Saturday, July 05, 2008


Training: 10 miles, 1h05m, 6:32 pace
Sleep: 7h, 8/10
Legs: 8/10 Ready from the get-go
Temperature: 78 degrees

Training: 10 miles, 1h13m, 7:11 pace
Sleep: 6.5h, 6/10
Legs: 6/10 Surface soreness in quads and calf muscles

The legs ached a bit yesterday morning, so I tried to keep the pace mellow. I've been getting sore legs the day after longer runs, which is a bit of a bummer. This time it happened the day after only a 14 mile run, but I guess I either covered too many hills or I just ran through the heat too long. As a result I called off my planned double yesterday after needing (and taking) a short nap. Last week I put myself through the wringer a bit too much by stacking all the longer and harder runs at the end of the week (post vacation), so easing up yesterday before the quicker effort today and the long run tomorrow seemed wise.

Today's quicker run came off quite well, as I found myself on pace almost as soon as I left the driveway. I'm hoping I can say the same thing after tomorrow's long effort, as it's been some time since I've finished a long run with much left in reserve.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.


Anonymous said...

A better HR test is to figure you max and use the HR reserve formula to figure your AT. So if you have a max of say 190 and your resting is 50 then do the following.

190-50 = 140. Take 90% of that and add back in the resting (50).

That is your AT (roughly). Now go run 3 miles at AT and don't go over that number during the run.

Double the results, minus one minute and you have your 10K potential. So if the result is 18 minutes then 2 x 18 = 36. Minutes tat one minute gives you a 35 minute 10K potential.

Obviously if your training is working, over time this number gets faster.

It doesn't lie.

Mike said...

I think the HR reserve formula you mention would certainly be useful for evaluations, and I appreciate you sharing it. However, I think any formula that includes a static (rather than dynamic or variable) time to add or subtract as a predictor for race performance is somewhat flawed. I think adding a minute to estimate a 10K time for someone running the three mile HR trial in 16:30 might work, but it might be too aggressive an estimate for someone running the trial in 19 minutes.

My evaluation trials have been as short as two miles in the past (at a higher intensity than the 150HR I'm using now), but I'm finding I prefer the longer 4 mile trials while in base conditioning. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Thanks again for the formula and the comment.