|
Oct 2019
11:37am, 27 Oct 2019
15,517 posts
|
Bazoaxe
ha ha....I have a place in VLM and if I can train well and avoid injury I will be trying again. I have a couple of regrets from last week that I would like to address. If the build up isnt ideal than I will have a different plan.
|
|
Oct 2019
12:18pm, 27 Oct 2019
348 posts
|
Lee78
Regrets from last week Baz....do tell! 🤔
|
|
Oct 2019
12:33pm, 27 Oct 2019
15,519 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I was on track for a comfortable 2:58 time and let that slip in the last 2 miles. I. would also have liked both halves to be under 1:30. Both were do-able and so will be targets next time out.
Looking back I ran well to mile 22 and then started to get a bit defensive rather than continue the way I had raced to that point having decided 7mm would see me home in under 3 hrs.
|
|
Oct 2019
12:58pm, 27 Oct 2019
15,389 posts
|
Chrisull
Ha all my pbs have regrets, even if the marathon one was just regretting the weather and the wind being so bloomin' difficult that day.
Last 10 miler done. Went out on mountain bike last night as tons of floods everywhere here, expecting a slow 10 mile club run. Instead was left with one of the clubs best ultra runners (recently won the All Saints way race), and a marathon runner who is about 10 minutes quicker than me, and has done the off road Dartmoor 50 and finished in the top 10. Had left the VFs at home, so this run hurt, had to dig deep to keep with them. All done anyway, one easy bike ride and two easy runs left now.
|
|
Oct 2019
1:20pm, 27 Oct 2019
349 posts
|
Lee78
Baz - I think you did the right thing playing it safe! Now you have the sub 3, you can take more risks in the future! 👍🏻
|
|
Oct 2019
5:59pm, 27 Oct 2019
15,525 posts
|
Bazoaxe
puzzler, I was on the 2Q 56-70 mile plan, but I had actually set the miles to an 80 week ceiling albeit I didnt quite hit the mileage I set most weeks.
I reckon for VLM I wanted to set the peak mileage to 85, but when I look at the 71-85 version, it looks a wee bit scary.
I am tending towards the 56-70 mile plan but adding miles rather than going to the next plan up.
|
|
Oct 2019
9:25am, 28 Oct 2019
9,277 posts
|
larkim
So October is done, no more parkrun availability and it's been a quiet month with injuries, marathons and general apathy creeping in! (E&OE on the updated parkrun spreadsheet)
However, we do have a change at the top. Despite having recorded 4 "penalty" months in the year so far, the soft benchmark of 21:55 for HappyG(rrrr) has helped him out with back to back low 20m runs, and overtaken Baz - despite Baz's sizzling 18:25.
So HG's average for the year is coming in at 21:47 vs 21:55 benchmark (8s faster) and Baz's average is 19:06 vs 19:13 benchmark (7s faster).
Rounding out the top three is Snayak dropping from 2nd to 3rd as HG leapfrogged from 3rd into the top spot.
Two months to go, will Baz's post-marathon legs see him over the line, or will HG cruise under 20mins and start to put this out of reach?
|
|
Oct 2019
9:33am, 28 Oct 2019
15,391 posts
|
Chrisull
So anyone use strava summit here? (Sorry fetch - but wait it gets better)
I saw it's free for 30 days, and signed up for it, and looked at the fitness stats and they seem barmy. They have me as fitter in August this year when I ran 43.36 in a very below par 10k, against 41.4x last year on the same course. They have me improving massively while on holiday for 2 weeks and then going on a massive decline through the entire marathon training program. My "benchmarks" speed sessions would disagree with that, that while I'm not in tip top shape, I'm certainly in reasonable nick. So is that basically down to the unreliability of the optical HRM? Is the fact that I'm running my sessions harder (due to Furman), that my average HR is up on these runs and that's skewing it?
I certainly wouldn't pay 47.99 for analysis that seems plain wrong to me. If it's not wrong (and it is in places), then it's an argument for long slow miles it seems, or running nearly every day as that's when the fitness level seems to go up.
|
|
Oct 2019
9:44am, 28 Oct 2019
9,278 posts
|
larkim
I clicked the wrong link and ended up with unrefundable Summit for 12 months (oops - but I've used strava for years for free, so I don't mind too much) but don't use any of the features or take notice of their fitness data. Some of the race graphs and other stuff are "nice", but not worth the annual or monthly investment. I think cyclists benefit more with things like live segments etc, and potentially the "beacon" feature would be OK if I used strava as a tracking app on my phone - but I don't.
I do use Stavistix for fitness graphs which seem OK and correlate well with progress through training programmes, but it did need to have good quality HR data to be robust I think. Maybe the same is true of the strava version.
|
|
Oct 2019
9:59am, 28 Oct 2019
32,921 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I don't pay for Struvel and only went on it because some of our club's run routes were signposted as on there. We have a wee club mileage, time and climb leader board and it's quite fun to see everyone's runs. I never kudos or post comments in it either.
Fetch is my forum, log and analysis tool of choice. Fetch-loyal here! (Interesting that their fitness figures are such mince Chris). If Fetch can start putting steps, VO2, floors climbed and other Garmin / Struva type nonsense in here, then why go anywhere else?!  G
|
