September 2017 Running Challenge

1…457910…83

Replies

  • MissMaggieMuffin
    MissMaggieMuffin Posts: 444 Member
    Back in for the challenge this month - had surgery in late June and spent the summer (!!!) recovering. Released by my doctor to gradually resume activities, so will go for my first run tomorrow morning. Small goal this month - 15 km.!
  • skippygirlsmom
    skippygirlsmom Posts: 4,433 Member
    @greenolivetree awesome to see you!
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    garygse wrote: »
    @zdyb23456 I agree with @PastorVincent with Body Glide. I used to use (and still do use) Sport Shield...very slick and slippery, but it didn't seem to work too well for longer runs in the heat (20+ miles), and while Body Glide feels thicker and has waaaay more friction to it compared to Sport Shield, it actually does the trick for my longer runs when applied liberally.

    I have only tried BodyGlide and one called Skin which apparently is made by the BodyGlide people. BodyGlide has never failed me in hot runs, cold runs, wet runs or dry runs. It goes on like a solid deodorant stick and does not really feel that slippery at all. Skin is a cream that feels very slippery but also seems to wear off quickly.

    BodyGlide alone was enough to protect my nipples for my 4:28 marathon run. With Skin, I added cotton balls and medical tape. Any really long run I now apply BodyGlide to all the sensitive areas that might rub. Some of which I confess I do not even know the name of, but only need chaffing there once to do all you can to never repeat that experience! :wink:

    So that is about all I know on that topic. :smiley:
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    skippygirlsmom wrote: »
    @garygse I have to say with the amount of miles you run I was surprised to see you never ran a full marathon.

    Agreed. You are going to smash your first marathon, Gary. "Smash" probably won't even come close to being the right word.
    skippygirlsmom wrote: »
    @orphia I’m like you I’m not expert but I do have some idea of what could hurt a person but unsolicited advice is seldom welcome. I tried to help a friend whose daughter was hurt during XC, then she went on to have her run indoor track, then on to outdoor track. The girl was in PAIN serious PAIN falling out on the track, screaming on the ground pain and the mom was like, you can still run the next event. I finally said you may never talk to me again and that is fine, but you are ABUSING her. Finally I spoke to the trainer and coach (who was somewhat oblivious), the girl has been in PT for 6 months trying to fix the damage. Skip tells me she hurts and she’s in with the trainer and we listen to his advice.

    @skippygirlsmom This, and your post about dementia, are two of the many, many ways you are a totally wonderful and beautiful human being.
  • JimCrackinDandy
    JimCrackinDandy Posts: 146 Member
    edited September 2017
    September is going to shine Ladies and Gents! Let's get some lovely mileage in with the autumn beginning. Think of the colors coming. Hoping for 100 this month. Knees better. Ran 5 today while listening to famous "To Kill a Mockingbird" b Harper Lee. Nice job @PastorVincent on your 10miler listening to "Alloy of Law". Usually my long runs demand music, not audiobooks. The more upbeat the better!
  • garygse
    garygse Posts: 896 Member
    @Orphia Thank you, and I hope you're right! :smile:

    @PastorVincent I use the BodyGlide under my arms, as that's where I find I am likely to chaff...but for nipples, I use NipEaze; they're like little circles of surgical tape and are so comfortable that I forget I'm wearing them, so durable that they'll stay on even after several showers, yet so easy and painless to remove, plus they're next to invisible.
  • MobyCarp
    MobyCarp Posts: 2,927 Member
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    SO 10 miles today.

    On my left arm I had my trusty Apple Watch Series 2 connected to RunKeeper on my iPhone 7+ which was playing my audio book. (Branden Sanderson's Alloy of Law in case you are wondering. Excellent book and series). The Apple Watch Series 2 uses an optical sensor for monitoring heart rate that when worn properly tests within 3% of the gold standard (an EKG) according to independent testing.

    All the stats from that are as expected for conditions and level of effort by feel. 75% Z2 and 22% Z3. A typical long run pace for me (even though it was only 10 miles). Average heart rate was 148bpm and a pace of 9:52. Again about what I expect for my "long run" pace. A touch slower actually, but I can blame my cold for that.

    On my right arm, I had the fancy new Garmin Forerunner 15 paired with a Garmin HRM1G-Hear Rate Monitor chest strap. The Garmin watch is a little bigger and heavier than my Apple Watch and obviously does not have nearly the same amount of features but it boasts 8 hours of battery life. This is a good thing because I may want to get into trail running next year and the 5-6 hours that the Apple Watch will last with full GPS and HR tracking on might be tight.

    Well with in minutes I knew something was wrong. I had bearly gone 10 feet when the Garmin was beeping "Heart rate too high" so I checked my Apple Watch and it was reading 80something BPM. Not exactly racing yet, but the Garmin was reading 139. Not sure why 139 is too high, but I definitely was nowhere near that. I decided to ignore it for a while and see if it settled down. It kept beeping, probably every 5 or 10 seconds complaining about my heart rate so at about 1 mile in I stopped, paused both watches and took the chest strap off. I tightened it and put it back on make sure it was as snug as I could get it. It then started complaining of heart rate to slow. Ugh. I decided to ignore it until I got home.

    Once home I up loaded the watch to Garmin (via USB, no BT on this model) and looked at the stats it recorded.

    10.12 miles vs RunKeepers 10.00 miles. Close enough there I think
    9:50 pace vs RunkKeppers 9:58 pace - variance probably due to the distance difference.

    Both of those I think are fine. My right arm probably was in the outside lane more often than my left or something. :)

    Then it gets funky. Garmin stated my average heart rate (keep in mind this was 10 miles at a 9:50 pace) was 88bpm. Yes, that is eighty-eight. As in less than 100. Umm. No, not likely. :smiley: So I pulled the charts for the heart rate on both devices:

    RunKeeper (as recorded by Apple Watch):

    t3xc5bbi2djy.png

    That looks fairly reasonable, and about like what I would expect. Fast ramp up, then pretty steady readings. Now look at the Garmin:

    czocg31rxu81.png

    So the first few minutes of my run were in the 140-160 range, but after that I spent most of the run under 100, and to get an average of 88, probably spent most of it under 88 too.

    So, it is as I feared (but hoped was wrong). I can not use a chest strap to read heart rate. This is not really a reflection on the Garmin, I bet if one of y'all used it, it would work fine. Just I have a heart condition that is directly related to the electrical system, which is why an optical monitor can read me fine while an electrical one (like the chest straps) can not. Even EKG's give funky readings. (a big reason why I wear a RoadId now so that paramedics will have a warning about that)

    Anyways I probably will try it one or two more times and then find someone to give it away too (anyone interested?). Just will have to save my pennies for one of the fancier Garmins that have the optical heart rate monitor. Maybe the 735.

    My guess is that the higher readings from the Garmin HRM early in the run are a bad connection, until you worked up enough of a sweat for a good connection. I see the same phenomenon with the HRM that came with my 620. If I wet down the contacts, put it on, and immediately run it won't happen; but if I drive somewhere to run with a group, it dries out enough that I see the early false high readings. Most of the time, the HRM that came with my 630 doesn't have that problem.

    The average of 88 will include a lot of time with really low readings for running, and I would expect the cause of that is your own physiological issues, just as you think. I do wonder if the early high readings would have been even higher, absent your specific heart issues.
  • vandinem
    vandinem Posts: 550 Member 
    Date      Miles      MTD
-------   -----    -------
Sep   1     4.5        4.5
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    SO 10 miles today.

    On my left arm I had my trusty Apple Watch Series 2 connected to RunKeeper on my iPhone 7+ which was playing my audio book. (Branden Sanderson's Alloy of Law in case you are wondering. Excellent book and series). The Apple Watch Series 2 uses an optical sensor for monitoring heart rate that when worn properly tests within 3% of the gold standard (an EKG) according to independent testing.

    All the stats from that are as expected for conditions and level of effort by feel. 75% Z2 and 22% Z3. A typical long run pace for me (even though it was only 10 miles). Average heart rate was 148bpm and a pace of 9:52. Again about what I expect for my "long run" pace. A touch slower actually, but I can blame my cold for that.

    On my right arm, I had the fancy new Garmin Forerunner 15 paired with a Garmin HRM1G-Hear Rate Monitor chest strap. The Garmin watch is a little bigger and heavier than my Apple Watch and obviously does not have nearly the same amount of features but it boasts 8 hours of battery life. This is a good thing because I may want to get into trail running next year and the 5-6 hours that the Apple Watch will last with full GPS and HR tracking on might be tight.

    Well with in minutes I knew something was wrong. I had bearly gone 10 feet when the Garmin was beeping "Heart rate too high" so I checked my Apple Watch and it was reading 80something BPM. Not exactly racing yet, but the Garmin was reading 139. Not sure why 139 is too high, but I definitely was nowhere near that. I decided to ignore it for a while and see if it settled down. It kept beeping, probably every 5 or 10 seconds complaining about my heart rate so at about 1 mile in I stopped, paused both watches and took the chest strap off. I tightened it and put it back on make sure it was as snug as I could get it. It then started complaining of heart rate to slow. Ugh. I decided to ignore it until I got home.

    Once home I up loaded the watch to Garmin (via USB, no BT on this model) and looked at the stats it recorded.

    10.12 miles vs RunKeepers 10.00 miles. Close enough there I think
    9:50 pace vs RunkKeppers 9:58 pace - variance probably due to the distance difference.

    Both of those I think are fine. My right arm probably was in the outside lane more often than my left or something. :)

    Then it gets funky. Garmin stated my average heart rate (keep in mind this was 10 miles at a 9:50 pace) was 88bpm. Yes, that is eighty-eight. As in less than 100. Umm. No, not likely. :smiley: So I pulled the charts for the heart rate on both devices:

    RunKeeper (as recorded by Apple Watch):

    t3xc5bbi2djy.png

    That looks fairly reasonable, and about like what I would expect. Fast ramp up, then pretty steady readings. Now look at the Garmin:

    czocg31rxu81.png

    So the first few minutes of my run were in the 140-160 range, but after that I spent most of the run under 100, and to get an average of 88, probably spent most of it under 88 too.

    So, it is as I feared (but hoped was wrong). I can not use a chest strap to read heart rate. This is not really a reflection on the Garmin, I bet if one of y'all used it, it would work fine. Just I have a heart condition that is directly related to the electrical system, which is why an optical monitor can read me fine while an electrical one (like the chest straps) can not. Even EKG's give funky readings. (a big reason why I wear a RoadId now so that paramedics will have a warning about that)

    Anyways I probably will try it one or two more times and then find someone to give it away too (anyone interested?). Just will have to save my pennies for one of the fancier Garmins that have the optical heart rate monitor. Maybe the 735.

    My guess is that the higher readings from the Garmin HRM early in the run are a bad connection, until you worked up enough of a sweat for a good connection. I see the same phenomenon with the HRM that came with my 620. If I wet down the contacts, put it on, and immediately run it won't happen; but if I drive somewhere to run with a group, it dries out enough that I see the early false high readings. Most of the time, the HRM that came with my 630 doesn't have that problem.

    The average of 88 will include a lot of time with really low readings for running, and I would expect the cause of that is your own physiological issues, just as you think. I do wonder if the early high readings would have been even higher, absent your specific heart issues.

    Plausible. Funny thing is that other electrical monitors I have tried have gone the other direction and read extremely high (like in excess of 300bpm). That is what I was expecting from the Garmin.

    Still probably try it again, and maybe prewet it this time. See if that makes a difference.
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    @Orphia ha! Great pictures!
  • __TMac__
    __TMac__ Posts: 1,665 Member
    9/2 3m easy
    Total: 6 of 65 miles

    Goal: Beat my 20-yr-old PR of 29:32
    *Oct: Apple Harvest 5k
    *Nov: Movember 5k
    *Dec: Mitten Run 5k

    It's occurred to me that I don't have a training plan in mind for the 4 weeks between each of the three races. And I'm a planner, so this bothers me.

    Anyone see a reason to not repeat the last 4 weeks of Higdon's Intermediate 5K plan twice? Or have a better idea?

    http://www.halhigdon.com/training/50934/5K-Intermediate-Training-Program

    (I think said earlier that I was doing the Novice plan, but I misspoke.)

Categories