March 2018 Running Challenge
Replies
-
@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!0
-
I am traveling so I will make my ticker later but my goal for March is 65 miles
Mar 1 -2 mi5 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »Do any of you use the Strava extension called Stravistix? It's a browser extension for Chrome only, which give much more detailed analysis of your runs, swims, and bikes, as long as you use an HR monitor.
I mentioned that my 20M mudfest last Saturday felt harder than my 50K last year. I looked at the numbers from Stravistix and the numbers agree. They have a statistic called "Trimp", which is short for Training Impulse. "Trimp" represents the amount of heart stress during an activity. The number isn't the same as the Strava suffer score, but they do correlate. For those two races:
50K Trimp was 563
20M Trimp was 581
Stravistix also tells me that the 20M run put me well into the overtraining territory so I ditched my run last night and give my body a little more rest. I'm going to try to use Stravistix as a guide for my running. Except for my ITB issue, there seems to be some correlation between going into the overtraining range and injury.
I do not, but Garmin has all the same stuff... which I also do not pay attention to
@PastorVincent Garmin has some stats, but nothing even close to the in depth analysis Stravistix provides. For a numbers geek or over-analyzer like me, Stravistix is awesome. Garmin is merely adequate.
Yay, I like geeky, over-analyzing programs! Lol. Just installed the extention and it's currently syncing
Oh? Hmm I might check it out later to see what it offers.0 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »Do any of you use the Strava extension called Stravistix? It's a browser extension for Chrome only, which give much more detailed analysis of your runs, swims, and bikes, as long as you use an HR monitor.
I mentioned that my 20M mudfest last Saturday felt harder than my 50K last year. I looked at the numbers from Stravistix and the numbers agree. They have a statistic called "Trimp", which is short for Training Impulse. "Trimp" represents the amount of heart stress during an activity. The number isn't the same as the Strava suffer score, but they do correlate. For those two races:
50K Trimp was 563
20M Trimp was 581
Stravistix also tells me that the 20M run put me well into the overtraining territory so I ditched my run last night and give my body a little more rest. I'm going to try to use Stravistix as a guide for my running. Except for my ITB issue, there seems to be some correlation between going into the overtraining range and injury.
I do not, but Garmin has all the same stuff... which I also do not pay attention to
@PastorVincent Garmin has some stats, but nothing even close to the in depth analysis Stravistix provides. For a numbers geek or over-analyzer like me, Stravistix is awesome. Garmin is merely adequate.
Yay, I like geeky, over-analyzing programs! Lol. Just installed the extention and it's currently syncing
My favorite part of the extension is the Fitness Trend which I was talking about before. It's give you a graphical representation of your Fitness, Fatigue, and what they call Form. During training I'll use it to prevent overtraining, and during the taper I'll use it to get my Form in the correction zone. You can read more about it here, and from the extension: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. They should take a rest!
Here's a screen capture of my Fitness Trend for the last 12 months. The orange line is my "Fitness", the gray line (currently the big spike on the right) is my "Fatigue", and the black line (big dip on the right) is my "Form". After my rest yesterday, I'm; back in the optimal training zone. Had I run last night, I'd still be in the over-training zone. The dashed portion on the far right show how the lines will change over the next 2 weeks without any training. This will be useful during a taper to make sure you're well rested for a big race, without being too rested.
3 -
Hi all, I'm new here! Ive been running for about 3 years and I've done two half marathons so far and am doing a ten-miler at the end of April. I usually do two 4-mile runs during the week and a longer run over the weekend.
My goal is 60 miles this month. I also want to challenge myself with some hilly runs, as my ten-mile race is very hilly.
Happy running!9 -
I am gonna have to remember that extension because I love numbers and data.0
-
Another piece of Stravistix I really like is the extended statistics portion for individual runs. Since I usually run with my dog, and have to stop for him to do his business, and for traffic lights and such, what Garmin gives me as my average HR, pace or cadence, is skewed because it includes those stops.
Stravistix will give you the 75th precentile values (as well as 25% and 50%). The 75% values indicate your average HR, pace, or cadence for the greatest 75% of your run. Assuming I don't walk or stop for more than 25% of my run, that's going to be closer to the real number I care about than the 100% number I get from Garmin. Yes, you can set up Garmin to give you moving pace and moving time, but I prefer my Garmin set up to give me total numbers.
More detail
http://road.cc/content/tech-news/175554-strava-chrome-extension-adds-even-more-detail-data-hungry-cyclists
It will over analyze your pace, HR, grade, elevation, and cadence, including graphical representations, percent of your activity in each zone (which you can define, or use the default).
I would suggest to new runners that they not start using this or you may get overwhelmed and lost in the numbers. Just go out and run. Check this out after 6 months or a year if you're interested. This data is NOT necessary for successful running.5 -
@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!
0 -
cburke8909 wrote: »@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!
Missed this, Happy Birthday!0 -
@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!0
-
KatieJane83 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »Do any of you use the Strava extension called Stravistix? It's a browser extension for Chrome only, which give much more detailed analysis of your runs, swims, and bikes, as long as you use an HR monitor.
I mentioned that my 20M mudfest last Saturday felt harder than my 50K last year. I looked at the numbers from Stravistix and the numbers agree. They have a statistic called "Trimp", which is short for Training Impulse. "Trimp" represents the amount of heart stress during an activity. The number isn't the same as the Strava suffer score, but they do correlate. For those two races:
50K Trimp was 563
20M Trimp was 581
Stravistix also tells me that the 20M run put me well into the overtraining territory so I ditched my run last night and give my body a little more rest. I'm going to try to use Stravistix as a guide for my running. Except for my ITB issue, there seems to be some correlation between going into the overtraining range and injury.
I do not, but Garmin has all the same stuff... which I also do not pay attention to
@PastorVincent Garmin has some stats, but nothing even close to the in depth analysis Stravistix provides. For a numbers geek or over-analyzer like me, Stravistix is awesome. Garmin is merely adequate.
Yay, I like geeky, over-analyzing programs! Lol. Just installed the extention and it's currently syncing
My favorite part of the extension is the Fitness Trend which I was talking about before. It's give you a graphical representation of your Fitness, Fatigue, and what they call Form. During training I'll use it to prevent overtraining, and during the taper I'll use it to get my Form in the correction zone. You can read more about it here, and from the extension: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. They should take a rest!
Here's a screen capture of my Fitness Trend for the last 12 months. The orange line is my "Fitness", the gray line (currently the big spike on the right) is my "Fatigue", and the black line (big dip on the right) is my "Form". After my rest yesterday, I'm; back in the optimal training zone. Had I run last night, I'd still be in the over-training zone. The dashed portion on the far right show how the lines will change over the next 2 weeks without any training. This will be useful during a taper to make sure you're well rested for a big race, without being too rested.
This is very cool. It's depressing, because I can see my decrease in fitness when I developed the ITBS (stupid IT band!), but I see it coming back up now!0 -
@zdyb23456 Happy Birthday!!!
0 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »This is very cool. It's depressing, because I can see my decrease in fitness when I developed the ITBS (stupid IT band!), but I see it coming back up now!
It's giving me hope. Even though I can't run as much as I planned for this training cycle (also due to ITBS), I do see that my fitness is steadily increasing.
Seeing my huge drop in fitness last summer gives me some motivation to not let it drop as much this summer.2 -
Welcome to the group @lisaloum , @Tacklewasher, @angelicasassy, @jdunham221,@jillEReilly89, @qandv9 , @kaspan, @danniej312 , @zerlinna87 , @Teerai and @brw828 !!
I think I got everyone! If not welcome to all the newbies and good to see everyone else back! I'm not always good at tagging people since I am usually on my phone and this thread moves fast, but I do a lot of liking and hugging (but no hugging for @Elise4270 ).
Today will be my 5th day in a row to run. I usually run Sunday, Tuesday, Wed and Thurs but I ended up running Monday as well this week because of the bad weather last week. I am looking forward to a rest day tomorrow, but I am really glad that the 1st day of the month fell on a run day.
9 -
@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!
In for 70 miles in March. The weather is getting nicer here so hoping to put in longer runs on the weekends!3 -
I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?0
-
lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
I like my vivoactive 3. I can't compare it to the forerunner as I've never used that one. I went with the vivoactive based on price and being able to use it for different activities. It had all the bells & whistles I wanted for around $200ish1 -
Welcome to the group @lisaloum , @Tacklewasher, @angelicasassy, @jdunham221,@jillEReilly89, @qandv9 , @kaspan, @danniej312 , @zerlinna87 , @Teerai and @brw828 !!
Welcome all!!!cburke8909 wrote: »@zdyb23456 Happy 40th Birthday!
Happy Birthday!!!1 -
lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.0 -
RunsOnEspresso wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
I like my vivoactive 3. I can't compare it to the forerunner as I've never used that one. I went with the vivoactive based on price and being able to use it for different activities. It had all the bells & whistles I wanted for around $200ish
I also have a vivoactive 3 and I like it alot. The vivoactive 3 doesn't give you as much in-depth analysis about your run but I'm starting out as new so it does all that I need. If you haven't check out the Forerunner 645 then you should, it's their newest model in the series.0 -
PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.
Just a thought about the touch screen, it is actually very responsive went wet, you can swim with it to a certain depth in water. At the end of the day it comes down to preference.0 -
1/3: 1.96kms (walk at lunch) so far, will try to do some yoga tonight
TOTAL : 1.96 / 50 kms goal
Races:
19/4-30/4: Zombies Run! App 2018 Spring Virtual Run
22/9: “Coureurs des Bois” Obstacle Course Challenge (not signed up yet)
7 -
Joyous2018 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.
Just a thought about the touch screen, it is actually very responsive went wet, you can swim with it to a certain depth in water. At the end of the day it comes down to preference.
Absolutely, the link with the compare should help with that. IME though the touch screens do not work when my hands are sweating, or it is raining and most gloves are too clunky even if they are touchscreen compatible. I prefer buttons for that reason. Everyone is different and there are lots of choices! Too many probably 0 -
PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.
I was looking at that comparison this morning and the differences seemed minor, but the Vivoactive3 is a good bit cheaper. From all that I have been able to tell, it appears that the Vivoactive3 leans more in favor of an everyday fitness tracker with GPS capabilities and the Forerunner is more of a training device. But it appears that they both have similar capabilities so I was wondering if anyone had any real life experiences with either (props and cons) that they wanted to share. Your point about the touch screen is a good one. I agree that I prefer to use the buttons.0 -
lporter229 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.
I was looking at that comparison this morning and the differences seemed minor, but the Vivoactive3 is a good bit cheaper. From all that I have been able to tell, it appears that the Vivoactive3 leans more in favor of an everyday fitness tracker with GPS capabilities and the Forerunner is more of a training device. But it appears that they both have similar capabilities so I was wondering if anyone had any real life experiences with either (props and cons) that they wanted to share. Your point about the touch screen is a good one. I agree that I prefer to use the buttons.
Well, I have a 935, which is very close to the 735. The primary sell for me on the 935 over the 735 was battery life. The only big con I have with the 935 is that the thermometer is worthless, and the price. It connects it my in-car GPS for alerts, find my car, and last mile directions. Which really is a very edge case use, but it is there.
The VivoActive3 has Garmin-Pay if that matters to you. I use Apple-Pay on my phone so I do not care about that at all.
Overall I feel the 935 (and 735 is pretty close) is about as good as GPS watches get currently. I gave up my Apple Watch completely to use the Garmin. The Apple Watch is still sitting on my desk actually.0 -
@Teresa502, @rheddmobile and @PastorVincent - I just ordered a pair of lock laces and a pair of the Xtenex laces that @_nikkiwolf_ recommended. They should arrive tomorrow and I am hoping they will help with my toes/forefoot falling asleep
I've never tried the Xtenex laces. Would love to hear your review of the two.
0 -
PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
The 735 is essentially the 935 with less battery life. There really is not much of a difference that I recall between them.
The 735 is $350 On Amazon
The Vivoactive3 is $270 On Amazon
(EDITED - had the wrong price, it is corrected now)
Here you can see the features side by side on Garmin's Site
Skimming that page it looks like a mixed bag, but I would point out the Vivoactive has a touch screen and smaller battery. I do not like touch screens on my GPS watches because wet fingers and gloved fingers do not work well with them.
You probably be happy with either, but check out the differences and see what you actually might use.
I was looking at that comparison this morning and the differences seemed minor, but the Vivoactive3 is a good bit cheaper. From all that I have been able to tell, it appears that the Vivoactive3 leans more in favor of an everyday fitness tracker with GPS capabilities and the Forerunner is more of a training device. But it appears that they both have similar capabilities so I was wondering if anyone had any real life experiences with either (props and cons) that they wanted to share. Your point about the touch screen is a good one. I agree that I prefer to use the buttons.
Well, I have a 935, which is very close to the 735. The primary sell for me on the 935 over the 735 was battery life. The only big con I have with the 935 is that the thermometer is worthless, and the price. It connects it my in-car GPS for alerts, find my car, and last mile directions. Which really is a very edge case use, but it is there.
The VivoActive3 has Garmin-Pay if that matters to you. I use Apple-Pay on my phone so I do not care about that at all.
Overall I feel the 935 (and 735 is pretty close) is about as good as GPS watches get currently. I gave up my Apple Watch completely to use the Garmin. The Apple Watch is still sitting on my desk actually.
More food for thought, here are write-ups about each by someone that has spent a bunch of time with them:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/10/garmin-vivoactive-3-in-depth-review.html
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/06/garmin-forerunner-735xt-in-depth-review.html1 -
RunsOnEspresso wrote: »lporter229 wrote: »I am thinking about upgrading my Garmin Forerunner 220. I was trying to compare the Vivoactive3 and the Forerunner 735XT. Does anyone have any thoughts/ opinions on the matter?
I like my vivoactive 3. I can't compare it to the forerunner as I've never used that one. I went with the vivoactive based on price and being able to use it for different activities. It had all the bells & whistles I wanted for around $200ish
Basically, everything she said, lol.0 -
@PastorVincent (or anybody)- Do you use your Forerunner as an everyday watch? Do you use it as a fitness tracker (steps, sleep, etc)?0
-
lporter229 wrote: »@PastorVincent (or anybody)- Do you use your Forerunner as an everyday watch? Do you use it as a fitness tracker (steps, sleep, etc)?
Yes, I do. My 935 has completely replaced my AppleWatch as my, well, watch. It gets notifications from my phone, texts, and all the things you would want from a normal watch. It even tells the time! 
It does count my steps, which the Garmin App auto does something with, but given I am running 50-60 miles a week, I do not pay much attention to steps. Same with tracking sleep. I have been meaning to look into all the sleep data, but I have not had time yet.
I use a Star Trek theme for the face:
But of course, there are analog and digital faces of all varieties too pick from.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions