So I have started my 5k programme and so far it has been great for motivation, especially on 0 degree mornings!
I did my long run yesterday and ran 8km as stated in the training plan. 8km is a distance I have been doing fairly regularly so my speed was a bit faster than recommended in the plan. Even though I ran at an easy pace, it only took me 48mins to complete. The cold makes me a bit lackluster so I was happy to get back in doors and thought "I've done my 8km that's the long run done". However, when I went to log in my details I noticed a comment that the value of the long run is the time spent running (which builds endurance?). So my question is, should I place more emphasis on the time factors that are set out in the training plan or the distance? I had set my Nike+ to distance for the programme but maybe I should be just setting it to time and not worrying so much about the distance?
I hope the make sense, I am useless at explaining myself in posts! Any thoughts welcome.
Being a slow runner means I get to check out YOUR butt...
This is how I do it... http://nikeplus.nike.com/plus/profile/SarahinShibs/
As I understand it, the point of the base building aerobic phase is to build endurance and general aerobic strength. I focus more on the time of the run and less on the pace. As long as you are staying in the recommended pace range from the plan (and be wary of running too fast), the duration of the workout should be your goal.
2013 goals: run a bunch....race some.....repeat...
Thanks JML, I went out today for the Easy Fartlek and just focused on running for 25 mins (ended up being 30 mins after the jog home). I also ended up doing 5km altogether which was a bit more than the 3km prescribed but I did try and concentrate on not running too fast and I just had fun with the Fartlek bit. (who knew it was fun!). I guess that is OK, I don't really want to slow down much more as I am recovering fine and feel good after a run...
I have a similar question after my first workout, I ran my easy fartlek this morning and did the prescribed distance, but ended up about two minutes faster than the suggested time. Not a huge deal I know, I probably should have just slowed down my recoveries a bit...but it did get me thinking about future workouts. If it continues to happen Girlontherun, I might contact Nobby and ask his advice, maybe your plan isn't quite at the right level for you.
Christirei, I wouldn't worry very much about the pace being too fast/slow for your fartlek. In fact, it may be a good idea to do it some times where you don't use any devices to monitor anything. Running by the feeling may very well add even more joy to the workout. I don't know what priority the fartlek runs have in your program but they are low in my marathon program, so emphasis from my side is try to get in the runs with the highest priority. For the high-priority runs (1-4)in the aerobic phase I run a bit too fast and always use devices here. For the remaining runs it is often without a watch and if it is fartlek or a slow jog doesn't worry me very much
As long as you stay within the suggested time and pace ranges given by Running-Wizard, you should be OK. I ran a 5 mile / 45 minute fartlek run last night that just happened to end as 5.09 miles / 45:33. This is much closer to plan than I typically experience with fartlek runs, and is more a result of coincidence than planning. I find that the key to the aerobic phase is to be mindful of introducing too much speed too soon. The speed and strength workouts in later phases will help the most if you have properly developed your aerobic base first.
I also recommend making a habit of using the recovery indicators on the website. I tripped into the red zone a couple of times in my last training cycle and used the feedback from the recovery indicators to rearrange the workouts that week take a needed rest day. While it is unlikely that you will go into the red zone in the early phases, it is a good practice to use the recovery indicator tool for training intensity feedback.
I haven't even really looked at the recovery indicators. I don't have a garmin with the heartrate attachment and I have never been in the habit of checking my heart rate. I can do the hours of sleep and stuff like that, my biggest problem is that my three year old has some special needs and while she mostly sleeps through the night, there are definitely times when she is up several times during the night or sleeping with me!! it's hard to be like, well...i was in bed for eight hours last night, but probably only slept six or seven interrupted hours...that's my biggest challenge with running right now! it is so hard to pull myself out of bed for a morning run after a night like that. anyway. i just did my first strides workout and it felt great. really enjoyed the workout and kept them nice and easy with plenty of recovery time. i had never done strides like that, so it was a pleasant surprise that i enjoyed them today!
I was taught the 'check your resting heart rate when you first wake up' trick by my high school cross country coach. His theory that if you were more than 5 BPM away from your normal resting heart rate, you were still recovering from the last hard workout and should skip a day or take it easy. Using this method, he was able to correctly adjust the workouts for a bunch of high school runners who would always run fast if left to their own devices. As a result, we all improved throughout the season and burn out was minimized.
Running-Wizard adds two other variables to the equation and performs a calculation to come up with the indicator. It is a fair indication of your condition. When I tripped into the red zone in the past, I was definitely not ready for another workout, and the recommended rest day probably saved me from having a bad run and wearing myself down more.
I purchased a cheap HRM from Amazon so I can measure my HR as soon as I wake up in the morning before I get out of bed. When I travel, I just check the pulse on my wrist for 10 seconds and multiply by six.
As to sleep.....I share your challenge. I commute for 3+ hours per day which makes getting enough sleep a problem. If only I had back all the free time I had in college........
I don't bother to use the recovery indicators. I think that it is far more important to just feel with yourself what your body is up to. Sometimes, I'm tired, even when I have slept well, when I go for a run and then take it easy. Other times, I feel terrific even though I have hardly slept and can do very tough interval training.
Even here in the relatively early phases of my plan, some of the work-outs are quite tough for me. The mileage is high and also peaks in the aerobic phase. I'm looking forward to the hill phase which starts in less than a month. I really love speed.
I try to remember to measure my pulse in the morning but I usually oversleep and have to jump on and operate in crisis mode. I also have a 3 hour roundtrip commute to work (UGH!) so time management is a struggle.
All time PR: 1:20 HM. 2:49 M
2013 goal: Master's PR HM Recover from illness/finish the year strong
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
My assumption is also that TIME spent running should be the focus more than distance. It will be tough for me, but my goal in following the program is to run for the prescribed time, keeping my HR in the prescribed range during this time, and letting the resulting mileage and pace be whatever they turn out to be. This is tough because my mileage graphs have been a great source of motivation for me, and I have a sense of what my weekly and monthly mileage numbers "should be." (In a recent training cycle, if I was supposed to run 12 miles, I'd keep running around the block or the parking lot until my Garmin said 12.00 miles before I stopped. I'm weird that way -- or wired that way.)
I think the Recovery Indicators will be a helpful piece of feedback in this process as well. I just think that I'm the type of person that tends to "overdo it" if left to my own, and having something tell me I need to back off from my scheduled program when needed will be good for me. I don't have a good sense of running by feel that some others suggest, and I rely fairly heavily on the data provided by my HR monitor to keep myself from overdoing it during my runs. [Anecdotally, my resting HR had gotten down to around 53 bpm over the past 15 months of fairly steady running. Then, about 2 weeks ago, I got a bad cold/flu and stopped running until a couple days ago. My resting HR rose to about 63-65 bpm for the few days when I was at my sickest. I'm not sure if resting HR can be used to "predict" when you will get sick or advise of other problems before they occur, but it changed significantly when my body was under a lot of stress from being sick.] I'll continue to log the Recovery Indicators and follow the advice it provides. If I learn anything else of value on this aspect, I'll try to re-post here. I also added plots of the 3 indicators in my RA summary page so I could go back and look at trends, etc.
I may have an unhealthy obsession with numbers.
are you a mathmatician?? I took my heartrate for the very first time yesterday and am going to do my best to record my recovery indicators as well...see how it pans out and if I think it's worth it!
are you a mathmatician??
No, I'm a bigger geek than that!
Have you noticed that the Recovery Indicators (from RW) show up in the Calendar (in RA) as "Daily Vitals"? Well, at least sometimes it does. I think that's pretty cool.
I think SubDood already gave this answer, but: it's neither speed nor distance, but rather time on your feet (at the correct heart rate) at least during the base building phase. Elsewhere in the forums, Nobby mentions that time spent running is the main thing, and he originally wanted to just give times for the daily runs, but the final version also offers distances as that is the thing most people track (I did a forum search for running wizard and came across that post - sorry I don't have the link right now).
Hope this is not toooooo terribly late!! ;o)
Yeah, the emphasis, if you have to pick one, would be "time spent on your feet". Of course, if it says, say, 1:32 and the distance might be 9.5 miles, really, it doesn't matter that much...!! ;o) Seriously, if you ran 1:34 or 1:29, that wouldn't really make that much of a difference. And the distance is of course rounded either up or down. It's silly to specify the distance like "9.27 miles" or something. I think we just rounded either up or down to the nearest 0.5. We added the distance afterwards because most people are still used to distance and that makes sense. Many would say, "Hey, I'm going to run around the lake and it's 7.5 miles..." It's easy to "visualize" where you go. So if you do it that way and, even if the prescribed distance is 9.5 miles and you go over a certain course and the time comes out as, say, 1:30, if I were your coach, I wouldn't insist you go around 2 more minutes just to make it to 1:32. Just as we have provided the RANGE of duration, as well as the pace, APPROXIMATE is just fine.
As for Fartlek (sorry, I didn't necessarily read the whole thing closely...), if you're wondering about the pace or HR, it's, again, approximate and also it's a rough average. Naturally, if you run fast, during the fartlek workout, your HR would go up but then you're supposed to recover from that effort as well. I'd rather you do recover well than push too much ("if in doubt, do less") so we set the average pace/HR slightly less than, say, continuous Aerobic Run where your HR stays the same. Your aerobic run HR might say, say, 158 and fartlek 155; I'd expect your HR during the fast bouts to be, say, 170 or so but you'll then need to recover and, a rule of thumb for recovery is 120, may down to 120-125 or so. So the average HR might be down below 150. Again, it's approximate; don't think too much about it. Same with the pace for fartlek.
© 2013 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
| Terms of Service