I was hoping to get another run in last night, but again, things didn’t go as planned. Last night was the first night of Lambies for Katie. That’s basically a 45 minute class through the church for 2-3 year olds. It’s designed to teach the kids how to sit and listen to stories, do crafts and spend time with a parent. Katie wanted me to take her and I didn’t have a problem with that. We were home early enough (7:30) where I could have jumped on the treadmill for another run. But I didn’t. I laid on the couch and watched CSI.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like I’m going to end the week with 25 miles and lose fitness. I should still be around 80-90 miles (depending on whether I skip any more runs or not). It’s just that setting a mileage goal for the week and then skipping a couple of runs can be a real bummer.
This morning I had a nice 7 mile run with Scott. I’m guessing we were running 7:30 pace. So it was more of a moderate paced run the day after a strong aerobic run. If things don’t change in the next 15 hours, I’ll be running a bloggerland “legend.” I don’t want to jinx it by giving away her name, so stay tuned for my next entry.
One follow-up note regarding the heart rate I saw on Wednesday’s recovery run. I got down to 8:06 pace on a treadmill while keeping my HR under 145 bpm. About 2 years ago I performed Hadd’s 2400 meter test on a track. If you’re curious who Hadd is, go to letsrun.com’s message board and search for Hadd. For this test you run 2400 meters at heart rates that are 10 bpm apart with a minute rest between reps. Looking back, I ran;
bpm pace
145 9:20
155 8:27
165 7:38
175 6:53
185 6:08
While I’d love to believe I went from 9:20 pace to 8:06 pace at 145 bpm, I’m skeptical. I wore my HRM again for yesterday’s strong effort and was around 175 while running 6:50s. That’s not very different than the data above. So HRM experts does this seem likely? What does it mean if 9:20 to 8:06 is correct, yet my pace at 175 hasn’t changed? Intuitively, I’d say it means I need to work on bumping up my LT by running more tempo and strong aerobic runs. Probably means I need to put the HRM back in the sock drawer too.
Quote of the day:
“If someone says, ‘Hey, I ran 100 miles this week. How far did you run?’ ignore him! What the hell difference does it make?...The magic is in the man, not the 100 miles.” Bill Bowerman
6 comments:
love the quote! so envelops the sunday runs with the boys. they always want to know how many miles this week and they always laugh at my miles, but then they are always in awe when i go to a race and do exactly what i said i would :)
to each his/her own!
The Hadd data seems to always get a very close to linear fit. The data you just posted gives a speed/HR correlation of 0.995. There's a slight upward deflection in your case, this is a bit unusual (you actually get a better model fit with the pace per mile/HR relation which is unusual). Could be an artifact of the way you did the test though (it would be interesting to see if doing the fast intervals first changed the results).
I don't find it completely implausible that you can get a dramatic boost in the low end of the speed/HR line, I've seen similar happen before, though I'm not sure exactly what it means. But since this would ultimately carry through (albeit with diminishing returns) to higher submax parts of the line, it's a good sign. Hopefully it's mostly due to LT improvements.
Just thought I'd add -- you can't really compare heart rates taken in different contexts. So 175 at the end of a training run in hot weather is not the same as 175 in the middle of the same run in cooler conditions, or on a treadmill, or during a track Hadd test, etc. Heart rate is sufficiently influenced by external factors that you really need to hold everything constant (especially the test protocol) to get meaningful results.
As for the quote, I'll believe it when I see Tergat and Radcliffe getting beaten by people running 30 mile weeks. Until then, I say there really is a lot of "magic" in the miles.
thanks for the link Chad - appreciate it!
Even disregarding the difference in conditions (probably the ideal way to hold conditions constant is to do these tests on a treadmill, where you can at least control the environmental influences on heart rate) one would expect that a long period of base training at mostly easy paces, like you've been doing, would result in improvements in economy at sub-maximal pace.
But there's nothing to worry about that your pace at the higher heart rates has not improved much, since you haven't started training as much at those paces.
Improved economy at lower speeds gives you a great platform to now train and improve your closer-to-maximal pace.
14 weeks 'til Grandma's ...
Liz, it's interesting that the guys are curious about your mileage. That's not a huge topic of conversation around here when I run with someone. When it comes up it's more of a "what can I learn from this person" type of conversation, not a you're running too much/not enough conversation.
Miler, I'm the first to admit that the comparison between 9:20 and 8:06 paces has it flaws. But 74 seconds is a lot, no matter how you look at it.
As for the quote, I think it was meant to get at mileage done "right" versus just running 100 mpw. Also, let's say I average 100 mpw for the next 5 years while Bob Kennedy only runs 25 mpw. Who would you take in a 5k?
Yvonne, you're welcome.
Susan, welcome "back." I was starting to worry since you hadn't commented or posted on your blog for a few days.
Evan, I'm just looking for something to worry about.
Post a Comment