Random Running Questions

Trimm Trabb

hot buttered scones wrote: »

I'd agree with runnerholic. You're running a half at the end of April, and if you do an 18 week programme for DCM you'll start training for that at the end of June. So you'll have a couple of weeks to recover from the half and 6 weeks of base building to bring you nicely up to marathon training. There'll probably be a DCM Novices thread with a training programme - I'd recommend joining in with that. Have a look over the 2016 and 2015 threads - you'll find links to the training plan used and can make your mind up then. McMillan gives a 3:30 marathon time for a 1:40 half - but I'd be a bit more cautious for your first marathon. You'll get a fair idea of what to aim for when you get stuck into training.

Thanks to both of you for feedback. I'll take a look at those threads and look at signing up for DCM soon - only found out today that last years sold out relatively early so that's what got me thinking about making more solid plans.

snailsong

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sorry if it's been asked earlier in the thread, but don't wanna go back through nearly 300 pages.

What would be the time difference (roughly) between running Dublin (done in 3:40) and one of Europe's flatter marathon courses like Berlin, Paris, or Rotterdam assuming similar training, conditions, etc.?

I'd guess 2 to 3 minutes.

opus

Itziger wrote: »

In every race I've ever done there are people near the front who really should not be there. Yes, it is common sense, but unfortunately some people don't have too much of that. And it's not just slow beginners. I see a fella in all the 10k races I do (Two a year ) who always starts on the first row. He always finishes a good bit behind me. Jeez, I'd never go up to the front row with 30 minute 10k runners. That's just wrong.

There was a lady in a very bright purple tracksuit pretty much hanging over the start line at the Mallow 10 last w/end, reason I noticed (needless to say that wasn't where I started!) was that she walked from the off and a guy running next to me almost took her out in the first 100m as he wasn't expecting someone to be walking. Luckily disaster was averted when he managed to jump to one side.

Once at one of the smaller city marathons in Germany, I ran with the 2:59 pace group who started around two feet from the start line, the thought going through my head as I waited for the gun was 'what the hell am I doing here!'

hot buttered scones

I'm just wondering if anyone experiences anything like the following:

I've found some of my earlier morning runs (pre work) that I find it hard to get my pace up and my HR too. I feel like I'm working really hard to hit paces a touch slower than my easy pace, and sometimes even recovery pace feels hard. On one run recently I stopped for a breather! The thing is when I go back and look at my HR data it never really climbs above recovery/lower end of aerobic range. I threw in a few strides this morning to try and get things going, and although the HR climbed a bit I didn't feel as energised as I usually do after a few strides. It's not every morning though.

If I go out a bit later in the day and I'm fatigued from running or anything else really, I can tell because my HR creeps up and it's obvious that I'm working harder than normal to keep pace, or running slower to keep the HR in range - whereas by contrast in the early morning my HR stays low but it feels a lot higher, and it's almost like I can't get my HR above aerobic range.

It's nothing that concerns me, I'm just interested to see if anyone else sees the same thing and is there a simple physiological explanation. I'm thinking I'm probably still half asleep.

Krusty_Clown

hot buttered scones wrote: »

I feel like I'm working really hard to hit paces a touch slower than my easy pace, and sometimes even recovery pace feels hard.

I'd guess that you're still in a slumberous state! Do you drink coffee before you head out? Actually - dumb question. No civilized person would do anything before coffee.

hot buttered scones

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'd guess that you're still in a slumberous state! Do you drink coffee before you head out? Actually - dumb question. No civilized person would do anything before coffee.

Yeah - but only one on a school day!! I left out the fact that I was in bed past midnight and up at 6 - 2nd day in a row of that so it's no wonder I'm half asleep.

JohnDozer

Can someone explain to me what the numbers in Strava's Fitness and Freshness mean... I've read the information provided and I'm still a little unclear. Are both numbers in a scale of 1-100 with the higher the fitness number the better and the lower the fatigue number the better, or am I reading it entirely wrong?

hot buttered scones

JohnDozer wrote: »

Can someone explain to me what the numbers in Strava's Fitness and Freshness mean... I've read the information provided and I'm still a little unclear. Are both numbers in a scale of 1-100 with the higher the fitness number the better and the lower the fatigue number the better, or am I reading it entirely wrong?

I use Stravastix - it's a plugin for the Chrome browser that give more indepth stats pulled from your Strava data.

Anyway, it's been doing the fitness and freshness thing for while now and this is the explanation it gives (I don't know if the one on Strava calculates it the same way but it's close enough I reckon)

Multi sports fitness trend is calculated from your various heart rate stress. A heart rate stress is represented by an value called TRaining IMPulse or TRIMP. Training Impulse concept has been developed by Dr. Eric W. Banister. Basically, it represents the amount of heart stress during an activity: the longer you go at full throttle during an activity, the more TRIMP of activity goes up!
TRIMP has both a positive and a negative effect. The positive effect is called fitness, and the negative effect is called fatigue. Fitness and fatigue can combined to provide a value of form or Performance.

The Fitness, Fatigue and Form graph and table is based off an impulse-response model first developed by Dr. Eric W. Banister in 1975. It was later redefined by Andrew R. Coggan. This model will show you:
Your Fitness based on your chronic load
Your Fatigue based on your acute load
Your Form or stress balance

Explanations...
The Fitness curve is the long-term average daily training load. Default period is fixed to 42 days (or six weeks), so it will take ~6 weeks for your Fitness to be accurate. It's basically the foundations, the potential availability of the athlete... You can't get into big rides/runs or races without a minimum of fitness acquired. If that curve is too regular or too flat, it is not usually a sign of good training.
The Fatigue curve is the short-term average daily training load. Same way than Fitness but default period is fixed to 7 days (one week). Conceptually, fatigue is easy to understand: It's the tired feelings which limits your performance. This curve varies much faster than Fitness curve. On Fatigue curve, you can see the fatigue climbing sharply in response where you performed workouts with a high stress. But also go down quickly as you take few days off.
The Form curve is simply the difference between Fitness and Fatigue, it's the right balance of stress you should look at to avoid over training for example.

Form = Fitness - Fatigue

When:
+25 < Form : Transition zone. Athlete is on form. Case where athlete has an extended break. (e.g. illness, injury or end of the season).
+5 < Form < +25 : Freshness Zone. Athlete is on form. Ready for a race.
-10 < Form < +5 : Neutral Zone. Zone reached typically when athlete is in a rest or recovery week. After a race or hard training period.
-30 < Form < -10 : Optimal Training Zone.
Form < -30 : Over Load Zone. Athlete is on overload or over-training phase. He should take rest!

JohnDozer

Perfect. Thank you! Makes my own numbers better... just need to keep them in the right place now. Thankfully I won't be continuing to work my fatigue number towards zero!!

Hannibal_Smith

Back again

I'm thinking of doing the Hall Higdon 10k intermediary plan. Everything dandy with it, apart from the Wednesday workout.

Wednesdays alternate between tempos and intervals. The first week of intervals starts at 8 x 400 @ 5k pace. So I'm wondering:-

1. It doesn't (from what I can see) say how long the recoveries should be. Is there a general formula for recoveries? You run x meters so recoveries should be y?

2. By changing the length of the interval are you critically changing the dynamics of the plan? I'm not sure I could hold a 5k pace for 400m (though maybe I could if I manage the speed of them properly and just try it). But I think doing 200m @ 5k pace would be a more realistic aim. But again, if the whole point of these is to push everyone to the furthest of their limits then fair enough.

I've looked around at other plans, but this one seemed the most agreeable, apart from the sessions.

BeepBeep67

If you can't hold 8 x 400 @ 5k pace, then your 5k pace is too aggressive.
You should be targeting a recent 5k or equivalent result for the pace, not an aspirational in the future time.
5k pace 400m intervals the recovery should be in the range of 50 - 75% of the time taken, so if you were a 20min 5k runner, your 400 takes 1:36, your recovery would be 48 - 72 seconds - go with a minute and see how it feels.
If you are new to intervals a standing recovery is fine, try and build up to a little jog over time (floating recoveries).

hot buttered scones

I think I might know the answer to this one but here goes anyway.

This week my plan has 14 miles with 4,3,2,1@MP (3-4 min recovery between each MP section) on Wednesday and 18 with 2x3MP on Sunday. Due to work life stuff I'm going to have to switch these around - which is ok since I did last weeks long run on Wednesday and raced a 10k on Sunday (which I'll have well recovered from by Wednesday).

My question is this - other than "stick to the plan" is there any reason why I shouldn't change it up a bit more and do the following:

18 miles with 4,3,2,1@MP on Wednesday (just do a longer warmup/cool down) and 14 with 2x3 on Sunday?

I think I'm strong enough to do this, I'm just wondering am I missing the point of the sessions by doing it this way. Sunday's session will be at stupid o'clock in the morning before a 12 hour shift which is why I want to do the shorter/easier run then. I also need to do my long run midweek for the next 2 weeks due to work/travel so this is the perfect week to make this change.

I'm following the meno plan btw - with a few adjustments for the aforementioned work/life stuff.

Itziger

hot buttered scones wrote: »

I think I might know the answer to this one but here goes anyway.

This week my plan has 14 miles with 4,3,2,1@MP (3-4 min recovery between each MP section) on Wednesday and 18 with 2x3MP on Sunday. Due to work life stuff I'm going to have to switch these around - which is ok since I did last weeks long run on Wednesday and raced a 10k on Sunday (which I'll have well recovered from by Wednesday).

My question is this - other than "stick to the plan" is there any reason why I shouldn't change it up a bit more and do the following:

18 miles with 4,3,2,1@MP on Wednesday (just do a longer warmup/cool down) and 14 with 2x3 on Sunday?

I think I'm strong enough to do this, I'm just wondering am I missing the point of the sessions by doing it this way. Sunday's session will be at stupid o'clock in the morning before a 12 hour shift which is why I want to do the shorter/easier run then. I also need to do my long run midweek for the next 2 weeks due to work/travel so this is the perfect week to make this change.

I'm following the meno plan btw - with a few adjustments for the aforementioned work/life stuff.

Can't really see the problem myself. Did you really push the 10k race? As in go for pb type run. That would be my only worry, that you wouldn't be fully recovered to do a fairly tough Wed. session.

hot buttered scones

Itziger wrote: »

Can't really see the problem myself. Did you really push the 10k race? As in go for pb type run. That would be my only worry, that you wouldn't be fully recovered to do a fairly tough Wed. session.

Yeah I really pushed the 10k for a PB. I'll see how I feel on Wednesday morning I think. Regardless, it's 18 miles on Wednesday in some shape or form or I don't get to do it at all.

Rockiemalt

Hello, can I ask do you listen to music or the radio when running?
I dont like bringing my phone with me and would like to get a small fm radio/mp3 player for podcasts? Any recommendations?

Slow_Runner

Rockiemalt wrote: »

Hello, can I ask do you listen to music or the radio when running?
I dont like bringing my phone with me and would like to get a small fm radio/mp3 player for podcasts? Any recommendations?

Something small like the Sandisk Sansa is ideal
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/ohg/SanDisk-Clip-Sport-GB-MP3-Player-Black/B00HCMZ0OK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1491380226&sr=8-3&keywords=sansa
Make sure you get earphones that fit and are secure (but please please please not the big monstrosities you see people wearing now out running - that's worse than shorts over leggings). 
Also best not to use it when running on roads or in races (whole other debate on other threads for that)

IvoryTower

is there something really small that can also use bluetooth earphones, now if that could also play spotify that wopuld be truly amazing, oh and cost 30e

BeepBeep67

IvoryTower wrote: »

is there something really small that can also use bluetooth earphones, now if that could also play spotify that wopuld be truly amazing, oh and cost 30e

I use this - cost about €50 heading through an airport somewhere, Android 5.0, just about powerful enough to run several media apps and can chuck in a SIM card if needed.

IvoryTower

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I use this - cost about €50 heading through an airport somewhere, Android 5.0, just about powerful enough to run several media apps and can chuck in a SIM card if needed.

have you used bluetooth on it? doesnt list it under connectivity?

BeepBeep67

IvoryTower wrote: »

have you used bluetooth on it? doesnt list it under connectivity?

Yep, fully functional BLE, have connected headphones, Garmin, car Bluetooth.

IvoryTower

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Yep, fully functional BLE, have connected headphones, Garmin, car Bluetooth.

great stuff thanks

cporto

I have a question that I'm sure has come up a million times before (so apologies in advance - I have actually read various posts about this but I'm still confused, so here I am...)
It's about heart rate vs pace as a training guide. I'm a very recreational runner but starting to try and build up mileage a little bit (and would like to build up a little speed too) in preparation for my first HM this summer. I've used various pace calculators based on a recent 5k time, but they almost all have me training at a pace that pushes my HR higher than is recommended for the same type of run (easy, tempo, etc). So, in the case of a conflict between the two, which should I pay more attention too? Is it better to hit the paces if it means greater effort than it should, or stick with the heart rate method even if it means running slower?

Rockiemalt

Slow_Runner wrote: »

Something small like the Sandisk Sansa is ideal
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/ohg/SanDisk-Clip-Sport-GB-MP3-Player-Black/B00HCMZ0OK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1491380226&sr=8-3&keywords=sansa
Make sure you get earphones that fit

Thanks for that recommendation, I have a lovely pair of these http://www.yurbuds.com/en/19for-women which are super comfy! I wear big massive headphones half the time in work so just wanted something nice and light and comfy for other times

HigginsJ

When people say they took 60/90 second recovery when they are doing things like 400m speed sessions etc. what does this recovery consist of? Is it slow jogging, walking, standing around scratching ones behind?

IvoryTower

HigginsJ wrote: »

When people say they took 60/90 second recovery when they are doing things like 400m speed sessions etc. what does this recovery consist of? Is it slow jogging, walking, standing around scratching ones behind?

Whatever you want, I tend to concentrate on getting my breath back, I like to walk about a little as well

HigginsJ

IvoryTower wrote: »

Whatever you want, I tend to concentrate on getting my breath back, I like to walk about a little as well

Ok, cool. No plans to do anything like that now but will aim to start trying a few of these types of sessions once I'm cleared from the marathon.

RayCun

HigginsJ wrote: »

When people say they took 60/90 second recovery when they are doing things like 400m speed sessions etc. what does this recovery consist of? Is it slow jogging, walking, standing around scratching ones behind?

Usually the harder the interval was, the less inclined you are to do anything other than stand around

Luckily, the faster the interval, the more likely it is that you should be taking a complete recovery. If you're running at faster than 5k pace in the intervals, for example, you are probably going to take the recoveries very easy*. Walk around a little so you don't stiffen up, that's about it. But if you are running tempo/marathon pace, steady intervals, your recovery could be just running at a slower pace.

*there are always exceptions

gypsylee

I'm on week 3 of the Hal Higdon Novice Half Marathon 12 week plan.

Shorter runs on a Tuesday and Thursday which I currently run at 6.30 minutes or so per km and this is a comfortable pace for me with a longer run on a Sunday. This Sunday's run is 8 kilometers.

My question is should I run the longer run at the same pace as the mid-week runs or use the Sunday run as a LSR and run it between 7 and 8 minutes per km?

HigginsJ

gypsylee wrote: »

I'm on week 3 of the Hal Higdon Novice Half Marathon 12 week plan.

Shorter runs on a Tuesday and Thursday which I currently run at 6.30 minutes or so per km and this is a comfortable pace for me with a longer run on a Sunday. This Sunday's run is 8 kilometers.

My question is should I run the longer run at the same pace as the mid-week runs or use the Sunday run as a LSR and run it between 7 and 8 minutes per km?

Do you have a time in mind for the half marathon?

gypsylee

HigginsJ wrote: »

Do you have a time in mind for the half marathon?

I am a slow runner so I hope to finish in under 2.30. Not going to over stretch myself, will be happy to finish it.