Fast Twitch Tri-FULL (Page 38)

MIKE - that's terrific!  Being able to up the cadence and not have to always think, "OK, faster faster faster" is great.  I suspect that this will both translate into and help even more with increases in speed (at a given HR/wattage and overall) in the coming season.

The gizmos are great - DATA!!  (but remember to have fun every now and then, too - that's one I keep repeating to myself). 

Matt

• pedal revolutions on the bike

• arm strokes when swimming

Wayne,

I just finished my first a month ago. There is a post about it 4-5 pages back. Mine wasn't pretty for various reasons. 

Can you finish the race? Yes, almost certainly. Assuming you can ramp up your mileage a little each week and avoid injury you might even be able to finish it comfortably with minimal walking. My only advice is not to show up on race day with a pace in mind. I'd just say run at the pace you feel. Next time you will have a pace to shoot for based on your results this time.

Good luck.

DOUG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading your post to Wayne, I was starteld to see a reference to an unpretty h-m you did.  So I just bopped back through the pages, and find a loooooong one from you on page 43.  I am so sorry to have missed this, and I will set to reading it, thinking about it, and responding asap.  My apologies!!!

I've heard great things about the Virginia Beach Half Marathon St. Patrick's Day weekend.  Huge field, pancake flat.  I've heard it's crazy fun, and while it won't be 80 degrees (well, probably...we can get some weird weather in the mid-Atlantic in March) it'll be fairly warm.

DOUG again (and at long last!) -

Your post was a very bad one for me to miss.  There is a ton of stuff in it, ranging from pacing to apparel to nutrition to weightgain to recovery to....to....to.......

First, though, of course I'm very sorry that conditions conspired to undermine the half-marathon in such decisive fashion.  Pretty much everything that could go wrong did, and as I think about it quickly --- I think you trumped my worst-ever day.  (That doesn't give you much more than the harsh chill of Cold Comfort, does it?).  I think you did the wisest thing in shutting it all down for a while there, and as yours was written on the 7th --- are you still in shut-down mode?

This is the time to get fully recovered and recharged, and while many of us think of January as the ideal time to start working towards race season, there is no iron-clad law about that.  And as doing a h-m is no mean feat, the timing of yours is good reason to extend your break however long is needed to get the ankle and shoulder back in working condition.

Second (and this is also kind of Cold Comfort), you will emerge from this episode having learned a great deal about yourself, and training, and racing.  Races that "go south" can be devastating at the time and carry lingering effects that prolong the psychological misery.........but in time the lessons begin to emerge and can confer valuable lessons that a good or even great race don't provide.  I really mean that.  The ten or so crap-filled races I have had taught me far more than any of the many more that unfolded fine or even really well.  That's NOT to say I relish having gone through those lousy-but-lessonful races, but at least there were plenty of silver linings to the clouds.

Third, your final couple of paragraphs suggest that you have worked your way through some of this already, and given what I know of you -- I am not at all surprised.  You seem to have performed any number of candid assessments and reality checks already, which is always a good process to do sooner rather than later.  And now, nine days after your post, i hope your head is in an even better spot!

The computer is acting sketchy.  I'll post this and be right back.

DOUG once more -

I'll address your points in the order you presented them:

1. I'm trying to get the time-frame in place, but I don;t think I've done it well.  I see the admirable 12-miler there, and then I sense there were several weeks between that run and the h-m.  I know there was the ankle-roll in there, and the 5km...and I wonder about a week or two without much to do except favor the ankle.  If so, then yes --- you lost the key weeks leading up to the half-marathon.  BIG factor!  (More later)
2. Given that time off, yes, 7:45 might not have been realistic.  I think at one point it was realistic for you, but at least as these things apply to me --- time lost in the late stages of training almost always requires a gut-wrenching lowering of expectations.  (More later)
3. Good line about recycled cheese graters; I'm glad you can joke about that!!  But nipple chafing is awful, and thank goodness it gas only happened to me two or three times, and never extreme.  There a re simple products for this, available at running shops, with the best being adhesive-backed "dounts" -- small, but enough to elevate and keep suspect shirts from rubbing.  Some guys are plagued with this problem, and it can really affect them on warm and rainy days.  I have seen more than my share of bloody-fronted shirts, to be sure!  The other option to those donut things is simply tape -- put a tiny piece of tissue on the center of the underside so it doesn't stick to the nipple, and away you go.  Depending on how hirsute you are you may not to do a bit of possibly provocative shaving so the tape will stick, but hey -- desperate times call for desperate measures!   And then there is the Santa shirt, which kind of falls into the category of Never Try Something New On Race Day -- be it made of cheese graters or not!  And that it ended up with that shirt being worn next to the skin was just bad luck, the result of a weather forecast go rogue.  But as far as misplaying that aspect..............that happens.  You can be damned if you do and damned if you don't, and in your case you just got screwed by it getting hot.  Your initial thought to avoid getting too cold was sound, but now you might need to rethink how the strategy you used can be jiggered in the future.  One common way is to wear a throw-away long-sleeve shirt on top, and ditch it either just before the start or at the first aid station.  in fact, i have a few old long-sleeves that are now relegated to that purpose alone --- for a race in which the start will be cold but the forecast calls for fairly quick warming.  Races with 9-10 a.m. starts can be wicked in that regard; what was the start time of yours?
4. Oh, yes, altered mechanics almost certainly came into play.  I can't say that the big blisted was the result of this -- but why not.  Blisters can sprout from nothing, so if you add just a slight change in landing position of the affecetd foot.......there you go!  And multiply a single footfall by however many strides that foot made in 13.1 miles, and the recipe for a big, bad, honker of a blister is all in place.  ACK!  Having "usual ones" at the tips of the toes might warrnat a sock-check, to wit:  are you wearing either cotton socks or heavier socks?  Both can be real culprits, and if you answered yes to either of those, it is time to try tighter, thinner socks that are made from something other than cotton.  I use "Ironman" socks that are now made by Wigwam, and I have few blisters, ever.  I know it is kind of counter-intuitive to suffer blisters and then think about going to soemthing thin, but remember that a big cause of blisters can be bunching -- and nothing bunches "better" than thciker cotton socks.  (Of course, if you are already in thinner "tech" socks...........then maybe the blister did in fact result from altered mechanics.)
5. I meticulously record the distance of my runs (I spend a lot of time driving the routes I do, getting the mileage just right), but I'm not sure why as for most runs it is just kind iof a random act.  But for you, doing a first half-marathon, knowing how you tended to respond at different mile points may have been useful.  I can't say that for sure, and the fact that you started feeling ratty at mile 6 when you had previously had a great 12-miler, well, that's just a combination of bad luck and it being "one of thsoe days".  That is not to minimize anything, but it just goes in the vast repository of people who have had good-to-great training, only to see it all go to hell in a handcart on race day.
6. This dovetails nicely from #5, as not having a nutrition plan for the race maybe coulda been solved by working out a protocol for when you can best benefit from drinking and takling in nutrition, say gels.  For half-marathon and marathon training, i am very big on "planting" water bottles along my run routes.  (That is more of a time-spender -- driving the route beforehand and caching bootles, and then [usually] retrieving them post-run.)  I never do this with gels as I figure they might be appealing to bugs and stuff, but i always carry some on me during my longer runs leading up to a race.  (More on this later.)  Getting pleasure from the cookie is no surprise, as I'm sure your body was desperate for some calories; I dare say that the pleasure was as much physiological as it was from tastiness.  And pace, yes, as well as heat -- all the more reasons to be scrupulous about taking it sufficient stuff during the race.  (More later.)

Hey!  Your points are done, and it is now time for "later" -- which'll be next pace.  See you on the flipside!

DOUG again-again --

More Later #1 -- You maybe saw this coming from me, as we've been over the pitfalls and pratfalls of trail runs, but those trail runs can really mess with our best-laid plans!   No more need be said about that from me, as you've heard me harp about it before!

But thinking about "best-laid" plans, here is where it gets tricky for us who like racing just for the fun of it all.  We are told by People Who Know (and I'm thinking specifically about Joe Friel) that races should be approached as to their priority -- "A", "B", "C".  Most people can only train adequately for 2 or 3 "A" races a season, and when doing that they keep a very strong eye on that prize, letting no lesser prizes (and the training for them) get in the way.  Knowing that full well, I have to admit that I have done what you did many times --- combine short-distance races with long-distance training.  Sometimes it works, and when it does I almost feel as if I've "gotten away with something"; I just know I should be maximizing my distance training.

If it turns out, though, that the 5km was more important than the h-m (and it could well have been, given your commitment to that race series)......................then you did okay enough by scheduling the two as you did --- IF you could live with the possibility of having a less-than-stellar h-m.  As I've said today in several places, i have erred many, many , many times in mixing-and-matching my training, and from racing far too often, and while fun can indeed be had in taking this approach, it is quite important to be honest with yourself going into a race cycle, i'e., two or three races in short order.  That's where the priority system can be useful.  (I think I may have muddled all of the above, so if that's the case --ask me to clarify it better!)

More Later #2 -- Just that it's really hard to do, but worth attempting.  I am mostly awful with it, as it becomes easy to then think -- "Unless I am doing this with full intent, why waste my time by even showing up?!?"  Good question!  But I usually show up and carry it out because (a) one never knows, and (b) as I said beforer, the best lessons usually come from the most adverse circumstances; bitter pill, that, but better than nothing!  Still, it is very hard to lower expectations, and you have my full empathy!

More Later #6(a) -- As I've gotten good (enough?) over the years to understand my nutritional needs, I will more often than not train without energy products -- formulated drinks and gels and bars.  I tend to think of it as akin to swinging a weighted bat in the on0-deck circle, i.e., getting the feeling of adversity so race-day nutrition protocols will be even more beneficial.  (Plus, it just saves money, not having to buy gels to carry me through all my training!)  But it took me a number of years to get to the point of understanding what I need, and until then, for you, it is really wise to keep yourself fortified during trining -- both to help you perform more optimally, and to keep providing info as to how your body responds to this product, that product, and the other product(s).  (And when I scrimp on nutrition in training, I ALWAYS make sure to eat/ddrink proprly post workout!!)

More Later #6(b) -- I've hardly ever met an aid staion I didn't like or dien't use, meaning that in almost all of my 150 or so races I have hit on every aid station I have passed through.  6(a) above may have made me sound like a brave guy, but on race day I will trend sharply the other way -- even if I don't feel i need water, i will take a small sip anyhow.  I guess my few times "bonking" put the fear in me, and I never want that to happen to me again -- and if that wee sip staves off "the wall" or the dreade bonk, then it's worth my time to grab a cup and take a sip, at the very least.  And as I do poorly in heat, that's an even more critical time for me be scrupulous with waht i take in.  So, for you and the h-m ---- aside from that coveted cookie, what else did you take in during the race.  And also -- what did you eat pre-race?  Curious minds want to know!

Okay!  I think that covers it!  Gotta get into Ottawa for a swim, and look forward to a progress report from you soon.  Illegitimum non carborundum!!!!

Question to the group: do you heart rate train?

I ask because I've used HR in the past and never really saw results with it.  I decided to pick it back up and try again.

I get frustrated because the fitter and faster I get and feel, the lower my anaerobic threshold.  For example, I had a V02 test about 6 years ago which said my AT was 170.  Now I've had another test and it says it's 155 yet that whole time I've been training, get stronger and getting faster.

Another thing that has happened is that my resting HR has dropped down to under 40.  So in my mind, this means I'm fitter, right?  And that all of my HR zones will all be lower, right?  So why is it that a higher AT is associated with being fitter and a lower AT is associated with being less fit?

When I used to train clients, I saw very out of shape and overweight people with very high AT's.  They could elevate their HR with no problem.  Me, my HR doesn't really like to elevate.  Doesn't that mean I'm the fitter one with the LOWER AT?

Anyone have experience with using HR or frustrations, or even great luck with it?

Hi Noelle. Yes. It's one of several things I use regularly.

Has it been the same test? And why is a VO2 test being used for threshold? They're not quite the same thing.

Resting HR doesn't necessarily correlate with more fitness. Maybe some, maybe not. On the occasion I've checked, mine hasn't moved much even though I'm fitter than awhile back. And I think it's up in the 55-60 range. I never checked right out of bed though. Don't try to read too much into this.

Threshold (and the various training zones) will not move based on resting HR. It can go up a little bit as one begins to go from rather inactive to more active, but from there it will stay rather steady. Mine hasn't moved in years.

Whether someone's Threshold HR is higher or lower than anothers has no bearing on fitness level. It's a value specific to each person. It's just something to know so that you have an idea of where to train at or give an idea of how hard you have been pushing.

There has been discussion in the past about the reliability of lab VO testing.  Equipment cal, tester experience, etc. all have come into play.

Do the field LT tests as described here and use the BT HR zone calculator to find your LT related HR zones.  Note that the tests have to be done for run and bike as they won't be the same.

My run LT has not changed over time (176, +/- 1 bpm), what has changed is pace per target zone and during the test. 

My bike LT has been lower on the trainer than outdoors.  But I don't ride with HR on the trainer (use virtual power) and these days use mostly RPE outside.

My HR climb is slower than some others I know.  I've seen people who's HR jumps up right away.

I've used HR training with success for run related training & racing.  I don't use it during tri races, I got fooled once on a sprint run leg thinking I'm blowing up only to realize over halfway through I had a lot more in me than HRM said. 

Thanks Donto and Brigby!

A little background: a work for a big box gym that offers V02 testing with a mask to determine your aerobic/anaerobic training zones.  I say "V02", maybe I'm calling it the wrong term?  I can tell you that it involves measuring your oxygen uptake with a mask hooked up to a machine taking the readings.

At this gym, it is considered the gold standard of testing.  Can you tell me exactly what is involved with lactate threshold measuring?

Since this first came on the scene at our gym about ten years ago, the idea was that you were "pushing" or "pulling" up your AT as you trained; in other words, it should be increasing as your fitter and that a fitter person will have a higher AT than a less fit person.  I guess my lower than average numbers frustrate me as I've been doing extensive zone training for years and even teach two classes a week geared toward increasing aerobic capacity and the like....plus 5 years of triathlon.

Since it has the mask, it'll be taking oxygen readings, so measuring VO2 is likely what it's doing. Was it ramping up speed at set increments of time? At the moment, I don't quite remember how to get to threshold HR from a VO2 test. I prefer a threshold test anyway to go directly to the performance value you want.

There are a few ways for measuring the LT. Generally running will be like what's in Donto's link. Others may use a 5-10k race. So not that different from one another.

With both the VO2 and LT, you're not really increasing those levels, but increasing performance at them. Meaning you're running faster or pushing more power on the bike. The HR value will stay the same.

They say that the point of the V02 test is to establish your anaerobic threshold.  And once you know this number, their whole zone system is based off that number.  The more you say and the more I read, I now am curious what the difference is (if any) between LT and AT?  I always assumed it was two ways of saying the same thing.

So you're saying that you're doing LT tests just using what you perceive to be a specific level of exertion?  See, the gym sells these V02 tests  because they say it's more scientific than doing a trial and marking your numbers based on what you *think* is a hard effort.  In other words, the oxygen uptake is telling you hard you're REALLY working or not working.

VO2 Max vs. Anaerobic Threshold:

Threshold is the point where your body begins to produce lactate acid, creating fatigue and loss of muscle function.  You can determine your LTHR based on the tests described above (I've used the one on Trainer Road) and it will be different for everybody.  Factors that determine this are:  fitness level (to a degree), test conditions, accumulated fatigue, and a whole host of physical factors such as age, gender, heart and lung volume, and genetics.  For instance, my wife's bike threshold is around 160, mine is 135; we're about the same age.  I happen to have a large heart and crazy big lung capacity.  As also stated above, once you have some level of fitness (i.e. not sedentary), you LTHR will more-or-less remain the same.  It is how much work you can produce (watts on the bike, speed on the run) at that HR that changes over time.

VO2 Max is a measure of the effectiveness of your aerobic system, mainly 1) how effectively your heart, lungs, and circulatory system deliver oxygen to muscles, and 2) how effectively those muscles use that oxygen.  Body fat plays a role somewhere in this, too.  You can definitely improve this efficiency with training.

So, they are two completely different measurements that offer different indications for training purposes.

Thank you, but that goes back to my original question....does AT = LT or are they two different things?  If I read you correctly, you are using them synonymously?

What the gym test says it does is establish your BMR, AT and aerobic zones AND V02 max via the V02 testing.

Here's a great link to explain it better: http://www.coachtroy.com/public/536.cfm

Essentially they're trying to do the same thing in setting up appropriate training zones from two different points.

I need to make sure I get all the terms straight before explaining them.

Doug & Steve

Thanks for the posts on the HM experience.  While I always like to have goals, they're goals, not lines in the sand.  I'm not a professional athlete, so other than kicking myself (mentally) for not making them, I mostly look at what went wrong, wrong expectation, poor training, ....  And then adjust the next goal.  Typically I set a goal and a stretch goal.

This will be my first HM, so I'll PR.    Well, I guess I need to finish for that, but other than an injury during the race I plan to be ready.  I'd be thrilled to run a 5K at a 7:45 pace, so no, I'm aiming much slower than that.  My training right now is around a 9:00-9:15 pace for up to 5 miles, so if I can hold that for 13 I'd be thrilled.  If I break a 9:00 pace I'll be giddy.  Unless my training shows something else I'll be satisfied for under 10:00 pace, happy at 9:30 pace and so on.  Right now I want to work on the miles to get ready.  I'll think more about my pace on a 2nd or 3rd HM.

I don't drive my routes, but I use an app with GPS for all runs.  I also use MapMyRun to plan and check out routes too.  In the neighborhood I have a good feel now for the distance of some of the route segments, but I track it all.  I need to figure a good way to get nutrition on a run.  Typically I bring nothing.  On some of the long runs I'll stop for water at our neighborhood swim/tennis clubhouse, but that's it.  And that's usually only at 8+ miles.  I never stop for water during a 5K, and don't plan to stop at this year's Peachtree 10K unless it's hot that day.

This first HM is mostly to do it, and get a feel for the distance to know about what a HIM might be like.  For me the swim and run will be my limiters for speed on any tri and my distance concern for longer tri's.  I don't have any concerns about a 56 mile bike segment.  I'm planning on getting a couple of Oly's in this year.  I may do a HIM at the end of season if I think I'm up for it.  Otherwise I'll look to 2014 for that.

Yes...anaerobic threshold = lactate threshold.

I liked this paragraph (and especially the bolded parts in Tony's summary:

"So, the question is…. does knowing one's VO2max data really matter for the age group athlete? The answer is still in debate as some think is does and some do not. It has been reported that Lance Armstrong boasts a V02max in the mid- 80's (ml/kg/min.) and that the highest ever recorded was by a European Cross Country skier, in the low 90's. The number however, while a good indicator of where you stand in terms of fitness and potential, doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to the actual training plan development and execution. What's more important and usable from a training perspective is to know one's anaerobic threshold and then corresponding training zones so that the right energy systems can be trained effectively. Granted, a high VO2max gives you some bragging rights when you're sitting around sipping your pre-ride cup of coffee with your buddies, but the truth is that VO2max. alone doesn't win races. If it did, we could simply hand out finishing awards based on VO2max and forget the actual event. Nope, it's a collection of things that dictate who wins on race day including your efficiency of movement, economy, nutrition and hydration strategy, pacing strategy, mental toughness, equipment selection and positioning and even your motivation. The true value in knowing your VO2max is being able to measure your progress in terms of how much of it you can utilize when at threshold. The higher this percentage becomes, the more efficient the athlete. As one trains each energy system and the adaptation response to training takes hold, the bod's ability to consume oxygen improves and it gets faster at any given workload."

The one question I have is how they come up with your anaerobic threshold based on your VO2 max.  I'm assuming the test involves going on a treadmill or bike from 0 to whatever over a specific period of time, and that you're basically just barely hanging on at the end.  I'm just not clear how that works.  For the anaerobic/lactate tests, I understand (after warming up go all out for 20 minutes and use a formula to determine LTHR).

I do get the whole variance on "did I push myself hard enough?" when testing LTHR (and it's a valid concern, IMO).

I wonder when Matt or Steve are going to chime in and tell us to stop over-analyzing it and just go run. 

Ahem...  FAR be it from me to say stop analyzing.  I was a scientist in a former life (still play one at the occassional meeting) and dig data - and data driven decisions even more. 

That said, if the "thinky" gets in the way of the "runny," then it's a problem, yeh? 

I'm still trying to figure out my pacing for training for this HM I have in a few weeks, even though it's only a few weeks away!  So, perseverating on the numbers is clearly something of a sport for me (the sixth discipline behind s/b/r/nutrition/hydration?  Or seventh behind those and "consumption"? Reminds me, I need a new bike... No really, need is the right word - in case Kim reads this, at least). 

Ahem (again)... Getting out and running or riding or swimming is what it really is all about, but if you find enjoyment from data, then get after it.

OK, off to Strava!

Matt

Oh, and don't get me started on trying to figure out what my LT is, or my HR for my LT, or my SPM for my HR at my LT, or my best SPM:pace:HR ratio for a Tempo Threshold Interval run, or....

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - it's like a slushy-brain-freeze!

Holy CARP! I've been away from this thread for a few days (I've been getting a metric ton of email update notices), and GEEZ am I glad I did. Just a few replies of this and my eyes glaze over.

You'd think that an engineer would get all geeked out over data and numbers. VO2? LT?

Truly, I don't wanna know. 'Cause I wouldn't want to know if I was getting close to my "genetic limitations". Who knows, I may have overstepped them at some point (did the earth just tilt on its axis?).

I just love riding and running (and to a lesser extent, swimming). Putting them together on event day is the icing on the cake. I also love thrashing myself in training -- training races are a lot of fun, looking over at the guy next to you (or back at the guy trying to hang on your wheel) and nodding with that "I'm not giving up, are you?" attitude is a BLAST! Call me Scott Tinley old school, but that's just what I like.

And it's served me pretty well over the last 30 years or so.

Still getting near the low one here, so at least it's consistent?