GrooveTime!group - CLOSED!!! (Page 105)
-
No new posts
Moderators: alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 11:17 AM MILEAGE INCREASES Goal: Build To A Higher Weekly Mileage Without Getting Hurt Usual Way: - Start at your current average weekly mileage. - Increase mileage by 10% each week until you reach your goal weekly mileage. Better Way: - Start at your current weekly mileage. - Jump to a new level of mileage more dramatically, then stay at that level for a few weeks before making the next jump. Intriguing, eh? Here's the rationale behind it, in shortcut quasi point-form: -- Your body adapts best to a new level of stress by being exposed to that stress and consolidating the gains produced by that exposure before adjusting to more. -- Adding a new level of stress week after week isn't the best way to reset your mileage set point. -- From reknowned coach and exercise phsiologist Jacks Daniels: "Let the body adjust to something before we impose something new on it. Even if you're increasing only 10 percent every week, that's still something new. Your body never gets to say, 'This is where I'm going to learn to be, and then I'll learn to do it more or harder.' " -- Daniels recommends once you're ready for a mileage jump, add one mile to each run you do in a week. You could take the same approach with time, by adding 10 minutes to every run you do in a week. Then stay at that new level for three to four weeks before attempting the next increase. What do you all think about this? I've always been a 10 percenter myself, but next time I set about bumping up my mileage, I will try this, I think. Daniels has revolutionalized running about six times over, so what he says, I should try to do. Sir, yes Sir! Source: Running Times, April 2010 (From the column "Usual Way/Better Way"; no specific author credited) STEVE B - Great timing on this post! Having always been a 10%er myself, I had already decided I was going to do something akin to the Daniels plan in the next couple of weeks. I've been of the opinion that getting four or five 18-20 mile runs (or even a full marathon before the race) was simply not a good plan for me pre-IM. I just am too concerned about the cumulative effects of the pounding. I "feel" that every time I go above 15/16 miles on a run, I have a greater risk of a repetitive use injury that is not offset by the mental confidence of running 26 prior to the IM. That said, my plan all along was to keep the long runs in the 2-hour (13-14 mile range) and then these last few weeks, do a few jumps and then taper back. Recent weekly runs were in the neighborhood of 2x at 7-8 miles then a weekend at 13/14 miles. I figured this week I'd up my long run to 15/16 miles Next week, I'd do mid week runs of 9-10 miles and a weekend run of 17/18 miles The week after, I'd do a mid week run of 10-11 miles and a final long run of 18-20 miles Then taper hard for two weeks. Because of the timing of the HIM and the fact I'm doing a semi-recovery week this week, I figured I'd do a 2-week taper instead of a 3-week taper, but make that taper more significant than if it were three weeks. Thoughts/Opinions? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ME AND MUSSELMAN Two years ago I did DoubleMussel88.7. This is the sprint (750meter, 16miles, 3.2miles) on the Saturday, the half-iron the next day. I had good races both days, but ultimately felt that going reallly hard on the sprint cost me maybe 10 minutes on the half. I could never prove that, but it's just a feeling based on where I felt my energy levels were at during the half. I told myself I wouldn't do that again, and were I to do the half, I would make that count. This year I have been contemplating doing the sprint and not really thinking about the half. But in considering American Triple-T North Carolina (see below), I started thinking that doing a "double", such as Mussel88.7, would be good prep. So, I'm now into the territory of considering both - the DoubleMussel88.7 - and leaning towards that as a serious plan. I would likely make the sprint my "A" race, with the half-iron weighing in at "B", maybe "B+". Another scheme of mine is Fronhofer Tool Triathlon Double, which is an oly at 7am and then a sprint at 1pm, same day. That is kind of equivalent to what I did for the Chicago Triathlon "Triple Challenge" in '08 -- super-sprint on Saturday, then the sprint at 6am on Sunday folloewed by the olympic at 9:30am. And when I talk about Triple-T N.C., which is Oct. 8-10, here's what it involves: Friday evening supersprint Saturday morning olympic in the standard order -- S,B,R Saturday afternoon olympic, in skewed order -- B,S,R Sunday morning half-iron So, doing the "Mini-Mussel" (sprint) Saturday and Musselman (half-iron) on Sunday makes some sense if I want it to begin to approximate what will happen to me if I do Triple-T. Any thoughts, gang?? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 9:16 AM TRACEY again - As for the part about increasing your pace for each run, I'll be back to you in a while with another thought about that -- if I can find where I saw it! But think about what is in the above post -- training at effort, not pace. That's not to say it's the only approach or that I follow it myself....but I usually try to pay some attention to what the experts say! ![]() STEVE: The information here and in the previous post is extremely helpful! And enlightening... I'll definitely be looking for this issue at the bookstore. It never really occured to me to practice running drills. I've always thought that if I want to run faster/better, then I need to just keep running. I think I'll try the hills and other drills the article mentions. Anne says they work for her! (I have to say that I identify the most with Anne in terms of running - we both have neuroma issues and we both run around the same pace!) This is really helpful - thanks! Tracey |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() latestarter - 2010-03-30 10:12 AM thall0672 - 2010-03-30 9:12 AM latestarter - 2010-03-30 7:47 AM Hi Anne: Thanks for posting this. It's good to hear advice from others who've been where I am! I definitely want to avoid worsening the injuries I already have and of course sustaining any new injuries. I always thought I was in shape too, from years of aerobics, kickboxing, etc, but as you say when you take up running it challenges the body in totally different ways. What do you think of my idea (from an earlier post) of very gradually increasing my pace with each run? Thanks! Traceystevebradley - 2010-03-29 10:04 PM TRACEY again - . One caution I will raise here is that messing with speed can often lead to injuries; this is the case with me. I am very cautious with speedwork, at least with serious intervals. My speedwork is more along the lines of tempo runs, and some carefully-monitored fartleks. Ironically, however, i think that speedwork might actually help with your neuroma. I think I siad this before, but increasing your cadence will effectively reduce the amount of time your foot is in contact with the ground. There will be less "rolling" of the foot, which I suspect is one of the main culprits in neuroma pain. Just a thought! TRACEY, I agree with what Steve says here, based on my early experience with running. My learn to run 'coach' and several other experienced runners advised me to slow down initially and that realistically, AND to prevent injury, it takes pretty much 1 year of running before you see significant changes in your run speed. I was quite fit from strength training and spin classes and found the running easy, so went too fast, too far, too soon; but my body (tendons, muscles, ligaments) was not used to this new activity and I had a lot of the problems you hear about with runners - ITB issues; hamstring issues; hip; calf - went through them all. They can still crop up years later, if you don't take care with your run program and/or let yourself get carried away on your runs just because you feel so great that day and say - hey, I can run another 5km or do excessive speed work. You don't need to do ALOT of speedwork to see improvements. That's why I am overly cautious now if something happens to interrupt my running; I go back at it quite slowly the first 2-3 weeks. I want to run fast, for sure, but ultimately I want to be able to run for the next 20-30 years, so like to keep my my running distances and speed just where it needs to be to get the desired training effect. Another bonus to going at it (speed) cautiiously, is that you will continue to improve for several years. It will be disappointing to get the point where you know you can't go any faster. That's another advantage of starting to run later in life - we can only improve while people that have been running since their 20's are seeing their times get slower and slower. ![]() TRACEY, I read the following posts from STEVEB and I agree with him totally. I have read and followed that advice and it works. I don't try to increase my pace a little with each run. I would do 1 hill repeat session per week or every two weeks and do a speed/track session once per week based on my current 5km pace (not what I WANT my 5km pace to be) and as I mentioned, you need very little speedwork and it needs to be based on your current weekly run volume. I have a book that I think is great on giving you the distance/pace you should be working at for your speed training to SAFELY get faster. I will post that info for you later this morning. I followed it last winter from December to April and ran my first 5km in under a 6min pace (km) and that was taking it conservatively; plus my 1st 10km at pretty much the same pace. Anne: Thanks for posting this! What are the speed/track sessions that you do? Tracey |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() latestarter - 2010-03-30 10:18 AM TRACEY, This REALLY, REALLY works for me. Whenever I do walk/run interval training, I will skip in the walk and my run intervals get progressively faster. I always have negative splits in my training runs and races. For Stride Efficiency, you are working at one aspect of that with Chi. The article says that "Technique drills involve variations of movements such as skipping, bounding, and marching. These drills are designed to promote muscle fiber recruitment, improve nervous system function, increase strngth, and correct muscle and form imbalances. Go to www.runningtimes.com/magilldrill to see some key drills demonstrated." Okay dumb question: what is a negative split? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() LadyNorth - 2010-03-30 10:49 AM Hi, Tracey, You mentioned you were trying to lose some extra weight. If you lose that extra weight, there is a good chance you will be a faster runner. Most articles I've read mention 2 sec/lb lost/mile. That pretty much matches what happened to me - I lost 15 extra lbs and my 5k time dropped 33 sec. Of course, there are all kinds of variables that can affect your time, but I'm pretty sure the weight loss was the deciding factor. However, you also need to be careful about losing the weight gradually - you don't want to deprive yourself of needed calories when you're training. Anne is totally right about gradually increasing your speed. I think you should reassess your goal for the next 5k - maybe shoot for 10min/mile this fall. Just my opinion. Denise Thanks Denise. Maybe a more realistic goal would be to just do something under my current speed for the next 5k! I'd be happy with that. ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() SAquavia - 2010-03-30 1:10 PM thall0672 - 2010-03-29 5:59 PM SteveA: What a great race report! Total newbie question here, but what are the pink caps? I know the swim caps are different colors depending on your wave... (By the way, are cap colors "standardized" across races depending on the wave?) The bike course sounds like it was tough! I've personally never biked more than 25 miles so I can only imagine a HIM distance really sapping your energy and stamina (both physical and mental) toward the end. It's great to hear that you use walking breaks during the runs at your level of competition. For some reason I've gotten into the mindset that you don't really succeed at a race if you don't run the whole distance. As I become "smarter" though, I'm learning that that assumption is incorrect, and that to truly race smart you use the breaks when you need to. A big huge congratulations to you!! Tracey Hey Tracey - nope, no rhyme or reason to the color of the caps - it's just that this race, the pink cap racers followed my wave...which had a weird lime green colored cap. As for walking...I'm a HUGE fan of walking. I'm a Galloway guy all the way - standard walk breaks early and often to keep the legs and mind fresh. A little factoid: I ran this course at the same speed I do my training runs, and on my training runs, I don't walk. I really, sincerely believe that taking the time to walk for a minute or two every mile or two will make the legs fresher and actually let you run faster while you are running, and to run faster later in the race. I really believe that for ANY distance. I walked in sprint, olympic and now HIM. I'll be walking a TON in the IM for sure! LOL. SteveA: Thanks to you and Anne, I no longer feel it's necessary to run an entire race! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() manfarr1974 - 2010-03-30 1:22 PM Hey Tracey - I am with STEVE A - I have walked for a minute at every water station of the 4 marathons I have done (with the exception of the Goofy Challenge Debacle, where I think I walked the last 6 miles...SLOOWWWWLLLY...Ha). I plan on doing that at my marathon in May. I don't walk in training runs much really either (like STEVE A), but I do find that I have more fuel in the tank so to speak come the later miles if I do that. AND I get hydrated without choking on my water while running. Cheers, Mandy Thanks Mandy! I used to always feel like walking was "cheating" somehow. But in the end, it's the total time that matters more. And if I can get better race times by walking here and there, that works for me. ![]() Tracey |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 2:17 PM MILEAGE INCREASES Goal: Build To A Higher Weekly Mileage Without Getting Hurt Usual Way: - Start at your current average weekly mileage. - Increase mileage by 10% each week until you reach your goal weekly mileage. Better Way: - Start at your current weekly mileage. - Jump to a new level of mileage more dramatically, then stay at that level for a few weeks before making the next jump. Intriguing, eh? Here's the rationale behind it, in shortcut quasi point-form: -- Your body adapts best to a new level of stress by being exposed to that stress and consolidating the gains produced by that exposure before adjusting to more. -- Adding a new level of stress week after week isn't the best way to reset your mileage set point. -- From reknowned coach and exercise phsiologist Jacks Daniels: "Let the body adjust to something before we impose something new on it. Even if you're increasing only 10 percent every week, that's still something new. Your body never gets to say, 'This is where I'm going to learn to be, and then I'll learn to do it more or harder.' " -- Daniels recommends once you're ready for a mileage jump, add one mile to each run you do in a week. You could take the same approach with time, by adding 10 minutes to every run you do in a week. Then stay at that new level for three to four weeks before attempting the next increase. What do you all think about this? I've always been a 10 percenter myself, but next time I set about bumping up my mileage, I will try this, I think. Daniels has revolutionalized running about six times over, so what he says, I should try to do. Sir, yes Sir! Source: Running Times, April 2010 (From the column "Usual Way/Better Way"; no specific author credited) Steve: Do you know how the author defines "dramatically" bumping up to a new level of mileage? What would that mean for say, someone who currently runs 10 - 12 miles/week? Tracey |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hello all. Can anyone recommend a good running watch? I just want something that will give me mileage and minutes per mile. I'm not really interested in the really fancy watches with the GPS and heart rate monitors. Thanks! Tracey |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TRACEY - As for "dramatically", that would be the adding of the mile to each run. So, last week I did 6.2, 6.3, 6.3, and 7.4. That comes to 26.2 (hey! a marathon!), rounded down to 26. If I did 10% increase this week, then that would 2.6 miles more, bringing the target total to 28.2. However, if I add a mile to each of the four above, then that would give me a total for this week of 30.2 -- more dramatic than the 28.2!* As for a "negative split", that's a simpler concept -- any run in which the second half is done faster than the first half. Most serious runners, I believe, look to negative-split thier runs that are just steady efforts, at whatever distance. Negative splits are good things!!! * Playing with the math on this shows some interesting things, but I won't bore you with what I think I'm seeing. Well, I will say that the increases become greater in the "dramatic" method with the more runs a runner does in a week. In order to show a greater overall gain in mileage over time, a runner would need to run 5/6 times a week, as I'm claculating it. Conversely, a runner who runs 2/3 times a week will gain more miles over time by following 10%. However, the gist of the article is not just about mileage, but about doing it in a more prudently effective manner. I think! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 3:59 PM And when you referred to the "dang calf/Achilles tendon issue", does that mean it has started acting up again in the past day or two? Hope not! Well, it comes and goes, but with lots of stretching, calf raises, ice, elevation, roller/stick & compression, I have it pretty well managed. I think. I am running 3x/week instead of 4 or so, supplementing with biking & swimming (when I can). But I have slowed down considerably from where I was pre-injury (from 8:30/miles to @10/miles) which is frustrating for me (not doing much tempo work, not pushing it to save the leg). BUT I am running at least, getting the miles in, and not making the injury worse (on some days, it feels good). I can't wait to delve into Jack Daniels (not the whiskey) ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 4:22 PM ME AND MUSSELMAN Two years ago I did DoubleMussel88.7. This is the sprint (750meter, 16miles, 3.2miles) on the Saturday, the half-iron the next day. I had good races both days, but ultimately felt that going reallly hard on the sprint cost me maybe 10 minutes on the half. I could never prove that, but it's just a feeling based on where I felt my energy levels were at during the half. I told myself I wouldn't do that again, and were I to do the half, I would make that count. This year I have been contemplating doing the sprint and not really thinking about the half. But in considering American Triple-T North Carolina (see below), I started thinking that doing a "double", such as Mussel88.7, would be good prep. So, I'm now into the territory of considering both - the DoubleMussel88.7 - and leaning towards that as a serious plan. I would likely make the sprint my "A" race, with the half-iron weighing in at "B", maybe "B+". Another scheme of mine is Fronhofer Tool Triathlon Double, which is an oly at 7am and then a sprint at 1pm, same day. That is kind of equivalent to what I did for the Chicago Triathlon "Triple Challenge" in '08 -- super-sprint on Saturday, then the sprint at 6am on Sunday folloewed by the olympic at 9:30am. And when I talk about Triple-T N.C., which is Oct. 8-10, here's what it involves: Friday evening supersprint Saturday morning olympic in the standard order -- S,B,R Saturday afternoon olympic, in skewed order -- B,S,R Sunday morning half-iron So, doing the "Mini-Mussel" (sprint) Saturday and Musselman (half-iron) on Sunday makes some sense if I want it to begin to approximate what will happen to me if I do Triple-T. Any thoughts, gang?? WOW...Triple T sounds crazy tough...but fun! What you are saying makes sense to me - it would be like me using an Oly dist for a warm-up for HIM (kind of). The key is if you can be OK with doing a HIM as a B race and not really worry about the time (so not care if you are not 10 minutes faster than you could have been if you didn't push so hard the day before..) - focusing on the Triple T your goal race. If you can be OK with that, and you are sure you can be OK with that, then I think using the DoubleMussel as a training race for Triple T makes perfect sense. Good luck! Mandy |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 2:17 PM MILEAGE INCREASES Goal: Build To A Higher Weekly Mileage Without Getting Hurt -- Daniels recommends once you're ready for a mileage jump, add one mile to each run you do in a week. You could take the same approach with time, by adding 10 minutes to every run you do in a week. Then stay at that new level for three to four weeks before attempting the next increase. What do you all think about this? I've always been a 10 percenter myself, but next time I set about bumping up my mileage, I will try this, I think. Daniels has revolutionalized running about six times over, so what he says, I should try to do. Sir, yes Sir! Source: Running Times, April 2010 (From the column "Usual Way/Better Way"; no specific author credited) This DOES seem to make sense and worth trying. Thanks for posting all this great information. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 4:06 PM The bigger problem with it is arbitrary relaince on a nuumber system that has nothing to do with physiology. What do your muscles and blood vessels know about '10 percent'? Or miles, for that matter." YEAH! Oh man - that is right (to me). I need to get my paws on that article and read some more on this.... Thanks Steve! You are such a rock star! Mandy |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TRACEY, I was putting together a post for you on speed/work and pacing and having so much fun doing it, got carried away and then Internet Explorer stopped working after 20 minutes and I lost everything! ![]() Glad you asked the question to Steve about what would be a dramatic increase in the run. I was wondering that too. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 1:22 PM ME AND MUSSELMAN Two years ago I did DoubleMussel88.7. This is the sprint (750meter, 16miles, 3.2miles) on the Saturday, the half-iron the next day. I had good races both days, but ultimately felt that going reallly hard on the sprint cost me maybe 10 minutes on the half. I could never prove that, but it's just a feeling based on where I felt my energy levels were at during the half. I told myself I wouldn't do that again, and were I to do the half, I would make that count. This year I have been contemplating doing the sprint and not really thinking about the half. But in considering American Triple-T North Carolina (see below), I started thinking that doing a "double", such as Mussel88.7, would be good prep. So, I'm now into the territory of considering both - the DoubleMussel88.7 - and leaning towards that as a serious plan. I would likely make the sprint my "A" race, with the half-iron weighing in at "B", maybe "B+". Another scheme of mine is Fronhofer Tool Triathlon Double, which is an oly at 7am and then a sprint at 1pm, same day. That is kind of equivalent to what I did for the Chicago Triathlon "Triple Challenge" in '08 -- super-sprint on Saturday, then the sprint at 6am on Sunday folloewed by the olympic at 9:30am. And when I talk about Triple-T N.C., which is Oct. 8-10, here's what it involves: Friday evening supersprint Saturday morning olympic in the standard order -- S,B,R Saturday afternoon olympic, in skewed order -- B,S,R Sunday morning half-iron So, doing the "Mini-Mussel" (sprint) Saturday and Musselman (half-iron) on Sunday makes some sense if I want it to begin to approximate what will happen to me if I do Triple-T. Any thoughts, gang?? I think it sounds AWESOME. Really, once you've done as many races as you have, it's all about creating new, exciting methods of self torture, isn't it? LOL. My racing to date had been primarily the Nautica events in Malibu, and always marveled at those with the ability to do both races (Oly on Sat, Sprint on Sun). I imagine I'd need to take it soooo easy on the sprints and early OLYs to get through a HIM on the last day, I'd be walking the sprints. All I can say is that after this past weekend, I can't even begin to imagine completing that HIM had I done ANYTHING strenuous the prior day - much less 2 Olympic distance races. I think they should come up with a better name for those that complete that gauntlet - like TITANIUMMEN. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I can't wait to delve into Jack Daniels (not the whiskey) ![]() MMMMmmmm....whiskey. (I'm finding my two favorite lifestyles are in direct conflict with one another!) |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() http://www.endurancenation.us/blog/2010/03/03/coach-rich-ironman-st... /> <Gulp!> http://www.endurancenation.us/blog/2010/03/11/racing-in-a-box/ Reading the second post, I have a LOT of work to do. My mental game is nowhere near where it needs to be right now. Showdown was supposed to be about pacing and practicing pacing - none of which I actually did. I chased fish on the swim. I paced cyclists passing me ("keep him in your sights - don't let him disappear on the horizon"). And ran at a pace that I have no chance of maintaining for a marathon distance. Goal for the next 5 weeks: Try to find a box big enough for my inflated ego, and then bury it deep somewhere and run SMART training sessions between now and then. And try to find a set of blinders that I can wear on race day. LOL. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() stevebradley - 2010-03-30 4:22 PM ME AND MUSSELMAN Two years ago I did DoubleMussel88.7. This is the sprint (750meter, 16miles, 3.2miles) on the Saturday, the half-iron the next day. I had good races both days, but ultimately felt that going reallly hard on the sprint cost me maybe 10 minutes on the half. I could never prove that, but it's just a feeling based on where I felt my energy levels were at during the half. I told myself I wouldn't do that again, and were I to do the half, I would make that count. This year I have been contemplating doing the sprint and not really thinking about the half. But in considering American Triple-T North Carolina (see below), I started thinking that doing a "double", such as Mussel88.7, would be good prep. So, I'm now into the territory of considering both - the DoubleMussel88.7 - and leaning towards that as a serious plan. I would likely make the sprint my "A" race, with the half-iron weighing in at "B", maybe "B+". Another scheme of mine is Fronhofer Tool Triathlon Double, which is an oly at 7am and then a sprint at 1pm, same day. That is kind of equivalent to what I did for the Chicago Triathlon "Triple Challenge" in '08 -- super-sprint on Saturday, then the sprint at 6am on Sunday folloewed by the olympic at 9:30am. And when I talk about Triple-T N.C., which is Oct. 8-10, here's what it involves: Friday evening supersprint Saturday morning olympic in the standard order -- S,B,R Saturday afternoon olympic, in skewed order -- B,S,R Sunday morning half-iron So, doing the "Mini-Mussel" (sprint) Saturday and Musselman (half-iron) on Sunday makes some sense if I want it to begin to approximate what will happen to me if I do Triple-T. Any thoughts, gang?? They all sounds like weekends of torture to me! But really, once you're in the kind of shape to do those double and triple races, I'm sure it's immensely gratifying to complete them. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just got back home. Been out since 7:00 this morning for early morning swim, volunteer work, errands and THEN a RUN!!!! Ta da!!!!! My walk/run warm out didn't start out too promising - some pulling in tendons in back/inside of right leg, but it worked itself out so I did 3.03km of walk/run and then ran the 3.03 back without walking and absolutely no issues - not even the neuroma. Kept it slow, but I read Steve's post today about putting aside the ego, and even though it kills me to see that run pace in my log, I know I am being smart. I think I am starting to get optimistic. ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() latestarter - 2010-03-31 3:09 PM Just got back home. Been out since 7:00 this morning for early morning swim, volunteer work, errands and THEN a RUN!!!! Ta da!!!!! My walk/run warm out didn't start out too promising - some pulling in tendons in back/inside of right leg, but it worked itself out so I did 3.03km of walk/run and then ran the 3.03 back without walking and absolutely no issues - not even the neuroma. Kept it slow, but I read Steve's post today about putting aside the ego, and even though it kills me to see that run pace in my log, I know I am being smart. I think I am starting to get optimistic. ![]() That's AWESOME! Good to see the neuroma wasn't an issue - just run of the mill leg stuff. Heh. FYI, I don't think I've ever felt "good" on the first mile or so of ANY run - takes that long to work out the kinks, get the HR in order, get the stride right. I think for some of us, that's just running. :-) |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() SAquavia - 2010-03-31 6:23 PM latestarter - 2010-03-31 3:09 PM Just got back home. Been out since 7:00 this morning for early morning swim, volunteer work, errands and THEN a RUN!!!! Ta da!!!!! My walk/run warm out didn't start out too promising - some pulling in tendons in back/inside of right leg, but it worked itself out so I did 3.03km of walk/run and then ran the 3.03 back without walking and absolutely no issues - not even the neuroma. Kept it slow, but I read Steve's post today about putting aside the ego, and even though it kills me to see that run pace in my log, I know I am being smart. I think I am starting to get optimistic. ![]() That's AWESOME! Good to see the neuroma wasn't an issue - just run of the mill leg stuff. Heh. FYI, I don't think I've ever felt "good" on the first mile or so of ANY run - takes that long to work out the kinks, get the HR in order, get the stride right. I think for some of us, that's just running. :-) Thanks, Steve, You know, I think you might have a point. My husband often comments on what he thinks are my unrealistic expectations that I should have absolutely no aches or pains. ![]() You had mentioned in your race report having a special needs bag - and I was able to figure out that it is for special needs, ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ANNE - Interesting report on the day's events, and the thoughts that came out of it -- putting aside the ego (me too -- it's tough to do!!!), and starting to get optimistic. Now's cetrtainly the time for that to think about happening.....although in past years wiith various winter injuries, i have made May 1 the time by which optimism should start having just cause for existing. But if you can get there by late March or early April, then that is just soooo much better! As for special needs bags, that's something that is part of most IMs and many HIMs. At these events you are given two special needs bags - one for bike, one for run. At about the halfway point of both those legs, these bags are available to be rifled through for stuff you think you'll need at those points of the race. My s.n. bag for the IM Lake Placid bike had two peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches, and an extra bottle or two of fluids (HEED in one, Accelerade in the other), and I'm not sure what else. Some people will have some sort of pain pills in there, and many people have BodyGlide or Vaseline in the one for the run, in case a blister has appeared in the first 13 or so miles. Really - anything can go in there. I think my run bag had a pair of sunglasses, in case the overcast day turned sunny. Anything you might need, goes in the s.n. bags. Funny --- I have no clue what was in my s.n. bags for The Canadian Iron, even though that was a year later than LP and should be that much clearer in my memory. Straining my brain here, though, there was a p.b.&g.j. sandwich in EACH bag, having learned at LP that I was equally hungry for that on the run there.....and I hadn't packed a sandwich in the run s.n. bag. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TRACEY - Ack! I was hoping that some gizmophile would chime in about running watches, as I am not the person to ask. Since '03 I have been using the same watch, which is a Timex Ironman Sleek 50-lap. I love it because it has a low profile and is lightwieght and well-ventilated. It does any of the timing things I want it to do, but does not give mileage or minutes per mile. For the former I either estimate (I have a good sense of the pace I'm running) or, more often, drive the route I run and figure it that way. For the latter, i just do the math. The January 2010 issue of Runner's World has an article by Mathew Honan (the one "t" in Mathew is NOT a typo) titled "Time Machines", and thsat might be on-line at www.runnersworld.com; maybe in their archives by now? They discuss/review six models, and while some of them are GPSers or have heart rate capabilities, I will list them all anyhow and you check them out and discard them as you see fit. New Balance N8 Trainer Timex Ironman Sleek 150 Lap Polar RS300 Gramin FR60 Suunto T1C Nike+ Sportband I'm not sure, but I think for mileage and minutes per mile you're going to have to use something that has a GPS component to it. Of the ones above, the Garmin FR60 is listed at $99, and to get speed, cadence, and distance, you need to also buy the footpod, which is another $99. (My knowledge of this stuff, while sketchy, says that <$200 is a pretty good deal.0 That unit will also measure heart rate and calories when used with the chest strap, which is included with the basic device. In '03 and '04, I sometimes used a Timex speed-distance unit when I wanted to get fancier. This did the distance/pace/heartrate stuff, but it was not reliable in valleys and heavily treed areas. It was very much first-generation, and withoin a year or two was blown out of the water by Garmin. I think Timex still makes them -- much improved, of course! - but they can't compete with Garmin in that particular arena. Mostly, I just didn't NEED all that information. It was useful and helpful, but definitely not necessary. And unlike a lot of people, I never ever used my heart rate monitor during a race. I have pretty strong feelings about that.....but that's for another time, i guess! Happy shopping! (?) |
|