June 2017 Running Challenge

Options
11516182021118

Replies

  • skippygirlsmom
    skippygirlsmom Posts: 4,433 Member
    Options
    @whatmerunning great job getting through what sounds awful!
  • MobyCarp
    MobyCarp Posts: 2,927 Member
    Options
    @BruinsGal_91 - It sounds like getting to a sub-one hour 10K is well within your reach, and of course your training will drive whether you can beat your prior half marathon time. But age group results are highly dependent on who shows up and not entirely within your control.

    I won my age group in my first 5K, at age 55, with a time of 21:00. At age 59, I broke 20 minutes for the first time in a 5K, smashing my previous 5K PR by running 19:16 . . . and finished 2nd in the age group because some 56 year old from out of town ran a 17:30 5K. You never know for sure who is going to show up.
  • MNLittleFinn
    MNLittleFinn Posts: 4,271 Member
    Options
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    garygse wrote: »
    So as mentioned previously, I've been re-reading the book 80/20 Running, and I realised that I've been letting myself slip in regards to the 20% portion of my running. If I'm honest with myself, that 20% has really been at mid-level effort, or if I've put in any actual high intensity work, then it's been maybe 5% of my running at best...that is, I've not been putting in the level of effort actually required for the 20%.

    I'm not familiar with that book, so I don't know whether it calls for 20% of the time or 20% of the miles to be hard. Other systems are more nuanced, and call for decreasing percentages (typically of miles) at increasing levels of intensity. Maybe 15% at mid-level and 5% at high intensity isn't as bad as you think.

    Confession: I've never actually calculated the percentage of my distance at various paces, and I haven't paid strict attention to what the target percentages are. I do, however, honor the concept that most of the running miles should be easy.

    It's time based, going by the assigned runs in the training plans, pretty much all are based on time in zones. Only long run variations are in distance.
  • garygse
    garygse Posts: 896 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    garygse wrote: »
    So as mentioned previously, I've been re-reading the book 80/20 Running, and I realised that I've been letting myself slip in regards to the 20% portion of my running. If I'm honest with myself, that 20% has really been at mid-level effort, or if I've put in any actual high intensity work, then it's been maybe 5% of my running at best...that is, I've not been putting in the level of effort actually required for the 20%.

    I'm not familiar with that book, so I don't know whether it calls for 20% of the time or 20% of the miles to be hard. Other systems are more nuanced, and call for decreasing percentages (typically of miles) at increasing levels of intensity. Maybe 15% at mid-level and 5% at high intensity isn't as bad as you think.

    Confession: I've never actually calculated the percentage of my distance at various paces, and I haven't paid strict attention to what the target percentages are. I do, however, honor the concept that most of the running miles should be easy.
    The book calls for time to apportion the effort, and explicitly mentions that the 20% needs to be at a high intensity. It also highlights various studies where groups that ran with mid-level intensity for the 20% ended up with lower overall improvements.

    I certainly agree that running lots and lots of easy miles is a solid way to improving distance running.

    ETA: I should have read down the page more and seen that @MNLittleFinn already answered!
  • MNLittleFinn
    MNLittleFinn Posts: 4,271 Member
    Options
    garygse wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    garygse wrote: »
    So as mentioned previously, I've been re-reading the book 80/20 Running, and I realised that I've been letting myself slip in regards to the 20% portion of my running. If I'm honest with myself, that 20% has really been at mid-level effort, or if I've put in any actual high intensity work, then it's been maybe 5% of my running at best...that is, I've not been putting in the level of effort actually required for the 20%.

    I'm not familiar with that book, so I don't know whether it calls for 20% of the time or 20% of the miles to be hard. Other systems are more nuanced, and call for decreasing percentages (typically of miles) at increasing levels of intensity. Maybe 15% at mid-level and 5% at high intensity isn't as bad as you think.

    Confession: I've never actually calculated the percentage of my distance at various paces, and I haven't paid strict attention to what the target percentages are. I do, however, honor the concept that most of the running miles should be easy.
    The book calls for time to apportion the effort, and explicitly mentions that the 20% needs to be at a high intensity. It also highlights various studies where groups that ran with mid-level intensity for the 20% ended up with lower overall improvements.

    I certainly agree that running lots and lots of easy miles is a solid way to improving distance running.

    ETA: I should have read down the page more and seen that @MNLittleFinn already answered!

    One thing to add. The plans he made build up to 20% from lower. Also, the high intensity isn't highest intensity.... his z2 or LT (LTHR is the top of z2)is in the high intensity range.... he doesn't have as much going into z4 or z5. Also, he has a gap between z1 and z2, where he says you get the difficulty of z2 but not the results......

    .... this is going by memory, currently at the playground "resting" with my very active toddler.
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    Options
    garygse wrote: »
    MobyCarp wrote: »
    garygse wrote: »
    So as mentioned previously, I've been re-reading the book 80/20 Running, and I realised that I've been letting myself slip in regards to the 20% portion of my running. If I'm honest with myself, that 20% has really been at mid-level effort, or if I've put in any actual high intensity work, then it's been maybe 5% of my running at best...that is, I've not been putting in the level of effort actually required for the 20%.

    I'm not familiar with that book, so I don't know whether it calls for 20% of the time or 20% of the miles to be hard. Other systems are more nuanced, and call for decreasing percentages (typically of miles) at increasing levels of intensity. Maybe 15% at mid-level and 5% at high intensity isn't as bad as you think.

    Confession: I've never actually calculated the percentage of my distance at various paces, and I haven't paid strict attention to what the target percentages are. I do, however, honor the concept that most of the running miles should be easy.
    The book calls for time to apportion the effort, and explicitly mentions that the 20% needs to be at a high intensity. It also highlights various studies where groups that ran with mid-level intensity for the 20% ended up with lower overall improvements.

    I certainly agree that running lots and lots of easy miles is a solid way to improving distance running.

    ETA: I should have read down the page more and seen that @MNLittleFinn already answered!

    One thing to add. The plans he made build up to 20% from lower. Also, the high intensity isn't highest intensity.... his z2 or LT (LTHR is the top of z2)is in the high intensity range.... he doesn't have as much going into z4 or z5. Also, he has a gap between z1 and z2, where he says you get the difficulty of z2 but not the results......

    .... this is going by memory, currently at the playground "resting" with my very active toddler.

    Actually, his zone 2 range is part of the 80%. There is a gap between Z2 and Z3, which is the no man's land he wants you to stay away from. Z3 is closer to LT pace and Z4 and Z5 pretty much meld together in the anaerobic zone and really only get hit on the one day per week of intervals, so, yeah, about 5%.

    I have used his intermediate and a combo of intermediate/advanced plans with really good results for two of my marathons. I think the keys for me were a) making sure that I was really pushing myself to the high end of the suggested zones on the 20% days and trying to stay as low as possible in the suggested zones on the other 80% and b) making the most of the 20% that fell on the long runs. Those fast finish long runs and long runs with speed play were killers, but they paid huge dividends come race time. I tried to hit HM pace for my fast finishes, so that really required me to practice holding back to conserve energy during the rest of my run, which comes in handy during the race.
  • MNLittleFinn
    MNLittleFinn Posts: 4,271 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    Thanks @lporter229 I knew i was getting something wrong there...i think I was mixing his true levels with the "buckets" he equated with for Garmin HR zone calibration.... .toddler hill repeats are draining me!
  • Bakins929
    Bakins929 Posts: 896 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    @RespectTheKitty Just do you, and have fun! Don't worry about races, unless you find yourself wanting to do another.

    @angelb1983 Welcome! We all started somewhere. Congrats on setting a goal!

    @JessicaMcB Impressive terrain! Glad you made it through!

    @KatieJane83 Nice! Congrats on the race.

    @hanlonsk Great job on your first HM!!

    @aml31292 Welcome to the insanity!

    5 miles for me on the dreadmill this AM.
    exercise.png
  • cburke8909
    cburke8909 Posts: 990 Member
    Options
    @Bakins929 love the "dreadmill"
  • MrsKGrady
    MrsKGrady Posts: 276 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    June 1 - 2.25 miles
    June 2 - Rest
    June 3 - XT (Cardio, Strength, and Stretch classes at gym)
    June 4 - 2.45 miles

    exercise.png

    exercise.png
  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    Way to safely tough through those conditions @karllundy!

    Nice run @amymoreorless, and after a long run no less!
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    @karllundy wow! Great way to manage the conditions. I had 1 hm where folks were dropping out with the heat. It is a bit unnerving. Are you doing another half this winter? (Guess I could go look and see if you have it listed). You get one in 40-50° weather and you're gonna slay that time.

    Is this race a PR for you? I never go by chip time.

    Hope those leg recover quickly! Congratulations!
  • Stoshew71
    Stoshew71 Posts: 6,553 Member
    Options
    6/1 - 8 miles (daily double: 3.5 & 4.5)
    6/2 - 9 miles
    6/3 - 5 mile recovery run
    6/4 - GW Bridge Challenge 10k (PR - 53:43)

    June Total: 28.2/140

    629 miles/2,017 miles - goal for the year

    So, I don't think I've updated since Friday, but Friday was a 9 mile run, and yesterday was a 5 mile recovery run after my zumba class.

    This morning was the GW Bridge Challenge 10k, and I honestly had no idea how it would go, since it was my 5th consecutive day of running (did 8 miles, 8 miles, 9 miles, and 5 miles the previous 4 days). I didn't have very high hopes, but I managed to smash them! I'm supposed to do a total of 13 miles today, but after running at LT pace for the whole race, I'm switching the remaining 7 miles to a recovery run tomorrow evening.

    I'm super pleased with how the race went. It's a great event for PR'ing, which I managed to do, since it's a net downhill course. It starts at the bridge, crosses most of the bridge east bound, u-turns, comes back west-bound and a bit up the road, then u-turns again, back eastbound across the bridge, u-turn again, westbound and up the entrance ramp, and then it's pretty much all downhill-trending for the remaining 2ish miles, to end right at the edge of the Hudson River. Due to it being on the lower level of the bridge, and a little bit of tunnel on the bridge approach, gps watches are totally unreliable. I got smart this time though, and hit the lap button every time I passed a mile marker so I would know my time for each mile. Otherwise, I went based on feel and hr (good thing I got my new hr strap just in time!). I averaged a hr of 174, which is what I believe is right around my LT pace, so that was perfect.

    I ended up with a chip time of 53:43, which is a 10k pr for me, woot! I placed 8th out of 31 W30-39, 31st out of 275 overall females, and 103rd out of 474 overall, so I'm really pleased with my results! One of these days I WILL place in my age group, I am bound and determined! Lol.


    I think that is pretty cool that you can do a 10K in about an hour, because you know that your 10K pace is also your LT pace. Congratulations on the PR especially after streaking it for 5 days.