Sub 1:30 Half Marathon in 2020 (Read 618 times)

flavio - I think you're right, more of a focus on being fresh this time.  I'd forgotten how much that Adventure Race 2 weeks before the last race took out of me

 

It's not about distance - One of NZ's top running coaches, Kim Stevenson (who I think may have coached at a US college for a while too) posted this opinion piece on the Distance Running NZ facebook page yesterday.  I kind of liked the sentiment to be honest - it's not about running a particular distance, it's about training hard to try and get faster at whatever distance you're running, whether that's short or long.

Agree fully.

One of my favorite anecdotes.  For a while, there were two notorious runners in our department.  Myself, and a 5:30 marathoner who had completed something like 50 of them, plus a bunch of triathlons and iron mans, and coached for Team in Training.  When first we met, I had yet to debut at the marathon distance,

This resulted in several awkward conversations where it was suggested that I let her coach me, so that I could start running marathons, and from there "move up" to the triathlon and eventually the Iron Man....

Jmac - C Keen can most likely explain better than I regarding footpods.  My understanding is that they have nothing to do with GPS - they measure distance by an accelerometer in the pod that measures the force of the foot plus the number of steps per minute.  Which sounds very untrustworthy, but those who run with footpods swear by them over GPS. once properly calibrated (of course, some self-selection there).

I will say that it is REALLY NICE to run and not think about tall buildings or overpasses or serpentine running paths screwing with your distance readings.

When you link up your footpod and your watch, you can enter in a calibration factor to ensure the accuracy (since everyone's stride is slightly different).  For example, if you jog two laps on the track perfectly in lane 1, you've run 800m  If you are calibrated to 1.0 but your watch says that you ran 790m (based on the footpod reading) then you need to set your calibration factor at 800/790=1.013.

My footpod was working well with a calibration factor of 1.016.  And then I installed a firmware update late last week (one that was actually pushed out several months ago - I was just lazy in installing it).  And that apparently changed the device's inner workings enough that my calibration factor was no longer good (others have had this same result, based on the Facebook page).  I did a quick test on the track yesterday morning, and the footpod was consistently telling me I'd run 410m when I had only run 400. 

So I changed the calibration factor back this morning to just 1.00, to see what that gave me for the track workout.  And that yielded an accurate result.  So I'll just go with that.  And probably think carefully about it/when to do further updates.

DW - without tall buildings, I don't understand a foot pod at all. I've never had GPS issues except when I'm running too/from Central Park. It feels like the foot pod just adds more uncertainty. I could see it mattering if you ran all your runs on a track though, but then you're literally running on a measured surface, so what's the point?

Flavio - that was a good write up. I actually have been running somewhat lower mileage (45-55 range most weeks) compared to my usual. It doesn't seem to be helping. I actually think the opposite may be true: more mileage would keep me healthier.

I do keep the workout distances based off of total mileage, so it scales up and down.

5K Tapering - anyone have tips on this? I rarely taper for them at all, so I have no idea what the proper approach is. I will definitely not be running any workouts the week of, but I'm not sure about the 4 days prior to the race. For a marathon, I might do something like 7 5 0 3, but I don't know if that's too much for a 5K. I was thinking it might be just right because my mileage is way lower overall in 5K training, so this taper is actually less of a percentage drop than it is for the marathon.

Corey good to hear from you.

Keen i can't get used to not seeing you log 10 miles everyday in complete straight lines 

RP haha yeah those videos sum it up. That kid screaming is deafening stuff.

The whole traveling to the airport through bumper to bumper traffic, trying to get there on time, and the nervousness of flying can send people over the edge.

Zebano the airplane incident was 2 days ago when I was leaving Christchurch.

Sleep is so important. When we sleep well we take it for granted but when we get into bad sleep habits its hard to break out of them.

Eating junk before bed is bad as those calories don't get burnt up. I can't drink beer after dinner thank goodness 😅

Mark thats so true. After my 11k people were like oh just 11k but they don't realize I'm running it at a hurt level thats so intense.

Flavio I did take the day off before my 5k. I'm not disappointed with my effort and time. It was looking to be 18.15 to 18.20 which is still the fastest I would have run in the last 6 years. I don't think i can be as quick as I was at 45. The aging thing is real 

Jmac with your light build the marathon is probably your best distance. You can still run a beastly 5k time with your big engine. I would scale back on the 5k training if there is a next time. If you are getting niggles and hating it then its too much. Thats why I do a pussy 5 x 1000s 

Darkwave your latest strava pic looks painful !

Flavio - I wish I had more boxes of Escalante 1 or 1.5s stacked somewhere, but I can't find any in my size. The escalante 2 is narrower at the widest part of my foot than either the Saucony Endorphin Pro or Speed, or the Nike 4%. SMH.

DWave - If you can find versions of the Escalante 1 or 1.5 (the only real difference is that the 1.5 is more breathable in the upper) they're great shoes. The trouble would be getting them again if you like them. 
I agree with your "races have the same amount of pain" philosophy. Short, hot fire vs slow roasting...

JMac - Stryd does use a number of accelerometers to calculate distance. Any given person may or may not need a calibration factor for the calculations to be dead on, but day to day it's much more accurate than GPS - particularly when compared to GPS on tracks, in cities, or places with poor GPS reception. A couple times now I've ran 50k or just beyond with Stryd and both times it recorded distances less than .25mi off from the actual, measured distance - less than 1/100th off. 
So far as the track goes, I like it for having accurate distances recorded for my log(s) for later review, rather than just for accurate pace/distance in the moment (I typically use effort/power for pacing, anyway).

Piwi - I'll get back to 10 milers, just likely a different shape than usual (avoiding chunky gravel on my usual route). I may take my time doing it, though. I may try lower mileage (maybe 55-60mpw) but higher intensity for a bit while targeting shorter PRs.

jmac if 7 5 0 3 has worked in the pst why change it? What taper have you done for the time trails earlier this year, and didn’t you PR one early in Quarantine?

oh and not all tracks are certified. Some are actually less than 400m. Hence the footpod. Now if you’re saying ‘why use a footpod on an indoor certified track with races hosted by the NYRR’ yeah I can see skipping out on the footpod.

footpods I need to take a measuring wheel to a few tracks, but then again I have reached a point where using a track is a hindrance. Footpod work great for treadmills. It would also work great for a friend. He is constantly ahead of me on digital runs, or more recently his mileage goes nuts and sends him to 65,000 ft. A footpod would be a new piece of tech for him, but I highly doubt he would calibrate it. I think his steps are short and his Fenix 3 is calculating distance using a higher stride length.

escalante at a shoe demo one of their reps said it wasn’t uncommon for them to hear the shoes were getting narrower. He blamed a supplier and said they’re working on it. I think they have new leadership in some department and costs are coming into play. Imagine how many ‘free’ shoes they can make by just narrowing each model a little bit each year.....facepalm.

flavio contact tracing. That was the new key phrase my governor said. ‘Download this new app’. NOPE. 700m loops sound nice though. For 800m repeats the finish line always moves so you can’t just run to a set point. Something I actually kind of build into my speed work during normal training.

Keen I’d encourage 50-60 mile weeks and a few ‘oh well. Looks like a 40’ since your daughter now runs with you. Might be time to hang up those 80 mile weeks for a short while. Winter is coming.

piwi my Governor apparently has flown to both major airports this week and has seen people not wearing masks properly, or taking them off when they get off the plane. I’m not sure if that is true since there is no YouTube video of it happening. It could be excellent to look back on in 3 years. ‘Remember when MASKS were a thing? Seemed much simpler back then.’

 

oh and not all tracks are certified. Some are actually less than 400m. Hence the footpod. Now if you’re saying ‘why use a footpod on an indoor certified track with races hosted by the NYRR’ yeah I can see skipping out on the footpod.

 

In DC, there are two tracks that are 320m, rather than 400m.  So 5 laps to a mile.  When I was coming back from a broken foot about a decade ago, I unknowingly did my first jog back on a 320m track.  I jogged a lap in just over 2 minutes and was really excited about how good shape I was in, given the layoff.  oops.

 

 

Foot pods - the other part of my question is: why do we need so much accuracy? Unless you're running a race that isn't certified, does it really matter if your watch is off by a second or two per mile? Again, I understand it in cities, or you're running weird routes with lots of hairpin turns. But otherwise, still not sold on this.

So...it doesn't matter at all to me if my watch is off by a second or two - I actually expect that.   I don't think you'll ever get perfection - being off by a second or two is essentially ideal IMHO.

But when we get into the 5-10 or even 20 or 30 seconds per mile range, then it does mean that I'm not getting a solid read on my fitness.

And for the longer workouts, that could mean a notable alteration in the distance covered during the workout.

For example, suppose my watch is overestimating distance, and giving me 30 extra meters for each mile.  So the watch reads 1 mile when I've covered 1579m.   If my watch reported 6:45 pace, that would mean actually 6:53 pace.    And if I thought I held that pace for 10 miles, I'd actually have held a slower pace for roughly 9.8 miles.  Definitely not the end of the world or something that's going to wreck my marathon cycle.  But not insignificant, either.

In the winter, my team sometimes relocates to an underpass where we do workouts back and forth.   There's no good way to properly measure the distance there, and the GPS reception is awful - you'll read about 45 seconds to a minute slower than you are running.  In the past, I just ran by time and guesstimated.  But it is nice to have a way to have the distance and pace captured on my watch. (I mean - isn't that why we wear Garmin and similar, instead of just running bare-wristed?)