Former Bad Ass
Welcome back jimmyb! Was wondering how you were doing. As far as treadmill's go, I have mine at 0% most of the time but will create the illusion of rolling hills by randomly increasing and decreasing the incline, usually between -2.0% and +2.0%. For each +0.5% I will decrease my speed by 0.1 mph which matches up nicely to Jack Daniels rule of thumb for handling hills. One thing you guys might want to do is check your actual incline. My sister in law was bitching about how it felt like she was running uphill on my treadmill even though the setting was 0%. I put a level on it and she was right. I had to put the setting at -1.5% before the level was true. Since the calibration just keeps bringing it back to this spot, I decided to trick the machine by 3D printing little pedestals that raise the back. Now I have a completely flat treadmill when I want it to be.
Welcome back jimmyb!
Was wondering how you were doing.
As far as treadmill's go, I have mine at 0% most of the time but will create the illusion of rolling hills by randomly increasing and decreasing the incline, usually between -2.0% and +2.0%. For each +0.5% I will decrease my speed by 0.1 mph which matches up nicely to Jack Daniels rule of thumb for handling hills.
One thing you guys might want to do is check your actual incline. My sister in law was bitching about how it felt like she was running uphill on my treadmill even though the setting was 0%. I put a level on it and she was right. I had to put the setting at -1.5% before the level was true. Since the calibration just keeps bringing it back to this spot, I decided to trick the machine by 3D printing little pedestals that raise the back. Now I have a completely flat treadmill when I want it to be.
I need to check mine because mine feels like it’s at 1% even though it’s at 0. But Sole said this new model mimics outdoor running more so maybe that’s why.
Damaris
Hi, Jimmy!
Ha, I just put the level on it and it's not at 0. The closer to the motor you run, the more "elevated" it is. That might be good for me, actually.
I shall keep it at 0% then.
Ha, I just put the level on it and it's not at 0. The closer to the motor you run, the more "elevated" it is. That might be good for me, actually. I shall keep it at 0% then.
Yeah that looks like you are already at an incline anyway. Probably more fun to move it up and down randomly though .
I've got a few races coming up in the next few months. Revel Mt Charleston Las Vegas in a couple of weeks. VERY downhill so I hope I survive it. Looking forward to the after party more than anything. After that, I'm running the Deadwood Mickelson Half Marathon on June 2. I ran that last year so I'm familiar with that course.
Still sticking to the Low HR Training. I haven't run anaerobically at all since January. I actually hit a sustained 194-196 bpm in my final interval in that workout for the last 3 minutes of a 4 minute interval. How in the world do people not prefer Low HR Training?
After all this time (a couple of years now?) I still don't see steady HR to pace relationships for 60 - 75 minutes as Hadd suggests before moving on to speed work. This is good news as it suggests there is still room for improvement without speed work (allegedly). Lately, a majority of my runs are in the 125 - 135 bpm range. I did 100 minutes this morning at an average of 125 bpm. I guess you could say I run much easier than the average MAF or Hadd disciple. It seems like every time I up the daily intensity over 70% MaxHR with a few "workouts" at 83-86% MaxHR that I just end up cooked. Maybe those "workouts" are just too long. They feel super easy when I do them but that can be deceiving.
Long story short, my new plan is to run at 2 efforts for awhile: "Dead Easy" and "Comfortably Fast". "Dead Easy" is the fastest possible speed that feels absolutely effortless. It's not a jog. It's probably just past the point where jogging transitions to running. At this effort, I feel no resistance and no stress in my legs at all. It's a very pleasant pace that feels like it could go forever. "Comfortably Fast" is below my anaerobic threshold and is in the category of "train don't strain" and "make your legs sing, not scream". I plan on doing about 2 - 3 continuous miles a week at "Comfortably Fast" and the rest at "Dead Easy". That's it. Pretty simple. So well over 95% of total miles will be Dead Easy and 100% of them are slower than the speed work in your typical marathon training plan. See if that gets me back on track. Oh, and we'll see how these races go too
Hey gang,
Been walking a lot. Almost done with all the manual labor on my plate. A few more holes to dig, some more cement to lug, etc. I'm not in horrible shape, just carrying around a bit of stored energy. Should be running more than just strides by the time the deep southern heat hits.
Hey gang, Been walking a lot. Almost done with all the manual labor on my plate. A few more holes to dig, some more cement to lug, etc. I'm not in horrible shape, just carrying around a bit of stored energy. Should be running more than just strides by the time the deep southern heat hits.
Got to start somewhere! All that manual labor should keep anyone in shape. Wow
Hi!
So, after my 4th DNFd marathon this year (so unlike me but I couldn't even run for 2 minutes before I had to walk and felt blah and horrible even at the beginning of these marathons), I thought initially I was burned out due to the government shutdown and me working and training at the same time. Either a mental or physical burnout, the treatments were the same: rest and recovery. So, I rested for a week (didn't help), and I'm just running low miles until I start training for Chicago.
Glad to find out, though, that it wasn't a depression which is one of the symptoms I was having, but Vitamin D deficiency, WTF. I'm genetically born and raised where we produced more Vit D than others but apparently my asthma meds and prednisone could affect it. I'm glad it didn't screw up my bones (mine wasn't THAT low) like it did Deena Kastor in the middle of the Olympic Marathon in Beijing (she had Vit D then too).
Anyway, that's all there is for me for now. Been running at MAF, mostly, with some fast running when I feel like it. Biding my time until I feel better. In fact, I already feel loads better than three weeks ago.
Holy cow, Docket, hang in there! Would have NEVER guessed Vit D deficiency for you. At least you know what it is! I'm pretty sure nearly everyone I live around here in South Dakota (family, friends, coworkers and myself) all could use some Vitamin D supplements during the winter months. It seems like everyone has been irritable and somewhat down having barely seen the sun since early December. Even yesterday was a high of 48 with rain all day.
For me personally, I'm running the Deadwood-Mickelson Half Marathon on Sunday. My first race since my DNF to avoid injury in Vegas Marathon.
Since race:
Week 1 - Recovery
Week 2 - 90.5 miles
Week 3 - 82.9 miles
Week 4 - 71.5 miles
This Week - Taper
Each week I've done one "easy workout". The "workout" is a normal run containing a segment with a total of 2-5 miles (all consecutive) at Sub LTHR range 152 - 165 bpm (78 - 84% MaxHR). In the last month my splits have all fallen between 6:20 and 6:35 at that effort range.
All other miles were run mostly between 125 - 135 bpm over slightly rolling terrain (-1% to +1% is a good estimate). Most miles split between 8:45 and 8:55.
I did one group run a couple of days ago of 7.3 miles @ 11:06 avg pace with 104 bpm avg HR. Now THAT is Low HR Training!
I feel extremely recovered and well prepared for this weekend's race. My only concern is the state of the path (it's an old railroad track converted to wide trail). When in good shape, it's basically like road running but there has been non stop rain and snow for months. They just plowed 5 foot drifts off it about 10 days ago but the trail usually runs off precipitation very well. We'll see!
Oh, yes, irritable? I've been like that for months...
Good luck this Sunday!
Just getting back to the swing of things here. I did the 2400m Hadd Test this morning to get a sense of baseline fitness as I ramp things back up.
I totally screwed up the execution of this test. At the higher HR's it was taking so long to get there that I ended up running way too fast, blowing past the target (by a lot) and then slowing WAYYYYYYY down. Well, that's not good... I guess next time, I'll just ease the HR up slowly until I hit the target. I'm not sure if he would take the average pace from the full 2400m or from the point that you hit the target to the end of the interval. Your average HR for the 2400m will always be less than target if that is the case so I'm not sure. I might need to do some digging on this.
Some data leading up to this test:
Have been nursing my calf muscles back to life after nearly blowing them out in April Marathon.
Last 6 weeks Miles Per Week: 45.4
Last 6 weeks Stryd RSS (running stress score): 254.3
For comparisons sake, prior to my last marathon buildup my weekly RSS would vary from about 490 to 650.
Results (HR - Pace):
140 bpm - 8:41
150 bpm - 8:04
160 bpm - 7:28
170 bpm - 6:59
180 bpm - 6:26
I will probably re-test in a few weeks or so just to try and get the process down. I wasn't as steady as I should have been but this is pretty close to my current fitness being poor. Have a lot of room for improvement for sure!
Hilltopper
Just getting back to the swing of things here. I did the 2400m Hadd Test this morning to get a sense of baseline fitness as I ramp things back up. I totally screwed up the execution of this test. At the higher HR's it was taking so long to get there that I ended up running way too fast, blowing past the target (by a lot) and then slowing WAYYYYYYY down. Well, that's not good... I guess next time, I'll just ease the HR up slowly until I hit the target. I'm not sure if he would take the average pace from the full 2400m or from the point that you hit the target to the end of the interval. Your average HR for the 2400m will always be less than target if that is the case so I'm not sure. I might need to do some digging on this. Some data leading up to this test: Have been nursing my calf muscles back to life after nearly blowing them out in April Marathon. Last 6 weeks Miles Per Week: 45.4 Last 6 weeks Stryd RSS (running stress score): 254.3 For comparisons sake, prior to my last marathon buildup my weekly RSS would vary from about 490 to 650. Results (HR - Pace): 140 bpm - 8:41 150 bpm - 8:04 160 bpm - 7:28 170 bpm - 6:59 180 bpm - 6:26 I will probably re-test in a few weeks or so just to try and get the process down. I wasn't as steady as I should have been but this is pretty close to my current fitness being poor. Have a lot of room for improvement for sure!
I'd be interested to see what this HADD test looks like side by side with your last one before calf injury.
I think I have said this before:When I test myself in running or rowing, I set a power or pace target and let my HR be the result of the test - as opposed to setting a HR target and let power or pace be the result of the test.
The advantage of this approach is that I will not get those large variations in intensity while I chase a certain HR target and all the time overshoot/undershoot.So how about doing this instead:
2400 meters at 8:30 min./mile
2400 meters at 8:00 min./mile
2400 meters at 7:30 min./mile
2400 meters at 7:00 min./mile
2400 meters at 6:30 min./mile
Then your HRs for the 5 rounds will be the result of the test, and you can compare those HRs to the next time you do the test.
Me too... I wasn't doing them. Which in hindsight was ridiculous considering how easy they are to do. It's also a tremendous speed workout so you just swap it out for a different speed workout. This data is probably "bad" anyway because I was overshooting and undershooting target anyway. I re-read the procedure and he says to "On each new stage slowly edge the HR up (ie: it is ok if the HR takes the first 600-800m to reach target level), then simply maintain HR". OOOPSIE, WHOOPSIE!!
Pace Variability:
140 - Flat Graph
150 - Flat Graph
160 - First 3 minutes - 7:06; 3 minute stretch to bring HR down - 7:42
170 - First 4 minutes - 6:32; 2 minute stretch to bring HR down - 7:35
180 - First 4 minutes - 6:06; Last 2 minutes to bring HR down - 7:05
So yeah, I could have done that a LOT better...
Moral of the story? Follow the process in bold underscore above. It could easily take 600 to 800m to hit 180bpm. What I don't know is if the Pace of interest is from that point to the end or the full 2400m.
What do you guys think??
I think I have said this before:When I test myself in running or rowing, I set a power or pace target and let my HR be the result of the test - as opposed to setting a HR target and let power or pace be the result of the test. The advantage of this approach is that I will not get those large variations in intensity while I chase a certain HR target and all the time overshoot/undershoot.So how about doing this instead: 2400 meters at 8:30 min./mile 2400 meters at 8:00 min./mile 2400 meters at 7:30 min./mile 2400 meters at 7:00 min./mile 2400 meters at 6:30 min./mile Then your HRs for the 5 rounds will be the result of the test, and you can compare those HRs to the next time you do the test.
Allan, you evil genius. I'm pretty good at nailing paces/power targets. I suppose if 6:30 per mile suddenly got to some low average HR (wouldn't that be something), then I could simply increase the target to something faster. You know things are good if that happens.
I'll put some thought into this and discuss it with some of my buddies and see what they think about it. Right now, I'm leaning toward following your advice.
I'm training for the Chicago marathon at completed Week 3 (I think) and my coach had me doing a 5K on the TM to see where I was at during Week 2. It was really hard and I had to step off the TM twice for 1-2 seconds to breathe, but I ran what I was hoping to run. I do find very interesting how I can't raise my HR on the TM as compared to outside, but you know my outside conditions is way more humid than indoors:Here is the time trial I did:
Here is my PR 5K years ago outside in feels like WTF:
So technically, I should have been able to run faster per the HR, but I couldn't run any faster than I did on the TM. But still, very happy with that time because that's comparable to the HMP and MP goals I wanted to train with.