Anyone using Nike+ Kit?

shinypenny said:

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.

Yeah, I read that post just before this one.

Geez, Jen, hope you're OK. Suggest you make damn sure you're OK
before doing anything more strenuous than walking! Not that I know
anything about anything, just concerned. Better safe than sorry; take
care of yourself.

But hey - a chance to emphasize my point. ;-)

Now that you know that doing a run/walk with those extraordinary
problems nets you 15 minute miles, I hope you'll feel more confident
about guessing your pace on future "normal" training runs. I mean, if
this kind of severe duress loses you just 2:30/mi, and going all-out
in a race only gains that same 2:30/mi, you gotta figure on any
typical training run you're a lot closer to 12:30 than to 10 or 15!

That's all I'm saying. You don't need a special hypersensitive and
time tested internal velocity gauge, just a little bit of experience
to tell you what your typical, best and worst case paces are.

michelle said:

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

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

Sure. Just eyeballing it I'm gonna say your next several training
runs on this course are quite likely to fall around 14:40 +/- :30 or
so per mile. (1)

For my next magic trick I will predict that rec.running is likely to
get somewhere between 11 and 750 posts on Sunday. And without setting
my alarm, I'll sleep between 6.5 to 8.5 hours tonight.

Shazam!!

(1) But I think you may be way more ornery than Jen, and I'd be a lot
more wary of you intentionally sabotaging your next run just to prove
me wrong. ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charlie Pendejo said:

(1) But I think you may be way more ornery than Jen, and I'd be a lot
more wary of you intentionally sabotaging your next run just to prove
me wrong. ;-)

Nope; I'm not that kind of person. But that +/- fudge you gave yourself
definitely puts you in the ballpark. But if the temperature gets down
into the mid 80s when I run, I might wind up going a bit faster than
even that--it wouldn't be a deliberate attempt to sabotage your
estimate, though.

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

Michelle said:

that +/- fudge you gave yourself definitely puts you in
the ballpark.

Right. And relating this pace-with-fudge-factor back to distance,
which IIRC was part of the discussion dozens of posts ago... let's say
you run 45 minutes. Let's say we agree your pace is likely between
14:10 and 15:10 a mile based on recent history. How far did you go?

15:10 -> 2.97 miles
14:40 -> 3.07 miles
14:10 -> 3.18 miles

So call it an even 5k or 3.1, and you're unlikely to be off by more
than about a tenth of a mile either way. Without opening a tangential
argument on "how accurately and precisely does it make sense to log my
runs," I'd just observe that's really a pretty tight guesstimate - a
far cry from "could've been 2 miles, could've been 4."

P.S. OK, if you're not "ornery" per se, will you admit to having a
"feisty" streak? ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charlie Pendejo said:

P.S. OK, if you're not "ornery" per se, will you admit to having a
"feisty" streak? ;-)

Yes, but it doesn't manifest itself that way.

Anyway, we'll see next Sunday how close you are--and a lot will depend
on how hot it gets here in the early mornings.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Michelle said:

that +/- fudge you gave yourself definitely puts you in
the ballpark.

Right. And relating this pace-with-fudge-factor back to distance,
which IIRC was part of the discussion dozens of posts ago... let's say
you run 45 minutes. Let's say we agree your pace is likely between
14:10 and 15:10 a mile based on recent history. How far did you go?

15:10 -> 2.97 miles
14:40 -> 3.07 miles
14:10 -> 3.18 miles

If the runs are on roads why all this fudge stuff ? Use
http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/
and map a course either before you run, if you need to be exact, or
after if you just want to run for feel. Hell it even gives some quasi
real elevation if it matters. No silly devices other than a watch or a
clock.

I'm a firm believer in KISS - Keep It Simple Sweetheart....

-Doug

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Freese said:

If the runs are on roads why all this fudge stuff ? Use
http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/ and map a course either before you
run, if you need to be exact, or after if you just want to run for
feel. Hell it even gives some quasi real elevation if it matters. No
silly devices other than a watch or a clock.

You're missing the point, Doug; I merely asked Charlie if he could
estimate my pace in the immediate future based on past performance. He
gave me an estimate with a +/- thirty second fudge factor. I remarked
that that fudge factor put him in the ball park, and his reply showed
how it really did exactly that.

He was fairly close today; his prediction was 14:40 +/- 30 seconds, and
I did 14:13, falling just three seconds within his fudge factor. I
think that if the weather had been five degrees cooler, I would have
come in under that estimate.

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

Doug said:

If the runs are on roads why all this fudge stuff ?
Use http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/

Oh sure, that's a totally reasonable thing to do in real life.

This discussion, at least my angle on it, isn't about how to determine
your mileage in real life. I've been more interested in why so many
people throw up their hands and say "I can't judge pace! Without
mapping software or a GPS device I'd have no idea if I ran 3 miles or
6 miles!" when that's demonstrably false.

(disclaimer: ...demonstrably false for most of us. There are always
outliers, especially in this group.)

You go out for a "normal" training run, on your normal terrain in
anything approaching normal weather, and your pace is gonna be within
10% (and very probably tighter than that for many of us) of your
normal, average daily pace. No matter how much you might want to be
the little engine who couldn't, with a pacing disability, you're
almost surely like the rest of us in this respect - when you settle
into your comfortable pace, your body propels itself at just about the
same speed as it did yesterday. So you do, in fact, know your pace.
Within reason. Hence your distance (assuming you have a watch to
check the time).

It takes a LOT more effort to run say 25% faster than your typical
training pace. And 25% slower is also a whole different ballgame. Go
verify this on a treadmill or at the track. Sure there are day-to-day
variations, but you don't generally run this much faster or slower by
accident or without realizing it.

Michelle said:

He was fairly close today; his prediction was 14:40 +/- 30 seconds, and
I did 14:13, falling just three seconds within his fudge factor. I
think that if the weather had been five degrees cooler, I would have
come in under that estimate.

And the point would still hold - you and I both know *about* how fast
your training pace is gonna be on any given time out. We could refine
the guesstimate equation by taking temperature into account too, e.g.
hypothetically something like

14:40 +/- 30 seconds

minus two seconds for every degree F under 80

or whatever. Regardless, the point remains: if you ever find your
life depends on marking out a distance of a mile +/- 100 yards, and
are wearing a watch, you'll have really good odds if you draw a line,
label it "start", run at training effort for about 14:30, stop and
draw the finish line.

Or if this is another year or two down the line and your training has
you running faster, adjust the timing - but you'll know that. :-)

Charlie Pendejo said:

Doug said:

If the runs are on roads why all this fudge stuff ?
Usehttp://www.usatf.org/routes/map/

Oh sure, that's a totally reasonable thing to do in real life.

This discussion, at least my angle on it, isn't about how to determine
your mileage in real life. I've been more interested in why so many
people throw up their hands and say "I can't judge pace! Without
mapping software or a GPS device I'd have no idea if I ran 3 miles or
6 miles!" when that's demonstrably false.

(disclaimer: ...demonstrably false for most of us. There are always
outliers, especially in this group.)

You go out for a "normal" training run, on your normal terrain in
anything approaching normal weather, and your pace is gonna be within
10% (and very probably tighter than that for many of us) of your
normal, average daily pace. No matter how much you might want to be
the little engine who couldn't, with a pacing disability, you're
almost surely like the rest of us in this respect - when you settle
into your comfortable pace, your body propels itself at just about the
same speed as it did yesterday. So you do, in fact, know your pace.
Within reason. Hence your distance (assuming you have a watch to
check the time).

It takes a LOT more effort to run say 25% faster than your typical
training pace. And 25% slower is also a whole different ballgame. Go
verify this on a treadmill or at the track. Sure there are day-to-day
variations, but you don't generally run this much faster or slower by
accident or without realizing it.

I suppose that is true.

Just as a tidbit, the Ipod gadget isn't all that accurate on telling
you your current pace - it really only tells you what your overall
pace was once you're done. You have to press a button for it to tell
you the pace while you are running, and I'm not sure exactly what it
is measuring, because it can wildly fluctuate - enough to be
completely meaningless, IME. For example I've had it tell me I'm
running at a 20 minute pace or an 8 minute pace... even if I think
I've been perfectly consistent with my pace, or I press the button
twice within the same minute.

jen

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:20:49 -0700, Michelle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You're missing the point, Doug;

Doesn't he ALWAYS?

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

Charlie Pendejo said:

Doug said:

If the runs are on roads why all this fudge stuff ?
Use http://www.usatf.org/routes/map/

Oh sure, that's a totally reasonable thing to do in real life.

This discussion, at least my angle on it, isn't about how to determine
your mileage in real life. I've been more interested in why so many
people throw up their hands and say "I can't judge pace! Without
mapping software or a GPS device I'd have no idea if I ran 3 miles or
6 miles!" when that's demonstrably false.

😉 (note the smiley, lest anyone take these hypotheses seriously)
Hypothesis 1: Many common training programs have paces in them and new
people assume you therefore have to train by pace, to the nearest second.
For instance, Runner's World Smart Coach will suggest a training pace of
15:01 for easy runs and 6:01 for 400s for someone running a 39-min 5k
off about 30mpw training moderately. (http://tinyurl.com/38m3vn) If I
had seen that as a new runner, I would have assumed that if I ran 15:02
or 15:00, I wasn't getting the desired training effects. (Thank god, I
saw Benson's stuff first. I think RW and Garmin are in a conspiracy.)

Hyp 2: Many training reports have paces, hence it's assumed it's the
"in" thing that runners do. Kinda like fueling means eating GU, and
nothing else works for real runners.

Hyp 3: People want gadgets, and everyone else has one. This is what real
runners do. And it enables them to implement that 12:31 pace in the
training plan.

Seriously, I can relate to Hyp 1, since when I was first reading about
intervals and the various work:recovery ratios for different benefits, I
really thought that 61:59sec might have different benefits than 60:60
(or whatever) - or at least I did entertain that thought. Periodization
had exactly 4 phases and everyone used the same scheme. If you used a
different scheme, it was called something other than periodization. At
one time, I even thought you had to eat GU. Hmmm, yes, I've learned a
little in the last 6 yrs, and hope to learn as much more in the next 6+
yrs.😉

Quoted message said:

(disclaimer: ...demonstrably false for most of us. There are always
outliers, especially in this group.)

Hey, but there's other groups that may not consider us outliers.😉 Or
maybe it's the diversity in discussion that they like.

Dot

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

Dot said:

😉 (note the smiley, lest anyone take these hypotheses seriously)

Sure, consider me to have an implied smiley too.

Quoted message said:

Hypothesis 1: Many common training programs have paces in them and new
people assume you therefore have to train by pace, to the nearest second.
For instance, Runner's World Smart Coach will suggest a training pace of
15:01 for easy runs and 6:01 for 400s for someone running a 39-min 5k
off about 30mpw training moderately. (http://tinyurl.com/38m3vn) If I
had seen that as a new runner, I would have assumed that if I ran 15:02
or 15:00, I wasn't getting the desired training effects. (Thank god, I
saw Benson's stuff first. I think RW and Garmin are in a conspiracy.)

Hyp 2: Many training reports have paces, hence it's assumed it's the
"in" thing that runners do. Kinda like fueling means eating GU, and
nothing else works for real runners.

Both may hold some truth, but neither seems to speak to the commonly
expressed notion which goes like "if I run 45 minutes I have no idea
if that was 3 or 6 miles" which is what fascinates me. The complaint
isn't expressed as "sure, I know it'd be between 4.00 and 4.20 miles,
but I'd prefer more precision."

Quoted message said:

Hyp 3: People want gadgets, and everyone else has one.

This seems probably more relevant to the widespread "pace disability"
claim. But I suspect that beyond, or in addition to, lustfully
_wanting_ the gadget, there's also a feeling of _needing_ the gadget,
an insecurity without the gadget. A psychological/cultural outgrowth
of our 20th and 21st century Western culture with all our invention of
all manner of marvelous machines and consequent dependence on them.

I think this technology is very much a double-edged sword, and once of
the upshots of our dependence is that we lose the skills but more
fundamentally the confidence in ourselves. The machine can do it
perfectly; how could we ever hope to? We *need* the machine, we're
helpless without it!

As has been lamented for decades, dependence on calculators etc. has
eroded our numeracy to the point where few of us either making a
purchase or working the cash register will be aware of a "typo" in the
price. See the number, whip out the cash or plastic.

We see much the same in the physical realm as, again this is old news,
people drive two blocks to get milk. Second running boom aside,
people are walking less if at all, doing less physical work.

We're delegating large chunks of both the mental and the physical to
machines, in short. And it's not, at least not entirely, because
we're "lazy" - I really think it becomes so habitual that as I said
above, we forget and/or lose faith that we have the ability to do
stuff.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that by the end of the decade we'll be 100%
dehumanized and mired deep in a literal horrific techno-dystopia ala
The Matrix and its ilk; nor that we outlaw electricity, live in caves,
and develop a hunter-gatherer-hippie society. Merely, I guess it
turns out, writing my annual "running's supposed to get us in touch
with our primal humanity and make us feel more capable, not slaves to
technology" rant. ;-) As I started writing I thought I might have
something new but I don't see it here. Ah well, maybe last night's
Golden Monkey killed a few too many neurons and dendrites.

Quoted message said:

Hey, but there's other groups that may not consider us outliers.

I don't care to belong to any club that won't have me as an
outlier. ;-)
(Marx-Pendejo)

Charlie Pendejo said:

Dot said:

😉 (note the smiley, lest anyone take these hypotheses seriously)

Sure, consider me to have an implied smiley too.

Quoted message said:

Hypothesis 1: Many common training programs have paces in them and new
people assume you therefore have to train by pace, to the nearest second.
For instance, Runner's World Smart Coach will suggest a training pace of
15:01 for easy runs and 6:01 for 400s for someone running a 39-min 5k
off about 30mpw training moderately. (http://tinyurl.com/38m3vn) If I
had seen that as a new runner, I would have assumed that if I ran 15:02
or 15:00, I wasn't getting the desired training effects. (Thank god, I
saw Benson's stuff first. I think RW and Garmin are in a conspiracy.)

Hyp 2: Many training reports have paces, hence it's assumed it's the
"in" thing that runners do. Kinda like fueling means eating GU, and
nothing else works for real runners.

Both may hold some truth, but neither seems to speak to the commonly
expressed notion which goes like "if I run 45 minutes I have no idea
if that was 3 or 6 miles" which is what fascinates me. The complaint
isn't expressed as "sure, I know it'd be between 4.00 and 4.20 miles,
but I'd prefer more precision."

Good point. I think my question is even more basic - "why the
fascination with distance (on every run?)"? vs heart rate or amount of
climb or any number of other metrics - like the exact temperature,
dewpoint, and wind where you were running (not the weather station).
It's not unheard of for good runners to go running without even a watch
for at least some runs. And it's not because they know their pace over
that terrain. It does help to know that for that course, you can run it
without exceeding your volume for the day/week and hence don't need to
keep close track.

Some people want to know how many miles long their run should be before
they need to worry about drinking or taking a GU (no, it's never generic
fueling, it's always eating a GU, or at least it seems that way). Or how
many miles before using a camelbak?

Jen did explain why in her case, and I accept that in her case. But I
have trouble buying that for everyone that owns a Garmin or whatever
their gadget of choice is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hyp 3: People want gadgets, and everyone else has one.

This seems probably more relevant to the widespread "pace disability"
claim. But I suspect that beyond, or in addition to, lustfully
_wanting_ the gadget, there's also a feeling of _needing_ the gadget,
an insecurity without the gadget. A psychological/cultural outgrowth
of our 20th and 21st century Western culture with all our invention of
all manner of marvelous machines and consequent dependence on them.

I think this technology is very much a double-edged sword, and once of
the upshots of our dependence is that we lose the skills but more
fundamentally the confidence in ourselves. The machine can do it
perfectly; how could we ever hope to? We *need* the machine, we're
helpless without it!

Good point. I know time flies when I'm having fun, and drags when not,
so I do use a watch.

Quoted message said:

As has been lamented for decades, dependence on calculators etc. has
eroded our numeracy to the point where few of us either making a
purchase or working the cash register will be aware of a "typo" in the
price. See the number, whip out the cash or plastic.

We see much the same in the physical realm as, again this is old news,
people drive two blocks to get milk. Second running boom aside,
people are walking less if at all, doing less physical work.

People driving to gyms has intrigued me. Although when I had my achilles
issues, I began to appreciate why some people may. And the lack of
distractions compared with stuff at home.

Actually, I was in our local Wal-Mart last night, which is expanding
from a regular to super-size. People pushing carts with a load will get
at least a minimal workout in there getting from one end to the other.😉
I was just getting a couple things (no basket), but with a little bit of
agility work evading other shoppers I could power hike from one end to
the other - where one of the other items I was looking for was. I'm sure
that store must be big enough for an indoor track. I think the distance
within that store is greater than the distance from my house to local
quick-mart - probably not, but just seemed huge, esp. since I was in
hurry to get to a meeting.

Quoted message said:

We're delegating large chunks of both the mental and the physical to
machines, in short. And it's not, at least not entirely, because
we're "lazy" - I really think it becomes so habitual that as I said
above, we forget and/or lose faith that we have the ability to do
stuff.

I do think in some cases that the initial training may not be there. But
also in faster-paced world of today, the machine can do it more quickly.
I'm thinking check-out at McD's or something along those lines - young
cashiers, time pressures.

OTOH, eye-hand coordination is probably greater today than in kids a few
decades ago. I'm thinking in terms of pilot-training benefits. OTOH, I
guess many newer planes are "smart" enough they barely need a pilot, but
the pilot's gotta be really well trained to take over when the aircraft
messes up.

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

Charlie Pendejo said:

Both may hold some truth, but neither seems to speak to the commonly
expressed notion which goes like "if I run 45 minutes I have no idea
if that was 3 or 6 miles" which is what fascinates me.

Maybe because you're stubbornly trying to remember it this way, when
this isn't what people have actually written. :-)

They may know it was about 3 miles, but have no concept of the time
they ran it in, unless they have a clock or watch or ipod gadget
thingie. Sure, you can check the clock before you leave and once you
return (which by the way happens to be reliance on a gadget too), but
some of us get side-tracked or forget to check. And then some people
may know they ran it in 45 minutes but have no clue if it was 3 or 6
miles unless they map it or use a gadget thingie.

Quoted message said:

The complaint
isn't expressed as "sure, I know it'd be between 4.00 and 4.20 miles,
but I'd prefer more precision."

That's because it's all in your mind, this belief that people must
want extra precision. They don't - or at least I don't - it's the
gadget or mapmyrun site that gives me the two numbers after the
decimal. I just dutifully record it - I guess I could round up, not
sure why I don't. Probably just habit!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hyp 3: People want gadgets, and everyone else has one.

This seems probably more relevant to the widespread "pace disability"
claim. But I suspect that beyond, or in addition to, lustfully
_wanting_ the gadget, there's also a feeling of _needing_ the gadget,
an insecurity without the gadget.

Eh, I don't feel insecure without it. I ran for years without a
gadget, but most of that running was done around an indoor track with
a great big clock to check at each lap. I had no idea how far I went,
because I couldn't keep a count of laps in my head (small track).

When I ran outside, I did take a watch - a clunky thing that I
couldn't stand to have strapped to my wrist. Very annoying!! I much
prefer the ipod thingie - I take my ipod anyway, it's not intrusive or
bothersome to clip to my waste, and I don't have to squint to read
numbers while trying to keep my eye on the path - I just hit a button
and it tells me the time in my ear. Pretty fancy watch, if you ask
me!

Quoted message said:

A psychological/cultural outgrowth
of our 20th and 21st century Western culture with all our invention of
all manner of marvelous machines and consequent dependence on them.

I think this technology is very much a double-edged sword, and once of
the upshots of our dependence is that we lose the skills but more
fundamentally the confidence in ourselves. The machine can do it
perfectly; how could we ever hope to? We *need* the machine, we're
helpless without it!

As has been lamented for decades, dependence on calculators etc. has
eroded our numeracy to the point where few of us either making a
purchase or working the cash register will be aware of a "typo" in the
price. See the number, whip out the cash or plastic.

Hey! I may be pace-challenged but I can count out change. I learned on
an old-fashioned cash register.

Quoted message said:

We see much the same in the physical realm as, again this is old news,
people drive two blocks to get milk. Second running boom aside,
people are walking less if at all, doing less physical work.

True.

Quoted message said:

We're delegating large chunks of both the mental and the physical to
machines, in short. And it's not, at least not entirely, because
we're "lazy" - I really think it becomes so habitual that as I said
above, we forget and/or lose faith that we have the ability to do
stuff.

Okay - you get rid of your computer and internet access first. Go
ahead... I'm waiting! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting that by the end of the decade we'll be 100%
dehumanized and mired deep in a literal horrific techno-dystopia ala
The Matrix and its ilk; nor that we outlaw electricity, live in caves,
and develop a hunter-gatherer-hippie society. Merely, I guess it
turns out, writing my annual "running's supposed to get us in touch
with our primal humanity and make us feel more capable, not slaves to
technology" rant. ;-) As I started writing I thought I might have
something new but I don't see it here. Ah well, maybe last night's
Golden Monkey killed a few too many neurons and dendrites.

I like my robotic vacuum cleaner, robotic lawn mower, dishwasher, and
laundry machine because it frees up my time to be able to go out and
run. Sure, I guess if I didn't have those items, I would burn extra
calories doing all the heavy labor. But this way is much more
enjoyable, don't you think?

jen

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

Good point. I think my question is even more basic - "why the
fascination with distance (on every run?)"? vs heart rate or amount of
climb or any number of other metrics - like the exact temperature,
dewpoint, and wind where you were running (not the weather station).
It's not unheard of for good runners to go running without even a watch
for at least some runs. And it's not because they know their pace over
that terrain. It does help to know that for that course, you can run it
without exceeding your volume for the day/week and hence don't need to
keep close track.

I want to know the fascination with HRM's. I tell myself there must be
something to it, if so many people use them, so I'm tempted... I'm
particularly tempted after this past week's drama with my chest pains:
it would've been nice to have the data to rule out or in heart
problems. But I'm not so sure this wouldn't simply be information
overload and more trouble than its worth.

Quoted message said:

Some people want to know how many miles long their run should be before
they need to worry about drinking or taking a GU (no, it's never generic
fueling, it's always eating a GU, or at least it seems that way). Or how
many miles before using a camelbak?

That I never understood (timing drinking), but then I just sip
constantly.

Quoted message said:

Jen did explain why in her case, and I accept that in her case. But I
have trouble buying that for everyone that owns a Garmin or whatever
their gadget of choice is.

Actually I thought of a few other reasons I bought this gadget. I had
just got my ipod for my bday, and I was all excited with my new toy.
The nike+ thing wasn't all that expensive, and I thought it would
eliminate my need to keep a spreadsheet log. I imagined I'd just
upload the info and then be able to play around with it, add log
notes, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You can't
manipulate the data once it's in there. You get their standard reports
and that's it.

Another reason I was interested was that my brother, who's also a
runner, has an ipod, so I imagined we could do challenges from afar.
I.e., use the community features. But turns out my brother has an
older ipod that doesn't work with the nike thing. And also it keeps
getting uncalibrated and I never get around to recalibrating it.

One thing that is cool is that when you log on to upload, it shows you
the readouts of all the people around the globe who also are
uploading. I get a kick out of that for some reason. And you can also
check to see how you compare with other users in your same age group.
One of my first weeks I was the #1 person in my age group and gender
as far as distance - but that's 1) before I calibrated it properly 2)
when I was only walking - just walking A LOT! and 3) in the early days
before there were all that many users. :-)

jen

shinypenny said:

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

Good point. I think my question is even more basic - "why the
fascination with distance (on every run?)"? vs heart rate or amount of
climb or any number of other metrics - like the exact temperature,
dewpoint, and wind where you were running (not the weather station).
It's not unheard of for good runners to go running without even a watch
for at least some runs. And it's not because they know their pace over
that terrain. It does help to know that for that course, you can run it
without exceeding your volume for the day/week and hence don't need to
keep close track.

I want to know the fascination with HRM's.

They provide a measure of intensity which in turn can provide
indications of cardio benefits, something that pace and distance alone
don't tell you.

Some cardio / metabolic benefits are achieved at low levels of hr, say
<80% max hr. Others in the 80-90% range and some above that. Although
they are described in zones, it's really more of a gradient, but we have
a tendency to name things - like colors are zones of light spectrum.
And, like colors, their detailed descriptions and boundaries change by
whose describing them, but the benefits of a diversity of zones and
their benefits is generally acknowledged. While I've given numbers
relative to max hr, a more meaningful intensity number is relative to LT
(which changes) or VO2max. Much of this can be approximated by
breathing or running by feel, but I find it more awkward to log things
that way. That's why I say I run by feel, but log by my hrm.

For instance, if someone says he did something for 1 hr at 80% max hr.
That means something in terms of intensity and benefits to most any one
familiar with some basic aspects of running physiology. Running at 10
min/mi for 1 hr doesn't convey any of that information to anyone except
the person doing it. For someone like me, that's well above LT (90% max
hr) even on flat, firm surface; some others can't jog that slowly so
might be below 65% max hr. The pace does provide some biomechanical
information like you covered 6 mi, and that is of use if you're assuming
calories spent are proportional to distance and nothing else.

Getting a reasonable estimate of max heart rate is sometimes a
challenge, since many of the forumulas may not work for you. One
probably does, but you don't know which one. The most reliable method is
through a stress test, and maybe you can get those numbers when you have
yours. Make sure they don't automatically stop at your age-based max, if
you want a meaningful number. They may turn out to be the same, but you
don't know at outset. There's simple field tests you can also do. You
should mention why you're interested in the numbers - namely for running
training.

I've found books still tend to be better than web pages when it comes to
understanding heart rate training. I used Burke's Precision Heart Rate
Training and Roy Benson's software (might be in his book now) (not sure
I'd recommend that software now), but others have used Parker's Heart
RAte Training for the Compleat Idiot. (I thought I had found a better
web site but seems to have disappeared or I can't find it.)

Monitoring rest hr (don't really need a hrm) can be a clue as to
overreaching which could lead to overtraining, illness, etc.

If you look at many refereed articles or reputable books, you'll find
the training is described by intensity - frequently by heart rate or by
breathing. If they do it by pace (like Daniels), they've probably gone
through a bunch of mathematics to get there and assume you are running
flat pavement and made a bunch of assumptions about LT, etc. That's one
of the reasons I prefer going by my own effort, like breathing.

In my case, I really like the stacked bar charts that Polar uses to
monitor volume and intensity over time. The height of the bar is total
time, and the colors for the bars represent the various intensity zones.
I can set the graph up for individual runs, weekly summaries for the
last 6 months, or monthly (or whatever) summaries over the last couple
years. I can see short term volume as well as long term trends in volume
and intensity. (I should post some of these sometime.)

These are the kinds of things I can do with Polar's software, but could
never find any software that would do that for the 305 and was too lazy
to do the translation myself. So when my beloved 625 came back with
battery, my 305 hasn't gotten used much (occasionally if I want to
double check the footpod or want a particular distance).

Quoted message said:

I tell myself there must be
something to it, if so many people use them, so I'm tempted... I'm
particularly tempted after this past week's drama with my chest pains:
it would've been nice to have the data to rule out or in heart
problems. But I'm not so sure this wouldn't simply be information
overload and more trouble than its worth.

Quoted message said:

Some people want to know how many miles long their run should be before
they need to worry about drinking or taking a GU (no, it's never generic
fueling, it's always eating a GU, or at least it seems that way). Or how
many miles before using a camelbak?

That I never understood (timing drinking), but then I just sip
constantly.

Some of us don't bother with water under 1 hr under normal weather
conditions. But whether I take a bottle, a small bladder, or 2 bladders
will depend on the duration of the run, not the distance. Hills and
technical terrain can make for slower speeds, so distance isn't a good
measure of when to take a bottle. Some 1:25 half marathon guys will say
no need for fluid on something less than a marathon. Geez, I'd like to
get one of those guys up here on one of our mountain races (over 3hrs
for 14 mi).😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jen did explain why in her case, and I accept that in her case. But I
have trouble buying that for everyone that owns a Garmin or whatever
their gadget of choice is.

Actually I thought of a few other reasons I bought this gadget. I had
just got my ipod for my bday, and I was all excited with my new toy.

ah, ok.

Quoted message said:

The nike+ thing wasn't all that expensive, and I thought it would
eliminate my need to keep a spreadsheet log. I imagined I'd just
upload the info and then be able to play around with it, add log
notes, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You can't
manipulate the data once it's in there. You get their standard reports
and that's it.

eeww (sp?). As I mentioned with my 305, if I can't get the data out that
I want or process it readily, I go back to what works.

Quoted message said:

Another reason I was interested was that my brother, who's also a
runner, has an ipod, so I imagined we could do challenges from afar.
I.e., use the community features. But turns out my brother has an
older ipod that doesn't work with the nike thing. And also it keeps
getting uncalibrated and I never get around to recalibrating it.

One thing that is cool is that when you log on to upload, it shows you
the readouts of all the people around the globe who also are
uploading. I get a kick out of that for some reason.

That's my equivalent of wanting to see a map and elevation profile of my
long runs.😉

Quoted message said:

And you can also
check to see how you compare with other users in your same age group.
One of my first weeks I was the #1 person in my age group and gender
as far as distance - but that's 1) before I calibrated it properly 2)
when I was only walking - just walking A LOT! and 3) in the early days
before there were all that many users. :-)

Are you all on similar terrain so these things make any sense?

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

Dot said:

shinypenny wrote:

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

particularly tempted after this past week's drama with my chest pains:
it would've been nice to have the data to rule out or in heart
problems. But I'm not so sure this wouldn't simply be information
overload and more trouble than its worth.

Just to clarify. I don't know that a hrm would provide any direct help
in this arena. The elevated resting hr data is sometimes a signal of
stress. Whether it would be related to causes of chest pains, I'm
clueless - other than it being some type of stress.

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
world-famous adventurer who was with Byrd in Antarctica

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

Good point. I think my question is even more basic - "why the
fascination with distance (on every run?)"? vs heart rate or amount of
climb or any number of other metrics - like the exact temperature,
dewpoint, and wind where you were running (not the weather station).
It's not unheard of for good runners to go running without even a watch
for at least some runs. And it's not because they know their pace over
that terrain. It does help to know that for that course, you can run it
without exceeding your volume for the day/week and hence don't need to
keep close track.

I think it depends on why you're out running in the first place. If
you're doing it for cardiovascular fitness then heart rate is
probably the most important metric to you. If you're like me and
you go running just for the sake of becoming a faster runner, you
want to know your average pace. Things like the Nike+ kit provide a
reliable, brain dead to measure and record this.

And as you mentioned, the gadget factor doesn't hurt either...

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Padawan said:

I got the Nike+ Kit, but i got no one to "run with"... any beginners
too who wanna "challenge".. on Distance or Speed etc...

Thanks

Yes, I'm using the "Nike + the trash can" kit. It's appropriate.

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

They provide a measure of intensity which in turn can provide
indications of cardio benefits, something that pace and distance alone
don't tell you.

Right, but playing Charlie for a minute, there's an easy low-tech way
to know intensity: the conversation test. And considering that age-
based formula doesn't work for most people, and most people don't go
to the trouble of figuring out their max HR, are these gadgets really
accurate anyway?

(I'm playing devils' advocate here)

Quoted message said:

Some cardio / metabolic benefits are achieved at low levels of hr, say
<80% max hr. Others in the 80-90% range and some above that. Although
they are described in zones, it's really more of a gradient, but we have
a tendency to name things - like colors are zones of light spectrum.
And, like colors, their detailed descriptions and boundaries change by
whose describing them, but the benefits of a diversity of zones and
their benefits is generally acknowledged. While I've given numbers
relative to max hr, a more meaningful intensity number is relative to LT
(which changes) or VO2max. Much of this can be approximated by
breathing or running by feel, but I find it more awkward to log things
that way. That's why I say I run by feel, but log by my hrm.

Okay, that makes sense. It is the logging capability. I understand
that.

Quoted message said:

For instance, if someone says he did something for 1 hr at 80% max hr.
That means something in terms of intensity and benefits to most any one
familiar with some basic aspects of running physiology. Running at 10
min/mi for 1 hr doesn't convey any of that information to anyone except
the person doing it.

I disagree. Knowing that my average training run is around 12-13:00
pace, and my last 5K was 33 minutes, if I were to run 10 min/mi for an
hour tomorrow, I can pretty much bet that was close to 80% max HR.
Actually, I probably couldn't pull that off - maybe for 30 minutes,
but an hour? Doubtful. So maybe closer to 90%. I do know for short
sprints I can get down to 9 min - but I can't hold it there.

I could be wrong, but I think I could guesstimate that 12-13:00 pace
for me is in the 60-70% zone and 10 min pace is probably more in the
80% zone, perhaps 9 min is 90%. . Looking at my log, I could guess
that back in January a 12 minute pace was pushing into 80% zone,
that's because my average training pace was closer to 14-15:00 pace.

Quoted message said:

For someone like me, that's well above LT (90% max
hr) even on flat, firm surface; some others can't jog that slowly so
might be below 65% max hr. The pace does provide some biomechanical
information like you covered 6 mi, and that is of use if you're assuming
calories spent are proportional to distance and nothing else.

But I think you can extrapolate, if you know pace and distance at that
pace, what your zone was - maybe not exactly, but close enough. For
example if you tell me that a person often runs 10 min pace for an
hour, I'd be pretty safe in concluding that is an easy pace for that
person. And on the basis of one single run, wouldn't I be safe
saying that 10 minutes was not an 80 or 90% run, since that person
could maintain that pace for a whole hour?

Quoted message said:

Getting a reasonable estimate of max heart rate is sometimes a
challenge, since many of the forumulas may not work for you. One
probably does, but you don't know which one. The most reliable method is
through a stress test, and maybe you can get those numbers when you have
yours. Make sure they don't automatically stop at your age-based max, if
you want a meaningful number. They may turn out to be the same, but you
don't know at outset. There's simple field tests you can also do. You
should mention why you're interested in the numbers - namely for running
training.

Yeah, I thought about that already. :-)

Quoted message said:

I've found books still tend to be better than web pages when it comes to
understanding heart rate training. I used Burke's Precision Heart Rate
Training and Roy Benson's software (might be in his book now) (not sure
I'd recommend that software now), but others have used Parker's Heart
RAte Training for the Compleat Idiot. (I thought I had found a better
web site but seems to have disappeared or I can't find it.)

Monitoring rest hr (don't really need a hrm) can be a clue as to
overreaching which could lead to overtraining, illness, etc.

If you look at many refereed articles or reputable books, you'll find
the training is described by intensity - frequently by heart rate or by
breathing. If they do it by pace (like Daniels), they've probably gone
through a bunch of mathematics to get there and assume you are running
flat pavement and made a bunch of assumptions about LT, etc. That's one
of the reasons I prefer going by my own effort, like breathing.

In my case, I really like the stacked bar charts that Polar uses to
monitor volume and intensity over time. The height of the bar is total
time, and the colors for the bars represent the various intensity zones.
I can set the graph up for individual runs, weekly summaries for the
last 6 months, or monthly (or whatever) summaries over the last couple
years. I can see short term volume as well as long term trends in volume
and intensity. (I should post some of these sometime.)

These are the kinds of things I can do with Polar's software, but could
never find any software that would do that for the 305 and was too lazy
to do the translation myself. So when my beloved 625 came back with
battery, my 305 hasn't gotten used much (occasionally if I want to
double check the footpod or want a particular distance).

Don't you have to strap stuff on to your chest or something? That
thought is enough to turn me off on the idea - I suspect I'd find it
annoying.

At any rate, last night it occurred to me why I am tempted by gadgets:
I inherited it from my father!! I just found out he was the first in
line at the store to buy an iphone. My dad is retired and it's not
like he really *needs* any more than a basic cell phone. But my father
has always been an early adopter of all sorts of electronic toys. I
recall we were the first on our block to own a PC. So it must be in my
blood. :-)

Quoted message said:

Some of us don't bother with water under 1 hr under normal weather
conditions. But whether I take a bottle, a small bladder, or 2 bladders
will depend on the duration of the run, not the distance. Hills and
technical terrain can make for slower speeds, so distance isn't a good
measure of when to take a bottle. Some 1:25 half marathon guys will say
no need for fluid on something less than a marathon. Geez, I'd like to
get one of those guys up here on one of our mountain races (over 3hrs
for 14 mi).😉

I can't even run 30 minutes without some water. It is probably mostly
habit by now, but I still can't shake this feeling that I run much
better if I sip it constantly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you can also
check to see how you compare with other users in your same age group.
One of my first weeks I was the #1 person in my age group and gender
as far as distance - but that's 1) before I calibrated it properly 2)
when I was only walking - just walking A LOT! and 3) in the early days
before there were all that many users. :-)

Are you all on similar terrain so these things make any sense?

No. But I was still tickled!

jen