The knees got three weeks to recover after a hard 20k trail run. Tonight was the first time testing them. Back on the trails we went and just to keep it loose I decided to keep the heartrate under the aerobic limit. Tried to keep it under 160 mostly but let it go a bit over that on a few steep spots. This worked OK but I had to keep telling myself not to look at pace. Allowing myself an extra 10-15bpm shortens each mile by about 90 seconds. May try this for a while, there's nothing to prove trying to set PRs every time out on my favorite loops.
PS. Did you know that high pressure bicycle tires lose PSI fast even without leaks? Fast = 15 PSI overnight. I did not know that. But hey, going for that 3 hour ride a few weeks ago with 50 PSI in the tires just made the workout better, right?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Heh
This is kind of amusing, this blog is: http://www.howtoavoidthebummerlife.com/weblog/
My goal is to be faster than the guy with the front wheel that looks like it was stolen from a lawn mower, and the rear wheel that is just a wheel, with no tube or tire.
In order of diminishing redeeming social value (hint -- not safe for work) you may also not be able to turn away from:
http://trifathlete.blogspot.com
and
http://sorryimissedyourparty.com
My goal is to be faster than the guy with the front wheel that looks like it was stolen from a lawn mower, and the rear wheel that is just a wheel, with no tube or tire.
In order of diminishing redeeming social value (hint -- not safe for work) you may also not be able to turn away from:
http://trifathlete.blogspot.com
and
http://sorryimissedyourparty.com
Friday, September 26, 2008
Slow progress
When I first started running with some discipline a few years ago 12 min/mile was typical for the hilly trails where I do most of my running.
Each year since that has dropped by about a minute/mile.
In the last year it has sort of leveled off at 9 min/mile on easier trails, 10 on tougher ones. It also depends on whether or not I pay attention to going faster on the downhill bits.
Pace has always been the upper end of aerobic, by felt effort. That's usually 160-170 by HR monitor, which convention says is a bit high.
Cross training in biking and swimming I am hoping will give me more aerobic base (swimming) and strengthen my quads (biking) so that I'll be striding faster and longer with the same or less effort. There are way too many people out there who can run 7 min/miles at like 130 bpm. Something has to be possible to make me more efficient.
Each year since that has dropped by about a minute/mile.
In the last year it has sort of leveled off at 9 min/mile on easier trails, 10 on tougher ones. It also depends on whether or not I pay attention to going faster on the downhill bits.
Pace has always been the upper end of aerobic, by felt effort. That's usually 160-170 by HR monitor, which convention says is a bit high.
Cross training in biking and swimming I am hoping will give me more aerobic base (swimming) and strengthen my quads (biking) so that I'll be striding faster and longer with the same or less effort. There are way too many people out there who can run 7 min/miles at like 130 bpm. Something has to be possible to make me more efficient.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Heat
Have I mentioned that I slow down about 1 min/mile for each 10 degrees the temp goes up from 60 degrees F?
That's about it.
Maybe not a whole minute, but pretty close.
60-70 degrees is not such a big change.
80 makes a difference.
90+ is a whole different situation.
Fitting in 3 cool (60s) weather workouts a week in the Bay Area is not a problem. Upping that to 5 or 6 will eventually run into trouble when there is a hot spell.
That's about it.
Maybe not a whole minute, but pretty close.
60-70 degrees is not such a big change.
80 makes a difference.
90+ is a whole different situation.
Fitting in 3 cool (60s) weather workouts a week in the Bay Area is not a problem. Upping that to 5 or 6 will eventually run into trouble when there is a hot spell.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Interesting stuff
Plugged some examples from recent rides into this formula.
First up was a flat stretch of ground where we had a two way average of 19mph. It was a long enough stretch and not much time passed between the runs so it is assumed this cancels out the wind.
Using a test case with flat ground (slope = 0) revealed something interesting to me about the equation. You can break it in two parts. The first part is all about energy to push through the wind. The second part looks like it all about fighting gravity, but in the case where there is no elevation change it still has a contribution, and that is loss through the tires. That friction loss is a bigger part of the overall picture than I would have guessed, given the small (.005) estimate for coefficient of rolling resistance.
In our first example speed was 19mph which is 8.5 meters/sec. That gives 183 Watts steady output. About 145 aero, 38 rolling.
For the second example, there's a big hill near my house with a tough portion of about a mile of 11% grade. In a recent ride I averaged 5.6 mph through it. This version of the calculation shows only 4 Watts aero, but 256 for climbing.
Taking the whole climb including a few easier spots the averages were 7.2 mph at 8.1%. Overall power = 254. More than I thought!
I guess that means if I really got down to it I could push faster on the flats if I were motivated. Let's see how fast that should be, starting with the power and solving for speed. Answer: 21.7 mph
If that holds up in reality I'll be satisfied with that for sure.
Useful references for this formula:
mph to m/s is approximated by multiplying mph by .4469
grade is simple rise/run (elevation/distance)
If you want to convert grade to degrees (not required for this formula) take the arctan of the grade %. One spot on the climb mentioned here is 17.4% grade, but that only works out to 9.8 degrees, which sure doesn't sound as hard as it really is.
First up was a flat stretch of ground where we had a two way average of 19mph. It was a long enough stretch and not much time passed between the runs so it is assumed this cancels out the wind.
Using a test case with flat ground (slope = 0) revealed something interesting to me about the equation. You can break it in two parts. The first part is all about energy to push through the wind. The second part looks like it all about fighting gravity, but in the case where there is no elevation change it still has a contribution, and that is loss through the tires. That friction loss is a bigger part of the overall picture than I would have guessed, given the small (.005) estimate for coefficient of rolling resistance.
In our first example speed was 19mph which is 8.5 meters/sec. That gives 183 Watts steady output. About 145 aero, 38 rolling.
For the second example, there's a big hill near my house with a tough portion of about a mile of 11% grade. In a recent ride I averaged 5.6 mph through it. This version of the calculation shows only 4 Watts aero, but 256 for climbing.
Taking the whole climb including a few easier spots the averages were 7.2 mph at 8.1%. Overall power = 254. More than I thought!
I guess that means if I really got down to it I could push faster on the flats if I were motivated. Let's see how fast that should be, starting with the power and solving for speed. Answer: 21.7 mph
If that holds up in reality I'll be satisfied with that for sure.
Useful references for this formula:
mph to m/s is approximated by multiplying mph by .4469
grade is simple rise/run (elevation/distance)
If you want to convert grade to degrees (not required for this formula) take the arctan of the grade %. One spot on the climb mentioned here is 17.4% grade, but that only works out to 9.8 degrees, which sure doesn't sound as hard as it really is.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Someone make a sporttracks plugin that uses this
http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/hpv.html is the source for this.
It has been retyped here in plain text
P = p/2(V+Vw)^2 V CdA + (Cr + slope) m g V
m = rider + gear + bike (kg)
V m/s bike velocity
Vw m/s wind (positive if headwind)
P Watts
p 1.18 kg/m^3
CdA m^2 frontal area (A) times coefficient of drag (Cd)
Cr coefficient of rolling resistance = .005 ballpark
slope = elevation/distance
g = 9.81 m/s^2
I weigh about 175 lbs and my bike is 19 or so. Round up for water bottles and call it an even 200 lbs.
200 lb = 90.9kg
CdA = .4 ballpark estimate from the site with the formula -- probably bigger for me
Will have to pull some velocity and slope datapoints from recent rides to see if they check out the same. Climbs should work well because you know you are giving a certain effort there that should be pretty consistent from one ride to the next.
It has been retyped here in plain text
P = p/2(V+Vw)^2 V CdA + (Cr + slope) m g V
m = rider + gear + bike (kg)
V m/s bike velocity
Vw m/s wind (positive if headwind)
P Watts
p 1.18 kg/m^3
CdA m^2 frontal area (A) times coefficient of drag (Cd)
Cr coefficient of rolling resistance = .005 ballpark
slope = elevation/distance
g = 9.81 m/s^2
I weigh about 175 lbs and my bike is 19 or so. Round up for water bottles and call it an even 200 lbs.
200 lb = 90.9kg
CdA = .4 ballpark estimate from the site with the formula -- probably bigger for me
Will have to pull some velocity and slope datapoints from recent rides to see if they check out the same. Climbs should work well because you know you are giving a certain effort there that should be pretty consistent from one ride to the next.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Running changes you. Part two.
Aside from the heart rate there was also the freakish thing with the feet.
When I stopped growing back around high school/college, my feet were size 10 1/2.
This spring when I was buying some shoes to break in during training for the marathon, I was trying sizes I thought would leave generous toe room for hot, swollen feet. I thought something funny was going on with the shoes and put my foot in one of those measuring thingers (apparently these are called Brannock Devices. Now you know too.) and it said 11 1/2.
So, two years of running with some discipline and my feet have been pounded like scallopini and are now an inch longer. Who knew?
When I stopped growing back around high school/college, my feet were size 10 1/2.
This spring when I was buying some shoes to break in during training for the marathon, I was trying sizes I thought would leave generous toe room for hot, swollen feet. I thought something funny was going on with the shoes and put my foot in one of those measuring thingers (apparently these are called Brannock Devices. Now you know too.) and it said 11 1/2.
So, two years of running with some discipline and my feet have been pounded like scallopini and are now an inch longer. Who knew?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
3 sports. 2 times. One week.
How did we get here?
4 years ago, I got a new fitness trainer. I thought I was adopting a dog, but now I know what I really got. One day about a year after I got him, he scented a horse and ran off ahead of me on some trails to investigate. I had to run for about a mile to catch up to him and the horse and make sure everything was copacetic. That run was way more difficult than it should have been.
The dog and I went to the trails many more times. He set the pace and hikes turned into walk/runs and then runs. 3 miles turned into 5, then 7, then 9, etc. Trail running 3 times a week turned into training for the San Francisco marathon. After doing that event in 2007 and 2008 it was time to mix something else in besides running.
The current goal is to do the Laguna Phuket olympic triathlon in 2009.
Old workout plan: Run Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday
New workout plan: Long bike ride Sunday, Run Tuesday, Swim Wednesday, Run Thursday, Swim and bike ride Saturday
4 years ago, I got a new fitness trainer. I thought I was adopting a dog, but now I know what I really got. One day about a year after I got him, he scented a horse and ran off ahead of me on some trails to investigate. I had to run for about a mile to catch up to him and the horse and make sure everything was copacetic. That run was way more difficult than it should have been.
The dog and I went to the trails many more times. He set the pace and hikes turned into walk/runs and then runs. 3 miles turned into 5, then 7, then 9, etc. Trail running 3 times a week turned into training for the San Francisco marathon. After doing that event in 2007 and 2008 it was time to mix something else in besides running.
The current goal is to do the Laguna Phuket olympic triathlon in 2009.
Old workout plan: Run Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday
New workout plan: Long bike ride Sunday, Run Tuesday, Swim Wednesday, Run Thursday, Swim and bike ride Saturday
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Speaking of heart rate
For as long as I can remember ( I think in high school we checked our resting HR in a Phys Ed class and it stuck in my mind ) my resting HR was 72. Textbook normal.
After the last couple of years of running with some discipline that had dropped to 60.
Last night a few tests were required to see if the firmware update on the Forerunner had taken, so I collected some HR data while sitting around. Resting was as low as 52. Pretty amazing.
Maybe if I keep this up there is more efficiency to come.
After the last couple of years of running with some discipline that had dropped to 60.
Last night a few tests were required to see if the firmware update on the Forerunner had taken, so I collected some HR data while sitting around. Resting was as low as 52. Pretty amazing.
Maybe if I keep this up there is more efficiency to come.
Friday, September 12, 2008
What is that "Fast heart, slow feet" bit supposed to mean?
| Sustained running pace (minutes/mile) | Heart rate (bpm) |
| 10 | 160 |
| 9 | 170 |
| 8:30 | 180 |
| 8 | 188 |
| 7:30 | 193-197 (max) |
This can be summarized as: I am not an efficient runner. I'm probably not much better on a bike. And as a swimmer I'm so slow it's no surprise my heart rate there is low.
There's plenty of room for improvement in all 3 sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
