Running

I should probably log my warmups separately as it skews my avg hr readings but looking at my intervals last night what you just said is pretty spot on for me as well...

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/433714363

did you lie on the ground after 30 minutes?!

your heart rate drops hugely considering you were jogging in the recovery!

I'm impressed with your commitment to training, keep it up and the marathon will be a breeze*.

*it wont, but it will be breezey compared to those who haven't been dilligent in their preparations!

I was refering to Ed. I didn't say snus is any better than smoking, but it does spare your lungs if you want to practice sports and it helped me quit smoking. In the end it's all shit but hey, a man's gotta enjoy unhealthy things right?

I'm not hating, go take all the drugs in the world for all I care, just if there is no relevance to running then go and post about it in another thread.

did you lie on the ground after 30 minutes?!

your heart rate drops hugely considering you were jogging in the recovery!
!

I stopped for a brief moment halfway through the intervals to have a quick drink from my secretly stashed bottle and sat down for about 20 seconds so it didn't look weird when I retrieved it from it's hiding spot which I think is probably also why my next interval was slower than the rest.

probably too short... fnar.

At least it would spice up the activity report E-mails a bit.

First run since October last year - started with the intention of doing 16k, which then dropped to 10k, and ended up as under 8k.

So my plan of being super refreshed and loving running has failed.

I may take up darts instead.

16k seems like a long first run after 3 months off.

8km with an energy gel 3km in would have been my chioce. Nice and easy with a little sugar kick comining in at the end.

@hatbeard, that looks brutally boring. Isn't there a 600m route in the park, rather than the business park? Or are you working on your mental toughness as well as your fitness?

I stopped for a brief moment halfway through the intervals to have a quick drink from my secretly stashed bottle and sat down for about 20 seconds so it didn't look weird when I retrieved it from it's hiding spot which I think is probably also why my next interval was slower than the rest.

See the data never lies!

I was shocked to see that my heart rate while watching tv before heading out running last night was 40bpm. Last time I checked my resting heart rate about 2 months ago it was 48bpm...

I've clearly become incredibly efficient at sitting watching tv, must be all the practice I do after training!

^^it's too dark for park running at night and it's a nice enclosed low traffic loop so I don't have to worry about traffic interrupting an interval.

over the next few weeks though the intervals get longer (up to 5x1km) so each session gets shorter than the week before as there's less recovery time in between, last weeks was pretty boring though (12x400m) but last night i did between 3-4 laps less (8x600m).

16k seems like a long first run after 3 months off.

8km with an energy gel 3km in would have been my chioce. Nice and easy with a little sugar kick comining in at the end.

A much better idea is to take another 3 months off running and see if that makes things easier.

Just stay off the running untill Dalsnibbe.

The easy pace and stunning views will pull you along.

I need to sacrifice running for more saddle time. So the 6 - 8 km tempo run will be my new standard. As I can fit these in without losing out on a ride.

Probably going to cut my 12km Sunday run, and replace it with cycling hill repeats.

As people were talking HR a while ago...if i set up HR zones from a threshold test on a bike, are these still valid for use with running?

Also, does anyone know of a online guide of how to use HR zones with running? The BC website has stuff for bike training but I know nothing about using it with running.

as mentioned earlier, HR zones are different for cycling and running, with running being higher for a given output....

I honestly couldn't tell you what a guide to zones might be mine look a bit like this based on experience.

                  Running       Z1 Endurance < 134        Z2 Moderate 134 - 155       Z3 Tempo 155 - 169        Z4 Threshold 169 - 180       Z5 Anaerobic >  180       Cycling       Z1 Endurance < 112        Z2 Moderate 112 - 148        Z3 Tempo 148 - 167       Z4 Threshold 167 - 185        Z5 Anaerobic > 185

As people were talking HR a while ago...if i set up HR zones from a threshold test on a bike, are these still valid for use with running?

Also, does anyone know of a online guide of how to use HR zones with running? The BC website has stuff for bike training but I know nothing about using it with running.

HR will be higher for running for the same 'percieved effort'. So no.

Its all about limiting factors. On the bike its often the relativily few leg muscles employed, that hit a lactic threshold. When running, you engage more muscles to share the load. But these all need blood supply. So the heart is worked harder.

Joel Friel says this if you have bike based LTHR data.

Run Zones
Zone 1 Less than 85% of LTHR
Zone 2 85% to 89% of LTHR
Zone 3 90% to 94% of LTHR
Zone 4 95% to 99% of LTHR
Zone 5a 100% to 102% of LTHR
Zone 5b 103% to 106% of LTHR
Zone 5c More than 106% of LTHR

Bike Zones
Zone 1 Less than 81% of LTHR
Zone 2 81% to 89% of LTHR
Zone 3 90% to 93% of LTHR
Zone 4 94% to 99% of LTHR
Zone 5a 100% to 102% of LTHR
Zone 5b 103% to 106% of LTHR
Zone 5c More than 106% of LTHR

I don't bother with hrm for running, because I think I can gauge sustainability of pacing over time. Does anyone find hrm useful?

Sorry forgot link. From here. I like Joel Friels take on training. Although, I'm not qualified to say hes better than anyone else.

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/11/quick-guide-to-setting-zones.html

I don't bother with hrm for running, because I think I can gauge sustainability of pacing over time. Does anyone find hrm useful?

IMHO your percieved effort is effected by not only the current HR value. But how quickly you got there.

So it can be useful to have your absolute value at hand.

I don't bother with hrm for running, because I think I can gauge sustainability of pacing over time. Does anyone find hrm useful?

Essentially in terms of data on my bodies performance and how much I am outputting it probably goes GPS Speed < perceived effort < Heart rate < Power

So in terms of racing its good to have the best data I can afford (i.e. no power) to ensure I'm not burning my metaphorical matches too quickly.

For example, running a marathon, I might know that 5 min kms are my race pace, but the first 5km of a course might be up hill, this will therefore be shown as a harder percieved effort but the excitment of a race might mask these signals, but the HR will display a higher heart rate. Therefore I listen to the HRM, pull back the pace a bit and let it drop, saving the "matches" for later on..

So training withe a HRM is useful both in terms of training in the right zones but also it gives me a tonne of data telling me what my HR should be doing come race day.

Unfortunately there are other factors that influence HR on any given day, I might be under the weather, fatigued or in fact far more rested than usual throwing the numbers off, but it is definitely useful...

T-V, I think you're doing it the right way, fwiw.

For cycling I find it very difficult to get sensory feedback, and so often slack off, but running allows a greater sense of visceral feedback and I find that music, gps watches/trackers just distract me, and then I get upset/ stroppy/ sprint/ stop.

In an ideal world I'd get a gps tracker in my shoe, and a tiny HRM, which I could download the data off at the end of the run.
Because I'm competitive by nature, not for training gains.

Apologies for introducing smoking talk into the running thread, was merely an off-hand comment that spiraled a bit.
Fuck snus and vaping, just a band aid over the actual problem. Taking the 5th Element approach which has worked for a few mates - taking 3 roll ups with 2 filters in each with me to work in an attempt to ween myself onto cold turkey.

End of discussion from me.

Essentially in terms of data on my bodies performance and how much I am outputting it probably goes GPS Speed < perceived effort < Heart rate < Power

So in terms of racing its good to have the best data I can afford (i.e. no power) to ensure I'm not burning my metaphorical matches too quickly.

For example, running a marathon, I might know that 5 min kms are my race pace, but the first 5km of a course might be up hill, this will therefore be shown as a harder percieved effort but the excitment of a race might mask these signals, but the HR will display a higher heart rate. Therefore I listen to the HRM, pull back the pace a bit and let it drop, saving the "matches" for later on..

So training withe a HRM is useful both in terms of training in the right zones but also it gives me a tonne of data telling me what my HR should be doing come race day.

Unfortunately there are other factors that influence HR on any given day, I might be under the weather, fatigued or in fact far more rested than usual throwing the numbers off, but it is definitely useful...

I'd put HR data aboved percieved effort. Which is why I like to have it.

On the last point. This is why you need power data.

T-V, I think you're doing it the right way, fwiw.

For cycling I find it very difficult to get sensory feedback, and so often slack off, but running allows a greater sense of visceral feedback and I find that music, gps watches/trackers just distract me, and then I get upset/ stroppy/ sprint/ stop.

In an ideal world I'd get a gps tracker in my shoe, and a tiny HRM, which I could download the data off at the end of the run.
Because I'm competitive by nature, not for training gains.

You're right of course. But I'll hold my hand up and admitt I love the gadgets, and the data crunching as much as the actual running. If it keeps my interest up. I dont mind spending money on it.

Apologies for introducing smoking talk into the running thread, was merely an off-hand comment that spiraled a bit.
Fuck snus and vaping, just a band aid over the actual problem. Taking the 5th Element approach which has worked for a few mates - taking 3 roll ups with 2 filters in each with me to work in an attempt to ween myself onto cold turkey.

End of discussion from me.

I find it relavent. Because running is the one thing that gets me to quit.

This is all getting a bit too nerdy.

I've been trying to get into running recently. Did a few short (~2 mile) runs and upped to between 3 and 4 miles fairly comfortably. Until Monday's nightmare run. Firstly my back cramped which was ridiculously painful (has never happened before) and is still hurting today after having to take a day off work yesterday.
Secondly I tried to jump a bit of flooding across the path by the river, slipped on landing and ended up sat in freezing river water. Had to run the rest of the way with very wet feet.

Not the best start so far!

This is all getting a bit too nerdy.

This.

Do people here like running in parks? I find it desperately boring. Much prefer roaming the streets. Popped into my local park to put a few laps on Sunday morning and immediately found the prospect so dispiriting that I headed straight out the next exit, off down to Herne Hill, up Tulse Hill and had knocked off a breezy 8.5 km by the time I returned home - twice as much as I had set out for but I was having fun. To me, the only benefit of parks is fewer interruptions (which can normally be minimised out on the streets with a little forethought).