Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

running-forum.com
Promoting running discussion.

Main

Date: 11 Mar 2006 08:20:52
From: SwStudio
Subject: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
week and goals.

cheers,
--
David Hirsh, director
www.urbanburn.com - half marathon, full throttle!
www.absolutelyaccurate.com - Hamilton's summer series!

Date: 11 Mar 2006 21:53:43
From: Michael
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Sun: 22 (9:55)
Mon: 6
Tue: 12
Wed: 12*
Thu: 7
Fri: OFF
Sat: 5K (23:32)

Total: ~62 miles

*Relax Phil :-}, in Advanced Marathoning, Pete says back to back hard
days are allowed when used for the purpose of maintaining your weekly
mileage while attempting to "taper" for an upcoming race. In actuality,
all my races have been run by just "front loading" my weekly mileage and
taking a day or two off before the race. Not really a problem for 5K's,
but I learned my lesson in last years HM. Distances of that length or
more appear to require actual tapering!

All runs at easy pace ( 9:15-10:45 per mile )

Goals: (for this year) - sub 21:00 5K, sub 7:00 mile average for 5K's,
improved WAVA rating from last year, more 70% or better WAVA's for 5K's

Made my weight goal; feel I'm now capable of completing/running a
marathon if the right opportunity presents itself.

One of my years goals was going to be to run all 5K's under 23:00. That
one died early and I dug myself a big hole on a couple of the others! I
ran my worst 5K in 1.5 years (and I was sick during the previous one!).
I had the "racin' Joneses" so I drove 30 minutes an entered a 5K even
though it was raining and lightening (I'm a fair-weather runner who
never pre-registers for this very reason). After registering I was
milling around talking to another runner and assuming (since I had
recently seen lightning) that the race would be delayed and this seemed
to be bore out as the race start time passed. However, 5 minutes after
the schedule start time we were led out to the starting line and 15
seconds later the gun sounded. No warm-up time! By the first .5 mile
my shoes were full of water from the numerous 4" deep "puddles" (more
like small lakes!) up to 5 yards long. At about the 2.5 mile mark I saw
a massive lightning strike about .5 miles in front of me. Just my luck
it had to miss me instead of preventing me from finishing (I think I
would have preferred a DNF to my actual time). :-). And to top it off,
when I went to drive home, I turned the key in my car, the wiper blades
moved about 6" (I had forgot to turn them off), the indicator lights
dimmed to black and I've got nothing! Called AAA, waited an hour for a
jump, and drove home with my indicator pointers frequently bouncing up
and down and random indicator lights turning off and on. Once safely in
my garage, I turned off the engine, turned the key again and NOTHING - a
completely dead battery. In the matter of a few hours my battery had
gone from fine (never a previous problem) to nonexistent. Add to the
above my 3 day "phone hell" horror attempting get my ISP to recover my
email accounts along with my phone company disconnecting my phone line
for 30 minutes (in the middle of a call with my ISP) and you have one
very bad week! (And I've still got the battery issue to deal with.)

I think that if my future running this year is much improved from
today's, I might just give myself a mulligan on today's effort (let's
call it a slow tempo run).

UPDATE: as I waited for the official race results (why? I don't know -
maybe the clock was wrong or I dreamed this) to be posted, I decided to
work on replacing the car battery. I loosened the + terminal and as I
twisted to remove it "Lo and Behold" the engine compartment light came
on. I had a contact problem - very little corrosion but enough to
prevent any juice! My karma must suck at the moment. If this had
happened as I was leaving for the race, I would have missed the race and
been at home and not stranded waiting for AAA. And to prove the
negative state of my karma - the official results have my name and time
RIGHT! :-)

Date: 11 Mar 2006 22:39:25
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Michael wrote:

> Sun: 22 (9:55)
> Mon: 6
> Tue: 12
> Wed: 12*
> Thu: 7
> Fri: OFF
> Sat: 5K (23:32)
>
> Total: ~62 miles
>
> *Relax Phil :-}, in Advanced Marathoning, Pete says back to back hard
> days are allowed when used for the purpose of maintaining your weekly
> mileage while attempting to "taper" for an upcoming race.

That's true. I've done the same thing myself. Usually it was a matter of
doing a tune-up race on Saturday followed by a long run on Sunday. Since
they are different types of hard workouts, it didn't matter too much as
long as I took 2 days to recover.

> Goals: (for this year) - sub 21:00 5K, sub 7:00 mile average for 5K's,
> improved WAVA rating from last year, more 70% or better WAVA's for 5K's

How old are you? At my age (49), I'd need a 20:36 5K for 70% WAVA.

Sorry to hear about all your issues today. Did you at least relieve
yourself of the racing jones?

--
Phil M.

Date: 12 Mar 2006 14:18:05
From: Michael
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil M. wrote:
>
>
> How old are you? At my age (49), I'd need a 20:36 5K for 70% WAVA.
I'm 55 and now need a 21:38 5K for a 70% WAVA. Last year I had 4 out of
my 18 5K's above 70% (needed a 21:27) and had 3 other races within 6
seconds.
>
> Sorry to hear about all your issues today. Did you at least relieve
> yourself of the racing jones?
>
I not sure if I relieved my racing jones, but I did get some good news
last night. I'm happy(?) to report that I apparently have a cold! Last
night my head started feeling stuffed up and my throat "scratchy". I
strapped on my HRM and found my resting HR was about 15 beats above
normal (still true this morning). The symptoms are currently very minor
but definitely there. This tends to correlate with sometime that
happened on Friday. I was shopping and decided to stop at the blood
pressure machine (I probably do this about once a month - normally only
when I need something in that area of the store). My blood pressure
reading was over 120 (it's normally 115 or less), and a second reading
was also over 120. In two years of readings it has never been in the
120's. In addition, my HR was about 15-20 beats higher than the normal
reading. At the time I assumed that either the machine was incorrect or
I was still suffering some stress from my 3 day ISP odyssey. Now I
think the true reason has been revealed. The same think happened in my
previous poor performance 1.5 years ago, I started feeling sick the
evening after the race. Last year I ran the same race 2:38 faster (in
fact it's my current PR). Now that I own a HRM (for almost a year), I
think I might start checking my RHR before I go to a race. I know that
running books say to check your RHR each morning for signs of over
training, but I never do (does anybody?). Another question is: I know
that elevated RHR can indicate illness, but does that also apply to
blood pressure? (Never read that anywhere.)

Date: 12 Mar 2006 17:02:58
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

mon: 8.5
tues: 8.5 wu 800 X 6 cd
wed: off
thur: Shin and ankle sore - did 10k on an elliptical
fri: 3.25 very easy
sat: 7.75 - wu, 4 mile race @26:53 cd
su: 15
total : running - 43
elliptical - 10k

goals, races -
5 mile race - 4/2 - 34:10- 34:30
possible 1/2 on 3/26 sub 7:30?
5/27 Marathon hoping to run in the low 3:20's

"SwStudio" <absolutelyaccurate@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:J7AQf.130799$8d1.49956@read1.cgocable.net...
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
>
>
>
> cheers,
> --
> David Hirsh, director
> www.urbanburn.com - half marathon, full throttle!
> www.absolutelyaccurate.com - Hamilton's summer series!
>
>
>

Date: 12 Mar 2006 20:34:50
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Parker Race" <prace@nycap.rr.com > wrote in message
news:6vYQf.100$Mj.13@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> mon: 8.5
> tues: 8.5 wu 800 X 6 cd
> wed: off
> thur: Shin and ankle sore - did 10k on an elliptical
> fri: 3.25 very easy
> sat: 7.75 - wu, 4 mile race @26:53 cd

Nice job on the race. That's a decent pace, though I noted in the other
thread that your PR is closer to 26? How's that weight-loss going? Mine is
too slow so far, and I sure as hell won't be doing anything much over 80% HR
until mine is down quite a bit.

-Tony

> su: 15
> total : running - 43
> elliptical - 10k
>
> goals, races -
> 5 mile race - 4/2 - 34:10- 34:30
> possible 1/2 on 3/26 sub 7:30?
> 5/27 Marathon hoping to run in the low 3:20's
>
> "SwStudio" <absolutelyaccurate@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:J7AQf.130799$8d1.49956@read1.cgocable.net...
> > Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> > week and goals.
> >
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > --
> > David Hirsh, director
> > www.urbanburn.com - half marathon, full throttle!
> > www.absolutelyaccurate.com - Hamilton's summer series!

Date: 12 Mar 2006 21:10:25
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:KB%Qf.3613$Ub.2016@trndny07...
> "Parker Race" <prace@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:6vYQf.100$Mj.13@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> mon: 8.5
>> tues: 8.5 wu 800 X 6 cd
>> wed: off
>> thur: Shin and ankle sore - did 10k on an elliptical
>> fri: 3.25 very easy
>> sat: 7.75 - wu, 4 mile race @26:53 cd
>
> Nice job on the race. That's a decent pace, though I noted in the other
> thread that your PR is closer to 26?

Thanks, I was surprised as I was struggling to break 21 minutes at 5k last
Summer.
My PR is like 25:42 in April 2003 , my PR on this course is 26:05.
I was very motivated as ther was someione challenging me in the last 1/2
mile that I had been behind in mile 3.
I had heard stories about this person having a rep for running illegal
tangents but never thought much of it. There are like 17 turns in the course
and he was using each one to his full advantage. He turned every 90 deg.
turn into a 45, running across lawns sidewalks, etc. In the final stretch I
was determined not to let this guy pass me and he didn't.

>How's that weight-loss going?

Well, I don't know, I'm not really losing much weight, but I 've been
getting complements on how I look lately so I guess I must have transformed
some fat into muscle over the last couple of months. I have one of those
Tanita scales and it says my body fat % is 15% at 184 lbs in "athlete" mode,
not sure I believe that though.

>Mine is
> too slow so far, and I sure as hell won't be doing anything much over 80%
> HR
> until mine is down quite a bit.

It's tough you have to run more to lose but it's harder to run and harder on
your body when you're weight is up. With the weather turning warm you should
be able to burn off some calories on long bike rides though. That's what
worked for me when we had all the heat and humidity last Summer.

> -Tony
>
>> su: 15
>> total : running - 43
>> elliptical - 10k
>>
>> goals, races -
>> 5 mile race - 4/2 - 34:10- 34:30
>> possible 1/2 on 3/26 sub 7:30?
>> 5/27 Marathon hoping to run in the low 3:20's
>>
>> "SwStudio" <absolutelyaccurate@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:J7AQf.130799$8d1.49956@read1.cgocable.net...
>> > Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
>> > week and goals.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > --
>> > David Hirsh, director
>> > www.urbanburn.com - half marathon, full throttle!
>> > www.absolutelyaccurate.com - Hamilton's summer series!
>
>

Date: 13 Mar 2006 10:54:37
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Date: 13 Mar 2006 11:48:46
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Parker Race" <prace@nycap.rr.com > wrote in message
news:NbcRf.1497$Mj.68@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Just a few lbs around the middle to go, the guy with head band is the
> one I held off:

He sure looks a lot older than you. You're not picking on old people?
I'll bet you were really worried about the two women that were stalking
you! Next thing you'll want extra time for BMI and shoe size. :)

-Doug

Date: 13 Mar 2006 14:56:24
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:
> "Parker Race" <prace@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:NbcRf.1497$Mj.68@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>Just a few lbs around the middle to go, the guy with head band is the
>>one I held off:
>
>
> He sure looks a lot older than you. You're not picking on old people?
He's 50 I'll be 48 by the end of the month. I'm keeping that picture on
my desktop to remind me that I need to lose the gut and so that I won't
have to be racing guys like him at the finish. No respect for age when
you cut 20 or 30 yards of the course!

> I'll bet you were really worried about the two women that were stalking
> you! Next thing you'll want extra time for BMI and shoe size. :)
One is a new team mate, I had to show teach her a lesson, don't know the
youngster. I think we have an idea here, there was age graded results
for the top 100 which I barely made. But how would I have scored on
BMI/shoe size grading? Yes there 13s but just so I can fit orthotics :)

>
> -Doug
>
>

Date: 13 Mar 2006 14:55:54
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Date: 12 Mar 2006 15:36:29
From: joe positive
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio wrote:

> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.

goals: get through the next 6 days, not screw up on the 7th day. Upcoming
races: marathon March 19; possible 5-miler April 8; 10k (triathlon relay)
April 30.

M: 4mi (9:40)
T: 11mi incl 4x800 w/2:30 rest. avg 3:00
W: off
R: 14mi (7:47) incl last 8 @6:56 pace
F: 4mi (9:30)
Sa: 9.1mi (8:32), miles 6 & 8 @6:58 for no good reason
Su: 6mi (8:53)

total: 48.1 miles

Saturday I'd planned to race 5K but woke up with sore legs and a cluttered
mind so I bagged it. This was a very light week mileage-wise but there was
a fair amount of faster stuff, and maybe that - on top of the 97+ miles
last week - explains the tired legs. I sure hope there's a reason for it,
anyway.

good week all

Karen

--
live! vicariously!

Date: 12 Mar 2006 16:16:37
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

46.65 virus-ridden miles, as

Mo: 8.25 total, including first reps of 2006. 3 x (2x200m, 1x400m)
aiming for 42" and 86" per Daniels, hitting more like 45-41.5
and 94/91/87. Note to self: Bodyglide nipples before sweaty
trackwork in winter weight top. Note 2 to self: if Daniels says
to run reps with a cold, bear in mind the man's a running coach
and exercise physiologist, not a viral authority.

Tu: DNR (planned)

We: 6.50 easy, head cold made quite a comeback. Stupid reps.

Th: DNR - damn cold still bad despite zinc lozenges etc.

Fr: AM 3.55 easy, cold still hanging on, new shoes
PM 3.55 easy, cold still hanging on, other new shoes

Sa: 8.20 with about 4 at a weak steady state pace, most likely a
no-man's land training non-zone. Really wanted to do some tempo
pace running but still fear to inflame the weakening cold and/or
my suddenly crazy-tight right hamstring (was it the new shoes?)

Su: 13.05 effortless pace long run. Hamstring still tight but never
got in the way of - nor felt aggravated by - a slow jog. Daniels
counts these non-marathon-training long runs as a (relatively)
easy day which was initially hard to get my head around, but I'm
coming to accept that if keeping it to 2 hours, around 9:00 pace,
allows me to do a hard workout on Monday, that's just dandy.

Even though the running was suboptimal, it's been the best part of my
otherwise shitty last couple weeks. Damn. At least we're getting some
warmer temps and somewhat longer days.

Date: 12 Mar 2006 16:07:41
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

joe positive wrote:
> Saturday I'd planned to race 5K but woke up with sore legs and a
> cluttered mind so I bagged it.

I'm sure you did the right thing. But damn, I was curious!

Guess you'll give us a more interesting result in another week, anyhow.
Best of luck.

Pendejo, wishing his mind were only as cluttered as Karen's, or his week
only as bad as Michael's

Date: 15 Mar 2006 14:46:12
From: joe positive
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> Guess you'll give us a more interesting result in another week, anyhow.
> Best of luck.

Thanks. The weather forecast is looking cold (nice, though maybe a bit too
cold) but maybe windy. Ve shall see. I am not wearing the Gel Magic
pendejos, btw.

Karen
--
live! vicariously!

Date: 12 Mar 2006 09:31:28
From: Spring Fever
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

feb/17/06 moon cover star spica, from the northeast quadtant of the
country, for point west, spica well stand above the moon as they rise.
lat=3D11)55' south, long=3D7)4' west, alt 147824121 km 12:42:19 now or
7:42:19 a.m. est 2/17/06

point west=3Dn.e of u.s.a......

saturday march 11 06.
6.p.m. goes west.

11+11=3D22 days.
24=D722=3D528 hours-2=3D526 hrs.
7;42;19 from 6;00p.m.=3D(8/6)=3D10 hours (11 hours)
11/11/11.............
a winner..........
/19=3D hunter moon,full moon,harvest moon.
jerusalem to bethleham, 0007 saturn jupiter
old orion.
m-5015 south of sirus,

Stargazing Tips
The sky is full of wonders every night of the week. Use our viewing
guide for the week ahead to plan your backyard outings.
March 12, 2006
Regulus, the "heart" of Leo, the lion, stands just a whisker to the
upper right of the Moon as night falls this evening. It remains close to
the Moon as they arc high across the south in late evening, and sets in
the west before dawn.
March 13, 2006
The Moon is almost full this evening. On the northern half of the Moon's
lighted surface, look for several dark blue-grey blotches. Early
skywatchers called them "seas" because they thought the blotches were
bodies of water.
March 14, 2006
The Moon is full at 5:35 p.m. CST. It's known as the Crow Moon, Lenten
Moon, or Sap Moon. A slight lunar eclipse takes place, but it's visible
mainly from Europe and Africa. From the United States, we'll see a
bright, beautiful Moon unaffected by Earth's shadow.
March 15, 2006
Leo, the lion, stands proudly atop the firmament around midnight
tonight. Its brightest star is Regulus, which marks the lion's heart. A
pattern of fairly bright stars in the shape of a backward question mark
outlines Leo's head and mane.
March 16, 2006
The Moon passes one of the sky's most important landmarks tonight:
Spica, the brightest star of the constellation Virgo. Its appearance in
the evening means that winter is on the way out in the northern
hemisphere and spring is on the way in.
March 17, 2006
The Moon follows a bright star across the sky tonight: Spica, in the
constellation Virgo. They rise in late evening and cruise across the
south after midnight.
March 18, 2006
The planet Jupiter lines up with the Moon tonight. The planet is to the
left of the Moon as they rise around 10 or 11 p.m. It looks like a
brilliant star, although it outshines all the true stars in the night
sky.
Unless otherwise specified, viewing times are local time regardless of
time zone, and are good for the entire Lower 48 states (and, generally,
for Alaska and Hawaii).
copy right..stardate.texas.blaw blaw ..

Date: 13 Mar 2006 08:00:42
From: Spring Fever
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

View from Moon: 399821 km above 11=B08'N 154=B051'E
Click in image to pan or here to zoom in or out .
Satellite data provided by The Living Earth=AE Inc./Earth Imaging
=A9 1996, All Rights Reserved.

Display: =A0Map, =A0From=A0Sun, =A0From=A0Moon, =A0Night=A0side
Lat: Long: Alt: =A0km
Choose satellite
Image: =A0Living=A0Earth=AE =A0NASA=A0Visible=A0Earth =A0Topo=A0map
=A0Clouds =A0IR=A0clouds =A0Colour=A0weather
=A0Water=A0vapour =A0Water=A0vapour=A0raw
Time: Now UTC: Julian:
Image size: pixels No night

Back to Earth and Moon Viewer =A0 =A0Details =A0 =A0Credits =A0
=A0Customise
by John Walker

Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Group: rec.running Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2006, 9:31am From:
SpringHereSoon@webtv.net (Spring=A0Fever)
feb/17/06 moon cover star spica, from the northeast quadtant of the
country, for point west, spica well stand above the moon as they rise.
lat=3D11)55' south, long=3D7)4' west, alt 147824121 km 12:42:19 now or
7:42:19 a.m. est 2/17/06
point west=3Dn.e of u.s.a......
saturday march 11 06.
6.p.m. goes west.
11+11=3D22 days.
24=D722=3D528 hours-2=3D526 hrs.
7;42;19 from 6;00p.m.=3D(8/6)=3D10 hours (11 hours) 11/11/11............. =

a winner..........
/19=3D hunter moon,full moon,harvest moon. jerusalem to bethleham, 0007=

saturn jupiter old orion.
m-5015 south of sirus,
Stargazing Tips
The sky is full of wonders every night of the week. Use our viewing
guide for the week ahead to plan your backyard outings. March 12, 2006
Regulus, the "heart" of Leo, the lion, stands just a whisker to the
upper right of the Moon as night falls this evening. It remains close to
the Moon as they arc high across the south in late evening, and sets in
the west before dawn.
March 13, 2006
The Moon is almost full this evening. On the northern half of the Moon's
lighted surface, look for several dark blue-grey blotches. Early
skywatchers called them "seas" because they thought the blotches were
bodies of water.
March 14, 2006
The Moon is full at 5:35 p.m. CST. It's known as the Crow Moon, Lenten
Moon, or Sap Moon. A slight lunar eclipse takes place, but it's visible
mainly from Europe and Africa. From the United States, we'll see a
bright, beautiful Moon unaffected by Earth's shadow. March 15, 2006
Leo, the lion, stands proudly atop the firmament around midnight
tonight. Its brightest star is Regulus, which marks the lion's heart. A
pattern of fairly bright stars in the shape of a backward question mark
outlines Leo's head and mane.
March 16, 2006
The Moon passes one of the sky's most important landmarks tonight:
Spica, the brightest star of the constellation Virgo. Its appearance in
the evening means that winter is on the way out in the northern
hemisphere and spring is on the way in.
March 17, 2006
The Moon follows a bright star across the sky tonight: Spica, in the
constellation Virgo. They rise in late evening and cruise across the
south after midnight.
March 18, 2006
The planet Jupiter lines up with the Moon tonight. The planet is to the
left of the Moon as they rise around 10 or 11 p.m. It looks like a
brilliant star, although it outshines all the true stars in the night
sky.
Unless otherwise specified, viewing times are local time regardless of
time zone, and are good for the entire Lower 48 states (and, generally,
for Alaska and Hawaii).
copy right..stardate.texas.blaw blaw ..

Date: 12 Mar 2006 09:11:25
From: Spring Fever
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

91 miles week.
mountain bike.
20,11,10,12,13,15,10.=91

weight lifting (week set up outside)
and lifted light weights 2 times.
wrist still sore some.
military press with sore wrist. 85 pounds 10 reps. and many sets.
bench 155/ 10 reps many sets.
jerk over head 155. little well more shake. probe with wrist.

set up incline bench and stand 6 feet.
2 spin bikes.
a horse saddle rider.
a peddle runner, (home made)
a regular weight bench.
a over under cable machine.
and curl bar.and sit-up cable.
outside set up.
3 out of 4 bikes working.
broken peddleon #4.
re designed 2 of them.
to own likings. well 1.

lots of different sized sticks.

yesterday the moon appeared in the east and north some.time 4 or 5 ish
p.m.est.
sitting inchair, very stiff out of gas. (resting in high winds and
colder some...all wrap up.) ground is flood stage.and mud.....
seems to travel south, then follow the sun path to the west. at 6 p.m.
est. seems to go to the west. were the sun went behind the trees and
horizon. birds every wear.....all different kinds. from canada to
southern. still saturday...
in a.m. watch the sun rise, very orange
above trees began to turn yellow. and seem to travel south more then
west.
drinking coffee all wrap up in chair.

this a.m. just light. plesent and wet.

could measure a triangle fixes . (for me)
butt wont. spring on march 20.

God speed rec running.

Date: 13 Mar 2006 01:33:45
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio wrote:

> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.

Day Mi Type
------
Mon 0.00 rest (abs)
Tue 6.06 easy (weights)
Wed 13.20 medium long
Thu 6.15 easy (abs)
Fri 11.39 aerobic
Sat 5.00 easy (abs, weights)
Sun 16.04 Appalachian Trail run/hike
------
Week 58
Year 606

Training:
Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg

Events:
4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
http://tinyurl.com/avp9c

Have a great week rec.runners.

--
Phil M.

"things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse" - lily tomlin

Date: 13 Mar 2006 16:05:28
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote in message
news:Xns9784D15E46222seilogramp@216.77.188.18...
> SwStudio wrote:
>
> > Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> > week and goals.
>
> Day Mi Type
> ------
> Mon 0.00 rest (abs)
> Tue 6.06 easy (weights)
> Wed 13.20 medium long
> Thu 6.15 easy (abs)
> Fri 11.39 aerobic
> Sat 5.00 easy (abs, weights)
> Sun 16.04 Appalachian Trail run/hike
> ------
> Week 58
> Year 606
>
> Training:
> Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg

Did you do an out-and-back?

> Events:
> 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> http://tinyurl.com/avp9c

Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and out
of ravines. Ravine country can be a bitch. Your only mistake is to enter an
event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's anything
like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
seed for future madness and familial tension.

-Tony

> Have a great week rec.runners.
>
> --
> Phil M.
>
> "things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse" - lily tomlin

Date: 12 Mar 2006 21:35:44
From: marko
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio a �crit :
> 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 00h52' 4'45" 7:38 REC :-) 74
Thu 16 9.9 01h20' 5'00" 8:03 REC :-( 76
Fri 16 9.9 01h14' 4'38" 7:27 R :-

Date: 12 Mar 2006 20:05:01
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"SwStudio" <absolutelyaccurate@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:J7AQf.130799$8d1.49956@read1.cgocable.net...
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.

mon: off
tues: 0:32 ran easy
0:20 treadmill (walk)
wed: 0:34 ran easy
0:24 mtn bike
thur: off
fri: 0:45 ran easy
0:52 biked mod-hard, 780'climb
sat: 0:31 ran easy
2:01 biked mod-hard, 2260' climb
sun: 1:21 ran mixed trails mod, 1180' climb

Running legs still feel horrible, and it's a bit of a mystery. Biking legs
OTHO felt like butter yesterday so I did a longer ride than I had planned.
I'm not sure if the legs felt so good because I've done very little biking
lately, or in spite of it. My goal for the short term is to run frequently,
even if that means shorter distances, but to keep trying to do a longer run
every 2 weeks. I hope this experiment in more frequent running pays off.

-Tony

Date: 13 Mar 2006 22:03:04
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Still nursing and icing my left patella, which is getting better. Sunday's
run was the first time I was able to hit 7:00/mile on downhill without any
pain. Can't wait to race again and run some 20+ milers.

Mon: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy (8:50 pace)
Tue: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Wed: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy
Thu: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Fri: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy, felt tired.
Sat: 14 mi, 2150' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Sun: 13 mi, 2450' climb to 4700' elevation, 6" snow above 3800'. Charged up
pretty strong, ran first 3 miles down at 7:00 pace without any pain, then
jogged the steeper final miles back in (at 105 pulse).

Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.

Date: 14 Mar 2006 15:26:16
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:s_lRf.4395$Bj7.3688@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Still nursing and icing my left patella, which is getting better.
Sunday's
> run was the first time I was able to hit 7:00/mile on downhill without any
> pain. Can't wait to race again and run some 20+ milers.
>
> Mon: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy (8:50 pace)
> Tue: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Wed: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy
> Thu: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Fri: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy, felt tired.
> Sat: 14 mi, 2150' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Sun: 13 mi, 2450' climb to 4700' elevation, 6" snow above 3800'. Charged
up
> pretty strong, ran first 3 miles down at 7:00 pace without any pain, then
> jogged the steeper final miles back in (at 105 pulse).
>
> Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.

ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king of
the mountains for this group.

-Tony

Date: 15 Mar 2006 22:23:35
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com > wrote

>> Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.
>
> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king of
> the mountains for this group.

Nah, 100 miles that Trailrunner did (including 2 50k's in the hills, I
recall) tops this.

I haven't hit 100 mpw w/mountains since '84. I just might, for grins. But
some of it's gonna be ugly!

Date: 12 Mar 2006 14:18:06
From: Roger Walker
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
>
>
>
> cheers,

M: --
T: 7.7mi 1h21 trails
W: 4.7mi 46m
T: 7.4mi 1h07 hills
F: --
S: 4.4mi 42m
S: 12.4mi 2h44 muddy trails

Goals: 3/25 KUTS 50k, maybe Laurel Highlands 50k

Roger

Date: 13 Mar 2006 08:56:30
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Tony S. wrote:

> > Training:
> > Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> > terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> > little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> > run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> > impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> > certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> > any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> > http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg
>
> Did you do an out-and-back?

Yes. I wanted to do a point-to-point, by my wife did not feel like
driving to the next trailhead to pick me up.

Another thing that may have caused the "run" to be a little more
difficult than planned was that the temps got up to 79=B0F during the
time I was there. Being the first warm run of the year, I am in no way
acclimated. It seems like every year I do this. I forget that I'm
impacted by the heat and try to blame it on other things, then later I
realize that it was relatively warm. Another thing is that I still have
this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't run 100% of the
time, then it's not a run. When talking with other ultra runners when
they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

By the way, while I was there I encountered a few hikers on the trail.
One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.

> > Events:
> > 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> > http://tinyurl.com/avp9c
>
> Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
> overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and o=
ut
> of ravines. Ravine country can be a bitch. Your only mistake is to enter =
an
> event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's anyth=
ing
> like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
> tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
> seed for future madness and familial tension.

In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
strong. Waddaya think?

--=20
Phil M.

Date: 13 Mar 2006 17:54:09
From: The Trailrunner
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil M. wrote:

> In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?

Phil,
You WILL slow down at some point. The only question is when, how much
and for how long. If you start off conservative, you will minimize the
slow down to hopefully something insignificant and perhaps have a little
left to pick it up the last few miles. But if you start out with 2 hour
loops, you most likely won't be able to make up the difference late to
break 10 hours. You're fast enough that you should be able to run the
first 3 loops enough under 2 hours (1:50? without knowing the course) to
still stay comfortable and build a little cushion. If I were you, I
would certainly run that first loop comfortably slow, but then check my
time and adjust my pace depending on how I feel and that also means
faster. By that point, you will have seen the course and know where to
push and where to back off as well as knowing if it's your day or not.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/

Date: 13 Mar 2006 21:43:19
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote in message
news:1142268990.049780.16130@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Tony S. wrote:

> > Training:
> > Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> > terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> > little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> > run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> > impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> > certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> > any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> > http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg
>
> Did you do an out-and-back?

>Yes. I wanted to do a point-to-point, by my wife did not feel like
driving to the next trailhead to pick me up.<

>Another thing that may have caused the "run" to be a little more
difficult than planned was that the temps got up to 79�F during the
time I was there. Being the first warm run of the year, I am in no way
acclimated. It seems like every year I do this. I forget that I'm
impacted by the heat and try to blame it on other things, then later I
realize that it was relatively warm. Another thing is that I still have
this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't run 100% of the
time, then it's not a run. When talking with other ultra runners when
they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?<

My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills, it
becomes hiking, not running. On long runs, I normally run everything but
hills that get my HR over 80%. Once it goes over 80%, I hike until it drops
to the low 70%'s or the grade levels off, whichever comes first, then
repeat.

>By the way, while I was there I encountered a few hikers on the trail.
One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.<

No kidding. They say it takes ~2 weeks for the body to adjust to hiking
every day. I'd imagine the first 2-3 days are exciting, then the next week
is painful.

> > Events:
> > 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> > http://tinyurl.com/avp9c
>
> Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
> overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and
out
> of ravines. Ravine country can be a bitch. Your only mistake is to enter
an
> event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's
anything
> like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
> tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
> seed for future madness and familial tension.

>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
strong. Waddaya think?<

Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd be
thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to shoot
for a 1:50ish first loop and then see. You'll just have to take it easy and
go by feel, but just take those ravines really easy from the very beginning
since steep stuff saps your legs. Trailrunner may be correct that you will
slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and everyone
else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's definitly
possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least (who knows about a 100).
Relaxing on the first loop will be important, especially with a pack of 30
mile runners around you.

-Tony

Date: 13 Mar 2006 23:51:25
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
> My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
> it
> becomes hiking, not running.

I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
not hiking you're in deep shit.

>>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out
> with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?<

Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.

> Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> be
> thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> shoot
> for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.

And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!

> Trailrunner may be correct that you will
> slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and
> everyone
> else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's
> definitly
> possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least

It sure is and I do it in almost every 50k or 50 mile race I do. My
100's only differ by an hour or so and that hour can be caught up in
elevation and not dieing. In the race(VT50) your referencing, I
started running almost all but the steepest hills at 30 miles. At 35
miles I also picked up the downs. At 40 when I left you I really pushed
the pace. I was running 7:30's on the levels and downs from the last aid
station. John and Jacque also finished with equal strength maybe too
much.) John is running the VT100 and Jacque is doing Bull Run and is
sooo strong this year, she will dust me.

All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
done that!!! :)

-DougF

Date: 14 Mar 2006 15:42:15
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:1AnRf.16330$4%1.9792@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
> > My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
> > it
> > becomes hiking, not running.
>
> I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
> not hiking you're in deep shit.

Aint that true.

> >>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> > negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> > for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out
> > with
> > two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> > strong. Waddaya think?<
>
> Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.
>
> > Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> > be
> > thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> > shoot
> > for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.
>
> And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!

No, actually I think Phil's a strong runner, so I was implying see if it
feels too slow, but it's hard to pace on trails - unless he uses his
forerunner thing, which would be a mistake. In any case, I defer to your
experience, uncle.

> > Trailrunner may be correct that you will
> > slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and
> > everyone
> > else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's
> > definitly
> > possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least
>
> It sure is and I do it in almost every 50k or 50 mile race I do. My
> 100's only differ by an hour or so and that hour can be caught up in
> elevation and not dieing. In the race(VT50) your referencing, I
> started running almost all but the steepest hills at 30 miles. At 35
> miles I also picked up the downs. At 40 when I left you I really pushed
> the pace. I was running 7:30's on the levels and downs from the last aid
> station. John and Jacque also finished with equal strength maybe too
> much.) John is running the VT100 and Jacque is doing Bull Run and is
> sooo strong this year, she will dust me.

True, you moved it right out, but I think you were unique in that. My pace
slowed a bit in the last 10 miles, though when I looked at the splits Jacque
was pretty much evenly behind me by 7-9 mins the whole race, so while she
finished strong, she didn't make big gains like you did, since you finished
nearly 20 mins in front of me. Clearly the 5k she ran the day before (or
something) affected her performance or she would have beaten me that day.
I'm too much of a loner in my preparation for races. If I was smart I would
have run with your crowd from the start for the first part of the race.

-Tony

> All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
> laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
> little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
> done that!!! :)
>
> -DougF
>
>
>
>

Date: 14 Mar 2006 07:47:31
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:

> "Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
>
>>My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
>>it
>>becomes hiking, not running.
>
>
> I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
> not hiking you're in deep shit.
>
>
Hey, I resemble that ;)
(Can I help it if I had planned on one duration run, missed a turn, and
had a little extra adventure on a flat trail - flat even by NYC
standards. Not stiff the day after, waiting for day 2 to arrive. ;) )

Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk breaks
in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
relatively flat?

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson

Date: 14 Mar 2006 13:37:27
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:nyuRf.557401$qk4.323164@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk
> breaks in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
> relatively flat?

In a race like JFK which is miles and miles of flat toe path a walk
break on the flats may be necessary for the undertrained or first timer.
To take this to an extreme, 24-72 hour races on a track everyone must
develop a run walk strategy. For races like BR or the HAT there are
always some hills which one can opt to run or walk. Since some of them
are rather gentle ups the over zealous get carried away early and run
every step. These are the people that end up walking every inch of the
last 6-8 miles of a 50k or 10-15 of a 50.

I just love a race like BR. The first 16 miles is a rather easy out and
back. I get some perverse pleasure looking at the faces of people in
front me cruising along like a 10k. At 30-35 miles they are sitting in
chairs at the aid station or walking. Their zeal costs them literally
hours if not a DNF.

-DF

Date: 15 Mar 2006 06:13:44
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:nyuRf.557401$qk4.323164@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk
>>breaks in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
>>relatively flat?
>
>
> In a race like JFK which is miles and miles of flat toe path a walk
> break on the flats may be necessary for the undertrained or first timer.
> To take this to an extreme, 24-72 hour races on a track everyone must
> develop a run walk strategy. For races like BR or the HAT there are
> always some hills which one can opt to run or walk. Since some of them
> are rather gentle ups the over zealous get carried away early and run
> every step. These are the people that end up walking every inch of the
> last 6-8 miles of a 50k or 10-15 of a 50.

Got it. I had misunderstood the details of your earlier (as in prior
years) statements.

Yes, this was a new distance and duration for me - 30 min beyond
intended time (about 45 min beyond next longest run). Some muscles
started tightening (my weakest ones, obviously), and I just walked
enough to loosen them to avoid injury and to get some practice walking
on tired legs and eat a clif bar.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson

Date: 15 Mar 2006 12:44:43
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:sgORf.3340$tW2.2747@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Yes, this was a new distance and duration for me - 30 min beyond
> intended time (about 45 min beyond next longest run). Some muscles
> started tightening (my weakest ones, obviously), and I just walked
> enough to loosen them to avoid injury and to get some practice walking
> on tired legs and eat a clif bar.

Isn't this basic over-reaching and what training is all about? We inch
into the unknown, recover, and do it again moving the discomfort zone.
If we only had a crystal ball to know how much to train to get a
predictable result. :)

-Doug

Date: 15 Mar 2006 17:22:08
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:sgORf.3340$tW2.2747@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Yes, this was a new distance and duration for me - 30 min beyond
>>intended time (about 45 min beyond next longest run). Some muscles
>>started tightening (my weakest ones, obviously), and I just walked
>>enough to loosen them to avoid injury and to get some practice walking
>>on tired legs and eat a clif bar.
>
>
> Isn't this basic over-reaching and what training is all about? We inch
> into the unknown, recover, and do it again moving the discomfort zone.
> If we only had a crystal ball to know how much to train to get a
> predictable result. :)
>

Yep, except it was more like a leap, rather than an inch, compared to my
normal increases. :) It was a good confidence builder. I had planned a
recovery week this week anyway, and last night's run seemed reasonably
normal. Now if I can get the hills in there for that duration and then
some. . . (considering stairs or tm if hills aren't in better condition
by next week - ugh)

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Date: 14 Mar 2006 08:42:33
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil wrote:
> I still have this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't
> run 100% of the time, then it's not a run.

I've recently found this on the other end of the distance scale: doing 200m
reps on the track, yesterday morning I finally talked myself into walking
some of the recovery. Found that it had me fully (subjectively) recovered
faster, and also very conveniently a couple minutes' worth of slow walking
then very slow jogging covered the 200m to get me back to the start of the
next rep.

> One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
> were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.

What if they ran the first and last mile of the AT? Is it not then a
long-ass run? What more do they need to do, carry a pizza? ;-)

Date: 14 Mar 2006 07:39:16
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil M. wrote:

> When talking with other ultra runners when
> they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
I see others answered it.;)

Depends on the context. Did you "run" or "not run" your 50k? ;)

Up here it's usually obvious from the person or context whether "run"
means run all the way or run/hike. If not - *AND* it makes a difference
in the conversation - I ask. For the most part, nobody really cares what
you call it, although sometimes it's nice to know that someone actually
did run a particular mountain or a rough section of trail.

Races are about getting from one point to another. I could care less how
much the runners ran and the bikers rode the 350 mi from Knik to McGrath
- other than it was amusing (in a very sick way, but they brought it up)
to see how many miles they pushed their bikes. They're tough competitors
that did the 350 mi, and even tougher ones that are progressing through
a good old fashioned Alaska winter to Nome.
(read March 12 http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/LATEST%20NEWS..html)

For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.

My "run" volume includes run, snowshoe, and power hike categories -
anything that's directly relevant to training for races. My "total"
volume includes those plus xc ski, bike, cross-training (plyometrics,
machine usage, etc), and maybe some other things. It's the same aerobic
system, but different uses of muscles. I generally don't include "hike"
(with a recreational group that makes frequent stops and long lunches)
and "walk" (low heart rate) in my volume, but I like to keep track of
them and sometimes do include them, depending upon what numbers I'm
looking at.

My logging has 2 primary uses for me - progression toward training /
race goals ("run") and injury prevention ("total").

That's how I deal with what I call running or not - with great ambiguity. :)

If you haven't already, you might want to read some of Sue Norwood's
journal describing her AT adventure last year. She frequently comments
on how runnable the trail is - or not.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson

Date: 14 Mar 2006 16:27:03
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:EquRf.557365$qk4.55583@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Phil M. wrote:
>
> > When talking with other ultra runners when
> > they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> > they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> > hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?
>
> Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
> I see others answered it.;)
>
> Depends on the context. Did you "run" or "not run" your 50k? ;)
>
> Up here it's usually obvious from the person or context whether "run"
> means run all the way or run/hike. If not - *AND* it makes a difference
> in the conversation - I ask. For the most part, nobody really cares what
> you call it, although sometimes it's nice to know that someone actually
> did run a particular mountain or a rough section of trail.
>
> Races are about getting from one point to another. I could care less how
> much the runners ran and the bikers rode the 350 mi from Knik to McGrath
> - other than it was amusing (in a very sick way, but they brought it up)
> to see how many miles they pushed their bikes. They're tough competitors
> that did the 350 mi, and even tougher ones that are progressing through
> a good old fashioned Alaska winter to Nome.
> (read March 12 http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/LATEST%20NEWS..html)

I agree, in the case of a running race, that means it's a footrace.

> For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
> categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
> and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
> recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
> race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
> over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
> like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.

Ok, wait a minute here. Eating, taking pictures? Well I've never stopped to
eat or take pictures in a race, but when I'm training I always stop the
watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate my
stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time. I also do the
latter when I'm bike riding and do a significantly hilly ride; I deduct a
few minutes for the time I spent coasting down the hills. This might seem
silly, but since I record my workouts in hours:minutes it keeps me honest
with myself. But I agree on not sweating the percentage, that's why I find
HR effort a useful measure.

> My "run" volume includes run, snowshoe, and power hike categories -
> anything that's directly relevant to training for races. My "total"
> volume includes those plus xc ski, bike, cross-training (plyometrics,
> machine usage, etc), and maybe some other things. It's the same aerobic
> system, but different uses of muscles. I generally don't include "hike"
> (with a recreational group that makes frequent stops and long lunches)
> and "walk" (low heart rate) in my volume, but I like to keep track of
> them and sometimes do include them, depending upon what numbers I'm
> looking at.

I've always wondered what was the best mix for me of running, hiking, and
biking. In '04 I did my long runs over hilly trails at about 142-145 HR
average (75%ish), but in '05 I decided to go easier and did them at 130-135
HR (70%ish). This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
recovered much better. I used to worry - is this training "hard" enough, but
it seemed to yield great results last year. It also enabled me to do some
harder running at other times and specific hill sessions that I hadn't been
able to do in '04. Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
but I'm conscious of specificity of course.

-Tony

> My logging has 2 primary uses for me - progression toward training /
> race goals ("run") and injury prevention ("total").
>
> That's how I deal with what I call running or not - with great ambiguity.
:)
>
> If you haven't already, you might want to read some of Sue Norwood's
> journal describing her AT adventure last year. She frequently comments
> on how runnable the trail is - or not.
>
> Dot
>
> --
> Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
> yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
> Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
> your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
> achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
> conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
>

Date: 15 Mar 2006 06:53:13
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:EquRf.557365$qk4.55583@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>

>
>>For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
>>categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
>>and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
>>recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
>>race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
>>over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
>>like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.
>
>
> Ok, wait a minute here. Eating,

Slow to walk sometimes, while other times I eat on the run. No, I've
never stopped to eat, but my runs aren't that long yet. But many people
up here will stop at an aid station to eat, dry feet, etc since it may
be 38 mi between aid stations.

> taking pictures?

Less than 30 secs / picture, unless I take several.

> Well I've never stopped to
> eat or take pictures in a race,

While you may not stop to eat or take pictures, many people do. That's
where some of the web pages of trail run pictures come from. What I
think I'm seeing is that in races with frequent aid, people just fill a
trick-or-treat bag (I am being facetious about size) and keep running
and eat between stations. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that many
people walk, rather than run, while eating their cheeseburgers. When
people have long hauls between aid stations, running along in bear
country or cold weather, etc, when they get to an aid station, they may
take a mental break as well as physical and stop and visit. But that
does vary among runners.

>but when I'm training I always stop the
> watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate my
> stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time.

On my long runs, I usually have gps. I may subtract out the "time
stopped" number, if it's substantial. But for me, the total time is
useful for a couple things: (1) It meant my feet tolerated the wet
conditions of whatever for the longer time period, not just the shorter
one. (2) It gives a more accurate indicator of true pace. Race clocks
don't stop for eating, pit stops, trail finding, or whatever. I used to
consider them run/walks when I had to slow to navigate, then I realized
this happens in races also, so I stopped worrying about it.

Another way I deal with walks and stops is looking at volume on hrm
plots, with one setup I remove all volume below a certain hr (eliminates
stops, walks, sometimes unintentionally may eliminate downhills that I'm
actually running), with another setup, I include all volume.

On most non-long runs, my walk breaks are usually just long enough to
get by an obstacle or ice patch or whatever. My recovery walks are
usually on the order of 30 sec - 1 min, maybe once an hour. If there's
on-coming traffic on the trail, I pull off to let the skiers or bikers
by since it's easier for me. Those all provide little breaks, but I
don't keep track of them.

Sunday's run was an exception because of the wrong turn. When I realized
the problem, I just started incorporating walk breaks before I really
needed them, since I knew I was going to be out a tad (facetious
understatement) over 10% of my previous long run.

>This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
> walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
> recovered much better.

That was exactly my approach - walk to reduce recovery.

>Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
> but I'm conscious of specificity of course.

Right. That's why I'm concerned about the ice on hills. While I've
gotten some long, flat runs in, which are nice for some diversity and
easy running, I haven't been able to get anywhere near the amount of
hills I need. The time is there, but the quality isn't.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson

Date: 15 Mar 2006 15:26:05
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:tRORf.3426$tW2.1050@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tony S. wrote:
> > "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> > news:EquRf.557365$qk4.55583@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >>For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
> >>categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
> >>and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
> >>recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
> >>race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
> >>over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
> >>like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.
> >
> > Ok, wait a minute here. Eating,
>
> Slow to walk sometimes, while other times I eat on the run. No, I've
> never stopped to eat, but my runs aren't that long yet. But many people
> up here will stop at an aid station to eat, dry feet, etc since it may
> be 38 mi between aid stations.

Of course I was joking, I also eat on the run, though I have stopped for
lunch a few times at particularly scenic places. I've also stopped to tend
my feet, change shirts, shoes, and other things.

> > taking pictures?
>
> Less than 30 secs / picture, unless I take several.

I guess you get practiced at it.

> > Well I've never stopped to
> > eat or take pictures in a race,
>
> While you may not stop to eat or take pictures, many people do. That's
> where some of the web pages of trail run pictures come from. What I
> think I'm seeing is that in races with frequent aid, people just fill a
> trick-or-treat bag (I am being facetious about size) and keep running
> and eat between stations. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that many
> people walk, rather than run, while eating their cheeseburgers. When
> people have long hauls between aid stations, running along in bear
> country or cold weather, etc, when they get to an aid station, they may
> take a mental break as well as physical and stop and visit. But that
> does vary among runners.

Some races are more scenic than others, and most trail races I've done
weren't worth taking pictures. The VT 50 was scenic in a country way, but I
don't think it would have photographed well. The escarpment trail is very
scenic and I did see someone pause to take a picture. But, so far, when I'm
racing I haven't brought a camera along or stopped to take pictures.

I didn't mean to imply I always run while eating, or always stop. On
training runs I will often pause to eat, where I wouldn't in a race.

> >but when I'm training I always stop the
> > watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate
my
> > stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time.
>
> On my long runs, I usually have gps. I may subtract out the "time
> stopped" number, if it's substantial. But for me, the total time is
> useful for a couple things: (1) It meant my feet tolerated the wet
> conditions of whatever for the longer time period, not just the shorter
> one. (2) It gives a more accurate indicator of true pace. Race clocks
> don't stop for eating, pit stops, trail finding, or whatever. I used to
> consider them run/walks when I had to slow to navigate, then I realized
> this happens in races also, so I stopped worrying about it.

Point taken about race clocks and true pace. I don't try to estimate my
potential race pace based on training runs. I also don't worry about
run/walks anymore. It's just that when I'm in workout mode, I try to keep
myself honest about what I record in my logbook, and since I use time and
average HR as the main measure of each workout, I just stop the watch if I
pause for any reason. I also note the climb for each course these days (if
it's noteable) but that just points more to the type of workout. Time and HR
provide the measure for me that miles and pace do for others.

> Another way I deal with walks and stops is looking at volume on hrm
> plots, with one setup I remove all volume below a certain hr (eliminates
> stops, walks, sometimes unintentionally may eliminate downhills that I'm
> actually running), with another setup, I include all volume.

That's another way to do it, though I just prefer to do it in real time.

> On most non-long runs, my walk breaks are usually just long enough to
> get by an obstacle or ice patch or whatever. My recovery walks are
> usually on the order of 30 sec - 1 min, maybe once an hour. If there's
> on-coming traffic on the trail, I pull off to let the skiers or bikers
> by since it's easier for me. Those all provide little breaks, but I
> don't keep track of them.

I don't track walk breaks anymore, for hills, or to let my joints get a
break on long flat sections. In fact, they help keep overall effort (average
HR) down, especially in very hot conditions. Like Galloway, I don't think
short walk breaks are detrimental to training for continuous running,
especially for long runs. Mine tend to be random and suited to the terrain.

> Sunday's run was an exception because of the wrong turn. When I realized
> the problem, I just started incorporating walk breaks before I really
> needed them, since I knew I was going to be out a tad (facetious
> understatement) over 10% of my previous long run.
>
> >This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
> > walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
> > recovered much better.
>
> That was exactly my approach - walk to reduce recovery.
>
> >Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
> > but I'm conscious of specificity of course.
>
> Right. That's why I'm concerned about the ice on hills. While I've
> gotten some long, flat runs in, which are nice for some diversity and
> easy running, I haven't been able to get anywhere near the amount of
> hills I need. The time is there, but the quality isn't.

I'm getting hills in, but I'll have to either join Doug's crew or do some
other hill-specific stuff to prepare for escarpment later on. My long runs
have a long way to go also.

-Tony

> Dot
>
> --
> Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
> yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
> Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
> your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
> achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
> conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
>
>

Date: 14 Mar 2006 13:23:46
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Date: 13 Mar 2006 09:37:47
From: Teresa Bippert-Plymate
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio wrote:

> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
> cheers,

Goals: Local Grand Prix, keep up the speedwork and don't get
injured. Next for sure race isn't until April.

Mon: ~7.5 miles in Ca. Rainy, cold. But nice to get out in it.
Tue: travelling, no running. No speedwork today.
Wed: 5.52 mi @ 9:21 pace. 60F, strong wind. Both of us needed
a "work-destress" run, and it worked.
Thur: 6.3 mi @ 8:28 pace. 60F, windy. Felt really stong today,
yet smooth and relaxed.
Fri: Rest Day
Sat: 12.04 mi @ 9:16 pace, cool, overcast, windy. Rain maybe??
Ran decently, though just a smidge underdressed.
Sun: Real Rain last night. But DNR today due to other time
constraints.

Total: 31.36 miles

Teresa in AZ

Date: 13 Mar 2006 08:11:53
From: Daniel
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Mon 0 miles Rest - planned
Tue 3.5 miles 09:40/mile Includes 3X800M at 85% Max HR
Wed 0 miles xtrain -- mini trampoline 30 minutes
Thu 5.0 miles 10:52/mile 78% Max HR cold rain
Fri 0 miles Rest - nasty weather
Sat 10.4 miles 11:11/mile 77% Max HR hills (*)
Sun 2.7 miles 11:39/mile 70% MHR

21.6 miles this week. Nasty weather for this pampered Californian --
temperatures in the 40F's at usual run times with wind and often rain.

(*) Developed a blister about 6 miles into this run. Since I started
running in 2004, this is the very first foot blister I've had. Thought
I had something in my shoe, but no! It was a small painful blister
just behind the ball of my right foot. Very frustrating, since while
these were a new pair of shoes (had about 20 miles on them), they were
pair number 3 of the exact same same size, make & model that has never
given me problems.
--
Daniel
deltaechomike@usa.net

Date: 14 Mar 2006 08:14:15
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Tony S. wrote:

> > And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> > tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> > have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> > first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> > repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> > good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!
>
> No, actually I think Phil's a strong runner, so I was implying see if it
> feels too slow, but it's hard to pace on trails - unless he uses his
> forerunner thing, which would be a mistake.

I've learned that pacing with the forerunner is not much better than
using a stop watch. There are only a few things that I pay attention
to. One is the average pace, not the current pace. If the average is
over a long distance, it will be pretty accurate. Occasionally I'll
look at the grade, but it can be off a good bit. If I'm feeling crappy
running/hiking up a steep hill, I'll make note of the 20% grade if it
makes me feel
better ;-). By the way, I'm waiting to get my hands on the 305,
Garmin's latest HRM/GPS gizmo. It should be more accurate than my 201.

--
Phil

Date: 14 Mar 2006 08:03:35
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Tony S. wrote:

> > Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.
>
> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king of
> the mountains for this group.

Yeah, and probably 100% running. It makes me sick! ;-)

--
Phil

Date: 15 Mar 2006 12:59:54
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote in message
news:1142352215.202824.158630@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Tony S. wrote:
>
>> > Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.
>>
>> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the
>> king of
>> the mountains for this group.
>
> Yeah, and probably 100% running. It makes me sick! ;-)

It depends on what Dan means by climbs. :) I must admit he is doing
some very significant hill work be it running or power hiking. I have
been hanging at 50 miles a week with my elevation about 4-5K of gain and
loss. We are proportionally close and why Dan is finished while I'm
still enjoying my race. I don't think my old bones could handle much
more than 60 a week.

Also note, even if he is running all the miles they are shorter(8-15
miles) albeit consecutive workouts. I would say 98% of my runs are all
running. I only need to toss in a few power hikes to get my hiking
muscles ready. Some irony to ponder, I don't use run walk in the same
workout although I race that way. My workouts are either all running or
all hiking.

-DF

Date: 15 Mar 2006 22:27:41
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote

>> > Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.
>>
>> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king
>> of
>> the mountains for this group.
>
> Yeah, and probably 100% running. It makes me sick! ;-)

Actually, I hiked about 60 yards of it... :-)

Date: 14 Mar 2006 08:00:03
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > I still have this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't
> > run 100% of the time, then it's not a run.
>
> I've recently found this on the other end of the distance scale: doing 200m
> reps on the track, yesterday morning I finally talked myself into walking
> some of the recovery. Found that it had me fully (subjectively) recovered
> faster, and also very conveniently a couple minutes' worth of slow walking
> then very slow jogging covered the 200m to get me back to the start of the
> next rep.

Yes, I remember back in "the day" when I did speed training, especially
near the end of a session, I couldn't get my heart rate down low enough
unless I walked part of the recovery.

> > One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
> > were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.
>
> What if they ran the first and last mile of the AT? Is it not then a
> long-ass run? What more do they need to do, carry a pizza? ;-)

Maybe they were. Their packs looked big enough to hold a few large
hawaiin pizzas.

--
Phil M.

Date: 14 Mar 2006 07:52:28
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:

> So bottom line, While I tend to think in hours I mentally know the
> mileage and that is what recorded. A mile is a mile is a mile be it 5
> mpm speed on a track or 14 mpm power humping up a hill with 20+ grade.
> To me there is no difference and borders on extension of running vs.
> jogging discussion.

In a way, but I'm trying to maximize my training time by running on
trails that will best simulate the actual event. If i'm humping tons of
hills in training for a race that does not have tons of hills, then
maybe I should be running on a less hilly trail.

> OTOH, I choose my routes knowing full well if I plan to stress running
> vs. hiking. It goes back to terrain of the pending race. I would not
> train on difficult sections of the AT or Escarpment to do say the HAT,
> VT50 or Bull Run which is mostly smooth trail. This all goes back to
> specificity.

Yes.

--
Phil

Date: 14 Mar 2006 07:41:12
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Dot wrote:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
> > When talking with other ultra runners when
> > they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> > they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> > hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?
>
> Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
> I see others answered it.;)

In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at on
Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
Leadville. He'll do 25 to 30 miles. Like me, he said he is able to run
about 40% of it. So I guess it's just me trying to figure out what
people actually mean when they say they ran the AT. Next time I ask
I'll make sure to find out how much of it is runnable.

--
Phil M.

Date: 15 Mar 2006 06:00:11
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil M. wrote:

> Dot wrote:
>
>
>>Phil M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When talking with other ultra runners when
>>>they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
>>>they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
>>>hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?
>>
>>Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
>>I see others answered it.;)
>
>
> In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
> mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
> sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at on
> Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
> for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
> by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
> 100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
> runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
> Leadville.

Just FYI: Leadville is 100% runnable (except for stream crossings) - at
least by Matt Carpenter (check his race report, including goals for
2005). I'm under the impression that it's the altitude and relatively
short cutoff times (rather than footing) that makes it "tough" according
to what I've heard from people that have done it in other running
on-line groups. But again, it depends on people's perceptions.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson

Date: 15 Mar 2006 10:11:21
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Dot wrote:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
>> Dot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Phil M. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When talking with other ultra runners when
>>>>they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
>>>>they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
>>>>hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?
>>>
>>>Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical,
but
>>>I see others answered it.;)
>>
>>
>> In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
>> mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
>> sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at
on
>> Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
>> for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
>> by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
>> 100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
>> runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
>> Leadville.
>
> Just FYI: Leadville is 100% runnable (except for stream crossings) - at
> least by Matt Carpenter (check his race report, including goals for
> 2005).

OK. Checking my message from my neighbor, he actually said "The power
hiking is great for me because of the Massanutten 100 and the Hardrock
100 coming up." So not Leadville. Sorry.

--
Phil M.

Date: 15 Mar 2006 16:36:41
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Phil M. wrote:

> Dot wrote:
>
>>Just FYI: Leadville is 100% runnable (except for stream crossings) - at
>>least by Matt Carpenter (check his race report, including goals for
>>2005).
>
>
> OK. Checking my message from my neighbor, he actually said "The power
> hiking is great for me because of the Massanutten 100 and the Hardrock
> 100 coming up." So not Leadville. Sorry.

That makes absolute sense and was almost going to suggest either of those.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Date: 14 Mar 2006 07:00:48
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Doug Freese wrote:

> Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.

The elevation gain per 10 mile lap is 1,600 feet. Other than that, I
can't give you any more info. I guess there will be a steep learning
curve on the first lap. ;-)

> > Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> > be
> > thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> > shoot
> > for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.
>
> And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!

Running a 2-hour 10-mile lap will feel extremely slow. When I see how
much walking is required up the hills, then I'll know if it really IS
too slow for me.

> All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
> laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
> little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
> done that!!! :)

I'd rather finish strong than go for my potential best (and possibly
crash and burn). At least that makes sense for my first 50-miler.

--
Phil M.

Date: 14 Mar 2006 06:40:26
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

Tony S. wrote:

> >In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?<
>
> Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd be
> thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you.

Since this is my first 50-miler (and some would say first "real"
ultra), I'm more interested in finishing strong than in shooting for my
potential best time, and possible "sh*%tting the bed.

> Relaxing on the first loop will be important, especially with a pack of 30
> mile runners around you.

That makes sense. Let those 30-mile sprinters take off ahead of me. ;-)

Date: 14 Mar 2006 17:31:42
From: Tom B.
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.

goals:
Apr 9 - Clyde's 10K
July 8 - Grandfather Mountain Marathon

Mon/Wed/Fri - bike to work
Tue - run, 7.2 mi, easy/medium (45:xx)
Thu - run, 7.2 mi, medium (45:xx)
Sat - run, 11.4 mi, medium-hard, hills (1:13:xx)
Sun - rest

Started thinking about how to design a truly killer hill workout, along
the lines of DF's "Harem Hill" where he pummeled Tony. We don't have
anything like that here, although about an hour west near Frederick,
MD, there is a range of "mini-mountains".

Using Google Earth, I mapped out a course that climbs 680 ft in 1.75
mi, then descends slightly for 0.55 mi, then up another 525 ft in 1.5
mi. The two ups are each about 7.5% grade. Total climbing is about
1200 ft in 3.6 mi (7.2 mi round trip). If I can work up to 3 up/down
repeats on this hill without croaking, I'll be ready for anything
Grandfather Mountain can throw at me. Too bad it's paved.

Date: 16 Mar 2006 16:02:41
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006

"Tom B." <tom.banchy@gmail.com > wrote

> Using Google Earth, I mapped out a course that climbs 680 ft in 1.75
> mi, then descends slightly for 0.55 mi, then up another 525 ft in 1.5
> mi. The two ups are each about 7.5% grade. Total climbing is about
> 1200 ft in 3.6 mi (7.2 mi round trip). If I can work up to 3 up/down
> repeats on this hill without croaking, I'll be ready for anything
> Grandfather Mountain can throw at me. Too bad it's paved.

Excellent research. As for the paving thing, my experience is that it
doesn't matter on uphills since there's so much less shock. On downs, it's
another story...

Gentle advice from an Old Fart: stretch your calves if you're gonna ramp up
the hillwork. They can get tight, and that increases the pull on the
Achilles, and you know what that means. When I started doing my 10k climb
weeks a few years ago, I had all kinds of Achilles problems. I discovered
that just keeping calves loose with stretching a minute or two daily keeps
the demons away.