Seems a false choice there. High intensity as a small portion of your overall training time yields better results than pure slow running. As was mentioned not long ago, even Ed Whitlock supplemented his slow graveyard runs with up to 30 races a year.
I feel that I too must make a comment to "syracuse", though amKelley made the point very successfully. My wife and I were out for a run several years ago, and probably not more that an inch of snow on the ground. As we rounded a corner, she slid and fell on ice that was covered by the snow. She broke a bone in her shoulder joint and was out of running for a month. And I was petrified that she'd hit her head and had a concussion.
What's that saying, don't criticize someone till you've walked a mile in their moccasins (sp?)? Everyone here in this chat has a love of running and attempts their best to continue their running, including myself. If it means choosing safety over weather, what crime have we committed?
I can look at real crimes (thinking war, politics, environmental issues, or whatever). We are running because we love running. End of story. Oh, and I've run for 41 years now, so I think I can say I love to run.
Not sure if I'm contributing much here, but this weekend's track session wash short and sweet.
6 x 150 3 x 100 (14-13.5)
23, 22.3, 21.9, 21.3, 20.9, 20.4 (rounded up to nearest 10th)
If I'm not too tired from walking around Sea World all day with the little ones- will try and race a 300 meter race in San Diego on the 8th.
http://sandiego.usatf.org/USATF_ASSOC_44/files/e1/e17dba6a-6001-48d0-ac94-29eb59867967.pdf
Current weather prediction for Saturday here in San Diego is sunny and mid-60s.
That was about the same weather I expect at the BSU Indoor Track Tuesday evening with lights replacing the sun. ?
Dumb question for those of you who've done indoor meets.
I notice the mile event above is 3-4 hours before the 3K. There's one coming up in Wichita where it's the same deal. Do people try running both, or usually do they just pick one? I don't see it as out of the question, after all it's just a 5K broken into two pieces, righhhhht?
KCgeezer wrote:
Dumb question for those of you who've done indoor meets.
I notice the mile event above is 3-4 hours before the 3K. There's one coming up in Wichita where it's the same deal. Do people try running both, or usually do they just pick one? I don't see it as out of the question, after all it's just a 5K broken into two pieces, righhhhht?
I doubled once as a 56 year old.
lucKY2b wrote:
*Week 390*
Discussing with my wife about whether to join Planet Fitness under a mile up the road from us. I need to work on some strength, and it'll be a good option during nasty weather. Any pros and cons? Should we pay the extra for other features?
This depends on what other features are and how much they cost. I have never used Planet Fitness, but I think joining any gym is a good idea. You can do some strength work at home, but joining a gym gives you so many more options.
M: off.
T-SA: 5 miles.
SU: 6 miles.
So I have finally run six times a week, for the first time since early September. Only 31 miles in total, and mostly at very slow pace. But any soreness I have after the run goes away before the next workout. Now I think I can increase my volume per day.
I've doubled both at indoor and outdoor meets. I'd say whether you do or not depends what you're trying to accomplish. Is your goal a PR/beating some record, scoring for a team, or are you running for a workout? I find it's tough to double as a senior master since I just don't recover like I used to. Multiple day meets are challenges. I double early in the season where I'm trying to judge my fitness but since I'm not a mid-D person, the mile/3000 combo is tough for me. If I were trying to PR, I'd focus on one race instead of doing both. It gets even tougher outdoor where you probably have a 1500m, 5,000m, 10,000m, and steeple. Then you just have to choose your battles and not try to do everything.
Meant to send kudos to CM on being named M60-64 USATF Road Runner of the Year and to SoCal Cush for his honorable mention for Master Harrier of the Year. Congratulations guys and good luck in WA!
SCgal wrote:
Meant to send kudos to CM on being named M60-64 USATF Road Runner of the Year and to SoCal Cush for his honorable mention for Master Harrier of the Year. Congratulations guys and good luck in WA!
CM mentioned a while ago being a wreck at age 45 and enjoying the whole process of getting his wheels back, so that's mighty inspirational.
I just figure if I'm going to the trouble of competing at an indoor meet three hours away, it should be in more than one event. I think it's fortunate they're on the same day, far enough apart where I can get some recovery in. I would plan to use the mile as the warmup to the 3000. Less about the time than how my body takes to the challenge.
A number of years ago when Gary Patton was M65 I recall him doing mile, 5,000m and 800m at the Hayward Classic. The times he ran most would be envious of.
syracuse wrote:
Hey folks, I just want to preface this by saying I enjoy reading this thread and I post occasionally even though I am not qualified age wise. But I am an avid runner and hope to continue my passion into my 50s and beyond.
With that background, I have a question for you more seasoned runners. Months ago and again today I read posts bemoaning a small snowfall and its affect on training. Where I am now In my training life, I could never imagine having a few inches of snow force me inside (I do have an indoor track available to me). Admittedly I have the "advantage" of living in an area where challenging winter weather is the norm for much of the year and I have become used to it.
Did you find yourself getting softer as you aged? Or is this a case of someone living in a more seasonable area and not having the advantage of experiencing regular winter weather?
Thanks for any feedback.
I wouldn't really call it "softer" but I do feel the affects of the weather just a bit more than when I was younger. I think it's normal. As you get older you're not quite as strong or resilient...so the elements push you around a little more. I try to accept things as they are and just keep doing everything I can...without dwelling on it too much. Good luck.
Thanks SCgal and KC, hadn't seen an announcement yet.
Cush, you have a wonderful and articulate way of communicating, and a little sarcasm can always be effective.
syracuse, obviously I'm a wimp to you but here
That was last winter. My time would make you scoff I'm sure (6:05s for 4) but what the heck it was a good tune up for sea level efforts in Tampa and Va Beach (no snow there, although it was pretty chilly in Va Beach).
Many thanks to all who responded to my query regarding weather adaptations. I realize this is a very personal decision and am thankful that you were willing to share your thoughts. Presumably we all do what we believe is best at any given time.
I have a question for the group.
I'm 2 months shy of my 62nd birthday, and on Sunday, ran a 5k in 19:37, closing with a 6:00 last mile. My heart monitor recorded a gradual buildup to a max HR of 178 BPM during the final stretch.
Using the 220 - age formula gives me a max HR of 158, and none of the other iterations are above 165 so I'm wondering if this is a sign of fitness and/or I'm younger than my chronological age; or is it something to potentially be concerned about?
Background: I'm a former elite, been running since 1970. Currently running 20 - 25 miles on 4 days a week, generally consisting of a 90 minute trail run, an 8 mile progression averaging 7:30s, and two easy runs of 3 - 6 miles.
Yessiree Bob wrote:
...
Using the 220 - age formula gives me a max HR of 158, and none of the other iterations are above 165 so I'm wondering if this is a sign of fitness and/or I'm younger than my chronological age; or is it something to potentially be concerned about?
...
For sure it's a(nother) sign that the 220-age formula needs be completely disregarded. A max HR test of some sort (which you probably did a facsimile of) would give you the empirical data you're looking for.
Yessiree Bob wrote:
I have a question for the group.
I'm 2 months shy of my 62nd birthday, and on Sunday, ran a 5k in 19:37, closing with a 6:00 last mile. My heart monitor recorded a gradual buildup to a max HR of 178 BPM during the final stretch.
Using the 220 - age formula gives me a max HR of 158, and none of the other iterations are above 165 so I'm wondering if this is a sign of fitness and/or I'm younger than my chronological age; or is it something to potentially be concerned about?
Background: I'm a former elite, been running since 1970. Currently running 20 - 25 miles on 4 days a week, generally consisting of a 90 minute trail run, an 8 mile progression averaging 7:30s, and two easy runs of 3 - 6 miles.
why settle for a crumb when you can have the whole samitch?
https://agingchart.org/wiki/Main_Pageold guy II wrote:
Current weather prediction for Saturday here in San Diego is sunny and mid-60s.
Certainly decent for December.
Anyone planning on going to World indoors in March?
I see I can get over there for about $300 from Oak/SFO and maybe a $30 train ride to Torun. I can get back for about $250.
https://wmaci2019.com/Yessiree Bob wrote:
I have a question for the group.
I'm 2 months shy of my 62nd birthday, and on Sunday, ran a 5k in 19:37, closing with a 6:00 last mile. My heart monitor recorded a gradual buildup to a max HR of 178 BPM during the final stretch.
Using the 220 - age formula gives me a max HR of 158, and none of the other iterations are above 165 so I'm wondering if this is a sign of fitness and/or I'm younger than my chronological age; or is it something to potentially be concerned about?
Background: I'm a former elite, been running since 1970. Currently running 20 - 25 miles on 4 days a week, generally consisting of a 90 minute trail run, an 8 mile progression averaging 7:30s, and two easy runs of 3 - 6 miles.
First off, congrats on the 19:30 5K at 62, good running! That is what I want to do, but have a long hard road ahead.
I have been researching Max HR a lot. Here is what I have come up with:
1) Max HR has zero correlation with potential as a distance runner. Meaning if you are an athlete in your prime years say 18-38, whatever you Max is, tells you nothing about performance potential. There have been world class runners with very high and very low Max HRs.
2) Comparing Max HR between 2 different runners tells you nothing about who will be faster or who has more potential.
3) As you age, your Max HR will decline.
4) Will your Max HR decline slower if you continue to train at a high level? Probably and it makes sense, but unfortunately no studies out there covering the subject, not a lot of researchers out there interested in old endurance athletes.
5) Resting Heart rate will decline as fitness improves at any age. It will rise if fitness deteriorates.
6) Again, comparing one athlete's RHR with another's will not tell you who is faster, but with large pools of athletes, most of the fastest athletes, will have a lower RHR than most of the slower athletes, but exceptions scattered in each pool.
7) If your individual Max HR is significantly lower than it used to be, you likely have less potential than you used to have.
8) Can one improve their Max HR via training? This is the million dollar question. Unfortunately there is no answer, with no definitive studies on the subject. Most "experts" will say no, you cannot improve it, it is fixed (until aging causes it to go lower). In fact, a couple of studies I read indirectly showed that not only can you not improve it, but it may actually decline a few beats as your fitness improves, but see 9 below.
9) The fitter you become, more than one study showed the opposite of what you would expect. It showed out of shape people taking a Max HR test actually are able to achieve their Max HR easier than a highly trained athlete can. E.g. say you are out of shape and your true Max HR is 195. If you take a Max HR test, you will achieve a 193-195 score in the test. However, if you become highly trained and do a Max HR test, you will likely fall short of your Max HR and score about 190-193. I cannot explain this, but this is what some studies have shown. You would think a highly trained athlete is tougher so in theory they should come closer, but then again an out of shape person may have less fear and less body awareness and not realize how crazy hard they are pushing themselves and get a higher number? Or is it possible that 8 above is true, i.e. if you become really fit, your Max will actually decline a few beats? No clear answer.
10) The two age based formulas to determine Max HR are in fact not useless and will create a perfect bell curve for the GENERAL Population, so in fact they are extremely useful for 80% of all Americans, i.e. they work great for more than 200 million Americans. How useful are they for the tiny segment of the population consisting of older former endurance athletes getting back into the game and for endurance athletes who never left the game? They are a useful starting point, but not accurate enough to be used as a training guide over the long term and you really need to do a Max HR test to find out what it really is, because if it is way off, you will be training incorrectly which will hamper and limit your progress.
11) I came across several different ways to test Max HR, but the consensus is the best, most accurate and simplest but certainly not the easiest is to wear a HR monitor and run a 5K race at the fastest pace you can maintain and sprint all out in the last 200 and use the highest number you get during that final sprint. The drawback with this method is if you are an old person, you have to be fit enough to do this without literally causing a cardiac event. This is the quandary the come backing old runner faces, they must use the age formulas until they are fit enough to do the test or until enough training data is accumulated to indicate the age formula is wrong.
12) I assume most people are aware that Fitbits and any HR monitor that does not utilize a strap across your chest is going to be very inaccurate. Also I saw a study that compared cheap and expensive strap monitors and the difference was negligible, i.e. 2-4 bpm difference.
13) Once your resting HR is known and relatively stable, and you do an an accurate Max HR test, a HR monitor is extremely useful for training in the correct range. However, as I found out when I was in my prime and I am finding out now as an old man, after using a HR monitor for a few weeks and paying close attention to it, you can actually predict your HR within 3 beats before you even look at it. So basically once you use a HR monitor and train in the correct ranges, and memorize what those feel like, you really don't need the monitor anymore you can go by feel and most runners do that. Of course there are runners who never checked with a monitor, but think they know how it should feel but are wrong and are running tempos too fast or too slow and/or easy days too hard or some bad combination of the two.