pitches, but walked a little
of the 3rd pitch - walking would be as fast and cost less energy. Mind
you most of the race I’d been close to LT, where I rarely train, and I
felt something would crash before the finish if I didn’t give in to
walking briefly on this one section. Walk briefly now to run the rest
strong. I also thought there was another pitch to get up, so I might
have wimped out too early. I was also remembering the snowshoe running
up these which was longer, so I may have gotten faked out.
Kept on running until the finish. A couple people with dogs caught up
with our small group toward the end, and one was being towed by her dog.
I tried to re-catch her before the finish, but dog was pulling faster
than I was running. Some might have been Lightning leaguers.
Finish: 57:32 my watch; about 600 ft uphill according to my altimeter.
It was nominal 7k (unmeasured), but there was some confusion on the
markings, like some might have done part of course backward. Fastest men
and women's time were in the 3x:xx range, I think. These were the
recreational runners. The fast folks were in Lightning.
Effort: Avg hr: 90% max (85% hrr), hit 92-93% a couple different times.
I remember getting close to that seeing-stars feeling. Once past the
first few minutes of the initial downhill, hr was mostly in LT zone
except for a couple brief downward spikes, usually on downhill. That’s
probably more LT than I’ve don’t the entire rest of year. Didn’t leave
much out there energy wise. Hmm, and LT effort is supposed to be what
you can race for 1 hr. Yep, I think I’ve got my hr training zones pegged
about right.
Cooldown: I was intending to hike / run part of another trail where we
had ss run as cooldown, then realized my legs still had the strength to
run them fairly easily, but those hills are gentler than what I normally
run on. This was good sign.
The race was more fun than I thought it was gonna be. Good decision to
do this race (and a group run last week) rather than what I was
considering originally for the fall. And the errands in Anchorage
included getting some tights to wear in high 40s and light rain.;)
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 04:31:40
From: Dot
Subject: Re: RR: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Correction on numbers of runners: There were 364 adult runners (2
leagues) and 336 munchkins. It's great to see that many munchkins out
running.
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 00:33:40
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:udkQg.79890$QM6.69876@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
...
> Effort: Avg hr: 90% max (85% hrr), hit 92-93% a couple different times.
> I remember getting close to that seeing-stars feeling. Once past the
> first few minutes of the initial downhill, hr was mostly in LT zone
> except for a couple brief downward spikes, usually on downhill. That’s
> probably more LT than I’ve don’t the entire rest of year. Didn’t leave
> much out there energy wise. Hmm, and LT effort is supposed to be what
> you can race for 1 hr. Yep, I think I’ve got my hr training zones pegged
> about right.
Nice job going for it Dot! I don't remember reading a report of yours where
you ran so hard. Feels good doesn't it. I guess that shows your training has
been good if your LT is in that region. Mine falls to the low 80's in the
off-season. HR is fickle as a measure though, as I'm sure you know. I'd
guess my LT is almost 92% right now, but in June I ran a 2.5 hr race at
almost 93%, and I know at the time my LT wasn't yet close to being above 90.
That time it was the heat putting a huge extra burden on my heart. That it
was cool suggests yours was a better measure. HR is a very useful relative
measure though. Sounds like you had fun in the race.
-Tony
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 04:26:01
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:udkQg.79890$QM6.69876@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ...
>
>>Effort: Avg hr: 90% max (85% hrr), hit 92-93% a couple different times.
>>I remember getting close to that seeing-stars feeling. Once past the
>>first few minutes of the initial downhill, hr was mostly in LT zone
>>except for a couple brief downward spikes, usually on downhill. That’s
>>probably more LT than I’ve don’t the entire rest of year. Didn’t leave
>>much out there energy wise. Hmm, and LT effort is supposed to be what
>>you can race for 1 hr. Yep, I think I’ve got my hr training zones pegged
>>about right.
>
>
> Nice job going for it Dot! I don't remember reading a report of yours where
> you ran so hard.
Thanks, Tony. Last year's Beach Lake Tues night race was similar, but I
think I hit that one harder, esp. at end. There aren't many races that I
can do that with because of the duration or steepness.
Feels good doesn't it. I guess that shows your training has
> been good if your LT is in that region.
That's the first I've run any substantial time there recently. There's
probably a few, maybe as much as 10bpm for race-day edginess, but I
hadn't been particularly nervous about this race. But this is the first
race all year that was in the 1-hr range and wasn't a hill climb. I
can't get sustained higher hr on those. I had 29.6% above LT zone,
59.6% in it, 8.3% in moderate, and 2.6% in Easy (start), so even
allowing for race-day effects, it was up there.
Mine falls to the low 80's in the
> off-season. HR is fickle as a measure though, as I'm sure you know.
Right. That's why I was reporting the breathing as more accurate
indicator. My legs never tightened - I just couldn't get enough air in.
What I've done since my last race - after I finished a week of goofing
off and doing some non-training hiking (translate: hike the same
mountain, but lay in sun on top for 30 min while eating cadbury bar)
before the snow flies or things get frosty - was to drop the big hills
since I didn't need them for any impending races and it freed up my legs
to increase the intensity (power / forward, rather than upward,
propulsion) of my other runs. I went back (or trying to get back) to a
more Benson-like training, as far as efforts are concerned, since that
worked well for me.
I did one training run loop that turned out to be about 10 k / 640 ft
with hr at least in the easy level (above recovery - and higher that
what I've been doing) and pushed that through without walking at all -
legs were tired after 1st 5k, but was able to keep the legs moving. That
gave me a bunch of confidence for pushing in a 5k-type race on rolling
terrain. Then last Thurs I ran a couple hours with some other people -
about 50% of it in aerobic speed / no man's land. So I've been
progressively getting back some of the old cardio fitness instead of
this funk I've been in. Slowly.
The real test will be how long it takes me to recover. Last year, it was
about 1 wk before I could run hills again without dead legs.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 20:01:08
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:tvoQg.192830$5i3.117222@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tony S. wrote:
>
> > "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> > news:udkQg.79890$QM6.69876@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > ...
> >>Effort: Avg hr: 90% max (85% hrr), hit 92-93% a couple different times.
> >>I remember getting close to that seeing-stars feeling. Once past the
> >>first few minutes of the initial downhill, hr was mostly in LT zone
> >>except for a couple brief downward spikes, usually on downhill. That’s
> >>probably more LT than I’ve don’t the entire rest of year. Didn’t leave
> >>much out there energy wise. Hmm, and LT effort is supposed to be what
> >>you can race for 1 hr. Yep, I think I’ve got my hr training zones pegged
> >>about right.
> >
> >
> > Nice job going for it Dot! I don't remember reading a report of yours
where
> > you ran so hard.
>
> Thanks, Tony. Last year's Beach Lake Tues night race was similar, but I
> think I hit that one harder, esp. at end. There aren't many races that I
> can do that with because of the duration or steepness.
>
> Feels good doesn't it. I guess that shows your training has
> > been good if your LT is in that region.
>
> That's the first I've run any substantial time there recently. There's
> probably a few, maybe as much as 10bpm for race-day edginess, but I
> hadn't been particularly nervous about this race. But this is the first
> race all year that was in the 1-hr range and wasn't a hill climb. I
> can't get sustained higher hr on those. I had 29.6% above LT zone,
> 59.6% in it, 8.3% in moderate, and 2.6% in Easy (start), so even
> allowing for race-day effects, it was up there.
Yea, but I think race HR elevation can be on a scale of none to as you say,
the better part of 10bpm. In longer races, it become less of a factor and
more natural phenomena like cardiac drift take over.
> Mine falls to the low 80's in the
> > off-season. HR is fickle as a measure though, as I'm sure you know.
>
> Right. That's why I was reporting the breathing as more accurate
> indicator. My legs never tightened - I just couldn't get enough air in.
>
> What I've done since my last race - after I finished a week of goofing
> off and doing some non-training hiking (translate: hike the same
> mountain, but lay in sun on top for 30 min while eating cadbury bar)
Ahhh can't wait for those types of outings in the colorful month of ober,
though I'll be lucky if it's warm enough to lay in the sun for very long.
> before the snow flies or things get frosty - was to drop the big hills
> since I didn't need them for any impending races and it freed up my legs
> to increase the intensity (power / forward, rather than upward,
> propulsion) of my other runs. I went back (or trying to get back) to a
> more Benson-like training, as far as efforts are concerned, since that
> worked well for me.
Not sure who Benson is.
> I did one training run loop that turned out to be about 10 k / 640 ft
> with hr at least in the easy level (above recovery - and higher that
> what I've been doing) and pushed that through without walking at all -
> legs were tired after 1st 5k, but was able to keep the legs moving. That
> gave me a bunch of confidence for pushing in a 5k-type race on rolling
> terrain. Then last Thurs I ran a couple hours with some other people -
> about 50% of it in aerobic speed / no man's land. So I've been
> progressively getting back some of the old cardio fitness instead of
> this funk I've been in. Slowly.
Yea but it's fun to visit no man's land once in a while ;) I think it can
still be good for the legs, if not pushing the important parameters of the
cardio system.
> The real test will be how long it takes me to recover. Last year, it was
> about 1 wk before I could run hills again without dead legs.
Recovery and don't forget the supercompensation!
-Tony
> Dot
>
> --
> "Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
> afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 04:46:21
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:tvoQg.192830$5i3.117222@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>What I've done since my last race - after I finished a week of goofing
>>off and doing some non-training hiking (translate: hike the same
>>mountain, but lay in sun on top for 30 min while eating cadbury bar)
>
>
> Ahhh can't wait for those types of outings in the colorful month of ober,
> though I'll be lucky if it's warm enough to lay in the sun for very long.
That's why I did it then. Last year I waited 'til after my races in
early ober, and the ground was frozen, with a thin melted layer on
top. Can you say "slippery"?
>
>
>>before the snow flies or things get frosty - was to drop the big hills
>>since I didn't need them for any impending races and it freed up my legs
>>to increase the intensity (power / forward, rather than upward,
>>propulsion) of my other runs. I went back (or trying to get back) to a
>>more Benson-like training, as far as efforts are concerned, since that
>>worked well for me.
>
>
> Not sure who Benson is.
I should have said Benson or Lydiard or any of those that don't have a
no-man's land - or small compared with something like Daniels. In the
vicinity of 83% max (75% hrr) (give or take a few %) used to be a good
spot for me for training - felt like running, wasn't too hard for
recovery, was pretty aerobic, and is vicinity of race pace for many of
my races (say 10k to 9 mi). With my low volume, it's not an issue
recovering from that. Not every run, but one run a week where I ran
harder worked well. Coach (Roy) Benson was the pgm I had with my
original hrm, and he had beginners doing fartleks, strides, etc almost
from the beginning. He's written a couple training books. His "easy"
efforts are a little harder than some others.
I may be able to run at lower hr now compared with what I used to - and
they're useful for recovery runs - but I don't seem to benefit from them
as a training run since the mechanics / stride length is different.
Around 78-85% max (67-78% hrr) is an area where I feel I should get the
most benefits - at least for now. I've had some trouble getting back up
there compared with when I used to run above 80% max fairly regularly,
but have been working my way back up gradually. That way races don't
hurt as much since there's not the wide divergence in mechanics.
Eventually, this type run may be at a lower hr. I noticed my lowest
running hr dropped after I started doing those hill repeats this summer.
Only time will tell. But I think these are the zones that correspond to
Lydiard's 1/4 (65-70% hrr) and 1/2 (70-75%) effort runs, based on some
discussion / interpretations on some other groups. I know Lydiard did
not use hr % or paces, but this seems to be an interpretation of efforts
that some have arrived at. He has one run / wk in the 75-85% hrr range,
which takes it right up to LT.
http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm
No, I wouldn't train at those efforts all the time, but I don't think
they're an area I should avoid - at least not at this point. For me,
they're good for mechanical strength, race pace, cardio (still aerobic),
etc. They're not too hard for me to recover from within my present
training regime.
>
>>The real test will be how long it takes me to recover. Last year, it was
>>about 1 wk before I could run hills again without dead legs.
>
>
> Recovery and don't forget the supercompensation!
>
I think I've run a lot more hills since last year, so should have had
better leg strength, plus this was shallower hills. I made sure I
stuffed some carbs in me soon after since it was 1.5 hr drive home.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 13:44:21
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:xUJQg.198995$5i3.82854@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
...
> > Not sure who Benson is.
>
> I should have said Benson or Lydiard or any of those that don't have a
> no-man's land - or small compared with something like Daniels. In the
> vicinity of 83% max (75% hrr) (give or take a few %) used to be a good
> spot for me for training - felt like running, wasn't too hard for
> recovery, was pretty aerobic, and is vicinity of race pace for many of
> my races (say 10k to 9 mi). With my low volume, it's not an issue
> recovering from that. Not every run, but one run a week where I ran
> harder worked well. Coach (Roy) Benson was the pgm I had with my
> original hrm, and he had beginners doing fartleks, strides, etc almost
> from the beginning. He's written a couple training books. His "easy"
> efforts are a little harder than some others.
Thanks. Eventually I'll back up and do more reading about Lydiard and pick
up 'the lore of running' also. For now I'm content with a Hadd type
approach.
> I may be able to run at lower hr now compared with what I used to - and
> they're useful for recovery runs - but I don't seem to benefit from them
> as a training run since the mechanics / stride length is different.
For me those are about the leg muslces only = time on feet and motion but no
muscle stress, which is why I go by how my legs feel only on those and go
really slow. A few times this summer when I had dead legs, I did my recovery
run with about 30% walk breaks time wise, which I think helped my recovery
more than complete rest.
> Around 78-85% max (67-78% hrr) is an area where I feel I should get the
> most benefits - at least for now. I've had some trouble getting back up
> there compared with when I used to run above 80% max fairly regularly,
> but have been working my way back up gradually. That way races don't
> hurt as much since there's not the wide divergence in mechanics.
>
> Eventually, this type run may be at a lower hr. I noticed my lowest
> running hr dropped after I started doing those hill repeats this summer.
> Only time will tell. But I think these are the zones that correspond to
> Lydiard's 1/4 (65-70% hrr) and 1/2 (70-75%) effort runs, based on some
> discussion / interpretations on some other groups. I know Lydiard did
> not use hr % or paces, but this seems to be an interpretation of efforts
> that some have arrived at. He has one run / wk in the 75-85% hrr range,
> which takes it right up to LT.
> http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm
I've come to like progression runs. Often I don't feel good going fast right
away, but if I ease into it, I can go from the mid 70%s all the way up into
the 90%s and feel great at the end.
> No, I wouldn't train at those efforts all the time, but I don't think
> they're an area I should avoid - at least not at this point. For me,
> they're good for mechanical strength, race pace, cardio (still aerobic),
> etc. They're not too hard for me to recover from within my present
> training regime.
I think everyone's range is different. I've seen lots of people's training
week posts have their daily runs much higher in %HR than I could manage for
example. I find that anything above, say, 72% produces cumulative muscle
damage, so I try to limit my easy running to the low 70's. In my long runs,
though I commonly do the hills 'hard' at what might be called MP to HM pace
(right now 87-89%), I do the rest of the run in the low 70's normally.
Similarly, for tempo runs, I do the warm-up easy, maybe do a progression
from ~84% to 90% or higher for the tempo, then cool down slower. What I try
to avoid is running constantly at like 78%, though a run that goes up to
that (or higher) at times, then backs down on the downhills, is fine also
since it evens out.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 12:19:08
From: Teresa Bippert-Plymate
Subject: Re: RR: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Congrats, Dot! That was a lot of running at a high HR. But yep,
sounds like you have it pegged really well. No pics this time? ;-)
I know, running too fast to take pictures I'm sure! But I could
really picture it this time after just getting back from the
Alaska cruise (and three days of "severe clear" weather! WOW!)
But big congratulations for going hard all that way, and getting
in under an hour!!
Teresa in AZ
Dot wrote:
> Event: Kincaid Tues Night Race
> Date: 9/19/2006 6:30pm
> Organizer: Municipality of Anchorage Parks & Rec.
>
> Course: Rolling hilly loop going through a bunch of various trails.
> Trails varying from some single track to wider xc ski trails, some
> really wide. Many of these had single track dirt through mown grass
> (without embedded horse prints), so it was easy to pass people in most
> places. It was an honest course. Many of these morainal courses have
> such steep up and downs, it’s climbing upward then controlled free-falls
> on the descents, whereas most of this course was gentler and you could
> actually run. No free rides.
>
> Tuesday night race series has 9 xc races in the fall with 3 leagues:
> Lightning (competitive), Farm (recreational), Munchkins with the
> Lightning having distances up to 9k and Farm up to 7k. Distances and
> course are not announced until start time. I’m trying to do a different
> one each year to run on different trail systems. This race had 801
> runners, a record by over 18%, and they ran out of timing cards (don't
> use bibs or chips). I really like the simplicity of these races - and
> the $5 cost is right.
>
> Weather: About 50F, calm, overcast - perfect - but I still wore tights
> ;) I had warm, agile legs the entire race.:)
> Start: We gather round the course setter who describes the courses
> (“about” 7k for Farm, 9k for Lightning - not measured) in terms of trail
> names, which may make sense if you’re familiar with the trails, but
> doesn’t to those of us not familiar with them. But hopefully it’s just a
> matter of following the pink ribbons for Farm. While people are still
> milling around, the fog horn goes off for the race start. Duh.
>
> Since I had gotten close to the speaker so I could hear, I was much
> closer to the front than I normally position myself (which is dead last)
> as this mass of humanity (800 runners) starts down a wide, gentle slope
> (from stadium) - no steep uphill to separate people quickly. There’s
> nothing to do but go with the flow - or be trampled. How do I get myself
> into these things? Ok, we split off from the Lightning, and the crowd
> thins a little as the trail accommodates about 4 wide rather than 8, but
> still not really space to drop back too much out of the crowd. Oh, heck,
> it’s only a 7k (about 1hr or so is what I anticipated), let’s see how
> long we can survive. Gasp. We can do this. Cough, sputter, more gasping.
> Oops, I was ready for a walk break about 10 min in (also noticed hr was
> around 92% max). I just backed off a tad - at least down to
> just-gasping level, and kept running. The terrain is easier than what I
> normally run on, the trails are wide (side-by-side skate ski?) in many
> sections, and the hills aren’t as steep. And it should only be about 1
> hr. I can survive most things for 1 hr.
>
> There was one narrow section with a short, steep hill, and there was no
> choice but to walk behind the people in front. Ok, that was my 20-sec
> walk break (maybe 30 min into race). Mostly just kept running. Came to
> the fenceline hills, and ran up the 1st 2 pitches, but walked a little
> of the 3rd pitch - walking would be as fast and cost less energy. Mind
> you most of the race I’d been close to LT, where I rarely train, and I
> felt something would crash before the finish if I didn’t give in to
> walking briefly on this one section. Walk briefly now to run the rest
> strong. I also thought there was another pitch to get up, so I might
> have wimped out too early. I was also remembering the snowshoe running
> up these which was longer, so I may have gotten faked out.
>
> Kept on running until the finish. A couple people with dogs caught up
> with our small group toward the end, and one was being towed by her dog.
> I tried to re-catch her before the finish, but dog was pulling faster
> than I was running. Some might have been Lightning leaguers.
>
> Finish: 57:32 my watch; about 600 ft uphill according to my altimeter.
> It was nominal 7k (unmeasured), but there was some confusion on the
> markings, like some might have done part of course backward. Fastest men
> and women's time were in the 3x:xx range, I think. These were the
> recreational runners. The fast folks were in Lightning.
>
> Effort: Avg hr: 90% max (85% hrr), hit 92-93% a couple different times.
> I remember getting close to that seeing-stars feeling. Once past the
> first few minutes of the initial downhill, hr was mostly in LT zone
> except for a couple brief downward spikes, usually on downhill. That’s
> probably more LT than I’ve don’t the entire rest of year. Didn’t leave
> much out there energy wise. Hmm, and LT effort is supposed to be what
> you can race for 1 hr. Yep, I think I’ve got my hr training zones pegged
> about right.
>
> The race was more fun than I thought it was gonna be. Good decision to
> do this race (and a group run last week) rather than what I was
> considering originally for the fall. And the errands in Anchorage
> included getting some tights to wear in high 40s and light rain.;)
>
> Dot
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 04:00:18
From: Dot
Subject: Re: RR: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Teresa Bippert-Plymate wrote:
> Congrats, Dot! That was a lot of running at a high HR. But yep,
> sounds like you have it pegged really well.
Thanks, Teresa.
> No pics this time? ;-)
Nah, this is one of those urban jungle type races. Just run-of-the-mill
trees and no spectacular scenery, at least compared with my other races
this summer. Did you miss my last two - with lots of pretty (I thought)
pics - didn't see any posts from you for quite awhile it seems like -
training thread or otherwise? I just went light weight this time,
although I do regret not having worn my footpod. And, definitely, this
was not a good race to even be thinking about pictures - too much
congestion. If there's enough people, I don't end up last. :) The
picture they have on their web page is from a Tues night race at some
time in the past:
http://www.muni.org/iceimages/parks/TNR.jpg
> I know, running too fast to take pictures I'm sure! But I could
> really picture it this time after just getting back from the
> Alaska cruise (and three days of "severe clear" weather! WOW!)
That's impressive to get "severe clear" in SE Alaska. Southwestern
Anchorage isn't quite the same scenery you get in southeastern Alaska (I
think that's where you were) ;) From the knoll at the ski chalet, you
can see across the inlet to some of the volcanoes or Mt. Susitna, which
can be awesome, but visibility wasn't that great.
BTW, I noticed you were gone a lot this summer (or at least not posting)
and couldn't remember if you were at an astronomy convention? In
particular, were you at one of those conference where Pluto was demoted?
> But big congratulations for going hard all that way, and getting
> in under an hour!!
>
Thanks.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 10:26:43
From: Teresa Bippert-Plymate
Subject: Re: RR: Kincaid Tuesday Night Race
|
Dot wrote:
> Teresa Bippert-Plymate wrote:
>
>> No pics this time? ;-)
>
> Nah, this is one of those urban jungle type races. Just run-of-the-mill
> trees and no spectacular scenery, at least compared with my other races
> this summer. Did you miss my last two - with lots of pretty (I thought)
> pics - didn't see any posts from you for quite awhile it seems like -
> training thread or otherwise? I just went light weight this time,
> although I do regret not having worn my footpod. And, definitely, this
> was not a good race to even be thinking about pictures - too much
> congestion. If there's enough people, I don't end up last. :) The
> picture they have on their web page is from a Tues night race at some
> time in the past:
> http://www.muni.org/iceimages/parks/TNR.jpg
Ah, a picture! Thanks! Yeah, things have been *really* busy this
summer. I tried to skim RR posts and usually did, but not enough
time to post back. It seemed like every Monday I came in for weeks
on end we were going full-blast here at work. But it should be
slowing some in the next month or two. I actually did take a look
at the pictures from one of your earlier races!
>> I know, running too fast to take pictures I'm sure! But I could
>> really picture it this time after just getting back from the
>> Alaska cruise (and three days of "severe clear" weather! WOW!)
>
> That's impressive to get "severe clear" in SE Alaska. Southwestern
> Anchorage isn't quite the same scenery you get in southeastern Alaska (I
> think that's where you were) ;) From the knoll at the ski chalet, you
> can see across the inlet to some of the volcanoes or Mt. Susitna, which
> can be awesome, but visibility wasn't that great.
That's what the locals said. It was absolutely breathtaking. Yep, we
were in the Inner Passage, visited Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, and the
Hubbard Glacier from ship. Then Victoria, CA. Very nice!!
> BTW, I noticed you were gone a lot this summer (or at least not posting)
> and couldn't remember if you were at an astronomy convention? In
> particular, were you at one of those conference where Pluto was demoted?
>
Nope, glad I wasn't involved in that. I think poor old Pluto deserves
to stay a "planet" just for the historical value. But I expect the
dialog's not over with, it may flip flop a few more times yet.
>> But big congratulations for going hard all that way, and getting
>> in under an hour!!
>>
> Thanks.
>
> Dot
Teresa in AZ, where it's cooling down some, finally!
|
|
