Thursday, June 05, 2008


Here’s the data from yesterday’s workout. It turns out I was off regarding what I ran my second and last mile in. As a result, I ran 39:36 for 6 miles which is exactly the 6:36 pace I had intended. This training stuff is easy.

Roughkat commented that it lately it seems like I’m worried about using technology. I wouldn’t say I’m “worried”. Maybe I’m just skeptical. That probably stems from using a HRM in the past and not seeing any significant improvement. Part of my problem I have with HRM training is that there are so many more variables than just HR. Even Daniels mentions them in his book. He states something like if you back off your workout due to HR, your muscles may not be getting the required workout that you’re aiming to achieve.

And I think VDOT is interesting. However, right now I’m basing my training paces on a VDOT score I achieved during my last 5K. In reality I could probably move up another VDOT ranking just because I ran a dumb race. I wish Roughkat were kidding about having VDOTs down to the tenth of a point, but I’m sure he’s serious. For me, I think I can “do the math” if VDOT 54 is an 18:40 5K and 55 is an 18:20 5K. I don’t need 10 more data points that vary by 2 seconds a piece. If I get that techie or anal – please shoot me.

I just ran a very easy 6 miles this morning. Maybe I’ll run another easy run tonight – maybe not.

Quote of the day;

“I was elated and relieved. I didn't feel too physically exhausted, which is the way it is when everything clicks that way. Breaking 15 minutes has a lot of meaning. It's like the 4-minute mile. Not too many people do it.” – Lauren Fleshman


roughkat said...

To be honest, the reason I have VDOT down to the tenths is because I contacted Jack Daniels to get some other VDOT info for other distances which he mentions in his book I think. He sent me the full tables from his research on VDOT which has all sorts of distances besides the basic 5k, 10k, half-marathon, and marathon. It contains many other distances and all down to the tenth.

I too don't like training based on HR because for most runners, 220 minus your age is not your true max HR.

Adam said...

In the spirit of the last post, let me again comment after roughkat. I think that HR based run training in Minnesota is probably more difficult than most places due to the temperature extremes we have to deal with. I've noticed swings of 15 beats per minute for the same run and effort in the winter vs. summer.

Chad said...

roughkat, it's interesting that someone with VDOT down to tenths would even mention 220 minus your age. I'm pretty sure that no one who is serious about analytical training using technology like a HRM would even consider that formula to be accurate. And that's not really a reason to not like training based on HR because max HR can be found other ways.

Adam, you're probably right. I guess you'd just have to adjust your numbers, pace, effort, etc. as the season change.