August 2018 Running Challenge

Options
1…94959799100…103

Replies

  • travelling_lots
    travelling_lots Posts: 377 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    All I get it is photos failed.
    They are uploaded on my profile. If you can see them.
  • AmyOutOfControl
    AmyOutOfControl Posts: 1,425 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    MobyCarp wrote: »

    I've been told you're not a real runner until you learn to fire a proper snot rocket.

    @MobyCarp I mastered the art of the proper snot rocket during the Central Texas cedar tree pollen-apocalypse of 2017. I guess that means I am a real runner? ;)
    RunsOnEspresso wrote: »
    Well, I will not be joining the 100 mile club this month. I woke up Monday with a dry, sore throat. Yesterday with a raging headache and dry, sore throat which turned into the fuzzy feeling. And I have a lot of snot draining down my throat (tmi?). I haven't ran since Sunday because I am tired and can't breathe well. I probably won't run tomorrow. Friday is up in the air. If I do it would be a short one. I'm at 83 so maybe Friday I'll get myself to 85.

    @RunsOnExpresso They say there is no such thing a TMI in the running community. I hope you feel better soon!
  • MNLittleFinn
    MNLittleFinn Posts: 4,271 Member
    Options
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    missevil wrote: »
    I have a question: I've read a bit about heart rate zones and which you should train in. Based on the formulas on the web, my zones are something like that: (I said that I'm untrained, maybe I'm not *that* untrained anymore...)
    Fat burning 109 - 127
    Aerobe 127-145
    Anaerobe 145 - 163
    My regular running speed is slow enough to hold a conversation, so I think I'm not really overdoing it, but my approx. heart rate is usually ~149, which is a bit too high, according to those numbers.
    I assume that I'm a bit trained already (I'm commuting by bike) and am still in the aerobe zone, but my actual question is something else anyway: how can I go lower? For me, it's physically not possible, to run much slower than what I do already. I can't reach an HR below 145.

    First problem: Believing the web for heart rate zones. I ran for a couple years without the zones generated by Garmin making any sense at all. Turned out the zones were set wrong for me.

    Systems for setting zones need one or more of: resting heart rate, lactic threshold heart rate, maximum heart rate. Resting heart rate isn't a problem. You just measure it in the morning before you get out of bed.

    Lactic threshold heart rate can be measured accurately in a lab. A few months back, I think it was @MNLittleFinn who posted a routine to estimate the LTHR; it's such a tough workout that I've never done that routine. Instead I looked through HR results from historical races and found one that came close to matching the test.

    Maximum heart rate can be measured in a lab. The commonly cited formula of 200 - age is really easy to use, but it's garbage. By that formula, I die every time I run a race shorter than a half marathon, at some half marathons, and at a lot of speed workouts. I'm using a maximum HR estimate based on my peak HR at the 2016 USATF National Club Cross Country Championships, where I can match my peak HR in the race with the top of the wall on the 3rd loop, when I would have slowed to a walk if the course hadn't shifted to downhill right there.

    Once I have reasonable max HR (I'm using 185 as an estimate), I Karvonnen method to compute zones; I think Garmin calls it the HR reserve method or something like that. Basically, it uses percentage between resting HR and max HR to compute zones, instead of the more simple minded percentage of max HR.

    Long story short, if your calculated zones give you HR numbers that are impossibly low for easy exercise, it's far more likely that there's a problem with the zone calculations than a problem with how you're running.

    Here's the link to the discussion where I mentioned how I found a LTHR to use: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10607880/hr-tracking-training-101/p1
  • shanaber
    shanaber Posts: 6,388 Member
    Options
    @travelling_lots - I can see to pictures on your profile. Hilarious!! I think we could use those at the 4-way intersection near my house! Would you mind if I copied them?
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    @garygse Skunks are actually sweet. I used to work at a place which fostered skunks. They will give you plenty of warning, unless you are a dog there's no reason to get sprayed. The only problem is they can be too friendly - the ones near the cabin where we used to stay would follow tourists who mistook them for cats. Well, and in some areas they do carry rabies, although not in my area. But according to my vet even then they are better than other rabid animals because a rabid skunk will go off and hide and die, instead of running around biting people.

    My daughter had a friend in HS whose mother had a pet skunk. It was de-stinked. Like you said, it was a good pet.
  • noblsheep
    noblsheep Posts: 584 Member
    Options
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    DANG. This 5k has a 37% grade!

    Hell On Hills - Claims to be "the world's steepest 5k"
    http://www.hellonhills.com

    That looks terrifying!
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    Options
    noblsheep wrote: »
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    DANG. This 5k has a 37% grade!

    Hell On Hills - Claims to be "the world's steepest 5k"
    http://www.hellonhills.com

    That looks terrifying!

    I think you mean "tempting", right? :lol:
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    noblsheep wrote: »
    PastorVincent wrote: »
    DANG. This 5k has a 37% grade!

    Hell On Hills - Claims to be "the world's steepest 5k"
    http://www.hellonhills.com

    That looks terrifying!

    I think you mean "tempting", right? :lol:

    Oh yeah, that woo is not a misclick! That expression is exactly what my face just did!
  • Teerai
    Teerai Posts: 243 Member
    Options
    If it’s up already, please post link to September Challenge.
    Thanks!
  • Avidkeo
    Avidkeo Posts: 3,190 Member
    Options
    Hey all. Ive been quiet cause rest day for me. needed it! lol. planning on taking miss 4 on a bit of an evening walk, though i will be just as happy sitting on the couch lol.
  • travelling_lots
    travelling_lots Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    @garygse Skunks are actually sweet. I used to work at a place which fostered skunks. They will give you plenty of warning, unless you are a dog there's no reason to get sprayed. The only problem is they can be too friendly - the ones near the cabin where we used to stay would follow tourists who mistook them for cats. Well, and in some areas they do carry rabies, although not in my area. But according to my vet even then they are better than other rabid animals because a rabid skunk will go off and hide and die, instead of running around biting people.

    Yes, very true. I'm from the west coast of Canada. And in Vancouver there is a park called Stanley park. It's big and beautiful. I grew up walking that park, even on my dates. Growing up we were taught about boundaries and respect to all living things. As long as you respect animals there is no issues that included skunks. I used to take raw eggs fresh nothing spoiled and sit at the bench and the skunks would come out to the path and I would bend down and extend my arm Palm open holding the egg it would come up and take the egg and leave. Same with raccoons they love dry cat food. And they came up like the skunks and ate out of the Palm of your hand.
    But years later I heard people were feeding them bad spoiled food and the animals were getting sick. So feeding park animals is prohibited unfortunately.
    Good old days only takes one to spoil things :-)

Categories