February is done, here are the totals.
February totals: 139.5 miles; 19:33:04 hours
Miles/day: 4.98 (February); 4.05 (year-to-date)
Time/day: 00:41:53 (February); 00:34:09 (year-to-date)
Year-to-date: 238 miles; 33:35:37 hours
Also, you an track my running stats on my 2011 training log (also linked in the sidebar at right).
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Week in review: 2/21-2/27/11
This was a week of excuses and correspondingly, no results.
2/21/11: 6.2 miles
The only run of the week.
2/22-2/27/11: nothing
An unintentional rest. Spending the weekend (last one for the winter season) working at a scout camp never, ever helps the running.
---
On another note, today marks day 1 of the second phase of training. This phase is highlighted by hill workouts, fast, short repetitions, some threshold runs and is designed to build strength for the harder, more demanding phase three. Phase 2 lasts eight weeks and ends the last week in April. Tonight I did my first non-long run quality workout of 2011. It was:
Warmup: 3.2 miles slow
2x hill repeats: 1.1 mile up and down (4.4 total); pace comfortably hard
Cooldown: 3.2 miles slow
Total: 10.8 miles in just under 90 minutes. I'll take that. My legs (quads mostly) are a little thrashed and my cooldown time slowed about 11 percent from the warmup.
On tap for the remainder of the week is 55 miles with a 14 mile long run on Saturday.
2/21/11: 6.2 miles
The only run of the week.
2/22-2/27/11: nothing
An unintentional rest. Spending the weekend (last one for the winter season) working at a scout camp never, ever helps the running.
---
On another note, today marks day 1 of the second phase of training. This phase is highlighted by hill workouts, fast, short repetitions, some threshold runs and is designed to build strength for the harder, more demanding phase three. Phase 2 lasts eight weeks and ends the last week in April. Tonight I did my first non-long run quality workout of 2011. It was:
Warmup: 3.2 miles slow
2x hill repeats: 1.1 mile up and down (4.4 total); pace comfortably hard
Cooldown: 3.2 miles slow
Total: 10.8 miles in just under 90 minutes. I'll take that. My legs (quads mostly) are a little thrashed and my cooldown time slowed about 11 percent from the warmup.
On tap for the remainder of the week is 55 miles with a 14 mile long run on Saturday.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Challenging conventional wisdom: even/negative splits and steps per minute
Two dissimilar thoughts compiled here together because they challenge conventional wisdom and everything I have ever been taught about running.
Is running 180 steps per minute the best stride rate?
Not according to Steve Magness at Science of Running.
His basic premise is that there are two ways to increase speed while running. You can either increase your stride rate (steps/minute) or stride length (inches/step). Conventional wisdom, dating back to Dr. Jack Daniels, is that you should only do the latter and run at a constant stride rate. That rate happens to be about 180, and is based on Daniels's personal observations.
However, Magness uses empirical data to demonstrate that runners increase both when they run faster, and runners who only increase length are artificially limiting themselves. Runners can also increase one factor to correct the other. For example, runners who wear big, bulky shoes are likely to overstride and strike the ground with their heels. They can increase their rate to shorten their stride and smooth out their form.
My take: I haven't done the empirical research like Magness has, but I'm buying what he says. I know from personal experience that when I run hard down a hill, my stride rate and length increase to compensate for the assist I'm getting from gravity.
Also, I happen to run lightly and step quickly. When I started running ultras, I transformed by running technique by increasing my stride rate (and the cost of stride length). I did this because the racing flats I ran in required me to take light, quick steps and running in them full-time reinforced this habit.
Is running negative or even splits the only correct way to race?
Not according to former 100-mile world record holder Cavin Woodward. Ian Sharman (new Rocky Raccoon 100 course record holder, who ran even 20-mile splits) gets the hat-tip for linking me to the 1975 Tipton 100 track race.
I'll just quote Ian:
The post at UltraLegends lists the 10-mile and 50-mile splits for the four fastest 100 mile times (including Woodward's race above). The format is not reader-friendly, and UltraStu put them into a table.
The table shows that it is not necessary to run even or negative splits to do well. You just need to go out hard enough to put up a good time and then taper off just enough to hold onto your time goal and hold off your opponents. The idea is that everyone slows down over time, so why not run hard when you're fresh? It makes a compelling argument, especially given Woodward's accomplishment above.
My take: I try to run even or negative splits in ultras, and I measure this by effort (and often, but not necessarily, pace). I do this because it feels better to me. I get a constant effort, and I don't feel like I went out too hard and lost it all in the end. Running even splits is more comfortable to me, and it is a goal I strive for in every race. Until that comfort level changes or I am looking for a speed boost, I'm going to stick with what works.
Is running 180 steps per minute the best stride rate?
Not according to Steve Magness at Science of Running.
His basic premise is that there are two ways to increase speed while running. You can either increase your stride rate (steps/minute) or stride length (inches/step). Conventional wisdom, dating back to Dr. Jack Daniels, is that you should only do the latter and run at a constant stride rate. That rate happens to be about 180, and is based on Daniels's personal observations.
However, Magness uses empirical data to demonstrate that runners increase both when they run faster, and runners who only increase length are artificially limiting themselves. Runners can also increase one factor to correct the other. For example, runners who wear big, bulky shoes are likely to overstride and strike the ground with their heels. They can increase their rate to shorten their stride and smooth out their form.
My take: I haven't done the empirical research like Magness has, but I'm buying what he says. I know from personal experience that when I run hard down a hill, my stride rate and length increase to compensate for the assist I'm getting from gravity.
Also, I happen to run lightly and step quickly. When I started running ultras, I transformed by running technique by increasing my stride rate (and the cost of stride length). I did this because the racing flats I ran in required me to take light, quick steps and running in them full-time reinforced this habit.
Is running negative or even splits the only correct way to race?
Not according to former 100-mile world record holder Cavin Woodward. Ian Sharman (new Rocky Raccoon 100 course record holder, who ran even 20-mile splits) gets the hat-tip for linking me to the 1975 Tipton 100 track race.
I'll just quote Ian:
In the race described, Cavin Woodward [. . .] set the world best time at that point for 100 miles in 11:38, but it's the way he did it that amazed me. He ran 2:31 for the marathon, 3:01 for 50k, a world best for 50 miles (4:58) and a world best for 100k (6:25)!It's just nuts. Woodward finished at 11:38:54. He ran the first 50 in just under 5 hours, and the second 50 in six hours and 40 minutes. That's a huge pace drift, but he won the race and set three world records in the process.
The post at UltraLegends lists the 10-mile and 50-mile splits for the four fastest 100 mile times (including Woodward's race above). The format is not reader-friendly, and UltraStu put them into a table.
The table shows that it is not necessary to run even or negative splits to do well. You just need to go out hard enough to put up a good time and then taper off just enough to hold onto your time goal and hold off your opponents. The idea is that everyone slows down over time, so why not run hard when you're fresh? It makes a compelling argument, especially given Woodward's accomplishment above.
My take: I try to run even or negative splits in ultras, and I measure this by effort (and often, but not necessarily, pace). I do this because it feels better to me. I get a constant effort, and I don't feel like I went out too hard and lost it all in the end. Running even splits is more comfortable to me, and it is a goal I strive for in every race. Until that comfort level changes or I am looking for a speed boost, I'm going to stick with what works.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Week in review: 2/14-2/20/11
This week saw lots of miles and record-setting blizzard on Sunday. We had 30+ temps several days this week and I wore shorts Monday-Thursday.
2/7/11: 6 miles
Two with wife and four solo.
2/8/11 AM: 4 miles
2/8/11 PM: 7 miles
2/9/11: 8 miles
Four two-mile runs (to and from wife's yoga class). She ran first and last with me.
2/10/11: 3.8 miles
2/11/11: 7.5 miles
With Mankato Multisport folks.
2/12/11: nothing
Blizzard! Running nigh impossible.
Miles: 41.4
Time: 5:50:42
Year to date: 206.3 miles
I'm not sure what to do about missing Sunday's run. I was going to do a double on Saturday, but was kept busy by other things. So I effectively missed a long run and was short about 13 miles on my goal for the week. Oh well.
Up next week is my last week of base building before training kicks in. Plan: 55 miles /w 14-mile long run (day?).
2/7/11: 6 miles
Two with wife and four solo.
2/8/11 AM: 4 miles
2/8/11 PM: 7 miles
2/9/11: 8 miles
Four two-mile runs (to and from wife's yoga class). She ran first and last with me.
2/10/11: 3.8 miles
2/11/11: 7.5 miles
With Mankato Multisport folks.
2/12/11: nothing
Blizzard! Running nigh impossible.
Miles: 41.4
Time: 5:50:42
Year to date: 206.3 miles
I'm not sure what to do about missing Sunday's run. I was going to do a double on Saturday, but was kept busy by other things. So I effectively missed a long run and was short about 13 miles on my goal for the week. Oh well.
Up next week is my last week of base building before training kicks in. Plan: 55 miles /w 14-mile long run (day?).
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Week in review: 2/7-2/13/11
Along the same lines as Tony Krupicka, I will be posting week-in-reviews as I progress toward the Sawtooth 100 in September.
2/7/11: 4.8 miles
2/8/11: 6.8 miles
AM run in -18F/-35F windchill!
2/9/11: 6.6 miles
2/10/11: 3.8 miles
2/11/11: 9 miles
Friday night fun run.
2/12/11 AM: 10.5 miles
5x loops around Sibley Park /w Mankato Multisport. Did some slight hill work on ups and downs.
2/12/11 PM: 3.8 miles
First two-a-day of the year, and in shorts no less!
2/13/11: 7.7 miles
Sunrise run spoiled by clouds.
Week total: 53 miles
Total time: 7:26:30 (h:m:s)
Year-to-date: 164.9 miles
---
I was supposed to run about 50 miles this week, the sixth week of the year. I have two more seeks of base building left (essentially the rest of this month) and then hill, repetitions and Dr. Jack Daniels's Phase II training kicks in.
2/7/11: 4.8 miles
2/8/11: 6.8 miles
AM run in -18F/-35F windchill!
2/9/11: 6.6 miles
2/10/11: 3.8 miles
2/11/11: 9 miles
Friday night fun run.
2/12/11 AM: 10.5 miles
5x loops around Sibley Park /w Mankato Multisport. Did some slight hill work on ups and downs.
2/12/11 PM: 3.8 miles
First two-a-day of the year, and in shorts no less!
2/13/11: 7.7 miles
Sunrise run spoiled by clouds.
Week total: 53 miles
Total time: 7:26:30 (h:m:s)
Year-to-date: 164.9 miles
---
I was supposed to run about 50 miles this week, the sixth week of the year. I have two more seeks of base building left (essentially the rest of this month) and then hill, repetitions and Dr. Jack Daniels's Phase II training kicks in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
