Home Group Discussion-OutSeason November 2010

Week 9 Run Thread

Getting ready to go do this morning's run with Z5 intervals on the dreadmill....can't wait in a sick and twisted kind of way....

«1

Comments

  • Got mine done this morning outside with my screw shoes. 2x200, 3x400, 3x200. Haven't downloaded the file yet but was hitting 5:30-5:45 pace. Felt suprisingly good after yesterday. I felt kind of cooked all day and slept really hard. I really like the VO2 run stuff.

  • On run VO2 days, how should I run the balance of the time?  Z3 or Z1?

    Thanks, John

  • It felt great to run hard again. I also like the VO2 stuff as I really feel like a accomplish a ton in a short period.

    @John - for the first week or two I would just do the remainder at Z1. VO2 work has a way of sneaking up on you and putting you in a hole, so when in doubt I woul not add extra work or an extra training stress. Once you have done 2 weeks of VO2 work then re-evaluate but at least make sure you are handling it ok and recovering well for the first 2 weeks.
  • Got it done on the treadmill and it didn't seem too bad.  According to my zones, my Z5 pace (6:07) is 2 seconds per mile slower than my 5K test pace.  Is that correct?  

    @John  I did all of the non-interval running at a 7:30 pace which is between my Z1 (8:08) and Z2 (6:55), and did the entire workout at a 1.5% grade.  

     

  • Posted By Chris Martin on 29 Dec 2010 11:00 AM

    Got it done on the treadmill and it didn't seem too bad.  According to my zones, my Z5 pace (6:07) is 2 seconds per mile slower than my 5K test pace.  Is that correct?  

    @John  I did all of the non-interval running at a 7:30 pace which is between my Z1 (8:08) and Z2 (6:55), and did the entire workout at a 1.5% grade.  

     

    Chris - I think the paces you get from www.attackpoint.org/trainingpaces.jsp

      for repetitions at 400 and 200m are the paces we use. I may be wrong.

     

    Joe



     

  • After listening to Patrick's podcast about "raising the attic", I understand. Even though the repeats are only 200m and400m, I haven't run this fast in a long time. Hit my Z5 paces exactly even though the AVHR didn't quite get there.

    @Matt - thanks for the tip. With some "micro" help from Patrick, I am planning a 10mi race on 9 Jan and the temptation to do more is there!
  • Great run this morning. No technology with me (Garmin is broke). I did 42 minutes as my first real run since being sick. I'm in the IntOS so that was 2X200, 2x400, 2x200. While I coughed a couple of time, I am declaring me back! Good stuff. Will ramp up to the full hour by next week.
  • Hmmm... should have read this thread before I did my wko... I ended up doing 30 minutes of Z3 after the intervals. Intervals seemed not too bad... but I get how they could sneak up on you. @Chris, when I saw that mine were a few seconds slower than my 5K pace, I double-checked against Daniel's VDOT tables just to be sure (spot-on)... I guess, for some reason, I also was expecting them to be at a pace faster than 5K.
  • Intervals done...I took my 200's and 400's off of what the vDOT chart had me doing them at....200's at 46 seconds and 400's at 1:34.....Is that the right times to use.  I played around and ran the last 2 x200's at 10 mph and it felt okay. Tried doing them all at a 2% incline.  I have to say though after that bike workout, run, and ice skating with my daughter for 2 hours yesterday I felt it a little today. 

    Warmed up for 10 minutes and then got a total of 47 minutes in. Wasn't sure what to run the remainder in so I played around...Some at E pace then HMP, MP, and all over the place. Back to the fire department and was interrupted for a call at min 47. I have to say I wasn't to sad because it was starting to hurt though. I must be sick cause I really enjoy intervals......



    Excited for the Z5 repeats on the bike again tomorrow. I think I can see and feel a big gain on the bike this next test coming.

  • Could use some direction from you VO2 vets myself. Did the 2x200,2x400,2x200 W/O today. So, attack point says 50' for the 200's and 1:42 for the 400's. I figured that meant run hard, so I did. By the time my Garmin 301 gets up to spped, I'm done with a 200, so that wasn't much help. I did the 200's on 35' and the 400's on 1:30. So, my question is this, did I go too hard? If so, whats wrong with that? It was hard, but overly hard. I actually did the fastest 200 last, by a few tenths. Trying not to get chicked by my new track training buddy. Thanks for any insight!
  • @Dave, not sure what is your vDot or what was your last 5k test?

  • Got it done today, also on the fire station treadmill. I was around 11 to 11.4 mph on all intervals and cranked up incline on the last set of 200s from 1.0 to 4.0. It was hard, I ran them fast and got done. I added 10 extra minutes at the end of MP/HMP stuff
  • @Dave - If you're doing them on a track, then for 200 (and maybe 400), you're going to just use the Garmin as a stopwatch. The GPS is probably too slow to keep up with you and for you to gauge the effort. Ironically, that's one place where a footpod can be superior (quick response to speed).

    My one reaction is that if your 200s were 35", then 90" for the 400s doesn't pair well. Notice that your proscribed pace gave you twice the time for the 400s plus about 2 seconds. (i.e.,. 1:40 = 50 seconds). I have not been through this program before, but if you can only hold 400s at 1:30, but you can go that much faster for the 200s, that you are better off doing the 200s closer to the proscribed pace, but with a little less than full recovery so they become a little more "400-like". It sounds like you were pretty much all out sprinting for the 200s. Just my not-very-expert thoughts.
  • I took advantage of the heat wave, high 40's, to get back to the track. I'm always a little worried that I am fooling myself running fast on the treadmill for whatever reason. I wasn't really sure how to pace these, I just knew I had to run fast. The targets were 40 sec for the 200's and 1:22 for the 400's. First set of 200's came in at 36 sec. The 400's were 1:17. The last set of 200's were 38 sec. Ran easy on the way home. Not much left in the tank after that. Running a 5k on Saturday. I'm looking forward taking some of my new found EN speed for a spin.
  • Did my run at mid-day. Interestingly, there was more variation in the 200 times than the 400 times.

    3 x 200 40.5-41.2 sec
    3 x 300 all 82.2-82.9 sec
    3 x 200 38.5, 41.4 40.6
    All work cadences averaged 90-94.

    Filled out the hour as comfortable...sometimes faster, sometimes slower, averaging 7:18 (a stitch lower than MP) after a little recovery. :-)
  • Thanks William,

    You have a sharp eye for details.  Something kept bothering me about this and then it hit me like a freight train.  I did run on a track that surrounds the football field at Duke University.  The south end zone is shaded by a large scoreboard and had about an inch of ice and snow still on it from the White Christmas we had.  The rest of the track was clear.  So, I decided to do the 200's as 50 yard line to 50 yard line on the North end, assuming the track and field were symetrical to avoid running through the ice at full speed.  Then I just realized the south end of the field has a pole vault pit, high jump, etc, so it is not symetrical.  I actually ran somewhat less than 200.  The 400's were a compete loop and are accurate distances, with about 30 yards of ice through the turns.

    I tested last week at 23:13, Vdot of 41.9  So, next time I'll try to find the actual markings for a 200 on the track.  I suspect I would have ran 200 in 43 against the prescribed 50 according to Attack Point tables.  I would have to ease up some to hit the prescribed times.  Should I or keep the hammer down?

     

  • So RnP say in many places that the main set is the important part, and the times associated with the workouts are just approximations - don't get hung up on them. I also remember seeing a specific question about the VO2 run intervals and what to do with the rest of the time, and I thought P said not to worry about it much (can't find that post now). And yet , everyone here always seems to be trying to fill out their workouts to the full 60 minute run or bike - sometimes at HMP or faster. I frequently do a good warm up, do the main set, then some easy running (or biking for the bike workouts) and call it a workout if Z3 stuff is not specifically called for in the workout. But I keep feeling guilty (or wondering if I'm slacking and will not get the full OS benefit) when I read many of these posts!
  • I did the intervals this AM and hit all the #'s though the last 400 was hard. My legs have felt completely cooked all day long. Tomorrow's bike is going to be tough.
  • okay...I'm not sure what to think.



    I did the run on the treadmill at the gym today. I also have a garmin footpod.

    Last week prior to the 5k test I calibrated the foot pod ata 450m track and it came in pretty darn close to the factory setting. When I ran the 5k I noticed the pace it gave me was pretty close to the lap splits I was getting. Not perfect, but really darn close. That test was around a 6:30 pace for the total run.



    Fast forward today and I am in the same shoes with the footpod untouched or moved. I hop on the treadmill and start off with my warmup just fine. Pace seems fairly close to the treadmill. I do some strides to warm up and notice a bigger difference. But the speed on the TM feels about right.



    I hit the main set and punch in 9.3mph on the treadmill which is about a 6:25ish pace. And frankly, like the bike set, it didn't really feel that bad. But the garmin was reading between 5:55 and 6min pace. And that difference seemed incredibly large.

    I held that pace for the entire set, no problem. I even did 12min at z3 towards the end of the workout to finish up.



    But now I don't know what to believe...the treadmill or the garmin.

    This is the first time I've really gone and run 200's or 400's and the track was covered with snow and slush.

    According to WKO, the garmin footpod was very consistent from rep to rep. little to no deviation in the pace it read.

    I will add that my Z5 pace is really close to my 5k pace.  And to me, 200's and 400's at 5k pace should be easy.  But the pace I was running on the treadmill was fast enough where I don't know that I could have really held it for a 5k.  Maybe.  Tough to tell, but I was breathing pretty heavy at the end. 



    Thoughts?

  • connect.garmin.com/activity/61088767

    That hurt................

    Needed 43 secs on the 200s and 1:33 on the 400s – got it done then ran another .75 miles at 6:30 pace to get a total of 2 miles at TP or better.

     

    SS
  • Done. cut it short to 45' due to work. not upset about that since I'm coming back from a week off. felt good.
  • Light W breeze, 18 degrees at 8:30 PM for a six mile warmup running in mashed potatoes on Rt 2. Must have run over 3 miles in the mushy stuff tonight avoiding traffic. The rest of the time I was running down the middle of the road where it was dry...... looking over my shoulder looking out for headlights....

    Did the repeats on a side road near the house - used Google Earth and driveways to figure my start/stops. Ran by feel (Garmin berried under my Sporthill top). In the end, repeats were 35 to 60 seconds per mile faster than needed.

    7.35 miles total in 1:07 @ 9:08 includeing all the slow slush-shuffle and walk breaks between repeats.
  • @Dave If the track is symmetric, then there should be a landmark (e.g., passing the 50 yard line, the begnning or high point of a curve...anything) that you could use to mark 200 m/y.

    On the other hand, you could just run the proscribed pace for 1 minute and not worry about the distance. I find it easier on these hard intervals to have a "finish line", but a temporal one could work too.

    I wish I could give you a better answer on the overachieving. RnP generally say that overachieving on the bike is better/safer than on the run. If you can do the next workout and are very comfortable that you're not going to yank a hammy or strain an achilles, then maybe it's fine, but be careful. i was in the same position...going a bit faster than the suggested rate. I haven't run much at all at these short distances and took it to mean "run as fast as you can to hold really good form and still be able to do them all without fading...and then see what that is in relation to the expected pace..." I know that's not very scientific or satisfying.

  • Posted By Jim Daley on 29 Dec 2010 07:41 PM

    So RnP say in many places that the main set is the important part, and the times associated with the workouts are just approximations - don't get hung up on them. I also remember seeing a specific question about the VO2 run intervals and what to do with the rest of the time, and I thought P said not to worry about it much (can't find that post now). And yet , everyone here always seems to be trying to fill out their workouts to the full 60 minute run or bike - sometimes at HMP or faster. I frequently do a good warm up, do the main set, then some easy running (or biking for the bike workouts) and call it a workout if Z3 stuff is not specifically called for in the workout. But I keep feeling guilty (or wondering if I'm slacking and will not get the full OS benefit) when I read many of these posts!

    More expereinced folks please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the balance of a w/o after the main set is basically a "zone 3 optional" set if not expressly prescribed. If you are recovering well from workouts and feel good, log some Z3 time after the main set... if not, don't. If you aren't sure, better to not do the "optional" Z3 then risk putting yoruself in a hole (well, one extra Z3 session probably isn't going to put you in a hole, but a bunch of Z3 session after main sets when you are tired/not recovered might). Earlier in this thread, Matt Ancona suggested for those of us new to VO2 work, consider doing Z1 for a week or two after the main set until you are certain that you are handling/recovering well from the VO2 run-stuff... seems like sage advice to me. To be clear, I'm just talking about the undefined portions of a w/o.. think Rich pretty much covered the guidance on whether or not to overachieve on the intervals themselves image (new wiki entry from him on interval overachieving  in case you missed it).



     

  • Did the VO2 work on the treadmill, still to much snow outside.   I really don't like doing any of my workouts on the treadmill, especially the VO2 sets.  Today the gym really had the heat cranked up which made it especially difficult.

    Since the recovery time is short on the 200's and 400's I took Al's advice and kept the speed the same and just either did high knees on the rails or jumped off the treadmill for some jogging in place.   I'm sure it looked pretty funny, the belt flying and me jogging on the rails, but it worked well.

    The post interval 30 min  @ Zone 2-3 was challenging,  lost a few pounds in water weight.  Definately had some Gumby legs at the end of this one.

  • Quick question on the recovery. As I was reading some of your posts, it occured to me that on yesterday's run I might be recovering too long for VO2 benefit. After the 200s I would walk for about 100 and then lightly jog to the other side of the track. So in effect a 200 would involve 400 total. For the 400s I would walk maybe 150 and job the last 50.

    As I think about it that is much more recovery than I was getting on the bike. Is this ok? Am I over thinking this? Am I using this as a stall technique before hittng the bike this morning? (probably).

    As a follow-up the legs feel pretty good--but a little tight around the hips this morning. Good reminder to do more stretching. Well I've stalled enough, down to the pain cave.
  • Geoff,   the typical answer is, take as much time as you need to recover to push the next interval to the pace you need to hit.

    What most of us do for these shorter intervals is take the same distance in recovery as the interval itself.   Wether you walk, or easy jog it depends on your fitness.   Ex..    200m interval    200m    walk/jog

  • I switched some stuff around and moved up the sunday run to today. It was 60 degrees when I started....I could just not resist getting outside one more time for the year. The w/o called for 2x 1.5 miles. I took my dog with me (he is a rhodesian ridgeback and crazy fast).
    Because of geography I had to switch up a little and do 1.5 then 1, then .5 miles
    All efforts were around 5:50/mile pace. The two good things, the treadmill I've been using is pretty close to outside speed so there shouldn't be a huge letdown when I get outside. Second the work is working....who knew? Third good thing, I spent some time w/ my buddy and he sleep well tonight.

    http://connect.garmin.com/activity/61191911
  • Caught up by running the Wednesday workout today. Ran all the intervals way too fast for my zones. Right hammy is feeling it now. Hold back you fool! 

    2 x 200: 0:49, 1:01

    2 x 400: 1:52, 1:51

    2 x 200: 0:55, 0:51

  • Posted By Dan Gilliatt on 30 Dec 2010 09:28 PM

    I switched some stuff around and moved up the sunday run to today. It was 60 degrees when I started....I could just not resist getting outside one more time for the year. The w/o called for 2x 1.5 miles. I took my dog with me (he is a rhodesian ridgeback and crazy fast).

    Because of geography I had to switch up a little and do 1.5 then 1, then .5 miles

    All efforts were around 5:50/mile pace. The two good things, the treadmill I've been using is pretty close to outside speed so there shouldn't be a huge letdown when I get outside. Second the work is working....who knew? Third good thing, I spent some time w/ my buddy and he sleep well tonight.



    http://connect.garmin.com/activity/61191911

    Wow that is some flat terrain.

Sign In or Register to comment.