| |
Main
Date: 23 Nov 2006 10:58:18
From: Beginning runner
Subject: today's run
|
I'm not going to post every run I do here, just when something out of
the ordinary happens--like today.
When I was setting the Garmin this morning before going outside, it gave
me an alert saying that the sat. signal was weak, and asking me whether
I was indoors or outdoors. I said indoors, so it turned off the GPS
function. I naively thought "OK, it will turn back on when it senses
the signals after I get outside." *Doh* if the GPS function is turned
off, how is it going to sense the signals to turn back on again?
I ran 32'50" and walked ten seconds. I didn't have enough left in me to
run that additional ten seconds. Tuesday, I ran the entire 33 minutes.
However, at 32 minutes today, I had gone as far as I did in 33 minutes
yesterday. I was not consciously trying to run faster, and frankly for
most of the run I did not notice myself running faster, but when I did,
I tried to slow down to what felt like my usual pace.
The iPod, as usual, was wildly way off; it said that I had run pi miles.
(Well, it didn't actually say or read "pi", but the math geek in me
translated it to that.) There is no way that I can run 5K in 33 minutes
yet.
I wonder, maybe, if the HR monitor's signal is affecting the iPod gizmo.
I think that on Saturday, I'll leave the chest band at home, and see
what happens.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 00:37:53
From: steve common
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner <bogus@invalid.com > wrote:
>I ran 32'50" and walked ten seconds. I didn't have enough left in me to
>run that additional ten seconds.
Like Al Bundy said, this is probably nothing to do with physical ability.
You already did 33' so you can certainly do more, if sufficient drivers
are present (a rule-of-thumb I saw is "1/3 more" so you could run for 44'
mins at least, at the same pace or faster, before keeling over).
Seems more like you just couldn't see the point in pushing those extra few
yards (no current schedule to stick to?) and bailed. Ten seconds is
neither here nor there, yet this sort of dilemma presents itself to me in
so many training runs that I almost don't remember it anymore. It is most
noticeable when I'm not following a training schedule, like now.
Are we right or way off? Were you in fact suffocating-leg-burning-chest
heaving-effort-gagging-pepsiiiii (sorry :-) so much that 10 seconds more
were physically impossible?
All that said, maybe you did also run a bit faster than before (no onboard
electronics can sometimes help) and you got into the "scarey/unkown" zone.
Get the hang of that GPS :-) Better still, leave all the running aids at
home just once (who am I to preach :-) but run on a known, timed route
just to see how it feels.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 23:53:29
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <c0bcm2ph4c6g4o718o31ro2r5e32pbup7b@4ax.com >,
steve common <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote:
> Seems more like you just couldn't see the point in pushing those
> extra few yards (no current schedule to stick to?) and bailed.
Nope; I just ran out of steam. The previous 20 seconds or so were more
stumbling than running--falling forward, catching myself on the forward
foot, and repeating with the other foot.
Keep in mind that--as you noted--I ran faster than on Tuesday, covering
Tuesday's 33 minute distance in 32 minutes.
> Are we right or way off? Were you in fact suffocating-leg-burning-
> chest heaving-effort-gagging-pepsiiiii (sorry :-) so much that 10
> seconds more were physically impossible?
Just about.
> All that said, maybe you did also run a bit faster than before (no
> onboard electronics can sometimes help) and you got into the
> "scarey/unkown" zone.
Ah, but I did have the onboard electronics of the Nike+iPod gizmo that
I've been using since late July. And today, because I was holding it in
my right hand instead of having it in a pouch, I was looking at it from
time to time.
A friend told me that because I cut a minute off the distance compared
to Tuesday, the lack of those 10 seconds doesn't mean much at all.
> Get the hang of that GPS :-) Better still, leave all the running aids
> at home just once (who am I to preach :-) but run on a known, timed
> route just to see how it feels.
The only route would be the one I've been running. I'm going to have to
modify it when I add more time to the run. I know what modification
I'll make because these are variations on the route I used when fitness
walking last year and early this year.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 16:02:58
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Beginning runner" <bogus@invalid.com > wrote
> steve common <steven.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Are we right or way off? Were you in fact suffocating-leg-burning-
>> chest heaving-effort-gagging-pepsiiiii (sorry :-) so much that 10
>> seconds more were physically impossible?
>
> Just about.
If I don't finish a workout knowing I could go another mile or two at the
same pace without falling over, that means I did it too hard.
Adjusting my rule of thumb to your current situation, if you couldn't run
another 3-5 minutes after your target at the same pace without having to
stop, you're running too fast....Things fall apart in a hurry as you
approach your limit -- it's best to stay well below that point until you
have a solid endurance base, imo.
-- Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 10:13:01
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <SIE9h.3045$tM1.1419@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Adjusting my rule of thumb to your current situation, if you couldn't
> run another 3-5 minutes after your target at the same pace without
> having to stop, you're running too fast....Things fall apart in a
> hurry as you approach your limit -- it's best to stay well below that
> point until you have a solid endurance base, imo.
In most of my recent runs, I did feel that I could go further (but not
quantified) when I had reached my target time. Yesterday was definitely
different, and as you said, things fell apart as I approached the limit.
Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you increase
them?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 18:21:31
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Beginning runner" <bogus@invalid.com > wrote
> In most of my recent runs, I did feel that I could go further (but not
> quantified) when I had reached my target time. Yesterday was definitely
> different, and as you said, things fell apart as I approached the limit.
Also, sometimes you just have a bad day. When that happens, slow it down
(or walk -- sometimes I walk a bit and I run about 70 miles/week)
> Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you increase
> them?
Especially at the beginning (first months or year), you get better just by
keeping at 70-75% of your max heartrate. For most, this is a comfortable
and non-stressful pace, just cruising along in a steady state.
Even accomplished racers spend most of their training week in that comfort
zone, and only push it on their 1 to 3 hard days per week.
It is a common misconception that you have to push it to the brink in order
to improve. There are so many adaptations that occur with training, and
some, take years to develop. In addition, your tendons and muscles and
joints will take months to get stronger. Doing too much too soon invites
downtime.
At your stage, and congratulations on your progress, just enjoy the process
of getting in shape and the attendant side effects (weight loss, toning,
stress management, etc). You've hardly started, give it time. It's
exciting to make progress. Enjoy it, you can't rush your body's
adaptations.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:52:36
From: steve common
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
>Especially at the beginning (first months or year), you get better just by
>keeping at 70-75% of your max heartrate. For most, this is a comfortable
>and non-stressful pace, just cruising along in a steady state.
>
>Even accomplished racers spend most of their training week in that comfort
>zone, and only push it on their 1 to 3 hard days per week.
Yep. In the 8 week period up to my last real marathon, I did
87% of running time at <80% HRmax
12% 80-90%
1% >90%
Over the whole year I'll do a shade more fast stuff (cross country season
and harder 10k and 21k races) but the hierarchy is always around 80/15/5
or similar.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 05:40:47
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote
> Yep. In the 8 week period up to my last real marathon, I did
>
> 87% of running time at <80% HRmax
> 12% 80-90%
> 1% >90%
Shhh! Don't let anybody else know!
Before my last decent race in August I was:
80% ~75% easy
15% 80-83% hadd/solid aerobic
5% ~90% Speedwork
And I trained with almost the same speed profile when I was younger & doing
95 mpw.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:16:26
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: today's run
|
On 2006-11-24, Beginning runner <bogus@invalid.com > wrote:
> In article <SIE9h.3045$tM1.1419@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Adjusting my rule of thumb to your current situation, if you couldn't
>> run another 3-5 minutes after your target at the same pace without
>> having to stop, you're running too fast....Things fall apart in a
>> hurry as you approach your limit -- it's best to stay well below that
>> point until you have a solid endurance base, imo.
>
> In most of my recent runs, I did feel that I could go further (but not
> quantified) when I had reached my target time. Yesterday was definitely
> different, and as you said, things fell apart as I approached the limit.
>
> Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you increase
> them?
Different parts of your system reach their "limit" at different points. There's
a certain point at which aerobic system is maxed out (about 3k pace for me,
maybe about 1 mile pace for you), run faster than that and you will not
increase the load on your aerobic system. Instead, other stuff picks up the
slack.
With some components of the aerobic system, the point of diminishing returns
comes well before VO2 max level. So for example, you can build mitochondria
at 60% vo2 max. Pushing harder than that will not necessarily enhance the
process.
So yes, you can ultimately benefit from pushing "the limits", but some (MOST!)
of those limits can be pushed without maximum effort.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:01:21
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <slrnemeo9a.6c5.abuse@panix2.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> Different parts of your system reach their "limit" at different
> points. There's a certain point at which aerobic system is maxed out
> (about 3k pace for me, maybe about 1 mile pace for you), run faster
> than that and you will not increase the load on your aerobic system.
> Instead, other stuff picks up the slack.
Here are the stats from my run on Tuesday, according to the Garmin 301:
Heart Rate Data Avg Low High
Heart Rate (%max) 86 65 121
Heart Rate (zone) 4.6 2.5 9.1
Heart Rate (bpm) 159 120 224
Heart Rate Time Distance Speed
Zones (%max) (h:m:s) (mi ) (mph)
Zone 0 0-50 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
Zone 1 50-60 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
Zone 2 60-70 00:03:16 0.25 4.6
Zone 3 70-80 00:03:44 0.28 4.5
Zone 4 80-90 00:21:44 1.53 4.2
Zone 5 90-100 00:03:58 0.29 4.3
Of course each of those zones is cumulative, and not necessarily done in
one stretch. However, the stats are off a bit because the HR monitor
had some spurious readings, as you can see on the following chart:
<http://members.cox.net/beginning_runner/get.mb.jpg >
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 00:55:31
From: Dot
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <slrnemeo9a.6c5.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Different parts of your system reach their "limit" at different
>>points. There's a certain point at which aerobic system is maxed out
>>(about 3k pace for me, maybe about 1 mile pace for you), run faster
>>than that and you will not increase the load on your aerobic system.
>>Instead, other stuff picks up the slack.
>
>
> Here are the stats from my run on Tuesday, according to the Garmin 301:
>
> Heart Rate Data Avg Low High
> Heart Rate (%max) 86 65 121
> Heart Rate (zone) 4.6 2.5 9.1
> Heart Rate (bpm) 159 120 224
>
> Heart Rate Time Distance Speed
> Zones (%max) (h:m:s) (mi ) (mph)
> Zone 0 0-50 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
> Zone 1 50-60 00:00:00 0.00 0.0
> Zone 2 60-70 00:03:16 0.25 4.6
> Zone 3 70-80 00:03:44 0.28 4.5
> Zone 4 80-90 00:21:44 1.53 4.2
> Zone 5 90-100 00:03:58 0.29 4.3
>
> Of course each of those zones is cumulative, and not necessarily done in
> one stretch. However, the stats are off a bit because the HR monitor
> had some spurious readings, as you can see on the following chart:
>
> <http://members.cox.net/beginning_runner/get.mb.jpg>
Can you use your software to correct those values? It'll make your data
in your log much more useful to you if you can. (I've got Polar, not
Garmin, so not sure how garmin software works and can't help you.) If
you change those high points to closer to where the hr was on either
side, it will completely change the nature of your run and make it more
realistic - the workout probably wasn't as hard as it appears to be by
the numbers.
Also, do you wet the contacts or use some electrolyte cream to improve
the contacts. That might help with the irregularities. Mine is
frequently weird, esp. in cold temp, in the first 5-10 min, but seldom
has any irregularities in it later like you've got.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:30:17
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <7wM9h.351241$QZ1.22891@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> Can you use your software to correct those values? It'll make your
> data in your log much more useful to you if you can. (I've got Polar,
> not Garmin, so not sure how garmin software works and can't help
> you.)
I don't know what you mean by "correct those values". I can change what
HR range each zone covers, but right now I have it set to autolearn. Of
course, after only one session, there's not enough data for it to learn
anything. The manual says that autolearn "can automatically determine
your heart rate zones over a period of time and calculate your maximum
heart rate." It also says that I would need to spend "some time"
training above my lactate threshold for it to calculate HR zones.
I can manually set maximum to any value I want (e.g., from a formula
based on age and resting HR) and have it calculate the zones using
percentages, or I can set each range manually to whatever values I want.
I believe that when it uses autolearn, its initial figures are based on
my age.
> Also, do you wet the contacts or use some electrolyte cream to
> improve the contacts.
I wet the contacts with salt water. I spread the water on the contacts
and on my skin.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 23:54:21
From: Dot
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <7wM9h.351241$QZ1.22891@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you use your software to correct those values? It'll make your
>>data in your log much more useful to you if you can. (I've got Polar,
>>not Garmin, so not sure how garmin software works and can't help
>>you.)
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "correct those values".
Looks like you got better readings today, but what I meant was this.
Around 11 min, where you've got a chunk of time reading up near 225 bpm,
can you replace that in the file with something like about 150 bpm,
which appears to be close to what it should be (assuming you're not
having an attack of rapid heart beats ;) ) The revised readings may not
be exactly what they should be, but will result in a data set that's
more meaningful - showing that you really were running aerobically
rather than above your max hr. The low points may not be making that
much difference, but those 2 chunks of high hr really do.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 19:49:34
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <NI4ah.104800$Fi1.15834@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> Looks like you got better readings today, but what I meant was this.
> Around 11 min, where you've got a chunk of time reading up near 225
> bpm, can you replace that in the file with something like about 150
> bpm, which appears to be close to what it should be (assuming you're
> not having an attack of rapid heart beats ;) )
Not that I know of. I'm uploading directly from the Garmin to the
motionbased web site, and never have access to the raw data.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 01:24:21
From: I2Run
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote in message
news:7wM9h.351241$QZ1.22891@bgtnsc04-
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 00:51:23
From: I2Run
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net > wrote in message
news:beginning_runner-CA5984.17012124112006@news.west.cox.net...
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:34:48
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <fsM9h.3153$tM1.2454@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"I2Run" <no_i2run_spam@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 01:08:42
From: Dot
Subject: Re: today's run
|
I2Run wrote:
> "Beginning runner" <beginning_runner@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:beginning_runner-CA5984.17012124112006@news.west.cox.net...
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:44:37
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article
<uIM9h.351312$QZ1.160156@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> I'm assuming she did some hr test, but it looks like she's come up
> with about 185 as her max. I'll let her answer that - just wanted to
> give another data point here.
The 185 was calculated by the monitor; maybe even after only one run,
the autocalculate kicked in.
According to a formula I found on line, my maximum HR is 163 BPM, based
on my age.
The Max HR is 217 - (age * 0.85)
The percentage formula is (MaxHR - RestingHR) * percentage + restingHR
That says that 70% is 132, 80% is 142, and 90% is 152.
By the way, the graph was generated by motionbased.com after I uploaded
the HRM data to it. Unfortunately, Garmin still hasn't come out with
its Training Center software for the Mac yet, but Motionbased has a beta
Mac interface that seems to work quite well, even though it doesn't have
all its features implemented yet.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Nov 2006 00:29:21
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: today's run
|
On 2006-11-25, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> I think the formula you refer to has a SE of +- 10bpm. If you look at
> the assortment of formulas that are out there, you can come up with an
> assortment of max hr estimates (close to 20bpm difference). Some do
> estimate mine fairly accurately. The problem is, you don't know which
> formula is right until you either test it or try the zones.
It's true that some formulas are "crap", but to some extent one can filter
out the junk by looking for numbers based on sound methods.
Unfortunately, even if one found a "good" formula -- or even if one knew the
population regression line, it wouldn't help a whole lot because individual
variability is quite large.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 20:24:20
From: Dot
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <SIE9h.3045$tM1.1419@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Adjusting my rule of thumb to your current situation, if you couldn't
>>run another 3-5 minutes after your target at the same pace without
>>having to stop, you're running too fast....Things fall apart in a
>>hurry as you approach your limit -- it's best to stay well below that
>>point until you have a solid endurance base, imo.
I agree with these comments. Always feel like you can do more.
For curiosity, are you running at a "conversational" effort - can you
talk in complete sentences?
>
> Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you increase
> them?
Consider training is like a pyramid where you need to get lots of base
aerobic running. The larger the base, the larger the pyramid you can
build with other types of workouts. Aerobic base helps with
capillarization, more mitochondria, etc - the things you need to run
better. FWIW, some people run and improve for years without doing true
speedwork (anaerobic), but there is variety in their training. They get
better by building base and incorporating other types of workouts, most
of which are still aerobic.
Take a look at this: http://www.runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=5808
You might look browse some of the websites for other training background
or google for things like aerobic benefits. The process of looking for
these things is interesting by itself.
Good work on your progress so far. Those are just the first steps in a
lifetime of running.
Side note: At the time I was learning, I think I learned more of the
basics from books or my computer training pgm than from websites
(primarily because of the greater detail) or online groups (just get
bits here and there, not a complete picture, usually), then asked
questions in the group to try to understand better what was meant. BUT I
was one of those that became thoroughly fascinated with the physiology
of running - waay beyond what I needed for the basic running I do.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 14:17:13
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <UxI9h.100122$Fi1.56790@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> For curiosity, are you running at a "conversational" effort - can you
> talk in complete sentences?
I think so; I run alone, so I don't have anyone to talk to. But
sometimes I sing along with the music on the iPod.
> > Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you
> > increase them?
>
> Consider training is like a pyramid where you need to get lots of
> base aerobic running.
I guess that I should clarify something. I was not suggesting that I
try to push my limits all the time; I wasn't even saying that I ever
deliberately push my limits. It so happened that on that particular run
yesterday morning, I happened to reach my limit unintentionally.
Thanks for the link; it was both interesting and helpful.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 00:54:00
From: Dot
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> In article <UxI9h.100122$Fi1.56790@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>For curiosity, are you running at a "conversational" effort - can you
>>talk in complete sentences?
>
>
> I think so; I run alone, so I don't have anyone to talk to. But
> sometimes I sing along with the music on the iPod.
ok, singing counts.:) (I've been known to whistle - or more usually yell
to keep bears away.)
>
>
>>>Question, though: If you don't push your limits, how will you
>>>increase them?
>>
>>Consider training is like a pyramid where you need to get lots of
>>base aerobic running.
>
>
> I guess that I should clarify something. I was not suggesting that I
> try to push my limits all the time; I wasn't even saying that I ever
> deliberately push my limits. It so happened that on that particular run
> yesterday morning, I happened to reach my limit unintentionally.
ah, ok.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 18:33:43
From: I2Run
Subject: Re: today's run
|
"Beginning runner" <bogus@invalid.com > wrote in message
news:bogus-8152EE.10130124112006@news.west.cox.net...
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 14:45:22
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: today's run
|
On 2006-11-24, Beginning runner <bogus@invalid.com > wrote:
> In article <c0bcm2ph4c6g4o718o31ro2r5e32pbup7b@4ax.com>,
> steve common <steven.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Seems more like you just couldn't see the point in pushing those
>> extra few yards (no current schedule to stick to?) and bailed.
>
> Nope; I just ran out of steam. The previous 20 seconds or so were more
> stumbling than running--falling forward, catching myself on the forward
> foot, and repeating with the other foot.
All the more reason not to do speed work. You're already close to maxed out on
your "easy" runs.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 10:16:30
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <slrneme1c2.j6b.abuse@panix2.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> > Nope; I just ran out of steam. The previous 20 seconds or so were
> > more stumbling than running--falling forward, catching myself on
> > the forward foot, and repeating with the other foot.
>
> All the more reason not to do speed work. You're already close to
> maxed out on your "easy" runs.
*nod* As I said, though, that speed work would have been at a much
shorter distance.
OK, so my race is a week from tomorrow. My schedule calls for me to
race tomorrow, Tuesday, and Thursday, with a day off before the race. I
was planning to stay at 33 minutes for each of those three runs. Should
What changes, if any, do you recommend I make to that schedule?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:10:51
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: today's run
|
On 2006-11-24, Beginning runner <bogus@invalid.com > wrote:
> In article <slrneme1c2.j6b.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > Nope; I just ran out of steam. The previous 20 seconds or so were
>> > more stumbling than running--falling forward, catching myself on
>> > the forward foot, and repeating with the other foot.
>>
>> All the more reason not to do speed work. You're already close to
>> maxed out on your "easy" runs.
>
> *nod* As I said, though, that speed work would have been at a much
> shorter distance.
>
> OK, so my race is a week from tomorrow. My schedule calls for me to
> race tomorrow, Tuesday, and Thursday, with a day off before the race. I
^^^^ <- you mean "run", right ?
> was planning to stay at 33 minutes for each of those three runs. Should
> What changes, if any, do you recommend I make to that schedule?
None. Schedule looks great.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:02:10
From: Beginning runner
Subject: Re: today's run
|
In article <slrnemenur.6c5.abuse@panix2.panix.com >,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
> > OK, so my race is a week from tomorrow. My schedule calls for me to
> > race tomorrow, Tuesday, and Thursday, with a day off before the race. I
> ^^^^ <- you mean "run", right ?
Yes, "run", not "race"
> > was planning to stay at 33 minutes for each of those three runs. Should
> > What changes, if any, do you recommend I make to that schedule?
>
> None. Schedule looks great.
Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 15:15:58
From: Al Bundy
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Beginning runner wrote:
> I'm not going to post every run I do here, just when something out of
> the ordinary happens--like today.
>
> When I was setting the Garmin this morning before going outside, it gave
> me an alert saying that the sat. signal was weak, and asking me whether
> I was indoors or outdoors. I said indoors, so it turned off the GPS
> function. I naively thought "OK, it will turn back on when it senses
> the signals after I get outside." *Doh* if the GPS function is turned
> off, how is it going to sense the signals to turn back on again?
>
> I ran 32'50" and walked ten seconds. I didn't have enough left in me to
> run that additional ten seconds. Tuesday, I ran the entire 33 minutes.
> However, at 32 minutes today, I had gone as far as I did in 33 minutes
> yesterday. I was not consciously trying to run faster, and frankly for
> most of the run I did not notice myself running faster, but when I did,
> I tried to slow down to what felt like my usual pace.
>
> The iPod, as usual, was wildly way off; it said that I had run pi miles.
> (Well, it didn't actually say or read "pi", but the math geek in me
> translated it to that.) There is no way that I can run 5K in 33 minutes
> yet.
>
> I wonder, maybe, if the HR monitor's signal is affecting the iPod gizmo.
> I think that on Saturday, I'll leave the chest band at home, and see
> what happens.
Come on now. You are within ten seconds of your 33 minute goal and
can't muster the energy to run 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 seconds more? Your
progress has little to do with the physical. I won't bug you with more
replies.
Ja, das ist nicht risikolos
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 01:07:22
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: today's run
|
Don't you have a dog, or a teenager chained up in your basement that you
could be entertaining with these fascinating tales of joggerdom?
|
|
