GrooveTime!group - CLOSED!!! (Page 105)

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?

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??

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

Anne:

Thanks for posting this!

What are the speed/track sessions that you do?

Tracey

Okay dumb question: what is a negative split?

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.

SteveA:

Thanks to you and Anne, I no longer feel it's necessary to run an entire race!

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

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

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

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!

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)

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

This DOES seem to make sense and worth trying.   Thanks for posting all this great information.  

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

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!     I will get this to you tomorrow. 

Glad you asked the question to Steve about what would be a dramatic increase in the run.    I was wondering that too.

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.

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.

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.

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,   however, was wondering what kind of stuff you put in it.    Should we all have something like that? 

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.

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! (?)