Training Week Ending March 12, 2006



Doug Freese wrote:

> Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.


The elevation gain per 10 mile lap is 1,600 feet. Other than that, I
can't give you any more info. I guess there will be a steep learning
curve on the first lap. ;-)

> > Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> > be
> > thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> > shoot
> > for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.

>
> And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!


Running a 2-hour 10-mile lap will feel extremely slow. When I see how
much walking is required up the hills, then I'll know if it really IS
too slow for me.

> All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
> laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
> little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
> done that!!! :)


I'd rather finish strong than go for my potential best (and possibly
crash and burn). At least that makes sense for my first 50-miler.

--
Phil M.
 
"Dan Stumpus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Still nursing and icing my left patella, which is getting better.

Sunday's
> run was the first time I was able to hit 7:00/mile on downhill without any
> pain. Can't wait to race again and run some 20+ milers.
>
> Mon: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy (8:50 pace)
> Tue: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Wed: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy
> Thu: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Fri: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy, felt tired.
> Sat: 14 mi, 2150' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
> Sun: 13 mi, 2450' climb to 4700' elevation, 6" snow above 3800'. Charged

up
> pretty strong, ran first 3 miles down at 7:00 pace without any pain, then
> jogged the steeper final miles back in (at 105 pulse).
>
> Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.


ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king of
the mountains for this group.

-Tony
 
Dot wrote:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
> > When talking with other ultra runners when
> > they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> > they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> > hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

>
> Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
> I see others answered it.;)


In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at on
Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
Leadville. He'll do 25 to 30 miles. Like me, he said he is able to run
about 40% of it. So I guess it's just me trying to figure out what
people actually mean when they say they ran the AT. Next time I ask
I'll make sure to find out how much of it is runnable.

--
Phil M.
 
"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1AnRf.16330$4%[email protected]...
>
> "Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
> > My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
> > it
> > becomes hiking, not running.

>
> I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
> not hiking you're in deep ****.


Aint that true.

> >>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or

> > negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> > for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out
> > with
> > two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> > strong. Waddaya think?<

>
> Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.
>
> > Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> > be
> > thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> > shoot
> > for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.

>
> And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!


No, actually I think Phil's a strong runner, so I was implying see if it
feels too slow, but it's hard to pace on trails - unless he uses his
forerunner thing, which would be a mistake. In any case, I defer to your
experience, uncle.

> > Trailrunner may be correct that you will
> > slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and
> > everyone
> > else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's
> > definitly
> > possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least

>
> It sure is and I do it in almost every 50k or 50 mile race I do. My
> 100's only differ by an hour or so and that hour can be caught up in
> elevation and not dieing. In the race(VT50) your referencing, I
> started running almost all but the steepest hills at 30 miles. At 35
> miles I also picked up the downs. At 40 when I left you I really pushed
> the pace. I was running 7:30's on the levels and downs from the last aid
> station. John and Jacque also finished with equal strength maybe too
> much.) John is running the VT100 and Jacque is doing Bull Run and is
> sooo strong this year, she will dust me.


True, you moved it right out, but I think you were unique in that. My pace
slowed a bit in the last 10 miles, though when I looked at the splits Jacque
was pretty much evenly behind me by 7-9 mins the whole race, so while she
finished strong, she didn't make big gains like you did, since you finished
nearly 20 mins in front of me. Clearly the 5k she ran the day before (or
something) affected her performance or she would have beaten me that day.
I'm too much of a loner in my preparation for races. If I was smart I would
have run with your crowd from the start for the first part of the race.

-Tony

> All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
> laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
> little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
> done that!!! :)
>
> -DougF
>
>
>
>
 
Doug Freese wrote:

> So bottom line, While I tend to think in hours I mentally know the
> mileage and that is what recorded. A mile is a mile is a mile be it 5
> mpm speed on a track or 14 mpm power humping up a hill with 20+ grade.
> To me there is no difference and borders on extension of running vs.
> jogging discussion.


In a way, but I'm trying to maximize my training time by running on
trails that will best simulate the actual event. If i'm humping tons of
hills in training for a race that does not have tons of hills, then
maybe I should be running on a less hilly trail.

> OTOH, I choose my routes knowing full well if I plan to stress running
> vs. hiking. It goes back to terrain of the pending race. I would not
> train on difficult sections of the AT or Escarpment to do say the HAT,
> VT50 or Bull Run which is mostly smooth trail. This all goes back to
> specificity.


Yes.

--
Phil
 
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > I still have this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't
> > run 100% of the time, then it's not a run.

>
> I've recently found this on the other end of the distance scale: doing 200m
> reps on the track, yesterday morning I finally talked myself into walking
> some of the recovery. Found that it had me fully (subjectively) recovered
> faster, and also very conveniently a couple minutes' worth of slow walking
> then very slow jogging covered the 200m to get me back to the start of the
> next rep.


Yes, I remember back in "the day" when I did speed training, especially
near the end of a session, I couldn't get my heart rate down low enough
unless I walked part of the recovery.

> > One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
> > were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.

>
> What if they ran the first and last mile of the AT? Is it not then a
> long-ass run? What more do they need to do, carry a pizza? ;-)


Maybe they were. Their packs looked big enough to hold a few large
hawaiin pizzas.

--
Phil M.
 
Tony S. wrote:

> > Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.

>
> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the king of
> the mountains for this group.


Yeah, and probably 100% running. It makes me sick! ;-)

--
Phil
 
Tony S. wrote:

> > And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
> > tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
> > have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
> > first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
> > repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
> > good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!

>
> No, actually I think Phil's a strong runner, so I was implying see if it
> feels too slow, but it's hard to pace on trails - unless he uses his
> forerunner thing, which would be a mistake.


I've learned that pacing with the forerunner is not much better than
using a stop watch. There are only a few things that I pay attention
to. One is the average pace, not the current pace. If the average is
over a long distance, it will be pretty accurate. Occasionally I'll
look at the grade, but it can be off a good bit. If I'm feeling crappy
running/hiking up a steep hill, I'll make note of the 20% grade if it
makes me feel
better ;-). By the way, I'm waiting to get my hands on the 305,
Garmin's latest HRM/GPS gizmo. It should be more accurate than my 201.

--
Phil
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil M. wrote:
>
> > When talking with other ultra runners when
> > they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> > they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> > hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

>
> Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
> I see others answered it.;)
>
> Depends on the context. Did you "run" or "not run" your 50k? ;)
>
> Up here it's usually obvious from the person or context whether "run"
> means run all the way or run/hike. If not - *AND* it makes a difference
> in the conversation - I ask. For the most part, nobody really cares what
> you call it, although sometimes it's nice to know that someone actually
> did run a particular mountain or a rough section of trail.
>
> Races are about getting from one point to another. I could care less how
> much the runners ran and the bikers rode the 350 mi from Knik to McGrath
> - other than it was amusing (in a very sick way, but they brought it up)
> to see how many miles they pushed their bikes. They're tough competitors
> that did the 350 mi, and even tougher ones that are progressing through
> a good old fashioned Alaska winter to Nome.
> (read March 12 http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/LATEST NEWS..html)


I agree, in the case of a running race, that means it's a footrace.

> For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
> categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
> and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
> recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
> race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
> over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
> like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.


Ok, wait a minute here. Eating, taking pictures? Well I've never stopped to
eat or take pictures in a race, but when I'm training I always stop the
watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate my
stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time. I also do the
latter when I'm bike riding and do a significantly hilly ride; I deduct a
few minutes for the time I spent coasting down the hills. This might seem
silly, but since I record my workouts in hours:minutes it keeps me honest
with myself. But I agree on not sweating the percentage, that's why I find
HR effort a useful measure.

> My "run" volume includes run, snowshoe, and power hike categories -
> anything that's directly relevant to training for races. My "total"
> volume includes those plus xc ski, bike, cross-training (plyometrics,
> machine usage, etc), and maybe some other things. It's the same aerobic
> system, but different uses of muscles. I generally don't include "hike"
> (with a recreational group that makes frequent stops and long lunches)
> and "walk" (low heart rate) in my volume, but I like to keep track of
> them and sometimes do include them, depending upon what numbers I'm
> looking at.


I've always wondered what was the best mix for me of running, hiking, and
biking. In '04 I did my long runs over hilly trails at about 142-145 HR
average (75%ish), but in '05 I decided to go easier and did them at 130-135
HR (70%ish). This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
recovered much better. I used to worry - is this training "hard" enough, but
it seemed to yield great results last year. It also enabled me to do some
harder running at other times and specific hill sessions that I hadn't been
able to do in '04. Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
but I'm conscious of specificity of course.

-Tony

> My logging has 2 primary uses for me - progression toward training /
> race goals ("run") and injury prevention ("total").
>
> That's how I deal with what I call running or not - with great ambiguity.

:)
>
> If you haven't already, you might want to read some of Sue Norwood's
> journal describing her AT adventure last year. She frequently comments
> on how runnable the trail is - or not.
>
> Dot
>
> --
> Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
> yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
> Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
> your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
> achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
> conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
>
 
No running this week due to a pulled ligament while skiing last week.
It was my last afternoon in the Utah mountains. I had skied the steeps,
bumbs and nasties at Alta and Solitaire Friday and Saturday and decided
to take it easy Sunday at Brighton. So, I skied to the blues (medium
skilled tuns) when a boarder ran into me. Damn!!!

Luckily, my knee will be back to normal in a couple of weeks, so it
wasn't terrible damage. It just might put an end to my ski season,
though and slows my running progress down by a few weeks. Oh well....

Martha
 
SwStudio wrote:
> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.


goals:
Apr 9 - Clyde's 10K
July 8 - Grandfather Mountain Marathon

Mon/Wed/Fri - bike to work
Tue - run, 7.2 mi, easy/medium (45:xx)
Thu - run, 7.2 mi, medium (45:xx)
Sat - run, 11.4 mi, medium-hard, hills (1:13:xx)
Sun - rest

Started thinking about how to design a truly killer hill workout, along
the lines of DF's "Harem Hill" where he pummeled Tony. We don't have
anything like that here, although about an hour west near Frederick,
MD, there is a range of "mini-mountains".

Using Google Earth, I mapped out a course that climbs 680 ft in 1.75
mi, then descends slightly for 0.55 mi, then up another 525 ft in 1.5
mi. The two ups are each about 7.5% grade. Total climbing is about
1200 ft in 3.6 mi (7.2 mi round trip). If I can work up to 3 up/down
repeats on this hill without croaking, I'll be ready for anything
Grandfather Mountain can throw at me. Too bad it's paved.
 
Phil M. wrote:

> Dot wrote:
>
>
>>Phil M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When talking with other ultra runners when
>>>they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
>>>they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
>>>hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

>>
>>Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
>>I see others answered it.;)

>
>
> In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
> mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
> sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at on
> Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
> for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
> by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
> 100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
> runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
> Leadville.


Just FYI: Leadville is 100% runnable (except for stream crossings) - at
least by Matt Carpenter (check his race report, including goals for
2005). I'm under the impression that it's the altitude and relatively
short cutoff times (rather than footing) that makes it "tough" according
to what I've heard from people that have done it in other running
on-line groups. But again, it depends on people's perceptions.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk
>>breaks in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
>>relatively flat?

>
>
> In a race like JFK which is miles and miles of flat toe path a walk
> break on the flats may be necessary for the undertrained or first timer.
> To take this to an extreme, 24-72 hour races on a track everyone must
> develop a run walk strategy. For races like BR or the HAT there are
> always some hills which one can opt to run or walk. Since some of them
> are rather gentle ups the over zealous get carried away early and run
> every step. These are the people that end up walking every inch of the
> last 6-8 miles of a 50k or 10-15 of a 50.


Got it. I had misunderstood the details of your earlier (as in prior
years) statements.

Yes, this was a new distance and duration for me - 30 min beyond
intended time (about 45 min beyond next longest run). Some muscles
started tightening (my weakest ones, obviously), and I just walked
enough to loosen them to avoid injury and to get some practice walking
on tired legs and eat a clif bar.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
 
Tony S. wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>


>
>>For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
>>categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
>>and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
>>recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
>>race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
>>over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
>>like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.

>
>
> Ok, wait a minute here. Eating,


Slow to walk sometimes, while other times I eat on the run. No, I've
never stopped to eat, but my runs aren't that long yet. But many people
up here will stop at an aid station to eat, dry feet, etc since it may
be 38 mi between aid stations.

> taking pictures?


Less than 30 secs / picture, unless I take several.


> Well I've never stopped to
> eat or take pictures in a race,


While you may not stop to eat or take pictures, many people do. That's
where some of the web pages of trail run pictures come from. What I
think I'm seeing is that in races with frequent aid, people just fill a
trick-or-treat bag (I am being facetious about size) and keep running
and eat between stations. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that many
people walk, rather than run, while eating their cheeseburgers. When
people have long hauls between aid stations, running along in bear
country or cold weather, etc, when they get to an aid station, they may
take a mental break as well as physical and stop and visit. But that
does vary among runners.


>but when I'm training I always stop the
> watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate my
> stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time.


On my long runs, I usually have gps. I may subtract out the "time
stopped" number, if it's substantial. But for me, the total time is
useful for a couple things: (1) It meant my feet tolerated the wet
conditions of whatever for the longer time period, not just the shorter
one. (2) It gives a more accurate indicator of true pace. Race clocks
don't stop for eating, pit stops, trail finding, or whatever. I used to
consider them run/walks when I had to slow to navigate, then I realized
this happens in races also, so I stopped worrying about it.

Another way I deal with walks and stops is looking at volume on hrm
plots, with one setup I remove all volume below a certain hr (eliminates
stops, walks, sometimes unintentionally may eliminate downhills that I'm
actually running), with another setup, I include all volume.

On most non-long runs, my walk breaks are usually just long enough to
get by an obstacle or ice patch or whatever. My recovery walks are
usually on the order of 30 sec - 1 min, maybe once an hour. If there's
on-coming traffic on the trail, I pull off to let the skiers or bikers
by since it's easier for me. Those all provide little breaks, but I
don't keep track of them.

Sunday's run was an exception because of the wrong turn. When I realized
the problem, I just started incorporating walk breaks before I really
needed them, since I knew I was going to be out a tad (facetious
understatement) over 10% of my previous long run.


>This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
> walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
> recovered much better.


That was exactly my approach - walk to reduce recovery.


>Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
> but I'm conscious of specificity of course.


Right. That's why I'm concerned about the ice on hills. While I've
gotten some long, flat runs in, which are nice for some diversity and
easy running, I haven't been able to get anywhere near the amount of
hills I need. The time is there, but the quality isn't.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
 
Dot wrote:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
>> Dot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Phil M. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When talking with other ultra runners when
>>>>they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
>>>>they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
>>>>hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?
>>>
>>>Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical,

but
>>>I see others answered it.;)

>>
>>
>> In my search for suitable trails in my area, I've been asking around,
>> mostly on a local trail runner's group. So I pose the question, "What
>> sections of the AT in Georgia are most runnable?" The trail I was at

on
>> Sunday was runnable, but only about half of it. The race I'm training
>> for will not be that tough, so I may be wasting precious training time
>> by spending too much time hiking. If I were training for the Leadville
>> 100, then the AT would be great training. In fact there's an ultra
>> runner that lives near me that frequently goes to the AT to train for
>> Leadville.

>
> Just FYI: Leadville is 100% runnable (except for stream crossings) - at
> least by Matt Carpenter (check his race report, including goals for
> 2005).


OK. Checking my message from my neighbor, he actually said "The power
hiking is great for me because of the Massanutten 100 and the Hardrock
100 coming up." So not Leadville. Sorry.

--
Phil M.
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, this was a new distance and duration for me - 30 min beyond
> intended time (about 45 min beyond next longest run). Some muscles
> started tightening (my weakest ones, obviously), and I just walked
> enough to loosen them to avoid injury and to get some practice walking
> on tired legs and eat a clif bar.


Isn't this basic over-reaching and what training is all about? We inch
into the unknown, recover, and do it again moving the discomfort zone.
If we only had a crystal ball to know how much to train to get a
predictable result. :)

-Doug
 
"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony S. wrote:
>
>> > Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.

>>
>> ok ok, trailrunner made a bid for it, but you're back to being the
>> king of
>> the mountains for this group.

>
> Yeah, and probably 100% running. It makes me sick! ;-)


It depends on what Dan means by climbs. :) I must admit he is doing
some very significant hill work be it running or power hiking. I have
been hanging at 50 miles a week with my elevation about 4-5K of gain and
loss. We are proportionally close and why Dan is finished while I'm
still enjoying my race. I don't think my old bones could handle much
more than 60 a week.

Also note, even if he is running all the miles they are shorter(8-15
miles) albeit consecutive workouts. I would say 98% of my runs are all
running. I only need to toss in a few power hikes to get my hiking
muscles ready. Some irony to ponder, I don't use run walk in the same
workout although I race that way. My workouts are either all running or
all hiking.

-DF
 
Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> Guess you'll give us a more interesting result in another week, anyhow.
> Best of luck.


Thanks. The weather forecast is looking cold (nice, though maybe a bit too
cold) but maybe windy. Ve shall see. I am not wearing the Gel Magic
pendejos, btw.

Karen
--
live! vicariously!
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Karen - Good luck for Sunday! Hope that you get good racing conditions
> - your
> training has been consistent and solid.
>
> Anthony.


Thanks! and have fun in Australia!

Karen

--
live! vicariously!
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony S. wrote:
> > "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
> >>categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
> >>and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
> >>recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
> >>race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
> >>over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
> >>like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.

> >
> > Ok, wait a minute here. Eating,

>
> Slow to walk sometimes, while other times I eat on the run. No, I've
> never stopped to eat, but my runs aren't that long yet. But many people
> up here will stop at an aid station to eat, dry feet, etc since it may
> be 38 mi between aid stations.


Of course I was joking, I also eat on the run, though I have stopped for
lunch a few times at particularly scenic places. I've also stopped to tend
my feet, change shirts, shoes, and other things.

> > taking pictures?

>
> Less than 30 secs / picture, unless I take several.


I guess you get practiced at it.

> > Well I've never stopped to
> > eat or take pictures in a race,

>
> While you may not stop to eat or take pictures, many people do. That's
> where some of the web pages of trail run pictures come from. What I
> think I'm seeing is that in races with frequent aid, people just fill a
> trick-or-treat bag (I am being facetious about size) and keep running
> and eat between stations. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that many
> people walk, rather than run, while eating their cheeseburgers. When
> people have long hauls between aid stations, running along in bear
> country or cold weather, etc, when they get to an aid station, they may
> take a mental break as well as physical and stop and visit. But that
> does vary among runners.


Some races are more scenic than others, and most trail races I've done
weren't worth taking pictures. The VT 50 was scenic in a country way, but I
don't think it would have photographed well. The escarpment trail is very
scenic and I did see someone pause to take a picture. But, so far, when I'm
racing I haven't brought a camera along or stopped to take pictures.

I didn't mean to imply I always run while eating, or always stop. On
training runs I will often pause to eat, where I wouldn't in a race.

> >but when I'm training I always stop the
> > watch if I stop for more than 30 seconds for any reason, or I estimate

my
> > stoppage time and deduct that from the total workout time.

>
> On my long runs, I usually have gps. I may subtract out the "time
> stopped" number, if it's substantial. But for me, the total time is
> useful for a couple things: (1) It meant my feet tolerated the wet
> conditions of whatever for the longer time period, not just the shorter
> one. (2) It gives a more accurate indicator of true pace. Race clocks
> don't stop for eating, pit stops, trail finding, or whatever. I used to
> consider them run/walks when I had to slow to navigate, then I realized
> this happens in races also, so I stopped worrying about it.


Point taken about race clocks and true pace. I don't try to estimate my
potential race pace based on training runs. I also don't worry about
run/walks anymore. It's just that when I'm in workout mode, I try to keep
myself honest about what I record in my logbook, and since I use time and
average HR as the main measure of each workout, I just stop the watch if I
pause for any reason. I also note the climb for each course these days (if
it's noteable) but that just points more to the type of workout. Time and HR
provide the measure for me that miles and pace do for others.

> Another way I deal with walks and stops is looking at volume on hrm
> plots, with one setup I remove all volume below a certain hr (eliminates
> stops, walks, sometimes unintentionally may eliminate downhills that I'm
> actually running), with another setup, I include all volume.


That's another way to do it, though I just prefer to do it in real time.

> On most non-long runs, my walk breaks are usually just long enough to
> get by an obstacle or ice patch or whatever. My recovery walks are
> usually on the order of 30 sec - 1 min, maybe once an hour. If there's
> on-coming traffic on the trail, I pull off to let the skiers or bikers
> by since it's easier for me. Those all provide little breaks, but I
> don't keep track of them.


I don't track walk breaks anymore, for hills, or to let my joints get a
break on long flat sections. In fact, they help keep overall effort (average
HR) down, especially in very hot conditions. Like Galloway, I don't think
short walk breaks are detrimental to training for continuous running,
especially for long runs. Mine tend to be random and suited to the terrain.

> Sunday's run was an exception because of the wrong turn. When I realized
> the problem, I just started incorporating walk breaks before I really
> needed them, since I knew I was going to be out a tad (facetious
> understatement) over 10% of my previous long run.
>
> >This meant I hiked more of the long runs and sometimes took
> > walk breaks even on flats when it was very hot, but it also meant that I
> > recovered much better.

>
> That was exactly my approach - walk to reduce recovery.
>
> >Now I don't care as much whether it's running or walking,
> > but I'm conscious of specificity of course.

>
> Right. That's why I'm concerned about the ice on hills. While I've
> gotten some long, flat runs in, which are nice for some diversity and
> easy running, I haven't been able to get anywhere near the amount of
> hills I need. The time is there, but the quality isn't.


I'm getting hills in, but I'll have to either join Doug's crew or do some
other hill-specific stuff to prepare for escarpment later on. My long runs
have a long way to go also.

-Tony

> Dot
>
> --
> Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
> yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
> Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
> your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
> achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
> conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
>
>