Race report : Eindhoven Marathon (the Netherlands, Oct 12, 2003)

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Jos Bergervoet, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. Race report : Eindhoven Marathon (the Netherlands, Oct 12, 2003) Author : Jos Bergervoet Web-site :
    http://www.marathoneindhoven.nl/main.php Participants : about 1000 Winner : Willy Cheruiyot (Kenya)
    Winning time : 2:09:03

    This was my first marathon. Together with many of my colleagues (of Philips Research Laboratories)
    we had subscribed. Most of them would run the half-marathon, and we also had a team in the
    "company team competition", where the result would be based on the three best ranking runners in a
    team of five. But that was also based on the half marathon. In the end I was the only one doing
    the full marathon.

    My proclaimed goal was to finish within 1.5 times the new world record of Paul Tergat (2:04:55),
    which gives a time of 3:07:22. During the training period, I tested my half marathon time in a
    race and got
    1:25:48. Using the 'rule of thumb' that says: twice that time plus 15 minutes, that would predict
    3:06:36, so the second target (1 1/2 times Paul Tergat) would seem realistic. Of course,
    since this was to be my first marathon, finishing it would be good already. And on the
    other hand there was of course this highest imaginable goal: to run my debut below 3 hours!

    As I drove to the Eindhoven city hall, where we would start at 11.00, the weather looked nice,
    temperature about 50-55F. I was a bit late, since chip and bibnumber had been pre-arranged, and this
    meant that the nearby parking was full! Fortunately, at half a mile walking distance there was still
    space, so I arrived in time to look around. Some of my colleagues were already there, and had parked
    a van nearby where we could leave our bags. Most of the others had still to arrive since the half
    marathon would start later.

    For this race, Runner's World had arranged pacing teams for various finishing times, each 15 minutes
    apart. I had to choose between the 3:15 and 3:00 pacers, or run my own race. I decided for the 3:00
    pacers (the fastest group!), to give it at least a try to get sub 3 hours. The starting area was
    already filling up, but fortunately people left lots of space, so I could easily walk all the way up
    to the 3:00 pacers. I guess there were only about 100 people in front of us (but not the top
    runners, as far as I know they had their own "elite start!")

    Just before the gun, I started drinking my usual two bottles of sport drink, but before I finished
    the last one we were sent off, so I kept it in my hand when we started. I seemed to take about half
    a minute to reach the chipdetector. In the beginning it was fairly crowded, but the pacers had
    chosen their starting position well, so we went rather quickly into a decent pace. A few times I
    considered slowing down, when my HRM came above 153 (my estimated LT is 158), but after I dumped the
    drinking bottle, it soon became a steady 150, so I decided I could go on. At the 5k point the clock
    read 21:30, and considering the delay at the start, that would be a 5k of about 21 minutes, a
    perfect pace!

    Meanwhile, we had a great public, and bands were playing at almost every street corner. Drink
    stations were positioned at every 2.5k, offering gatorade, water, and sponges. I drank some
    gatorade, poured some water over my head, and started thinking about eating the energy gels I
    carried (I had six of them). I took one at 10k and another one at 15k, each time with a cup of
    gatorade or water soon after it. All the time the pacers were doing their job, the second and third
    5k both went in
    1:26. Then, however, the pace seemed to go up a bit, and again I was in doubt whether I should
    follow. Indeed, at the 20k mark we seemed to have done a 5k of 20:30, nearly one minute
    faster! We now were back in the city center, and nearing completion of the first lap. Both
    sides of the road were crowded with people, especially at "Stratumseind", the narrow road with
    the many bars. Lots of people standing outside, drinking beer and giving us loud support! We
    completed the first lap, half-marathon time 1:29. I guess the faster fourth 5k was for keeping
    it below 1:30.

    I was now almost the last one in the pacing group and again considered slowing down. Also, after
    having a third gel with a cup of gatorade, my stomach started protesting. To avoid severe problems,
    I slowed my pace a bit, and at 25k I was 200 meter behind, although the group was still clearly
    visible (the pacers all carry helium balloons!) My 25k time was still compatible with a 3 hour
    target, but I was clearly losing pace, since the fifth 5k split was 22:10. So it seemed wise to
    change to the "realistic" goal, the 3:07:22. Well, 7 minutes to spare and only 11 miles to go! I now
    had time to look around, wave to the public, applaud back when they applauded us, and watch other
    runners. From time to time I tried speeding up a little, but my stomach was not amused by such
    efforts. HR went down to 145 and the sixth 5k took me 23 minutes.

    We were now at Anthony Fokker road, nearing the far point of the second lap, and also nearing the
    point were the famous "wall" should be expected! And indeed, around 32k (20 miles, precisely as
    predicted!) I suddenly started to pass people. Some of them almost seemed to stand still! As for
    myself, I started to feel my quads, although that didn't slow me down much further than I already
    had, and the seventh 5k went by in 23:10. I did, however, start to worry a bit about my (new) target
    time, since at 35k I had only about 34 minutes left, with 7.2km to go. Meanwhile, the great thing
    about running alone were the cheers of the public for every lonely runner, and a few times I heard
    "hup Jos" when someone who knew me was among the spectators. I couldn't resist making a few joking
    remarks like: "How can you stand still for so long!", or "It's tough, isn't it?"

    In reality, the tough thing was that after each corner a new piece of road appeared, and for someone
    who doesn't know the area exactly this seems to go on forever! In this part of the race I would have
    preferred a long straight road with a visible target. One discovery I made (perhaps interesting, in
    view of the frequent HRM discussions) is that watching the HR now and then is very useful to prevent
    your pace from slipping away completely! I must admit that once or twice I saw an embarrassing 139.
    Some extra arm movements and a few deep breaths would then bring it back to 145. It sure helps to
    see the unforgiving display in front of you! I also noticed a strange thing at the last pass-over of
    John F. Kennedy lane: with tired quads, the uphill part actually feels easier than the downhill
    part! At that point, however, I knew that the good part would now soon begin, at the next turn
    southward.

    Yes: Field-marshal Montgomery lane! A big, straight road, the skyline of the city center looming in
    front of us, and dozens of other runners visible (and looking slow!) Here we passed the 39k point: 2
    miles to go, and 15 minutes left. Going into 1-1 breathing mode, I finally managed to get a
    non-embarrassing 155 on the HRM, and started passing others. The speed dropped a bit in the center,
    running in a corridor between massive walls of people. Then the second passage through Stratumseind:
    giving a friendly nod here, waving to some people over there, and thumbs up to the boys with the
    beer (everyone seemed in a very good mood!) Then the little bridge over River Dommel, the
    right-hander to the van Abbe museum, and the final turn to the finish. Style is everything, of
    course, so I tried to do (for once) everything that Ozzie tries to teach us in his FAQ. And also to
    smile into the cameras of the local TV. And also to run all the way over both chip detectors. Even
    to stop my own watch! Anyhow, the finish clock read 3:07:18, so apparently I made it with 4 seconds
    to spare! Actually my chip time turned out to be 3:07:02.

    Now it was time to join the people at our van again, eat an apple and some biscuits, and quickly
    lend a helping hand at Stratumseind. (I mean, the company team would need our support!) When the
    half marathon runners came in, our first three runners (Ad, Ivan, and Koen) took places 5, 16, and
    28. This gave Philips Research second place in the team competition! All in all, a day well spent.

    My splits:

    time | split | 5k part
    ----------------------
    :21:30 21:30 gun to 5k :42:50 21:20 5-10k
    1:27:10 21:20 10-15k
    1:28:40 20:30 15-20k
    1:29:02 <-- Half-marathon time 1:29:02
    1:30:50 22:10 20-25k
    1:31:50 23:00 25-30k
    1:32:00 23:10 30-35k
    1:33:50 23:50 35-40k
    1:34:18 10:28 40-42.2k <-- Finish time 3.07.18, chip time 3:07:02

    Avg. HR: 148
     
    Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
    >Web-site : http://www.marathoneindhoven.nl/main.php
    >
    >watch! Anyhow, the finish clock read 3:07:18, so apparently I made it with 4 seconds to spare!
    >Actually my chip time turned out to be 3:07:02.
    >
    >and 28. This gave Philips Research second place in the team competition!

    Wow, great first marathon, Jos! And an excellent report, very exciting to read. And congrats to your
    team, too! I hope your recovery goes well, and look forward to reading about your next marathon.

    Teresa in AZ
     
  3. Anders Lustig wrote: ...
    > According to one theory it´s advisable to drink up to 4dl about 5 minutes before the start, but
    > two bottles - isn´t that 2x5dl=1l?

    Normally I can handle 1 liter in my stomach, if the pace is slower than 4 minutes per km (after 10k
    it is unnoticable). But admittedly, it was unnecessary in this wheather, and with so many
    waterposts.

    >> I seemed to take about half a minute to reach the chipdetector.
    >
    > 16 seconds, as I can see when I scroll down the page. It´s not odd that it felt that way, but I´m
    > amazed that it took so long when you were in the 3:00 block in such a small marathon!

    They didn't have lots of different blocks in this race, but there were lots of fast runners! 161 of
    the 974 finishers were below 3 hours. See: http://tinyurl.com/qzjd (click "vorige" and "volgende"
    for paging). You also see there that with 3:07:02 I only finished 206 of 974.

    > One theory suggests that it´s advisable to drink water only for the first 70 minutes. In any case,
    > I´m beginning to see potential stomach troubles due to a too rich (gel plus gatorade) solution.

    It was overdone, yes. Especially with the amount of sport drink right before the race, and the carb
    loading of the previous days (I even used the protein diet before carb loading, see below). After
    finishing I wasn't even hungry or thirsty. Yes, I exaggerated things, out of fear for the wall!

    >> whether I should follow. Indeed, at the 20k mark we seemed to have done a 5k of 20:30, nearly one
    >> minute faster!
    >
    > That would be 4:06, and if the km-marks were correct, the pacers IMHO made a complete bollocks of
    > their job there.

    Well, many people complained that the 15k mark was inaccurate (and other marks as well). This may
    have been part of the problem. And that the pacers then had to correct in the next 5k is
    understandable as well.

    > BTW how much did your HR climp up here?

    I seem to remember seeing 153. And for me 3 beats up means about 2.5 percent more speed, that's
    still 30 seconds on a 5k!

    > This is so:) BTW did you decide on the Asics DS trainers,

    No, Saucony. Higher heels, so combined heel-forefoot striking comes naturally. For me, DS trainers
    "feel" only good with pure forefoot striking, and for 42.2k I decided not to try that.

    > they´re sometimes regarded as being a bit harder on the quads?

    Actually, my shoe-seller warned me for achilles problems if I would use those low heeled DS
    trainers more than twice a week. But I think that will only happen if you really abuse the calf
    muscles too much.

    >> All in all, a day well spent.
    >
    > And you must have done quite a lot of things right in your training!

    Here are the secrets: By training some 35km weekly during a year I had already built up some shape
    (some results are in the Dutch repository: http://www.uitslagen.nl/zoek.html?naam=Jos+Bergervoet )
    I've only been running for one year now (if we ignore some fun racing more than 20 years ago), so
    for injury prevention I actually used a pretty light schedule for the final marathon preparation.

    It was very loosly based on Fordyce's book: I only used the last 7 of the 9 weeks he listed, and I
    added an extra resting day per week (2.3 days rest per week on average, and 70 kilometer running). I
    also used the "fast final 10k" method in my long runs, as advised here by Andy himself, iirc.

    The "marathon ingredients" (actually only 4 real long runs!) were distributed as follows:

    The weekend 7 weeks out I did a 10k race (PR in 39:31) followed the next day by a 31 km LSD in
    3:00, in fact the first long run.

    Next weekend, 6 weeks out, a half marathon race (PR in 1:25:48).

    Weekend 5 weeks out: a slow half marathon in 1:43 for training.

    Weekend 4 weeks out: a 31k long run on Friday in 2:20, and a 15k race on Sunday (slow, in 1:02:30,
    just testing marathon pace!)

    3 weeks out: 34k on Monday, in 2:48, with the final 10k in 44 minutes.

    2 weeks out: 31k on Monday, in 2:35, with the final 10k in 42 minutes.

    1 week out: 15.5k in 1:20 on Monday, 2 days protein diet, on Wednesday
    7.5k tempo plus 3 x 3 minutes hard, plus 6 x 300m sprint (for carb depletion!), carb loading right
    after the run, and all days following.

    Saterday Oct 11, 4k jogging in 20 minutes, carb loading all evening!

    Sunday Oct 12, 11.00: Eindhoven Marathon in 3:07:02

    Today, Oct 15: 11.5k in 53m, recovery run with some pace variations.

    > Congrulations - but don´t you dare to go sub-3 before I do:)

    I've no immediate plans :)

    -- Jos
     
  4. Jos Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > This was my first marathon.

    And a pretty damn decent first marathon:)

    > Just before the gun, I started drinking my usual two bottles of sport drink, but before I finished
    > the last one we were sent off, so I kept it in my hand when we started.

    According to one theory it´s advisable to drink up to 4dl about 5 minutes before the start, but two
    bottles - isn´t that 2x5dl=1l?

    > I seemed to take about half a minute to reach the chipdetector.

    16 seconds, as I can see when I scroll down the page. It´s not odd that it felt that way, but I´m
    amazed that it took so long when you were in the 3:00 block in such a small marathon!

    > A few times I considered slowing down, when my HRM came above 153 (my estimated LT is 158), but
    > after I dumped the drinking bottle, it soon became a steady 150, so I decided I could go on.

    This strikes me as an ideal HR/pace.

    > I took one at 10k and another one at 15k, each time with a cup of gatorade or water soon after it.

    One theory suggests that it´s advisable to drink water only for the first 70 minutes. In any case,
    I´m beginning to see potential stomach troubles due to a too rich (gel plus gatorade) solution.

    > All the time the pacers were doing their job, the second and third 5k both went in 21:20.

    Although that makes it a seemingly perfect even 4:16min/km pace, I´d have liked the pacers doing
    closer to 4:13 - this was cutting it a bit too close for a sub-three.

    > Then, however, the pace seemed to go up a bit, and again I was in doubt whether I should follow.
    > Indeed, at the 20k mark we seemed to have done a 5k of 20:30, nearly one minute faster!

    That would be 4:06, and if the km-marks were correct, the pacers IMHO made a complete bollocks of
    their job there.

    BTW how much did your HR climp up here?

    > And indeed, around 32k (20 miles, precisely as predicted!) I suddenly started to pass people. Some
    > of them almost seemed to stand still! As for myself, I started to feel my quads, although that
    > didn't slow me down much further than I already had, and the seventh 5k went by in 23:10.

    Good going, though - and I know I´d rather have had tired quads than an empty tank at this point:)

    > I also noticed a strange thing at the last pass-over of John F. Kennedy lane: > with tired quads,
    > the uphill part actually feels easier than the downhill part!

    This is so:) BTW did you decide on the Asics DS trainers, they´re sometimes regarded as being a bit
    harder on the quads?

    > All in all, a day well spent.

    And you must have done quite a lot of things right in your training!

    Congrulations - but don´t you dare to go sub-3 before I do:)

    Anders
     
  5. Great race - well done. Nice report, too. J "Anders Lustig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Jos Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >
    > > This was my first marathon.
    >
    > And a pretty damn decent first marathon:)
    >
    >
    > > Just before the gun, I started drinking my usual two bottles of sport drink, but before I
    > > finished the last one we were sent off, so I kept it in my hand when we started.
    >
    > According to one theory it´s advisable to drink up to 4dl about 5 minutes before the start, but
    > two bottles - isn´t that 2x5dl=1l?
    >
    >
    > > I seemed to take about half a minute to reach the chipdetector.
    >
    > 16 seconds, as I can see when I scroll down the page. It´s not odd that it felt that way, but I´m
    > amazed that it took so long when you were in the 3:00 block in such a small marathon!
    >
    >
    > > A few times I considered slowing down, when my HRM came above 153 (my estimated LT is 158), but
    > > after I dumped the drinking bottle, it soon became a steady 150, so I decided I could go on.
    >
    > This strikes me as an ideal HR/pace.
    >
    >
    > > I took one at 10k and another one at 15k, each time with a cup of
    gatorade
    > > or water soon after it.
    >
    > One theory suggests that it´s advisable to drink water only for the first 70 minutes. In any case,
    > I´m beginning to see potential stomach troubles due to a too rich (gel plus gatorade) solution.
    >
    >
    > > All the time the pacers were doing their job, the second and third 5k
    both
    > > went in 21:20.
    >
    > Although that makes it a seemingly perfect even 4:16min/km pace, I´d have liked the pacers doing
    > closer to 4:13 - this was cutting it a bit too close for a sub-three.
    >
    >
    > > Then, however, the pace seemed to go up a bit, and again I was in doubt whether I should follow.
    > > Indeed, at the 20k mark we seemed to have done a 5k of 20:30, nearly one minute faster!
    >
    > That would be 4:06, and if the km-marks were correct, the pacers IMHO made a complete bollocks of
    > their job there.
    >
    > BTW how much did your HR climp up here?
    >
    >
    > > And indeed, around 32k (20 miles, precisely as predicted!) I suddenly started to pass people.
    > > Some of them almost seemed to stand still! As for myself, I started to feel my quads, although
    > > that didn't slow me
    down
    > > much further than I already had, and the seventh 5k went by in 23:10.
    >
    > Good going, though - and I know I´d rather have had tired quads than an empty tank at this
    > point:)
    >
    >
    > > I also noticed a strange thing at the last pass-over of John F. Kennedy
    lane: > with tired quads, the uphill part actually feels easier than the downhill
    > > part!
    >
    > This is so:) BTW did you decide on the Asics DS trainers, they´re sometimes regarded as being a
    > bit harder on the quads?
    >
    >
    > > All in all, a day well spent.
    >
    > And you must have done quite a lot of things right in your training!
    >
    > Congrulations - but don´t you dare to go sub-3 before I do:)
    >
    >
    > Anders
     
  6. Jos Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > They didn't have lots of different blocks in this race, but there were lots of fast runners! 161
    > of the 974 finishers were below 3 hours. See: http://tinyurl.com/qzjd (click "vorige" and
    > "volgende" for paging). You also see there that with 3:07:02 I only finished 206 of 974.

    This is a remarkably "quality marathon" indeed - but it was bettered by last year´s San
    Sebastian/Donostiako Marathon - which, alas, I DNSed - where the numbers were, respectively,
    374/1525 and 515/1525!

    > Well, many people complained that the 15k mark was inaccurate (and other marks as well). This may
    > have been part of the problem. And that the pacers then had to correct in the next 5k is
    > understandable as well.

    I must say I somehow had a better opinion of the general standards of Dutch running events - and
    IMHO any pacers worth that task should be able to nail any 5K within 10s without even looking at
    the marks:)

    > I seem to remember seeing 153. And for me 3 beats up means about 2.5 percent more speed, that's
    > still 30 seconds on a 5k!

    I cannot help but exclaim that there is plenty more where the 3:07 came from!

    > Actually, my shoe-seller warned me for achilles problems if I would use those low heeled DS
    > trainers more than twice a week. But I think that will only happen if you really abuse the calf
    > muscles too much.

    Generally, I believe, a lower-heel means a greater strain on the achilles, but the folk belief here
    is that there is something in the way the DS trainers "force" one to work more with the quads that
    leads to increased and earlier quad problems - but this might be true only of runners who weren´t
    accustomed enough or shouldn´t have worn them in the first place (but did because that Asics model
    is de rigueur).

    > It was very loosly based on Fordyce's book: I only used the last 7 of the 9 weeks he listed, and I
    > added an extra resting day per week (2.3 days rest per week on average, and 70 kilometer running).
    > I also used the "fast final 10k" method in my long runs, as advised here by Andy himself, iirc.

    That would be the "Marathon Runner´s Handbook" by Bruce Fordyce, wouldn´t it? (Note to self: visit a
    good book- shop!)

    (BTW this is the approach that I would have taken, had I not been lured by the idea of putting on a
    few 100-110km weeks "because I probably wouldn´t have the opportunity later"...and we all know how
    that ended.)

    > The weekend 7 weeks out I did a 10k race (PR in 39:31) followed the next day by a 31 km LSD in
    > 3:00, in fact the first long run.

    Not a combination for everyone, and not the first long run for everyone, either!

    > (snip)

    In all, a remarkably good ability to take "quality" training - in addition to the wisdom of not
    doing more mileage than was needed.

    > Today, Oct 15: 11.5k in 53m, recovery run with some pace variations.

    You know, this is *too much*! Not much more than a year´s training, a first marathon - and no DOMS
    worth mentioning:)

    Anders
     
  7. jhallum

    jhallum Guest

    Jos Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote:

    Great first marathon, Jos! Congratulations!

    -jeremy
    --
    +================================================================+ Jeremy Hallum, System Manager ,
    Astronomy, University of Michigan [email protected]::[email protected] "Audentis Fortuna Iuvat"
     
  8. Anders Lustig wrote: ...
    >> It was very loosly based on Fordyce's book: I only used the last 7 of the 9 weeks he listed, and
    >> I added an extra resting day per week (2.3 days rest per week on average, and 70 kilometer
    >> running). I also used the "fast final 10k" method in my long runs, as advised here by Andy
    >> himself, iirc.
    >
    > That would be the "Marathon Runner´s Handbook" by Bruce Fordyce, wouldn´t it? (Note to self: visit
    > a good book- shop!)

    Yes. But actually I was more impressed by a book on training by Peter Janssen. I think the English
    version is: "Lactate Threshold Training", Peter G. J. M. Janssen, MD. ISBN: 0736037551.

    It led me to the following (somewhat simplified) conclusions:

    1) You need to know the heart rate of your lactate threshold to know what you're doing.
    2) It's simple to find the HR of your LT, because it's just your HR in a well-run race of about 1
    hour, (e.g. 10 miles).
    3) Use this to get the correct mix of slow/fast/hard training; neither is sufficient by itself.
    4) Use intervals! Everything except the slowest training is bad for you if you don't do it in blocks
    (this means that racing is bad!)

    -- Jos
     
  9. John Moore

    John Moore Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:16:30 +0200, Jos R Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote:

    >1) You need to know the heart rate of your lactate threshold to know what you're doing.
    >2) It's simple to find the HR of your LT, because it's just your HR in a well-run race of about 1
    > hour, (e.g. 10 miles).

    When I did a two-hour marathon training run last week, my heart rate was at around 87-91% of my MHR
    pretty well all the way, and the run was quite comfortable. I've not had my maximum heart rate
    measured, so I'm just going by the various rules-of-thumb (which put it around 180-183). I was
    somewhat surprised to be sustaining such a high % for 2 hours. Do you think this means:

    a) That my MHR is probably higher than the rule-of-thumb calculation, or

    b) That my lactate threshold is actually somewhere around there?

    c.
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>, Jos Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote:
    >3:07:18 10:28 40-42.2k <-- Finish time 3.07.18, chip time 3:07:02

    Great result and interesting reading.

    >I was now almost the last one in the pacing group and again considered slowing down. Also, after
    >having a third gel with a cup of gatorade, my stomach started protesting.

    As you must plans be planning an assult on sub-3, make sure you need gels to go 42k. Maybe sports
    drink is enough. Or maybe you need to train your stomach.

    Andrew Taylor
     
  11. John Moore wrote: ...
    >> 2) It's simple to find the HR of your LT, because it's just your HR in a well-run race of about 1
    >> hour, (e.g. 10 miles).
    >
    > When I did a two-hour marathon training run last week, my heart rate was at around 87-91% of my
    > MHR pretty well all the way, and the run was quite comfortable. I've not had my maximum heart rate
    > measured, so I'm just going by the various rules-of-thumb (which put it around 180-183). I was
    > somewhat surprised to be sustaining such a high % for 2 hours. Do you think this means:
    >
    > a) That my MHR is probably higher than the rule-of-thumb calculation, or
    >
    > b) That my lactate threshold is actually somewhere around there?

    What it means (if your run was "comfortable") is that you could have gone faster, and that in 1 hour
    you could have gone considerably faster! So your LT is definitely higher than what you measured
    during that run. And of course your max HR is again higher than that. But until you do a run, at
    constant HR, that is not "comfortable" but really at the limit, you can't deduce anything more
    quantitative.

    You can start with an educated guess and run at that heart rate, until you can't continue. If that
    happens not to be around 15k, use the conversion: 10k = 105% LT, 21.1k = 98% LT (see Janssen, or
    other literature). Repeat after a few months to see progress!

    -- Jos
     
  12. John Moore

    John Moore Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:20:51 +0200, Jos R Bergervoet <[email protected]> wrote:

    >What it means (if your run was "comfortable") is that you could have gone faster, and that in 1
    >hour you could have gone considerably faster!

    I could certainly have gone a little faster for the 2 hours, but I'm not sure about 'considerably
    faster' for 1 hour. What I mean by comfortable was that at the end of it I felt fresh enough to
    continue for at least a few more miles, and that I always felt I had a fair amount in reserve.

    >So your LT is definitely higher than what you measured during that run. And of course your max HR
    >is again higher than that. But until you do a run, at constant HR, that is not "comfortable" but
    >really at the limit, you can't deduce anything more quantitative.

    What's the highest percentage of your MHR it would be considered 'normal' to be able to run at, in
    comfort, for two hours? Can I assume at the very least from my experience that my LT is higher than
    the figure I measured as 91% MHR? Is that what you are saying?

    J.
     
  13. John Moore wrote: ...
    >> until you do a run, at constant HR, that is not "comfortable" but really at the limit, you can't
    >> deduce anything more quantitative.
    >
    > What's the highest percentage of your MHR it would be considered 'normal' to be able to run at, in
    > comfort, for two hours?

    If I recall correctly, the maximum possible over 2 hours would be at a effort level of 95% LT. And
    depending on training condition a persons LT can be anything from 60 to 95% of MHR. And what you
    call "in comfort" could be anything between 80% and 95% of your maximum possible intensity.

    Multiplying these, the answer to your question could be anything from 45.6% to 85.7% (but don't
    quote me on that! :^)

    -- Jos
     
Loading...
Loading...