Road Racing and Training Thread. Week Ending May 13 2018

Now that is something I have yet to see on a run.

Oh, if I had a dollar for every clandestine, open air, pop up transvestite brothel staged in black tents in the woods in the middle of one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities that I passed . . .

DB - Glad you got out of there. I think I would have run a 25-flat 200...

Ahhh, Paris in the spring time...

A little late to the party.

I ran 71 miles last week to get my mileage back to where I'm seeing fitness gains. I also have an answer to why my marathon training fell flat.

Monday: Easy 8

Tuesday: 8/4 double

Wednesday: 2 Up, 5 tempo (2750), 2 down

Thursday: 8

Friday: 8/4 double

Saturday: easy 12

Sunday: easy 10

In the week of my planned marathon I did two easy runs (720-730 pace) with my HR monitor. My average HR for those two runs was 145 and 146. Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, I wore the HR monitor again, and my average HR was 133, 138, and 136. All three averaged around 705-710 per mile.

At least now I know the virus that hit me 3 weeks before raceday was holding me back. In truth, if I had taken 3-4 days completely off, I would have probably recovered in time to run a good race. Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

Sub 6:00: Race, race race!!!!

STrike while the iron's hot.

Bdubs wrote:

In the week of my planned marathon I did two easy runs (720-730 pace) with my HR monitor. My average HR for those two runs was 145 and 146. Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, I wore the HR monitor again, and my average HR was 133, 138, and 136. All three averaged around 705-710 per mile.

At least now I know the virus that hit me 3 weeks before raceday was holding me back. In truth, if I had taken 3-4 days completely off, I would have probably recovered in time to run a good race. Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

Wow. That's a big difference in pace/HR! Similar weather? I'm not sure I see the link between the data and the virus, but I can kinda guess what you mean.

If you're a runner who consistently monitors HR vs pace vs perceived effort, you can glean some trends sometimes.

You'll kill it next time!

Bdubs wrote:

In the week of my planned marathon I did two easy runs (720-730 pace) with my HR monitor. My average HR for those two runs was 145 and 146. Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, I wore the HR monitor again, and my average HR was 133, 138, and 136. All three averaged around 705-710 per mile.

At least now I know the virus that hit me 3 weeks before raceday was holding me back. In truth, if I had taken 3-4 days completely off, I would have probably recovered in time to run a good race. Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

Oh wow that's a massive difference. It was definitely still affecting you.

Bdubs - Maybe you will make another marathon attempt since it appears that you were still ill at the time of the race?

I always run with a HR monitor. A year or two ago I went out for a run and I wasn't feeling particularly bad at the time, but the HR for the pace I was running was higher than expected. The next day I felt awful because I am fairly certain that I had the flu. The elevated HR was foreshadowing what was to come. Until recently I never tracked resting HR, but they say that a higher than normal resting HR is an indication that you are sick and/or in need of some recovery after some hard workouts.

I think had I taken 3-4 days completely off when I was sick, I would have been ok. Instead I took 0 days off, and even did a small workout 3 days later. I just kept beating myself down.

Anyone else use HRs for training? I have a garmin 230, and once I got used to the strap I like it. I wanted a 235, but it was $75 more...it also appears to not track Hr as well as the strap.

Yeah, HR with a strap is always better. My Garmin 35 was goofy when used wrist-based, but with the strap, it seems accurate. The 235 seems like a nice watch, and I like the 735XT, too. Does your 230 have stopwatch and lap features? I gather it would. If so, have you used them?

Good luck trying to find a GPS watch that doesn't have the ability to work as a stopwatch with manual lap tracking.

I tried tracking HR with my watch but as I lost weight my runners arms came back. My wrists are too small to get any HR accuracy from my watch. I have not purchased a soft HR strap yet. The other day my watch said my HR was 122 until I stopped walking. It proceeded to drop 40+ BPM when I stopped.

I think keeping an eye on HR can be very beneficial as long as a person knows themselves and knows how to interpret the data. Everyone is different so what maybe right for one may not be right for others.

I always have used AM/waking HR while training. I have found it to be one of the best predictors out there for over training, illness, lack of rest or needing recovery.

For an external HRM I use the Scosche Rythm +. It is optical worn on the arm and not on the wrist. I wear mine on the forearm when wearing a long sleeve and upper arm under the sleeve when wearing a short sleeve shirt. It has been 99% reliable for me. On the other hand the wrist based HRM on my Fenix 5 has been unreliable for me when the weather less than 65°F.

I've had the following GPS units

Forerunner 201 (old brick style)

Forerunner 210

Forerunner 15

Forerunner 230

The 230 is a great watch. It is the most accurate, most intuititve, and most flexible. It also has the best charging clip (the 210 was awful!), the best battery life, and it gets signal the fastest. It can autolap, or use user created workouts. You can always override the lap with a manual push of the lap button.

If I were to buy another, I would probably look at Polars and the Suunto ambit series.

I have the older Garmin Vivoactive. I have a strap that I may have worn 3x. I love it cause it is small and accurate with a lot of features. I wear it all day everyday. Interesting as I checked my 12month rolling average on Steps and almost at 8,000,000

Bdubs wrote:

I think had I taken 3-4 days completely off when I was sick, I would have been ok. Instead I took 0 days off, and even did a small workout 3 days later. I just kept beating myself down.

Anyone else use HRs for training? I have a garmin 230, and once I got used to the strap I like it. I wanted a 235, but it was $75 more...it also appears to not track Hr as well as the strap.

I use a 235, and I've actually had less problems with the optical than the strap. With the strap, my HR used to spike mid-run to 235 and stay there. The optical sometimes takes a few minutes to lock on but mostly is accurate-ish (accurate enough for what I use it).

Found the 235 refurbished on amazon for cheap in very good state.

Bdubs/DB - Just ordered the 235 from Amazon. Got a deal on a “like new” one, though not refurbished. Saved a little dough, and it ships free via prime, so I went for it. Thnaks very much for yur input on this.

Before I forget: it is pouring here again, though it is not as intense as yesterday. This time, though, I beat the storm. Got home when the first drops started to come down. Crazy hot when I went out...heat index of 96...a 90 + 69 = 159. And it is only May...

I had the 220 (in SUNY Albany purple and white, although my wife says it's Northwestern purple and white). Simple, no muss, no fuss. No optical heart rate or anything butnit did what I needed it to.

Bought the 645M for my wife because she runs with music, but she didn't love the Bluetooth connection with her headphones, so I took it rather than returning it. I got a 10% discount on it and had a gift card from my local running series, so it wasn't a big out of pocket expenditure. Not that I've gotten used to all of the features, it would be hard to go back to a basic watch. I don't ever wear any of my dress watches.