#9316889 - 05/07/18 01:10 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Sir Ironpool]
|
Design
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 11466
Loc: The OC
|
Around 5-6 of the original 15. Picked up a few from the 2:30 group along the way. We paced just fast enough to take it easy up the hills, and cruise real easy the last mile.
_________________________
09 CWP MS3 01 Echo 5MT 00 EBP Si - Sold - Pics89 Camaro - Sold CSI. What's your diversion?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9316949 - 05/07/18 02:28 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Design]
|
Daffy Cuck
Poster
Registered: 04/30/18
Posts: 250
|
I have a 5K race this weekend /weee.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9317449 - 05/08/18 10:56 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Daffy Cuck]
|
dirtyS13drifta
dirtyS13drifta
Unregistered
|
So...
12 days until a century
Longest ride was 53 miles, ass is a little sore still.
At this point what's better prep:
1 more long slow ride of 50-60
2 shorter/faster rides of 25-30
I sort of feel like my ass would prefer 2 shorter rides.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9317463 - 05/08/18 11:01 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: ]
|
Design
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 11466
Loc: The OC
|
There's probably no performance benefit this close to the race, aside from the psychological boost. I say option 2.
_________________________
09 CWP MS3 01 Echo 5MT 00 EBP Si - Sold - Pics89 Camaro - Sold CSI. What's your diversion?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9317497 - 05/08/18 11:24 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Design]
|
Daffy Cuck
Poster
Registered: 04/30/18
Posts: 250
|
HAY is IN THE BARN M*FER
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9319248 - 05/10/18 11:54 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: markw]
|
Daffy Cuck
Poster
Registered: 04/30/18
Posts: 250
|
2-3 miles is plenty, 2-3 times a week. Slow down, go slower if it really hurts, should be able to hold a conversation when yoggin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9319254 - 05/10/18 11:57 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Daffy Cuck]
|
Design
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 11466
Loc: The OC
|
Slow down and walk if you have to.
Focus on establishing a schedule/routine.
Keep the mileage low and gradually build.
Invest in good shoes.
_________________________
09 CWP MS3 01 Echo 5MT 00 EBP Si - Sold - Pics89 Camaro - Sold CSI. What's your diversion?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9319303 - 05/10/18 12:35 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Design]
|
dirtyS13drifta
dirtyS13drifta
Unregistered
|
Yeah, slow, very slow, go even slower than you think. Just build the habit. It'll take a while to not feel like death
Pretty soon though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9319656 - 05/10/18 06:59 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Sir Ironpool]
|
Daffy Cuck
Poster
Registered: 04/30/18
Posts: 250
|
also some alternate reports suggest heel striking is not just normal but its probably ideal in the 9:00/mi + range as far as efficiency goes [with a modern EVA foam or whatever maximal shoe this doesnt seem to be correlated to any additional injuries in various studies around 20 mpw for mid-packers]
your body will naturally adjust to mid-sole strikes like the 1500/mid-distance elites you'll see at track meets certainly in the 4:00/mi range and probably naturally around ~6:00/mi or thereabouts as well
not a popular opinion, but seems to pass merit. It's yet another thing that hobbyjoggers dont need to obsess over: you're already probably striding ideally for your capability.
Shocking conclusion: middle age hobby joggers dont stride much like Daniel Komen and probably shouldnt try to
http://running.competitor.com/2014/02/in...n-running_95678
The big question is, since fast runners are equally efficient with either a heel or midfoot contact point, while most recreational runners are more efficient with a heel-first strike pattern, at what speed does a heel contact lose its metabolic advantage? In a computer simulated study evaluating efficiency, researchers from the University of Massachusetts showed that while running at 7:36 per mile pace, heel striking was approximately 6 percent more efficient than mid or forefoot striking (8). Some recent research suggests that the 6:25 per mile pace is the transition point at which there is no difference in economy between heel and midfoot strike patterns (9). These studies confirm that although highly skilled runners are efficient while landing on their mid or forefeet, the majority of recreational runners are more efficient with a heel-first strike pattern.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320001 - 05/11/18 08:43 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
charlie_td1
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 09/26/02
Posts: 38993
Loc: DC
|
On a different note: I just picked up a chest heartrate monitor...why? I dunno  I suppose it'll be interesting to see what my lactate threshold/VO2 max is.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320068 - 05/11/18 10:07 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Daffy Cuck]
|
Sir Ironpool
Sponsored by Toyota
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 71803
Loc: Long Beach, CA
|
That’s all well and good, but we’re not talking about efficiency with OP, we’re trying to keep him running while minimizing the chance of injury. It’s why Golden Harper started Altra footwear with its zero drop...to reduce injury. Based on personal experience, it works...and I just read an article that Altra has better brand loyalty than any other running shoe brand, so it’s likely working for lots of others too.
No reason to obsess over it OP, just run how it feels comfortable. It never hurts to be constantly evaluating what your body is doing while running though.
also some alternate reports suggest heel striking is not just normal but its probably ideal in the 9:00/mi + range as far as efficiency goes [with a modern EVA foam or whatever maximal shoe this doesnt seem to be correlated to any additional injuries in various studies around 20 mpw for mid-packers] your body will naturally adjust to mid-sole strikes like the 1500/mid-distance elites you'll see at track meets certainly in the 4:00/mi range and probably naturally around ~6:00/mi or thereabouts as well not a popular opinion, but seems to pass merit. It's yet another thing that hobbyjoggers dont need to obsess over: you're already probably striding ideally for your capability. Shocking conclusion: middle age hobby joggers dont stride much like Daniel Komen and probably shouldnt try to http://running.competitor.com/2014/02/in...n-running_95678
The big question is, since fast runners are equally efficient with either a heel or midfoot contact point, while most recreational runners are more efficient with a heel-first strike pattern, at what speed does a heel contact lose its metabolic advantage? In a computer simulated study evaluating efficiency, researchers from the University of Massachusetts showed that while running at 7:36 per mile pace, heel striking was approximately 6 percent more efficient than mid or forefoot striking (8). Some recent research suggests that the 6:25 per mile pace is the transition point at which there is no difference in economy between heel and midfoot strike patterns (9). These studies confirm that although highly skilled runners are efficient while landing on their mid or forefeet, the majority of recreational runners are more efficient with a heel-first strike pattern.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320173 - 05/11/18 12:13 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
Kevin the 800th
Not positive or negative
Jr Member
Registered: 05/11/18
Posts: 370
Loc: OHIO
|
I think the key there is to have a 'realistic' actual/current max HR value for that to be accurate. Lower might produce more realistic results.
Like I've seen #'s from 52-58 without much/any improvement in times [21 ish 5K to low 20 5K], I've seen 182 actual HR in a series of 800 repeats designed to find it, but probably 177 or even 175 is more accurate so I use that. Looking at a performance table based on 5K ET alone it says like 44 lol [which is probably the truth]
The sub-maximal VO2 max estimate is highly dependent on HHR%, so if your HR is lower or significantly lower than what you've entered as your HR max, its going to estimate that your VO2 max is better given that youre running a bit lower than your actual peak HR
in a 5K for instance youre supposed to be able to hit around 93% or so of actual max, maybe a little higher if you're a total masochist
_________________________
Looking for hygiene tips
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320249 - 05/11/18 01:07 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
Kevin the 800th
Not positive or negative
Jr Member
Registered: 05/11/18
Posts: 370
Loc: OHIO
|
those never work imho
race a 5K at 90-95% [or 100 if you can handle it]
OR follow the warmup + 2 or 3 800s at 100% with a specified rest interval to slam into your HR max [google the 800 repeat max HR protocol]
220-age is likely to be off by 10-20
The '800' max HR protocol is the following:
The key between the intervals is to reach a point where it's your cardio system that hits peak redline and NOT your legs, which is why the order and rest are important:
2 mile warmup, not too easy. Maybe HMP pace or :30s slower or so. You want to be heated from this, but not tired at all
~30s break or something
800 at a track with everything you've got and anything you've been saving all week. Take the first 400 out HARD, dont be a bitch. You should be well under your current mile PR/capability, but a bit slower of course than current 400 PR capability.
The second lap of this 400 is intended to find your true max HR so you have to go for it with everything on lap 2, dont be a bitch or the test doesnt work
sample pacing: if 6:00/mi is your current mile PR, you want to take that first 400 out in the 'Gray Zone' [aka too hard], so like 1:20 or something [faster than you'd want to go out if it was an actual 800 race, you are forcing a red zone event in the 2nd lap, but it cant be too bad that you just fold. Yes for someone with a 6:00 current mile PR, a 2:40 800 is probably impossible, maybe 2:45 tho with proper pacing or so
then :60s break, and get back out there, this time a 400
The 400 you should aim as close as possible to your current 400 capability [obviously you wont get there, but you can probably get within :05s or so]
so CN:
2 mile at HMP or so, maybe up to HMP + :30s/mi
:30s rest
800 balls-to-the-wall max HR test
:60s rest
400 2nd chance to identify max HR with a near-400 maximal effort
If you arent a bitch, the 800 should identify your max HR
if you come up with some lame result like I always do [sub maximal value], promise yourself next time you try this you wont be such a bitch
alternatively, do a lot of data logging and record a hill repeat workout, this surprisingly is pretty likely to catch it, too
_________________________
Looking for hygiene tips
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320595 - 05/12/18 07:19 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Kevin the 800th]
|
charlie_td1
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 09/26/02
Posts: 38993
Loc: DC
|
total side note: I love how half of the descriptors are "don't be a bitch"
I'll have to try this out and see. I'm such a data nerd. How much is all this going to actually change my workouts? probably close to none, but it's really neat to look at 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9320748 - 05/12/18 10:30 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
Sir Ironpool
Sponsored by Toyota
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 71803
Loc: Long Beach, CA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9321152 - 05/14/18 10:42 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
dirtyS13drifta
dirtyS13drifta
Unregistered
|
is 7,500 a lot?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9321156 - 05/14/18 10:49 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: ]
|
charlie_td1
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 09/26/02
Posts: 38993
Loc: DC
|
7,700 feet is just shy of 1.5 miles.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9321163 - 05/14/18 10:52 AM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
dirtyS13drifta
dirtyS13drifta
Unregistered
|
but that doesn't answer if it's a lot
Edited by dirtyS13drifta (05/14/18 11:19 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9321245 - 05/14/18 12:24 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Sir Ironpool]
|
dirtyS13drifta
dirtyS13drifta
Unregistered
|
I think I might have found a 50 finally.
14,500 of vert
in August
What could go wrong
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9325217 - 05/19/18 07:51 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: charlie_td1]
|
Kevin the 800th
Not positive or negative
Jr Member
Registered: 05/11/18
Posts: 370
Loc: OHIO
|
had a decent tempo jog just now, not sure where that came from. A month ago I was totally underperforming but this is... actually.... my 2nd best ever 10k? lol
did about a 47:10 10k, Garmin gave me a Vo2 max += 1 for the effort. woot!
splits:
7:47
7:44
7:33
7:41
7:41
7:20
6:53 last /0.2
/maybe I'm back on the road toward some progress. Had hope to tick off a <20 5K and a <1:40 half this year, but with allergy season I threw those out the window. This one workout has me wondering if I might be able to get back on track for those this year...
_________________________
Looking for hygiene tips
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#9325551 - 05/20/18 02:50 PM
Re: Running/Cardio Thread
[Re: Kevin the 800th]
|
charlie_td1
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 09/26/02
Posts: 38993
Loc: DC
|
Those are pretty consistent splits, not bad at all!
Ran 15 today on already tired legs. Not my best, but not my worst; between the humidity today and already sore legs, I was feeling it. Still, fairly consistent splits and my HR was right on target, so I can't be too upset about it.
Mile 1 was also a 7:40, but couldn't get it all on one screen.
Edited by Chas, Chuck, Charles, etc. (05/20/18 02:50 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Silock, Professor Paki
|
|
