Training Week Ending March 12, 2006



"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>snip<
> I use just the 1,400 for VT50 because it's specific to the race. I had
> some discomfort when I stopped and a little the next day or so. By three
> days I feel better but I still take it easy for a week. I know there are
> small tears that need to recover. The fact that Jacque also had no quad
> problems and scooted along quit well for her first 50 tells me the
> training worked for her and Rachel for her 50k. She worked up to 4 laps
> for her shorter race. The only reason I finished in front of Jacque is
> my experience with the course, my 11th. I know next year I'll be
> looking at her elbows and cute ass. ;)

It's hard to know the nature of the hills in Phil's race, but if it's really
8k of climb, even if it's spread out, that's only a little less than the
VT50. Small tears? For me it's more like a major wholescale shredding :)
No doubt about Jacque; she's got some power - I look forward to seeing how
you all do this coming weekend, and at Bull Run also.

> When I train for the VT100 I start in the village and do laps over the
> entire 5 mile 2,500 foot. The 100 has much longer climbs and obviously
> longer downs and why I do the whole hill in training. Any quad
> discomfort comes at about 90 miles. Most people have turned to stone
> about 70 miles and walk 90% of last 30 miles(that makes a long time on
> your feet). I work up to 4 laps and 10k in about 10 hours. By race day
> I'm ready. I always wonder how people who come from flat areas can get
> to the finish line under the 30 hour cut-off.

So 4 laps: 40 miles, 10k climb. What fun. Do you run the first 2 and then
hike the last 2 ups?

> I sent in my app for the VT100 this year. If your looking for some
> Escarpment training let me know. There will be at least one other doing
> some of the laps getting ready for the Escarpment after I rest a few
> weeks after Bull Run. I'm also going back for the 50 in Sept and you
> can come and do a few runs to get ready. Do a few more training runs
> and start out a little slower an you too can beat the old man before he
> collects his first Social Security check. ;)

Yea I might like to come up for some laps in May and June. I also might do
some specificity laps over on the first part of the peekamoose climb that
has 2300' up in 2.35 rocky miles. Last year when I went over there it was 2
weeks before the race, so I only did one "tune up" lap. Doing that one 2 or
3 times would give a lot of bang for the buck.

> You are correct, the quads are the first thing to go in a race when ill
> prepared. This is why I set up my training around elevation and hours
> and miles is secondary. I average 50 miles a week for 50k to 50 miles
> and 60 for a 100. Many are doing mega miles for a marathon.

I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb (1600' per
10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What would you suggest for
him, if anything, with a month to go? Seems like he's been doing 2-3k in his
long runs, but his 50k tune-up race was flat. In your opinion is it the
total climb/descent that matters, or the nature of the hills? I don't mean
the grade of the hills, since he doesn't know that, but a lot of short hills
vs. fewer long ones.

-Tony

> Dan does the elevation, more miles and speed and why he finishes in the
> top 10. He's also a kid. Wait till menopause hits him. :)
>
> -DF
 
"Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:F%qSf.1$Ow.0@trndny02...
> So 4 laps: 40 miles, 10k climb. What fun. Do you run the first 2 and
> then
> hike the last 2 ups?

Some years I have run 2 1/2 but usually 2 run and two power hike and in
that order. I run all the down so my quads are ready for almost
anything.

> Yea I might like to come up for some laps in May and June. I also
> might do
> some specificity laps over on the first part of the peekamoose climb
> that
> has 2300' up in 2.35 rocky miles.

We did that last year in prep for the VT50. We used it for alternate
week hike. According to my topo map the top of Peekamoose(3,8nn) is
about 3.3 miles from Peek Road(1,100 ). So I get 2,700ish over 3.3
which is much more in line with my experience last time. Your numbers
suggest it is steeper than Overlook. We were also in good hiking shape
and it felt easier.

> Last year when I went over there it was 2
> weeks before the race, so I only did one "tune up" lap. Doing that one
> 2 or
> 3 times would give a lot of bang for the buck.

I agree and the scenery is nicer and I don't mean the trees. ;)

> I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb
> (1600' per
> 10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What would you
> suggest for
> him, if anything, with a month to go?

Maybe one more run and that assumes two weeks is sufficient recovery.
This is the other reason I suggested about two hours per lap for the
first three.

FWIW I do a quasi two week taper. My most ardous trek is a 4 weeks out
and my last run two weeks out is 1/2 to 3/4 of that effort. For VT50 we
did 4.5 hours a month before(5 trips up overlook 7,000 feet) and 3.5
hours two weeks before but a lot easier route(3,500 feet). I used the
same technique for my marathons - 24-28 four weeks out and 18-20 two
weeks before. That last run had best feel like a cake walk or imo, you
are not ready and need to temper your race day expectations.


> In your opinion is it the
> total climb/descent that matters, or the nature of the hills? I don't
> mean
> the grade of the hills, since he doesn't know that, but a lot of short
> hills
> vs. fewer long ones.

In my experience longer pulls make you stronger in general. You can
always train on longer ups and do a race with shorter pulls. Not only
will you be physically stronger but mentally tougher. The longer the
race the more one's head comes into play those last N miles. I can't
begin to describe what goes on in my head at 85 miles of 100. You tell
yourself, only 15 to go and proportionally it's a drop in the bucket but
it's also 3-4 hours more. There is a lot of head game going on while
your body is slowly melting from overall fatigue. If you only have
shorter pulls then you have to make do. I feel longer sustained downs
is what really preps your quads which tend to go first in a race.

-DougF
 
Tony S. wrote:

> It's hard to know the nature of the hills in Phil's race, but if it's
> really 8k of climb, even if it's spread out, that's only a little less
> than the VT50.

It's difficult to know exactly how the hills are at McNaughton. The site
doesn't tell you much except 1600' climb per 10-mile loop. No elevation
profile. I've gotten some feedback from past runners on another list.
Here are some of their comments:

Having run it twice, I can tell you there are hills, but they're
not too bad except for the one that has the rope on it so you
can pull yourself up. If it's muddy (usually is) then you'll
need it. The hill itself is short, maybe 100'. It's the
downhill after that, same steepness and height, but you
basically bounce from tree to tree on the way down. Watch for
the underwater shelf on the first major creek crossing. I saw a
guy catch it and go completely under. the air temp was about
35, the water wasn't a whole lot warmer. He said it took about
5 miles to warm up.

----------------------------------------------

I don't know your background or goals, but in 2004 I
finished the 50 in 12:46 by walking 100% of the time!
Realistically, I'd say that, for a runner, this 50
would be 1-1:45 slower than a road 50.

But, in all honesty, there are no thousand foot climbs
or anything like that. Basically, what makes
McNaughton hard is that one gets 5 short but steep
uphills and downhills between miles 3 and 5, and then
another 3-4 between 8-9.5 miles on each 10 mile loop.
No one hill is that long or high. I call it a
"stadium step" course. :)

----------------------------------------------

The course is mostly single track on dirt, with some distance
along fields and some grass. There aren't many rocks nor roots
to deal with, but it CAN get very muddy if we had a rainy
spring. There are three stream crossings and several
"mini-spring" crossings toward the start of the loop.

I counted 13 good sized uphills per 10 mile loop; none are that
long but most are "elevator shaft" steep, as are the downhills.
Most (but not all) of the worst hills are between miles 1-2,
3-5 and from 8-9.

It was crowded for the first 4-5 miles or so (I did the first 10
mile loop in 2:20) and then even I had plenty of room.

--
Phil M.
 
Tony S. wrote:

> I think you said the climb in your race is 5x1600'. That's not
> dissimilar to the VT 50 miler, which has 8.5 to 9k. With a month to go
> how many hill sessions do you think you can swing? Two maybe.

I guess it depends on what you're calling a hill session. My usual
hill/trail session is at Kennesaw Mountain National Park. There I'll try to
get in a 16 to 20-mile run. I've done that workout on 3/15, 3/5, 2/12. On
3/12 I did the Appalachian Trail. I believe the Kennesaw trails are similar
to McNaughton. According to the feedback I've gotten from past runners at
McNaughton, I believe the hills at Kennesaw are longer but not quite as
steep. Keep in mind that McNoughton is in Illinois, which is known for
being pancake flat

> Doug is definitely onto something with his quad-busting loops. His
> hill is ~1400' and they were doing it 4-5 times in a session during
> peak season. I can attest to the success of this method, even though I
> only did it once (in addition to my other hill work). Virtually
> *everyone* I saw and passed in the last 10 miles of the VT 50 had
> completely shot quads and couldn't run downhill, and some couldn't run
> flats either. Mine were also slowing me on downhills, but I was still
> running. Doug was unique in his ability to both speed up *and* suffer
> no quad issues as far as I could tell, attesting to his training
> method. Don't beat yourself up too bad in the final weeks, but take
> note.

Downhill running doesn't seem to affect my quads that much. However, I did
feel some soreness after my AT run/hike. In fact I was sore in some places
where I've never been sore after any other long run or race. Probably
because of the amount of uphill hiking on rough terrain that I was doing.
Where the dowhill running seems to get me (especially after running
Kennesaw) is the tibialis anterior (shins). When I first regularly started
doing the long trail dowhills I would have DOMS in that area for 3 or 4
days after the run. Now I only get it the day after. So I guess this is a
good sign. Additionally, I probably need to work on my dowhill running
technique.

--
Phil M.
 
Phil M. wrote:

> I guess it depends on what you're calling a hill session. My usual
> hill/trail session is at Kennesaw Mountain National Park. There I'll
> try to get in a 16 to 20-mile run. I've done that workout on 3/15,
> 3/5, 2/12. On 3/12 I did the Appalachian Trail. I believe the Kennesaw
> trails are similar to McNaughton. According to the feedback I've
> gotten from past runners at McNaughton, I believe the hills at
> Kennesaw are longer but not quite as steep. Keep in mind that
> McNoughton is in Illinois, which is known for being pancake flat

I guess I need to finish this sentence. ;-) Many of the runners at
McNaughton are from Illinois and have limited access to hills. So their
opinion on the severity of the hills is comming from a flatlander's
perspective. I'm still going with the idea that McNaughton is as difficult
or more difficult than my Kennesaw trail. Like I said before, steep
learning curve in the first 10 miles of the race.

--
Phil M.
 
> > >
> > > That really sucks. As a boarder might say... Bummer man. Are you going
> to
> > > sue the ripper?
> > >
> > Why? **** happens. She wasn't out of control, just not as careful as
> > she should have been. Boarders forget they have a blind spot.
> > Hopefully, she'll be more careful the next time.
> >
> > Martha
>
> Just checking. I like your attitude.
>
> -Tony

Thanks. Everyone who spends time on the slopes knows it's like one big
pinball machine. The skiers and boarders spend time zipping around each
other trying not to collide.

One thing is certain though, when I go back to Utah next winter, I
won't be skiing at Brighton; I don't like the way the resort is laid
out.

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

Mon: DNR
Tue: 3.6 miles trail
Wed: DNR
Thu: DNR
Fri: 3.8 miles
Sat: 1.5 hours heavy biking*
Sun: DNR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Week total: 7.4 miles (12K)
Year total: 141 (227K)

*At the beach we rented this Quadricycle
http://www.worksman.com/Italiansurreys.htm. I pedaled 4 miles back to
the hotel with it to pick up one passenger and then had to pedal back
almost immediately to get it back before closing time. The seat was set
too close to the pedals. I got a super tough knee joint workout.

Currently 104 miles (167K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my 2006 goal of
running 1200 miles (1931K).

Training:
Left forefoot still sore after a run. By waiting two to three days
between runs, it feels almost OK before the run and slightly sore after.
Overall it is getting better and doesn't affect my stride when I run.

Racing past:
2 weeks back: road 50K (distance PR!)

Racing future (2 months):
No races planned for the next 8 weeks.
Was considering Oak Mountain 50K trail, but I now have a conflict. :-(

I might try the Strolling Jim 40 mile http://tynesweb.com/sj40/home.html
in 7 weeks.
In 8 weeks, a local 7-week series of Tuesday night track meets starts.
I plan on running the 1500m followed by the 5000m and on alternating
weeks, the mile followed by the 5000m Call it speed work and quick
recovery drill.
There will be some 5K to 8K races during this time also.

Misc goals:
Catch up on my race reports.

Piedmont Donald
 
"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ePxSf.19855$4%[email protected]...
>
> "Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:F%qSf.1$Ow.0@trndny02...
> > So 4 laps: 40 miles, 10k climb. What fun. Do you run the first 2 and
> > then
> > hike the last 2 ups?
>
> Some years I have run 2 1/2 but usually 2 run and two power hike and in
> that order. I run all the down so my quads are ready for almost
> anything.
>
> > Yea I might like to come up for some laps in May and June. I also
> > might do
> > some specificity laps over on the first part of the peekamoose climb
> > that
> > has 2300' up in 2.35 rocky miles.
>
> We did that last year in prep for the VT50. We used it for alternate
> week hike. According to my topo map the top of Peekamoose(3,8nn) is
> about 3.3 miles from Peek Road(1,100 ). So I get 2,700ish over 3.3
> which is much more in line with my experience last time. Your numbers
> suggest it is steeper than Overlook. We were also in good hiking shape
> and it felt easier.

Yea, the peekamoose climb starts at ~1200' and kind of levels off after the
2.35 miles, at 3500', so that's the bulk of the climb. It then goes another
mile to the summit fairly flat with only 340' more vertical, so if you just
want steep repeats, you could skip that last mile. As you suggest, it's more
of a hike up at a 18+% grade for that section, though it undulates enough so
that parts can be run, though not continuously per your "all run or all
hike" formula.

> > Last year when I went over there it was 2
> > weeks before the race, so I only did one "tune up" lap. Doing that one
> > 2 or
> > 3 times would give a lot of bang for the buck.
>
> I agree and the scenery is nicer and I don't mean the trees. ;)
>
> > I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb
> > (1600' per
> > 10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What would you
> > suggest for
> > him, if anything, with a month to go?
>
> Maybe one more run and that assumes two weeks is sufficient recovery.
> This is the other reason I suggested about two hours per lap for the
> first three.
>
> FWIW I do a quasi two week taper. My most ardous trek is a 4 weeks out
> and my last run two weeks out is 1/2 to 3/4 of that effort. For VT50 we
> did 4.5 hours a month before(5 trips up overlook 7,000 feet) and 3.5
> hours two weeks before but a lot easier route(3,500 feet). I used the
> same technique for my marathons - 24-28 four weeks out and 18-20 two
> weeks before. That last run had best feel like a cake walk or imo, you
> are not ready and need to temper your race day expectations.

Oh why didn't I listen! I definitely shot myself in the foot last year,
doing far too many long runs before the VT50. Too much of a good thing; a
rookie mistake for someone who should have known better -- a Lance! Lucky I
was even able to run at VT, the peformance "ok", but needless suffering. My
weekly long runs looked like this:

escarpment 4.5 hrs (8k),
2 hrs (flat),
4 hrs (2k) (+ 4.5 hour easy hike 2 days later)
very easy 5 hrs (2.5k) (too hot)
Overlook, moderate 4 hrs (5.5k)
50k very easy, 7 hrs (5k) (too hot)
3 hrs (flat)
2 (1.5k) (+2hrs bike day before)
VT50 10 hrs (9k)

> > In your opinion is it the
> > total climb/descent that matters, or the nature of the hills? I don't
> > mean
> > the grade of the hills, since he doesn't know that, but a lot of short
> > hills
> > vs. fewer long ones.
>
> In my experience longer pulls make you stronger in general. You can
> always train on longer ups and do a race with shorter pulls. Not only
> will you be physically stronger but mentally tougher. The longer the
> race the more one's head comes into play those last N miles. I can't
> begin to describe what goes on in my head at 85 miles of 100. You tell
> yourself, only 15 to go and proportionally it's a drop in the bucket but
> it's also 3-4 hours more. There is a lot of head game going on while
> your body is slowly melting from overall fatigue. If you only have
> shorter pulls then you have to make do. I feel longer sustained downs
> is what really preps your quads which tend to go first in a race.

Luckily I still have no desire to do a 100 ;)

-Tony

> -DougF
 
Black Metal Martha wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That really sucks. As a boarder might say... Bummer man. Are you going
> > to
> > > > sue the ripper?
> > > >
> > > Why? **** happens. She wasn't out of control, just not as careful as
> > > she should have been. Boarders forget they have a blind spot.
> > > Hopefully, she'll be more careful the next time.
> > >
> > > Martha
> >
> > Just checking. I like your attitude.
> >
> > -Tony
>
> Thanks. Everyone who spends time on the slopes knows it's like one big
> pinball machine. The skiers and boarders spend time zipping around each
> other trying not to collide.
>
> One thing is certain though, when I go back to Utah next winter, I
> won't be skiing at Brighton; I don't like the way the resort is laid
> out.
>
> Martha

I second that about liking your attitude despite the fact that we live
in the good old litigious USA:

http://tinyurl.com/j2fkx
 
Piedmont Donald wrote:

> Week total: 7.4 miles (12K)
> Year total: 141 (227K)
>
> *At the beach we rented this Quadricycle
> http://www.worksman.com/Italiansurreys.htm.

No ricksha option?

> Currently 104 miles (167K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my 2006 goal
> of running 1200 miles (1931K).

Have you thought of adjusting your goal for the year? It seems to me that
when you get healthy the ramp-up in order to achieve 1200 miles will be too
great. Possibly risking another injury.

--
Phil M.
 
Phil M. wrote:
> Tony S. wrote:
>
>
>>It's hard to know the nature of the hills in Phil's race, but if it's
>>really 8k of climb, even if it's spread out, that's only a little less
>>than the VT50.
>
>
> It's difficult to know exactly how the hills are at McNaughton. The site
> doesn't tell you much except 1600' climb per 10-mile loop. No elevation
> profile. I've gotten some feedback from past runners on another list.
> Here are some of their comments:

Have you looked at race reports in ul archives and other forums (eg
RW-might need help with search fcn), not just Ultralist? Maybe even
Ultrarunning. There's pictures on the race's web site and descriptions
(more than the 1600 ft/10-mi loop comment) and might be some linked from
people's web sites. There is a topo on the web page, but I couldn't find
a scale for the contours - whether ft or m and 50 or 100 ft or whatever,
but you can probably figure it out by finding one of those online sites
with the original topos. (I wasn't the one running, so didn't hunt to
the extent I do for my own.;) Our topos are a mix of ft and m contours,
sometimes spliced by software so didn't want to try to guess. I've even
used people's vacation pictures and descriptions.)

The *impression* (others' facts subject to my interpretation) I've
gotten from discussions elsewhere (which also includes the comments
you've included) is that some of the hills may be related to stream
drainages (present or maybe ancient), which means short, but steep. But
it sounds like there's flats as well as some gently rolling meadows that
allow recovery. I think you've mentioned somewhere that you've been
doing 20% slopes and rollers, which should be reasonable prep. And the
additional strength training you've done *may* help you on the later
laps. (It looked like your max climb / run was less than 3000 ft?)

I mention the short, steep since my normal trails have many short, steep
hills, but they're up and down moraines with no breaks except in a few
cases where the trail follows a ridge. Runners sometimes refer to the
system as a "meat grinder" if doing them anything other than easy. (This
is a reason we're lovin' the new single track - about 10-15% slope
rather than 20-30% - and almost twice as big, but only 1.5 mi total.)
1000 ft power hike up a local mtn is easier than our rollers. So you
might want to use caution on your first time or two through, as I think
you're planning.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Phil M. wrote:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
>
>>I guess it depends on what you're calling a hill session. My usual
>>hill/trail session is at Kennesaw Mountain National Park. There I'll
>>try to get in a 16 to 20-mile run. I've done that workout on 3/15,
>>3/5, 2/12. On 3/12 I did the Appalachian Trail. I believe the Kennesaw
>>trails are similar to McNaughton. According to the feedback I've
>>gotten from past runners at McNaughton, I believe the hills at
>>Kennesaw are longer but not quite as steep. Keep in mind that
>>McNoughton is in Illinois, which is known for being pancake flat
>
>
> I guess I need to finish this sentence. ;-) Many of the runners at
> McNaughton are from Illinois and have limited access to hills. So their
> opinion on the severity of the hills is comming from a flatlander's
> perspective. I'm still going with the idea that McNaughton is as difficult
> or more difficult than my Kennesaw trail. Like I said before, steep
> learning curve in the first 10 miles of the race.

But the joke that I've heard is that all the hills in Illinois are in
McNaughton.;) It should be a good race for you - IF you get out of that
dang road-runners mentality - and go with the flow and be patient.
You'll learn a lot.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
"Phil M." wrote:
> Piedmont Donald wrote:
>
> > Week total: 7.4 miles (12K)
> > Year total: 141 (227K)
> >
> > *At the beach we rented this Quadricycle
> > http://www.worksman.com/Italiansurreys.htm.
>
> No ricksha option?

Nope! It was fun in a perverse hill training kind of way...

> > Currently 104 miles (167K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my 2006
> > goal of running 1200 miles (1931K).
>
> Have you thought of adjusting your goal for the year? It seems to me
> that when you get healthy the ramp-up in order to achieve 1200 miles
will
> be too great. Possibly risking another injury.

Now only 99 miles (160K) behind. :) Even though I'm 50 miles behind
last year at this date, I only have to run 25 miles a week to make my
goal. I think I'll be able to run more in the next month than last year
as I now have goggles to prevent the blinding pollen storms (starting in
about 10 days locally) from getting behind my contacts. The pollen was
also the base cause of a sinus infection which stopped my running for 2
weeks in May of last year.

Piedmont Donald
 
Phil M. wrote:

> It's difficult to know exactly how the hills are at McNaughton. The site
> doesn't tell you much except 1600' climb per 10-mile loop. No elevation
> profile. I've gotten some feedback from past runners on another list.
> Here are some of their comments:
>
> The hill itself is short, maybe 100'. It's the
> downhill after that, same steepness and height, but you
> basically bounce from tree to tree on the way down.

Oh ****! I've done a course like that and while not physically as hard
as some others, in addition to being REALLY slow it beat me up pretty
good. The problem is you can't get any rhythm going as the ups then
downs are so short, you're constantly shifting gears. Then the downhills
were so steep you can't just relax/turn it loose but end up braking
which destroys the quads. In the one I did, it was so steep on the downs
I too had to grab trees to keep from getting out of control. So in many
cases I was slower going down than going up! There was a lot of loose
rock on mine so hopefully yours won't be as bad if it's dirt without the
rock to slip out from under you.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/
 
Piedmont Donald wrote:
> "Phil M." wrote:
> > Piedmont Donald wrote:
> >
> > > Week total: 7.4 miles (12K)
> > > Year total: 141 (227K)
> > >
> > > *At the beach we rented this Quadricycle
> > > http://www.worksman.com/Italiansurreys.htm.
> >
> > No ricksha option?
>
> Nope! It was fun in a perverse hill training kind of way...
>
> > > Currently 104 miles (167K) (as of this minute) BEHIND on my 2006
> > > goal of running 1200 miles (1931K).
> >
> > Have you thought of adjusting your goal for the year? It seems to me
> > that when you get healthy the ramp-up in order to achieve 1200 miles
> will
> > be too great. Possibly risking another injury.
>
> Now only 99 miles (160K) behind. :)

Right. For some reason I thought you were much farther behind. Carry
on.

--
Phil
 
Tony S. wrote:
>
> I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb (1600' per
> 10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What would you suggest for
> him, if anything, with a month to go? Seems like he's been doing 2-3k in his
> long runs, but his 50k tune-up race was flat. In your opinion is it the
> total climb/descent that matters, or the nature of the hills? I don't mean
> the grade of the hills, since he doesn't know that, but a lot of short hills
> vs. fewer long ones.
>

Just another viewpoint since it's something I've thought a lot about. My
usual trails don't match the hills of my races - and this year, the ice
has limited my selection even farther. At my level of inexperience, I
opt for as much specificity as possible - total elevation change, length
of climbs/descents, steepness, footing - even if I have to use different
routes for each aspect.

For example, big 30%, 3000ft hills that I have to power hike don't
provide the same training as, say, 1000 ft of small, steep hills (30%)
that I can mostly run - and vice versa. As Trailrunner and Doug have
commented, those steep rollers grind on ya - big time. Neither does it
train me for, say, 1000 ft, 15% slope running. And the last two don't
provide specific training (long time in one gear) for the long climb.
(Although with more experience, the big 1000-ft climb done multiple
times might be the best approach.)

Gear shifting of short (say, <100 ft), steep (20-30% or steeper) hills
and same gear for long endurance of multiple-hour hills are two
different things.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony S. wrote:
> >
> > I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb (1600'
per
> > 10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What would you suggest
for
> > him, if anything, with a month to go? Seems like he's been doing 2-3k in
his
> > long runs, but his 50k tune-up race was flat. In your opinion is it the
> > total climb/descent that matters, or the nature of the hills? I don't
mean
> > the grade of the hills, since he doesn't know that, but a lot of short
hills
> > vs. fewer long ones.
> >
>
> Just another viewpoint since it's something I've thought a lot about. My
> usual trails don't match the hills of my races - and this year, the ice
> has limited my selection even farther. At my level of inexperience, I
> opt for as much specificity as possible - total elevation change, length
> of climbs/descents, steepness, footing - even if I have to use different
> routes for each aspect.
>
> For example, big 30%, 3000ft hills that I have to power hike don't
> provide the same training as, say, 1000 ft of small, steep hills (30%)
> that I can mostly run - and vice versa. As Trailrunner and Doug have
> commented, those steep rollers grind on ya - big time. Neither does it
> train me for, say, 1000 ft, 15% slope running. And the last two don't
> provide specific training (long time in one gear) for the long climb.
> (Although with more experience, the big 1000-ft climb done multiple
> times might be the best approach.)
>
> Gear shifting of short (say, <100 ft), steep (20-30% or steeper) hills
> and same gear for long endurance of multiple-hour hills are two
> different things.

I'd tend to agree with most of what you said, though I haven't thought about
it as much as you. When I did the groundhog 50k in '04 it had some quite
steep but relatively short hills, which luckily matched my training that
year.

It's a vicarious thrill to follow these threads and watch Phil preparing for
his first 50 miler, speculating about the nature of those nasty little
hills...

-Tony

> Dot
>
> --
> "Success is different things to different people"
> -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
>
>
>
 
"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony S. wrote:
>
> > It's hard to know the nature of the hills in Phil's race, but if it's
> > really 8k of climb, even if it's spread out, that's only a little less
> > than the VT50.
>
> It's difficult to know exactly how the hills are at McNaughton. The site
> doesn't tell you much except 1600' climb per 10-mile loop. No elevation
> profile. I've gotten some feedback from past runners on another list.
> Here are some of their comments:

The topo map on the website has 20' contours, which gives a pretty good
breakdown of all the hills. Looks like the course goes counter-clockwise,
starting right in the middle at "McNaughton park", going south down a hill
then looping north. Yes, it's ravine country, with pesky steep 100-250 foot
hills. You can easily see the accumulating of 1600' there. Should be fun
challenging course. I'd probably have foot problems there. I might even
"drill" extra drainage holes in my shoes, then vaseline heavily and wear
smartwool socks, keeping a couple of fresh extra pairs at the home base.

-Tony

> Having run it twice, I can tell you there are hills, but they're
> not too bad except for the one that has the rope on it so you
> can pull yourself up. If it's muddy (usually is) then you'll
> need it. The hill itself is short, maybe 100'. It's the
> downhill after that, same steepness and height, but you
> basically bounce from tree to tree on the way down. Watch for
> the underwater shelf on the first major creek crossing. I saw a
> guy catch it and go completely under. the air temp was about
> 35, the water wasn't a whole lot warmer. He said it took about
> 5 miles to warm up.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> I don't know your background or goals, but in 2004 I
> finished the 50 in 12:46 by walking 100% of the time!
> Realistically, I'd say that, for a runner, this 50
> would be 1-1:45 slower than a road 50.
>
> But, in all honesty, there are no thousand foot climbs
> or anything like that. Basically, what makes
> McNaughton hard is that one gets 5 short but steep
> uphills and downhills between miles 3 and 5, and then
> another 3-4 between 8-9.5 miles on each 10 mile loop.
> No one hill is that long or high. I call it a
> "stadium step" course. :)
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> The course is mostly single track on dirt, with some distance
> along fields and some grass. There aren't many rocks nor roots
> to deal with, but it CAN get very muddy if we had a rainy
> spring. There are three stream crossings and several
> "mini-spring" crossings toward the start of the loop.
>
> I counted 13 good sized uphills per 10 mile loop; none are that
> long but most are "elevator shaft" steep, as are the downhills.
> Most (but not all) of the worst hills are between miles 1-2,
> 3-5 and from 8-9.
>
> It was crowded for the first 4-5 miles or so (I did the first 10
> mile loop in 2:20) and then even I had plenty of room.
>
> --
> Phil M.
 
Tony S. wrote:

> I know Phil's been doing hills, but if his 50 miler has 8k climb
> (1600' per 10 mile lap), I wonder if he's been doing enough. What
> would you suggest for him, if anything, with a month to go? Seems like
> he's been doing 2-3k in his long runs, but his 50k tune-up race was
> flat.

That really wasn't a tune-up race. I was just using the race as a good way
to get a long training run in. Granted, I probably ran a tad faster than I
normally would.

--
Phil M.
 
Tony S. wrote:

> It's a vicarious thrill to follow these threads and watch Phil
> preparing for his first 50 miler, speculating about the nature of
> those nasty little hills...

My salvation is knowing that everyone at the race is running the same
course. But I think I'll be one of the few that regularly trains on hills.
I don't purposely go looking for hills to do hill repeats. It just works
out that all my routes have hills. This can make it a little tough to get
in a good recovery run, especially as the temps start climbing.

--
Phil M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back