Anyone using Nike+ Kit?

Charlie Pendejo said:

Dot said:

Maybe Charlie thinks it's easy to judge pace, but
it's not a skill I've worried about.

I'm not talking about some kinesthetic savant's astounding skill in
pace discernment. I merely contend that when "Training Week" shows
the same pace day after day after day, it seems a pretty safe bet that
the pace of tomorrow's run ain't gonna be a complete shock. Unless of
course some factor changes radically, like the temperature is forty
degrees hotter or one forgets to strap on the prosthetic leg before
heading out the door.

And yeah, I understand that in *your* case Way Up North, exceptions
*are* the rule. Few of us encounter the same sort of extremes and
variations.

Most trail runners might, regardless of where they live, although more
likely in the great white north. 5-min brackets work for me 😉

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Daniel said:

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

shinypenny wrote:
. . .

Quoted message said:

On Jul 4, 1:02 pm, Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:
. . .

Quoted message said:

For curiosity, as beginner to beginner, what information regarding
physiological benefits does pace and distance provide you? I'm just
curious, since I've never understood what information is conveyed, esp.
for a beginner? For more advanced runners trying to run at exactly
6:14/mile, yes. But for a beginner, I'm still puzzled.
. . .
Dot
who gets lost in time warps when out playing on trails

I've been thinking about this lately, especially since my HRM quit
functioning (again). I keep seeing people write that a beginner
should keep track of time *or* distance -- i.e., forget *pace* till
later. I keep track of tons of stuff, partly because I don't know
what might be interesting later (run time temperature on July 5,
2004?). Pace can help answer the question, "Why do I feel so crappy?"

Okay, so the answer is usually lack of sleep, or old age. But if I
notice that dragging feeling on Thursday sometimes the log reveals --
oh, yeah, it says here I did that 4 mile run on Wednesday at a
10:00/mile pace instead of my usual 10:45!

Right. In may case, it will show up as shorter time for a standard route
or more "reps" where I sometimes run part of course multiple times to
flesh out 1 hr or 1:15 or whatever. Again, it's just that I tend to
think in landmarks and terrain rather than pace. OTOH, hr % do generally
correspond to some level of physiological benefits, like easy vs LT.

Quoted message said:

But like I say I keep track of tons of stuff. After ruling out pace,
temperature, sleep, etc., I realized last year that a number of
[censored]-feeling Friday runs were due to a (recently acquired?) allergy to
the strawberries I gorged on after the Thursday Farmers' Markets. I
never know what light bulb is going to go on where, so I write a lot
of stuff down. Do I *obsess* over it? Naaah.

Yea, like I just realized I should start keeping track of when I change
rolls of tape for taping feet or changed gummi ring brands or ... When
things that had been working suddenly stop working, what changed.
Unfortunately, no matter how much I record, I always seem to lack
something. For me, pace never seems to be a directly relevant variable.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot said:

Pendejo said:

Few of us encounter the same sort of extremes and variations.

Most trail runners might

I was talking about normal people, not trail runners. ;-)

shinypenny said:

Since I started a year ago (walking only, initially) I have gone from
a BMI of 25 to 21. While 25 is the high end of normal

The whole BMI thing has just always [censored] me off.

A few years ago, in my post divorce trauma, I was running
45-50 miles a week and doing light weights 3 times a week,
eating the most assinine diet of lean cusine and
other 1200 calorie a day stuff..and... did the stupid South Beach
Phase 1 thing... and I couldn't lose those dreaded 5-7lbs
to put me off the high end of normal/low end of "you are fat" to
normal (of course. no way
I would question why this was an issue.. other than I just decided
to make it one...) I even went to a nutritionist
who told me to try an extra snack (yeah.. I paid her 80 dollars for
that..)

I finally just had to make myself happy with my BMI...even
if the magazine in the grocery store tells me otherwise..
I went back to red wine and running just because I liked it
and have maintained the same weight give or take a pound (excluding
pregnancies-
we wont talk about those) for
the last 20 years.

Erika

Charlie Pendejo said:

Dot said:

Pendejo said:

Few of us encounter the same sort of extremes and variations.

Most trail runners might

I was talking about normal people, not trail runners. ;-)

There ya go with that danged NYC pavement-centric view again.😉 You guys
have yet to discover that Mt. Marathon is really the center of the
running universe (sorry too much MM video watching).

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dot said:

Pendejo said:

Few of us encounter the same sort of extremes and variations.

Most trail runners might

I was talking about normal people, not trail runners. ;-)

I was traversing a trail yesterday that had lots of slick rocks and
remaining blowdown making a steady pace difficult. I kept saying to
myself, damn the smell of the balsam, the sounds of the birds or flushed
turkey, all so boring. I could be running a smooth paved road with the
smell of engine exhaust and people giving me the finger.

If you ever Skied Hunter Mountain, there are two ways to get to the top,
carried via Tbar/gondola or humping it.

I really should move back to the roads and the normal people. 😉

-Doug

"fluffymonkey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I finally just had to make myself happy with my BMI...even
if the magazine in the grocery store tells me otherwise..

[censored] the magazines!! All they do is destroy self-esteem.

Quoted message said:

I went back to red wine and running just because I liked it
and have maintained the same weight give or take a pound (excluding
pregnancies-
we wont talk about those) for
the last 20 years.

Are the red wine and the pregnancies related? Have bottle will travel.
BTW, R&R to me is run and red wine and whatever happens next. 😉

-Doug

Charlie Pendejo said:

Jen, a post or two ago I had already committed to pulling a Donovan
and not letting this go. So...

Your watch says you've run for half an hour at typical training
effort. The reason you don't feel like you'd have any idea how far
you'd run is:

[a] you feel like your pace is a complete mystery - could be six
minute miles, could be twenty minute miles,

How would I know my typical training pace, if I hadn't tracked it for
a little while?

[quote="Quoted message"][b] you're not sure how to deriving your distance from a known pace
and time,[/quote]

First you need to know your pace. That means you need to track it for
awhile....

Quoted message said:

[c] you know the equation but distrust either the watch and/or your
math skills,

Quoted message said:

[d] none of the above - logically, you know you could work out the
distance, but that gets overridden by some strong irrational voice
which says "I just can't do it, I need a machine to do it", or

Quoted message said:

[e] you're just trolling for pendejos.

If the latter, well played!

Dot said:

Maybe Charlie thinks it's easy to judge pace, but
it's not a skill I've worried about.

I'm not talking about some kinesthetic savant's astounding skill in
pace discernment. I merely contend that when "Training Week" shows
the same pace day after day after day, it seems a pretty safe bet that
the pace of tomorrow's run ain't gonna be a complete shock.

fluffymonkey said:

shinypenny said:

Since I started a year ago (walking only, initially) I have gone from
a BMI of 25 to 21. While 25 is the high end of normal

The whole BMI thing has just always [censored] me off.

A few years ago, in my post divorce trauma, I was running
45-50 miles a week and doing light weights 3 times a week,
eating the most assinine diet of lean cusine and
other 1200 calorie a day stuff..and... did the stupid South Beach
Phase 1 thing... and I couldn't lose those dreaded 5-7lbs
to put me off the high end of normal/low end of "you are fat" to
normal (of course. no way
I would question why this was an issue.. other than I just decided
to make it one...) I even went to a nutritionist
who told me to try an extra snack (yeah.. I paid her 80 dollars for
that..)

I finally just had to make myself happy with my BMI...even
if the magazine in the grocery store tells me otherwise..
I went back to red wine and running just because I liked it
and have maintained the same weight give or take a pound (excluding
pregnancies-
we wont talk about those) for
the last 20 years.

You might be one of those people who have high muscle mass, making BMI
meaningless. Body composition is more important than BMI.

jen

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:03:32 -0000, fluffymonkey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The whole BMI thing has just always [censored] me off.

My BM's [censored] me off too, especially the REALLY smelly ones after Tac
Bell.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

shinypenny said:

When people say things like this, I can't help wonder if I should take
their weekly training log mileage with a grain of salt, and assume
they've rounded up their numbers and overestimated.

Being in a rebel-rousing mood today (hey, it's Mount Marathon day
culminating 4 days of media blitz) 😉, does it matter how far they ran?

Most physiologists will tell you that physiological aspects of training
benefits result from time and intensity. Environmental conditions may
affect physiological benefits also (as in heat / cold adjustments).
Biomechanical benefits may be different, esp. if they put hills in
there, for some distances.

Dot
Has to chuckle at the mileage I can knock out at 55F on dry trails vs 0F
on snow-covered trails in the same length of time.

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardyhttp://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Here's my preference On days when it's nice go for pace and distance,
on days when it's nasty or you don't feel well complete a run. I tend
to use the latter to help prepare my mind more than my body.

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

shinypenny said:

On Jul 4, 1:02 pm, Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you lack both a watch and a reliable sense of time, then yeah, all
bets are off and you probably need *some* way of measuring either time
or distance.

Quoted message said:

I think beginners, of all people, have more of a requirement to track
time/pace/distance - it helps you get a sense of things. Once you've
been running for years, sure, then you don't need all of that because
you've acquired a good sense for it.

For curiosity, as beginner to beginner, what information regarding
physiological benefits does pace and distance provide you? I'm just
curious, since I've never understood what information is conveyed, esp.
for a beginner? For more advanced runners trying to run at exactly
6:14/mile, yes. But for a beginner, I'm still puzzled.

For perspective, and why I'm asking, is if I said I ran 13 min/mi for 1
hour yesterday (I guess that's 4.6 mi) and 16 min/mi for 1 hr (3.75 mi)
the day before, which of those is the harder workout? Which provided
more cardio stimulation? How do you know?

Dot
who gets lost in time warps when out playing on trails

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardyhttp://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

There's a formula when I go home monday I'll post it you measure it
for a 10 minute run and divide by a certain amount and this will tell
you your VO2. There are many formulas for telling which is more
cardio stimulation. The most popular is Jack Daniel's but honestly I
go by heart rate between 120-179. After 179 it's considered
anaerobic. Although if you kept the pace for an hour it's probably
aerobic.

Gary said:

There's a formula when I go home monday I'll post it you measure it
for a 10 minute run and divide by a certain amount and this will tell
you your VO2. There are many formulas for telling which is more
cardio stimulation. The most popular is Jack Daniel's but honestly I
go by heart rate between 120-179. After 179 it's considered
anaerobic. Although if you kept the pace for an hour it's probably
aerobic.

That's my point: that it's the heart rate, NOT the pace directly, that's
more related to cardio benefit stimulation. And sometimes lower heart
rate, say peaking somewhere in the 70-80% of max hr zone provides
certain types of benefits (say, capillarization), while 80-90% max hr
has other benefits (say, larger stroke volume). 90% max hr for some
people is probably close to what they can maintain for an hour at race
pace, but could be anywhere from 80-95% max hr, since it does vary with
training. I think Martin & Coe have a better discussion on benefits of
different efforts and benefits than Daniels. I just wish they had the
table (of benefits in different zones) in graph form, if that level of
information were available.

If you've done much running on trails, as I'm sure you have in xc, you
probably recognize the difference between uphill / downhill and track
paces and heart rates.

FWIW, I'm still trying to find some place where I can do a 6-min test,
never mind a 10-min test, to see what that effort feels like. I'm
assuming it's supposed to be "all out", but not fall over dead at the
end, but have never found a good description. OTOH, not sure what I'd do
with a VO2max number anyway since I usually use talk test and LT region
as my signals.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Gary said:

Here's my preference On days when it's nice go for pace and distance,
on days when it's nasty or you don't feel well complete a run. I tend
to use the latter to help prepare my mind more than my body.

Ok, you and Charlie have convinced me. I'm weird. If I'm feeling good
and weather is great, I put the pack on and run - through the woods,
over hill and dale, above the trees - just enjoying the freedom of
running - both pace (and sometimes hr, depending on how overgrown trail
is) varying all over the place according to terrain. When I get back to
the car, the distance is what it is. And the time usually ends up being
a little longer than planned.

But when home, I download my hrm which dutifully logs my time and
intensity. I may pay attention to pace (as in min/mi, rather than time
between landmarks) a couple times / year (other than tm in xt class
where I usually adjust the speed to get the right hr / duration that I'm
looking for).

If I look in something like Martin & Coe for physiological benefits,
it's in time and intensity.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

shinypenny said:

How would I know my average training pace, if I didn't
track it for awhile

In that case you wouldn't. But in point of fact, you have.

Still trying to understand what I read as an utter lack of faith that
the next time you go out and run, you'll almost surely run roughly the
same pace as the last N runs.

Maybe this seems oppressively deterministic - is it perhaps important
to believe that "anything could happen" including wild variations in
pace on any given run? Or maybe the exact opposite: though a given
runner might long for order and control, his pervasive fear of chaos
prevents him from believing in it?

Quoted message said:

Okay.... anyone want to make an early prediction
about what my 5K time might be at my 1-year anniversary
5K in October???

Not I. But I'll gladly hazard a guess about your training pace
tomorrow, assuming you don't go out of your way to sabotage it. :-)

Reminder:

Quoted message said:

Thu: 22 min; 1.73 mi.; 13:00 pace
Sat: 45 min; 3.58 mi; 12:34 pace
Sun: 22 min; 1.73 mi; 12:44 pace
Tues: 29min, 2.32mi, 12:24 pace; road, Hot & Humid
Wed: 32min, 2.55mi, 12:32 pace; road, Hot & Humid
Fri: 57min, 4.53mi, 12:42 pace; flat trail
Sat: 29min, 2.32mi, 12:26 pace, flat trail

Dot said:

Ok, you and Charlie have convinced me. I'm weird.

Oh absolutely, Dot - I'd say you're damn near as weird as I, and
that's saying something. ;-)

Still, I'd only peg both of us in about the 70th (+/- 10?) percentile
of weirdness in the context of wreck.running. It's an odd group.
Maybe you'd noticed.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with your approach to
running, though!

And if after tracking some number of runs you've found that your pace
varies all over the map, no problem with that. If anything, I'd guess
that speaks of a healthy and interesting variety - whether of terrain,
effort, run/walk mix, stopping to smell the bear scat, or whatever.

OTOH if you had run the same route every Monday and for the last
several months the pace of that run always fell within say a 30 second/
mile window, I'd be a little puzzled if you insisted there was no
possible way you could guess what your pace might be next week.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charlie Pendejo said:

OTOH if you had run the same route every Monday and for the last
several months the pace of that run always fell within say a 30
second/ mile window, I'd be a little puzzled if you insisted there
was no possible way you could guess what your pace might be next
week.

OK, how about this: It's essentially the same route every time, just
going farther along it for the longer distances (from more recent
backwards):

distance pace
2.63 miles 14:50
2.10 miles 15:06
3.50 miles 14:30
2.00 miles 14:39
3.50 miles 14:06
5K 14:21
5K 15:12
5K 14:40
5K 15:00
5K 15:16
5K 14:20

The under 2.n mile runs were in ninety+ degree temperature; all but one
of the rest were in the mid 80s; the 14:06 was in the mid 70s. I
omitted the two races during that period because they were on different
routes.

Are those times consistent enough for you to make any predictions?

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

Charlie Pendejo said:

Dot said:

Ok, you and Charlie have convinced me. I'm weird.

Oh absolutely, Dot - I'd say you're damn near as weird as I, and
that's saying something. ;-)

There's probably some strong compeetition in this group.😉

Quoted message said:

Still, I'd only peg both of us in about the 70th (+/- 10?) percentile
of weirdness in the context of wreck.running. It's an odd group.
Maybe you'd noticed.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with your approach to
running, though!

I'm at peace with myself with what I do.😉 And it's consistent, in a
general sense, with fairly standard training principles.

Quoted message said:

And if after tracking some number of runs you've found that your pace
varies all over the map, no problem with that. If anything, I'd guess
that speaks of a healthy and interesting variety - whether of terrain,
effort, run/walk mix, stopping to smell the bear scat, or whatever.

You got it.

Quoted message said:

OTOH if you had run the same route every Monday and for the last
several months the pace of that run always fell within say a 30 second/
mile window, I'd be a little puzzled if you insisted there was no
possible way you could guess what your pace might be next week.

Yea, but I'd have to calculate it first. I could tell you it takes me
1-1:15 to run a certain route at easy effort with some minor variations,
but I'd have to actually guesstimate the distance to give you a pace.
And that's my point. I recognize some people like to track progress by
actual pace (min/mi), but some of us (ok, maybe just me in this group)
just work in time per landscape unit. (In this particular case, I do
have reasonable estimates of the distance, but I never bother thinking
in terms of min/mi. The pace will pop up in a qry, if I run it.)

Not sure if it's because I learned to run by effort and most training
books / papers I use are in terms of effort (and hence pace doesn't
figure in my thinking), stubborness cuz I think the canned programs that
prescribe precisely a 14:13 min/mi easy pace (or whatever) for a
beginning runner are just really stupid, because I run trails and pace
doesn't make any sense, or ...

I did a little under 5 mi today (had gps to map parts of trail I hadn't
been on) - in 3 hours. But I got my 2300 ft in and found a trail I was
looking for.😉 Climb rate was about 700ft in first 35 min (trail
deteriorated after that, actually it wasn't great up to that point
either). Some of us just track progress in different ways. Pace doesn't
mean anything to me, but I see now how some people are using it (and not
strictly in a speed sense). Where I use time / landscape units, how easy
a run felt, and recovery, they tend to use pace (resultant pace, not
that they're trying to run faster). It all works.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

Gary said:

Here's my preference On days when it's nice go for pace and distance,
on days when it's nasty or you don't feel well complete a run. I tend
to use the latter to help prepare my mind more than my body.

Ok, you and Charlie have convinced me. I'm weird. If I'm feeling good
and weather is great, I put the pack on and run - through the woods,
over hill and dale, above the trees - just enjoying the freedom of
running - both pace (and sometimes hr, depending on how overgrown trail
is) varying all over the place according to terrain. When I get back to
the car, the distance is what it is. And the time usually ends up being
a little longer than planned.

But when home, I download my hrm which dutifully logs my time and
intensity. I may pay attention to pace (as in min/mi, rather than time
between landmarks) a couple times / year (other than tm in xt class
where I usually adjust the speed to get the right hr / duration that I'm
looking for).

If I look in something like Martin & Coe for physiological benefits,
it's in time and intensity.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardyhttp://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

I'm not saying one way is better nor worse go with what works with
you 🙂. That's my preference We could be the wierd ones.

Charlie Pendejo said:

shinypenny said:

How would I know my average training pace, if I didn't
track it for awhile

In that case you wouldn't. But in point of fact, you have.

Still trying to understand what I read as an utter lack of faith that
the next time you go out and run, you'll almost surely run roughly the
same pace as the last N runs.

Maybe this seems oppressively deterministic - is it perhaps important
to believe that "anything could happen" including wild variations in
pace on any given run? Or maybe the exact opposite: though a given
runner might long for order and control, his pervasive fear of chaos
prevents him from believing in it?

Quoted message said:

Okay.... anyone want to make an early prediction
about what my 5K time might be at my 1-year anniversary
5K in October???

Not I. But I'll gladly hazard a guess about your training pace
tomorrow, assuming you don't go out of your way to sabotage it. :-)

Reminder:

Quoted message said:

Thu: 22 min; 1.73 mi.; 13:00 pace
Sat: 45 min; 3.58 mi; 12:34 pace
Sun: 22 min; 1.73 mi; 12:44 pace
Tues: 29min, 2.32mi, 12:24 pace; road, Hot & Humid
Wed: 32min, 2.55mi, 12:32 pace; road, Hot & Humid
Fri: 57min, 4.53mi, 12:42 pace; flat trail
Sat: 29min, 2.32mi, 12:26 pace, flat trail- Hide quoted text -

Yes, I was particularly consistent last week. In this past month I
have runs that are a full minute faster than that - on the days I was
practicing picking up my cadence. And I have runs that were 1:30
slower than that.

If you'd guessed 12-minute range for yesterday's run, you would be
completely wrong. I ended up doing 4 miles in one hour. But to be fair
that's because I ran into some problems and had to run/walk home. Was
just about to post about that.

jen