A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Running
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Training week ending July 18 2010



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 20th 10, 04:34 AM posted to rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Training week ending July 18 2010

7/4 3 days 3 runs 2:39 long 1:13 1400'
3 bikes 2:24 1180'
one hike 5 hours 3100'
7/11 6 days 6 runs 6:52 long 2:48 4100'
2 bikes 1:54 600'
one hike 1:01 450'
7/18 5 days 5 runs 4:08 long 1:22 500'
3 bikes 2:25 1080'

Did really just one longer run (a 2:48 with 2700' climb on rough trails)
on 7/9, to help prepare me to run the escarpment trail. Then 7/15 I did
a faster than normal run with 2x10 min sections of hard and then very
hard, with a 5 min rest, followed by 2 garmin 1/4s in 1:33 and 1:36;
this just to wake up my legs a little for the run. I won't be in shape
to run the uphills at all in the 2nd half, so the plan is to hike 80% of
the uphills, and run the flats and downhills. Might do some filming.

They're so cheap now that I finally picked up a forerunner 305, and have
had it a few weeks. So far I haven't played with the data. I will have
to try motionbased or something else. Right now I'm just trying to get
more accurate climb data from it, since the provided software appears to
exaggerate the climb by 3 times or more due to the drifting elevation
data. The onboard smoothing algorithm could be much better. I'm used to
a quick and fairly accurate climb readout from my polar s625x.

So far I see no daily need for the forerunner, but it's a fun toy. I see
advantages using it for speedwork, even if it's far less accurate than
using a track. Miles still mean little to me for tracking training. The
2:48 run I did on 7/9 measured 11.57, but those are rough trail miles.
You can't compare flat roads to hilly roads or this trail to that trail,
and you can't compare how much running a course with 90f heat and a dew
point above 70 to running the same course on a dry 70f day.

All the body knows is what specific muslces are being used how hard for
how long. Your cardiovascular system gets the same workout for the same
effort and time, whether it's a hot day and you're running slower, or
you're climbing uphill slowly, but of course the effects on the musles
and other systems will be different. There are many factors affecting a
run from it's difficulty to the weather and all of that has a specific
effect on the body. Measuring by miles only leaves out all of that.

Goals: escarpment trail July 25, vermont 50k Sept 26


  #2  
Old July 23rd 10, 01:53 AM posted to rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Training week ending July 18 2010

"Dot" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/2010 7:34 PM, Tony S. wrote:
...

They're so cheap now that I finally picked up a forerunner 305, and
have
had it a few weeks. So far I haven't played with the data. I will
have
to try motionbased or something else. Right now I'm just trying to
get
more accurate climb data from it, since the provided software appears
to
exaggerate the climb by 3 times or more due to the drifting elevation
data. The onboard smoothing algorithm could be much better. I'm used
to
a quick and fairly accurate climb readout from my polar s625x.


Some of the software has plug-ins that allegedly "fix" the elevation
data. I tried installing the one for SportTracks over the weekend, and
it says "installed" but I'm not seeing anything about the adjustments.
So either it's useless, I haven't installed it completely, or it needs
some special Alaskan contour info to make it work.

My experience is that on the mountains where you're just going up then
down, it's not too far off. But on flat stuff, it creates hills that
aren't there. On rolling stuff, yea, an exaggeration factor of 3 is
what I'm seeing. I even bought a Fortrex 401? awhile ago since it has
the barometric altimeter in it, but it's even worse - might just be a
frequency of sampling issue. But I think I took my 305, foretrex 401,
and 625 on the same run, and got 3 different profiles. I don't think
I've taken my 60csx on the same run (can only carry so many toys at
one time), but need to do that and send the data to garmin and ask
WTF.


When I setup the display fields on the Forerunner, I had one showing the
elevation at first, just to see, and it would rapidly go up an down,
seeming to climb over a hundred feet and then way back down -- all this
while sitting in one place. Still the evevation did make sense most of
the time, but it's accuracy is +-50 feet or so, and moving all the time.
I will experiment to come up with similar correction factors to what you
have. I did notice for rolling terrain it looked like 3x too much climb.

As a result of new computer and Win 7 and not being able to get my
625x to download, I broke down and got an 800cs. By the time I bought
the software, etc, I figured it wasn't that much more expensive to get
the 800, and bought the stride sensor with it. I now have the pieces
that I can use my s625x and download. I'll probably still race with
625 since the screen is a lot easier to read than the 800, and the lap
button works a lot better. Also not as complicated.


I haven't bothered to download the 625 data in quite a while. When I
used it, it was for stopwatch, climb, and sometimes HR. It calibrates
quite easily, and though it can be inaccurate with a storm, it doesn't
fluctuate up and down the way the Forerunner 205 does, and gives a
pretty accurate climb reading IMO, but it only counts changes of 20 feet
or more (in US mode), so for any small local maxima, it will, on
average, undercount the climb by 10 feet. Solution: add an estimate of
the number of local maxima multipled by 10 to the total climb.

I don't find the gps data particularly reliable for speed work, esp.
for the shorter stuff (even 500m or so). Heck, it's not always
reproducible. If I'm using pace at all, just to get a feeling for
whatever, I use the lap average. Especially on my flat trail where
it's by a cliff, the reception sometimes comes and goes. But using it
as an expensive stop watch, I know the times between a rock and a sign
or whatever landmarks I'm using that day. Then just worry about
progressively less time.

I've played around with the stride sensor a bit. Other than cadence,
it's useless on big hills, but for flat and rolling hills, it's fairly
close to the gps readings. That is a 5mi gps run might be 5.1 or 4.9
on strider. But what I've been looking at from an instruction
perspective is the cadence (I trust this data) and stride length
(probably not too far off). It's interesting how the cadence varies
with different paces and form. I have this set for instantaneous
readings, rather than the lap avg on the gps, so I can get real time
feedback. Have I done anything differently as a result of the data,
no, but it has given me some things to think about.


Yea, you're right about accuracy, but it's sure good enough for me,
since I rarely do anything as short as 400s, and normally just do tempo
runs at a certain HR.

...


All the body knows is what specific muslces are being used how hard
for
how long.


Agreed that none of the toys give the feedback in terms of training
adaptations that the body does.

...
Goals: escarpment trail July 25, vermont 50k Sept 26


Good luck this weekend!

Dot


Thanks! Weather looks like 50s at the start, 70s midday, scattered
storms.

-Tony


  #3  
Old July 23rd 10, 02:00 AM posted to rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Training week ending July 18 2010

"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"Tony S." wrote in message
...

snip
They're so cheap now that I finally picked up a forerunner 305, and
have had it a few weeks. So far I haven't played with the data. I
will have to try motionbased or something else. Right now I'm just
trying to get more accurate climb data from it, since the provided
software appears to exaggerate the climb by 3 times or more due to
the drifting elevation data. The onboard smoothing algorithm could be
much better. I'm used to a quick and fairly accurate climb readout
from my polar s625x.


I got a 305 for Father's day, it's nice on the road but I doubt it's
accuracy on trails. I've watched my pace go from sub 9 to 12 mpm or
slower simply by going from an open section of trial to one with trees
overhead, no increase in grade etc. Love it on the road as the
workouts I do call for x amt of miles at HM or 10k pace.


Yea, on trails the distance reading is useless, and I noticed the same
effect from heavy tree cover, though when I displayed GPS accuracy as a
field that went down so that might explain it. Much more useful on runs
in new places is my Car GPS, which has a ~3 hour battery. I've taken it
on runs in new towns and had fun doing loops and wandering around, not
only seeing where I am at any given time, but always can have it lead me
back. Gotta watch out for rain though.

-Tony


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Training week ending July 18 2010 D Stumpus[_4_] Running 0 July 18th 10 08:45 PM
Training week ending July 11 2010 outsideinmi Running 1 July 16th 10 05:11 PM
Training week ending July 4 2010 Edward Edmonds Running 0 July 15th 10 12:40 PM
Training week ending July 11 2010 Anthony[_2_] Running 0 July 15th 10 07:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.