This weekends run was 17 miles - an increase of 2 miles from the other weeks 15 miler. For that run I had done my normal 6 mile loop twice and then a 3 mile course - but this time I wanted to avoid doing a double loop. The mental grind of jogging for 2-3 hours is eased a bit on a new course.
The other thing I wanted to do on this run was continue working on cadence, with a goal of 90 footstrokes per foot per minute. Finally, I wanted to try out running continuously. For the 13 mile and 15 mile long runs over the past couple months, I had taken walk breaks - and for the 15 miler I had taken one every mile. I felt like the breaks helped improve stamina, as I started to tighten up around mile 11 - whereas previously (last fall) I'd start to tighten up around mile 8-9, or about an hour and twenty minutes. So for this run I wanted to experiment around with how things would go running continuously and with higher cadence.
The route I took was a simple out and back route, passing by a McDonalds about halfway through, which would give me an opportunity to refill my water bottles. The other option would have been to drive to the mid point and stash water somewhere, but I didn't feel like that would have been the best choice.
Total Time: 2:54:43
Total Distance: 16.88 miles
Avg HR: 154
There were two times I stopped running - one was a 2 minute break at 1:35:20 to refill the water bottles, and another was 1 minute walk at about 2:20.
Compared to the 15 mile run, I was about 1 min/mile faster, but at a cost of 6 bpm. The higher cadence still results in a 3-4 bpm increase in HR for me. However, I think that increase is worth it. There were multiple times, especially on the way back when I was more fatigued, that I'd find myself feeling the ascent of a small hill, and then realize that I let my cadence slip a bit, and I believe my stride length went up slightly. Those times, when I increased cadence back up to 90, my legs felt more perked up.
Also, I noticed that for a while after the 2 minute water refill break, I felt stronger for a while. It's hard to say whether it was the mental aspect of knowing I had passed the half way point, or whether it was the 2 minutes of 'rest', or possibly that my body had finally absorbed what may have been excess water during mile 7-8 (there were a couple times around there where my stomach felt every so slightly upset after taking a swig of gatorade). It could have also been that I was maintaining cadence so I was running more efficiently. Hard to say.
By the time I got to around mile 13 or so, my hips started to tighten up a bit. Once again, keeping a higher cadence helped with this somewhat. I think maybe it is because the higher cadence and shorter strides results in more blood flow but less metabolism byproducts, so the body is able to flush them away more effectively.
One of the takeaways from this run is that I may have to experiment with walk breaks - when to take them and for how long. It seems to me (based on the 15 mile run) that taking one every mile for 30 seconds is not necessarily the most effective method for me.
EDIT: On Monday, I was still a bit sore - I'd say around 5 on a scale of 10. Nothing debilitating, but definately there. It was the kind of soreness that would go away pretty quickly once I got moving.
By Tuesday, I'd say the soreness was down to a 2.5-3 out of 10.
I'd say that I was a little more sore a little longer this time, vs the 15 mile run. However, I noticed after the 15 mile run that my knee hurt a little bit when weight was put on it and the knee was at a certain angle - generally only noticed when bending down to pick something up, or once in a while when climbing a stair. After a couple days, that went away. However, I never felt any such knee pain after this run. I am unsure whether the higher cadence (and lower degree of impact per foot stroke) had more to do with it, or just the fact that the 15 miler came after about 5-6 weeks of no significant distance, whereas the 17 miler came 2 weeks after the 15 miles.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
2700 yards (swimming) - 6/27
Today I went to the pool to test out bilateral breathing, as well as to get a good long swim in. Up till this point, swimming has been somewhat of an afterthought, with little structure to any sort of training. Part of this is because I've been focusing more on the run - but part of it is also because it just takes me time to formulate even a loose training plan to follow.
I've spent some good time in the endless pool, and have come to the conclusion that it is useful in very focused applications. First, it keeps the arms moving, so at the very least it is better than not swimming at all. Second, it is good for form and mechanics practice. However, there is a big difference between simply overcoming a counter current vs having to actually propel yourself. For this reason, I think I'm going to have to supplement endless pool swimming with the real thing on a more frequent basis.
However, that more frequent basis may not be until the winter - when my running training concentration will have subsided and I can begin to focus on swimming and cycling. In the mean time, however, I can start to piece together what works for me as a swimming training plan.
When I started out today, the bilateral swimming was working ok. Unfortunately, it didn't take more then about 150 yds for me to start getting out of breath - the extra half stroke was becoming a bit too long for my current level of conditioning. Unsure whether I'd be better off just sucking it up, or reverting to my old breathing - and not really having the time to fully think it through, I decided to continue using my old breathing method. My reasoning was that if I don't have the aerobic capacity for bilateral breathing, maybe I should work on aerobic capacity first.
Time HR (avg) distance
00:00:50 50 yds
0:01:39 135 100 yds
0:06:24 153 350 yds
0:03:36 154 200 yds
0:15:31 160 800 yds
0:00:44 136 end 50 yds
0:00:44 164 end 50 yds
0:00:46 160 end 50 yds
0:00:46 169 end 50 yds
0:07:51 158 400 yds
0:00:45 121 end 50 yds
0:00:50 163 end 50 yds
0:00:47 154 end 50 yds
0:00:48 166 end 50 yds
0:08:04 147 400 yds
After the 800 yd portion, I needed to vary up the routine a bit, so I did a few 50 yd sprints. For these, the HR information is more valuable showing what it was at the end of the period. After 4 x 50yd sprints and some rest, I did another 400 yds continuous. This routine of 50 yd sprints followed by 400 yds continuous at a slower pace was repeated twice.
Total distance was 2700 yds, which is about 1.5 miles. It is the longest distance swimming session I've had since high school, by quite a margin - so I'm rather happy about that.
I've spent some good time in the endless pool, and have come to the conclusion that it is useful in very focused applications. First, it keeps the arms moving, so at the very least it is better than not swimming at all. Second, it is good for form and mechanics practice. However, there is a big difference between simply overcoming a counter current vs having to actually propel yourself. For this reason, I think I'm going to have to supplement endless pool swimming with the real thing on a more frequent basis.
However, that more frequent basis may not be until the winter - when my running training concentration will have subsided and I can begin to focus on swimming and cycling. In the mean time, however, I can start to piece together what works for me as a swimming training plan.
When I started out today, the bilateral swimming was working ok. Unfortunately, it didn't take more then about 150 yds for me to start getting out of breath - the extra half stroke was becoming a bit too long for my current level of conditioning. Unsure whether I'd be better off just sucking it up, or reverting to my old breathing - and not really having the time to fully think it through, I decided to continue using my old breathing method. My reasoning was that if I don't have the aerobic capacity for bilateral breathing, maybe I should work on aerobic capacity first.
Time HR (avg) distance
00:00:50 50 yds
0:01:39 135 100 yds
0:06:24 153 350 yds
0:03:36 154 200 yds
0:15:31 160 800 yds
0:00:44 136 end 50 yds
0:00:44 164 end 50 yds
0:00:46 160 end 50 yds
0:00:46 169 end 50 yds
0:07:51 158 400 yds
0:00:45 121 end 50 yds
0:00:50 163 end 50 yds
0:00:47 154 end 50 yds
0:00:48 166 end 50 yds
0:08:04 147 400 yds
After the 800 yd portion, I needed to vary up the routine a bit, so I did a few 50 yd sprints. For these, the HR information is more valuable showing what it was at the end of the period. After 4 x 50yd sprints and some rest, I did another 400 yds continuous. This routine of 50 yd sprints followed by 400 yds continuous at a slower pace was repeated twice.
Total distance was 2700 yds, which is about 1.5 miles. It is the longest distance swimming session I've had since high school, by quite a margin - so I'm rather happy about that.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
4 mile run (cadence/hills) - 6/25
Today I wanted to continue working on cadence, as I did on Tuesday - but I also wanted to revisit some hill work, as its been quite a while. So I figured today would be a good day to combine the two - I had seen increased cadence rates on Sunday and Tuesday, and so doing some hill work would give me a chance to see how the higher turnover and more emphasis on the calf muscles would do.
My normal 'hill' route (which is only moderately hilly - but does have a >10% grade portion) is only 3.4 miles. The problem with the route is that the first hill is barely 2/10 of a mile from the house. Now that I'm getting to the point where I want these hills to be a major part of the workout, I've been doing some warmup beforehand. Last time I did this route, I did a 0.4 mile warm up, and this time I did a little further - 0.6 miles.
Even with the increase cadence, the hills were tough and resulted in a pretty high HR - generally in the 170's. However the effort was different - not necessarily easier - but different. The best I can explain is that although the breathing and HR certainly increases, the degree to which the muscles in the legs fatigue after a climb is noticably reduced. I suppose that is partially an effect of the fact that each plant of the foot requires a little less muscle power to ascend the hill when you use a faster cadence but a shorter stride length.
I checked my cadence multiple times throughout the run, and each time was right around 90 - whereas on Tuesday I was pretty consistent at 85. Sometimes I would still have to consciously think to increase the rate, because it would naturally slow a little bit if I wasn't thinking about it. However, it seems as though the faster cadence is getting a little more natural feeling, as I dont seem to have to think about it quite as much as I did on Tuesday.
Total Time: 33:40
Total Distance: 4 miles
Avg HR: 161
My normal 'hill' route (which is only moderately hilly - but does have a >10% grade portion) is only 3.4 miles. The problem with the route is that the first hill is barely 2/10 of a mile from the house. Now that I'm getting to the point where I want these hills to be a major part of the workout, I've been doing some warmup beforehand. Last time I did this route, I did a 0.4 mile warm up, and this time I did a little further - 0.6 miles.
Even with the increase cadence, the hills were tough and resulted in a pretty high HR - generally in the 170's. However the effort was different - not necessarily easier - but different. The best I can explain is that although the breathing and HR certainly increases, the degree to which the muscles in the legs fatigue after a climb is noticably reduced. I suppose that is partially an effect of the fact that each plant of the foot requires a little less muscle power to ascend the hill when you use a faster cadence but a shorter stride length.
I checked my cadence multiple times throughout the run, and each time was right around 90 - whereas on Tuesday I was pretty consistent at 85. Sometimes I would still have to consciously think to increase the rate, because it would naturally slow a little bit if I wasn't thinking about it. However, it seems as though the faster cadence is getting a little more natural feeling, as I dont seem to have to think about it quite as much as I did on Tuesday.
Total Time: 33:40
Total Distance: 4 miles
Avg HR: 161
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Bilateral breathing swimming practice - 6/24
Today I did another relatively short session concentrating on learning how to breath from the left side. Right away, I noticed that major improvements had been made - however after only 90-120 seconds or so, I was still getting out of breath even on a slow power setting. That told me I was still being inefficient in whatever motions are necessary to take a breath.
Not knowing exactly what was inefficient, I kept at it. Swimming is one of those activities where its very difficult to maintain really sloppy form - since the water is so drag inducing (as opposed to air when running or cycling), I think the body tends to find ways to decrease extraneous motions. So in some things, it may just be better to keep practicing and let the muscles rather than the conscious part of the brain figure things out.
After a few 'sessions' of 2-3 minutes, things started to come together. To test things out, I swam for a couple minutes alternating sides, to start warming up to that sequence of motions. By the end of the evening, I was able to breath bilaterally for several minutes relatively comfortably.
Not knowing exactly what was inefficient, I kept at it. Swimming is one of those activities where its very difficult to maintain really sloppy form - since the water is so drag inducing (as opposed to air when running or cycling), I think the body tends to find ways to decrease extraneous motions. So in some things, it may just be better to keep practicing and let the muscles rather than the conscious part of the brain figure things out.
After a few 'sessions' of 2-3 minutes, things started to come together. To test things out, I swam for a couple minutes alternating sides, to start warming up to that sequence of motions. By the end of the evening, I was able to breath bilaterally for several minutes relatively comfortably.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
45 minute run (cadence) - 6/23
The past week or so, I've been talking about running cadence with a friend of mine. He's starting a new running program, and one of the main concepts is cadence - or how fast your feet turnover during running. According to multiple sources (Galloway, Daniels, etc) - a cadence of 180 footstrokes per minute (90 per foot per minute) is considered optimal.
Over this past winter, I toyed around with cadence a bit - only to the extent that a few times I tried to increase it to see what it felt like, but didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it. The Galloway program includes cadence drills, but for some reason I had been kinda neglecting them. I assumed that my cadence was about average, and I assumed that the average was around 120 footstrokes per minute (60 per foot per minute).
After hearing my friend talk about his work to increase cadence (as he put, 90 per foot per minute is 'friggin fast', and he felt like he was gliding) - I thought I might take a look at cadence again. With the two runs this week being easy workouts, followed by a 17 miler this weekend, I figured this would be a good time to work on it. I'd have two 45 minute sessions this week, and a nice long run to really nail the rhythm down. At the very least, I could get a good sense of what 90 strokes per foot per minute felt like - and even if it wasn't something I could attain right away - it'd be a start.
So today I started off, and decided I'd jog naturally and determine my cadence - just to see where in the ballpark I was. So I counted left foot strokes, and after 60 seconds I came up with.... 82.
Wha?
That's quite a bit different than I thought I'd be at (60), and a LOT closer to the optimum than I thought I was at! Huh...
So I continued for a couple miles - I timed myself multiple times, each time ending up right around 85, after consciously increasing cadence ever so slightly after that initial reading.
I then decided to see how stride length, while keeping cadence, would affect heartrate. Since this was to be an easy run, I tried to target my long slow run HR of 150 bpm. I found it actually quite difficult - as I could barely manage to keep it as low as 153. So I tried to shorten my stride length to compensate. Although my first two miles were done in 17:05 with an avg HR of 151, that 151 takes into account the start up from walking HR - so its a bit deceiving.
For mile #3, I decided I'd maintain cadence and shorten my stride as much as I could to keep my HR down around 150, and then see what the time was. The avg HR was 155, and my time for the mile was 9:37. It was becoming obvious that although the cadence only felt slightly faster than normal, it was difficult for me to maintain a low heartrate. I'm not sure whether it was due to not being fully recovered from Sunday's triathlon, or whether there is a certain degree of overhead with a high turnover that a short stride length cannot fully compensate for.
For mile #4, I did the same thing - trying to keep cadence and shorten stride to maintain 150. However, this mile included some slight uphill. The result was 1 mile in 9:15, with an avg HR of 156.
For a portion of mile #5, I decided to check out the resultant HR when maintaining the same cadence, but increasing stride length. I did this for 1 minute, and my HR got into the 170's. Unfortunately, I didn't get a mark of where that 1 minute at a higher pace brought me to - so I have no information to extrapolate what my mile time would be. Since the 85 cadence is not much faster than what feels natural - I figure it'll be easy enough during a mile repeat or speed workout session to see what kind of pace I can manage.
During the rest of mile #5, I toyed around with different things to see if I could get my HR back down to 150. I tried the 85-90 cadence with very short stride lengths, as well as trying to revert to a slower cadence and pace - possibly one that I used to run when I started running again last year (although its been long enough that I cannot really recall too well).
It was definately interesting. Anytime I went to a 'slower' cadence (which turned out to be 75 or so), I found myself bouncing up in the air quite a bit. I'm not really sure what a cadence of 60, what I thought I was closer to, would feel like. It'd either have to be a stride length that would be very unnatural for me, or so much bouncing that.. well, it'd just be rediculous. Considering how 'bouncy' the cadence of 75 was, I can definately see where 85-90 is, by comparison, like 'gliding'. It just seems that when cadence is > 80, more effort goes towards forward movement - and when it is < 80, a significant degree of the effort expended ends up going towards vertical motion - which is wasteful.
In trying to figure out why my cadence was in the 80's to begin with - I can think of only one reason. Although I've largely ignored cadence for a while, one thing I haven't ignored is foot placement when landing. I've made a good amount of conscious effort over the months to avoid landing on my heel, and concentrating on landing on my mid-foot. In order to do this, the leg being landed on cannot extend to far ahead of the body. This results in a shorter stride length, and I think that I've been unconsciously increasing cadence to compensate for this - to the point where anything less than 80 footstrokes per foot per minute seems unnatural. Unfortunately, I have NO cadence information from before I started consciously trying to keep from landing on my heel - so the whole theory might be a crock.
The other thing is that although 85 is only slightly faster than the 'natural' cadence of 82 that I found myself using initially, I still have to work on getting an extra 5 footstrokes per foot per minute in there. It may not sound like much (until I started writing this, that is what I thought) - but considering that 75-76 feels completely different than 85, I'm sure that 85 feels completely different from 90.
Total Distance: 5.25 miles
Avg HR: 155
Total Time: 48:30
Over this past winter, I toyed around with cadence a bit - only to the extent that a few times I tried to increase it to see what it felt like, but didn't pay a whole lot of attention to it. The Galloway program includes cadence drills, but for some reason I had been kinda neglecting them. I assumed that my cadence was about average, and I assumed that the average was around 120 footstrokes per minute (60 per foot per minute).
After hearing my friend talk about his work to increase cadence (as he put, 90 per foot per minute is 'friggin fast', and he felt like he was gliding) - I thought I might take a look at cadence again. With the two runs this week being easy workouts, followed by a 17 miler this weekend, I figured this would be a good time to work on it. I'd have two 45 minute sessions this week, and a nice long run to really nail the rhythm down. At the very least, I could get a good sense of what 90 strokes per foot per minute felt like - and even if it wasn't something I could attain right away - it'd be a start.
So today I started off, and decided I'd jog naturally and determine my cadence - just to see where in the ballpark I was. So I counted left foot strokes, and after 60 seconds I came up with.... 82.
Wha?
That's quite a bit different than I thought I'd be at (60), and a LOT closer to the optimum than I thought I was at! Huh...
So I continued for a couple miles - I timed myself multiple times, each time ending up right around 85, after consciously increasing cadence ever so slightly after that initial reading.
I then decided to see how stride length, while keeping cadence, would affect heartrate. Since this was to be an easy run, I tried to target my long slow run HR of 150 bpm. I found it actually quite difficult - as I could barely manage to keep it as low as 153. So I tried to shorten my stride length to compensate. Although my first two miles were done in 17:05 with an avg HR of 151, that 151 takes into account the start up from walking HR - so its a bit deceiving.
For mile #3, I decided I'd maintain cadence and shorten my stride as much as I could to keep my HR down around 150, and then see what the time was. The avg HR was 155, and my time for the mile was 9:37. It was becoming obvious that although the cadence only felt slightly faster than normal, it was difficult for me to maintain a low heartrate. I'm not sure whether it was due to not being fully recovered from Sunday's triathlon, or whether there is a certain degree of overhead with a high turnover that a short stride length cannot fully compensate for.
For mile #4, I did the same thing - trying to keep cadence and shorten stride to maintain 150. However, this mile included some slight uphill. The result was 1 mile in 9:15, with an avg HR of 156.
For a portion of mile #5, I decided to check out the resultant HR when maintaining the same cadence, but increasing stride length. I did this for 1 minute, and my HR got into the 170's. Unfortunately, I didn't get a mark of where that 1 minute at a higher pace brought me to - so I have no information to extrapolate what my mile time would be. Since the 85 cadence is not much faster than what feels natural - I figure it'll be easy enough during a mile repeat or speed workout session to see what kind of pace I can manage.
During the rest of mile #5, I toyed around with different things to see if I could get my HR back down to 150. I tried the 85-90 cadence with very short stride lengths, as well as trying to revert to a slower cadence and pace - possibly one that I used to run when I started running again last year (although its been long enough that I cannot really recall too well).
It was definately interesting. Anytime I went to a 'slower' cadence (which turned out to be 75 or so), I found myself bouncing up in the air quite a bit. I'm not really sure what a cadence of 60, what I thought I was closer to, would feel like. It'd either have to be a stride length that would be very unnatural for me, or so much bouncing that.. well, it'd just be rediculous. Considering how 'bouncy' the cadence of 75 was, I can definately see where 85-90 is, by comparison, like 'gliding'. It just seems that when cadence is > 80, more effort goes towards forward movement - and when it is < 80, a significant degree of the effort expended ends up going towards vertical motion - which is wasteful.
In trying to figure out why my cadence was in the 80's to begin with - I can think of only one reason. Although I've largely ignored cadence for a while, one thing I haven't ignored is foot placement when landing. I've made a good amount of conscious effort over the months to avoid landing on my heel, and concentrating on landing on my mid-foot. In order to do this, the leg being landed on cannot extend to far ahead of the body. This results in a shorter stride length, and I think that I've been unconsciously increasing cadence to compensate for this - to the point where anything less than 80 footstrokes per foot per minute seems unnatural. Unfortunately, I have NO cadence information from before I started consciously trying to keep from landing on my heel - so the whole theory might be a crock.
The other thing is that although 85 is only slightly faster than the 'natural' cadence of 82 that I found myself using initially, I still have to work on getting an extra 5 footstrokes per foot per minute in there. It may not sound like much (until I started writing this, that is what I thought) - but considering that 75-76 feels completely different than 85, I'm sure that 85 feels completely different from 90.
Total Distance: 5.25 miles
Avg HR: 155
Total Time: 48:30
Monday, June 22, 2009
Bilateral breathing for swimming practice - 6/22
Anytime I've ever been swimming, I've taken a breath every time my right arm comes out of the water. I suppose this is partly because when learning to swim, it provides frequent opportunities to breath in. Even when swimming competitively in a pool, the biggest downside is that it slowes you down somewhat. However, in open water swimming, I found it to not only slow me down, but also is likely the major contributor to not being able to swim in a straight line.
As far as why it is actually slower - every time you take a breath, energy is expended to do so. Not such a big deal when you are talking 50 yds, where you can just power through the inefficiency - but when talking about a long distance such as 1/2 mile or more, this extra energy adds up. Also - in order to time things correctly so that you can take a breath on the next stroke, I found I was ending up with half a lung full of air at all times - I was either forcefully inhaling, or forcefully exhaling at all times. With running and biking, the breathing is generally a bit slower because it can be.
As to why it contributes to not being able to swim straight, I suspect that in my swimming form, my right arm naturally has a shorter stroke length as a by product of being the arm that comes out of the water when I take a breath.
So, I've recently decided that I want to learn how to breath bilaterally - that is, on the right side during a right stroke, complete the left stroke, complete the right stroke, and breath again on the next left stroke. This will allow more time for oxygen to be removed from air in the lungs, and I think it should also result in a higher average amount of air in the lungs. Also, by alternating sides, anything that causes me to lose my heading from one side should be compensated by the other. This can ultimately lead to less of a need to sight myself during a tri swim, which means faster swim times.
I decided that this would be the perfect type of thing to take advantage of the endless pool for. I could set the power relatively low, and just concentrate on the motions and timing of breathing when my left arm comes out of the water. So that is what I did today. I didn't bother with a stop watch or the HR monitor because getting a cardio workout was not the point.
I ended up doing 4-5 sessions of breathing from the left side, with each session lasting about 3-4 minutes. The first session felt like I was learning to swim all over again. What I thought was a simple matter of turning my head to lift my mouth out of the water turned out to be insufficient. I discovered that when breathing from my right hand side, my left arm was actually pushing down to raise my upper body out of the water slightly. Training my right arm to do the same, in a similar motion, took some practice - and some mouths half full of water.
After a few sessions, the timing and technique started to come together, and I started feeling more proficient. It seems like it is one of those things that I'll never be quite as comfortable as I am on the right hand side - but if I practice left hand breathing for a week or so, I think I'll be good enough that I can incorporate it into my normal swimming. It'll have to go slow at first, until the timing becomes second nature enough that I can increase speed - but I think in the long term, it'll improve my swim time.
As far as why it is actually slower - every time you take a breath, energy is expended to do so. Not such a big deal when you are talking 50 yds, where you can just power through the inefficiency - but when talking about a long distance such as 1/2 mile or more, this extra energy adds up. Also - in order to time things correctly so that you can take a breath on the next stroke, I found I was ending up with half a lung full of air at all times - I was either forcefully inhaling, or forcefully exhaling at all times. With running and biking, the breathing is generally a bit slower because it can be.
As to why it contributes to not being able to swim straight, I suspect that in my swimming form, my right arm naturally has a shorter stroke length as a by product of being the arm that comes out of the water when I take a breath.
So, I've recently decided that I want to learn how to breath bilaterally - that is, on the right side during a right stroke, complete the left stroke, complete the right stroke, and breath again on the next left stroke. This will allow more time for oxygen to be removed from air in the lungs, and I think it should also result in a higher average amount of air in the lungs. Also, by alternating sides, anything that causes me to lose my heading from one side should be compensated by the other. This can ultimately lead to less of a need to sight myself during a tri swim, which means faster swim times.
I decided that this would be the perfect type of thing to take advantage of the endless pool for. I could set the power relatively low, and just concentrate on the motions and timing of breathing when my left arm comes out of the water. So that is what I did today. I didn't bother with a stop watch or the HR monitor because getting a cardio workout was not the point.
I ended up doing 4-5 sessions of breathing from the left side, with each session lasting about 3-4 minutes. The first session felt like I was learning to swim all over again. What I thought was a simple matter of turning my head to lift my mouth out of the water turned out to be insufficient. I discovered that when breathing from my right hand side, my left arm was actually pushing down to raise my upper body out of the water slightly. Training my right arm to do the same, in a similar motion, took some practice - and some mouths half full of water.
After a few sessions, the timing and technique started to come together, and I started feeling more proficient. It seems like it is one of those things that I'll never be quite as comfortable as I am on the right hand side - but if I practice left hand breathing for a week or so, I think I'll be good enough that I can incorporate it into my normal swimming. It'll have to go slow at first, until the timing becomes second nature enough that I can increase speed - but I think in the long term, it'll improve my swim time.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Webster Lake Triathlon - 6/21
After two days of rest following Thursdays 4 x 1 mile repeats, Sunday was the Webster Lake Triathlon. I signed up for it because it was a full sprint distance - 1/2 mile swim, 12 mile bike, and 3 mile run - as opposed to the Sudbury Triathlon which was quite a bit shorter.
The other major difference was that this one was an open water swim. I've never cared for swimming in lakes and ponds - always preferring the nice clean water of a pool. However, most triathlons are open water swims - and there can be something to be said about simply swimming from point A to point B, as opposed to up and back numerous times in a pool. So, this tri would be a good way to gain exposure to open water swimming (with wave based starts), as well as see how I could do in a full length sprint distance.
The days leading up to the event, the weather was looking like it was going to be rainy. Fortunately, the rain held off, and we just had overcast skies - so it definately could have been worse. My main fear leading up to the thing was not the rain itself - I couldn't care less about it raining while swimming or running - but the potential for slick roads during the bike. I knew that this course had a good windy downhill followed by a very sharp and immediate right hand turn. So my concern was someone wiping out right near me and taking me with them, or my own bike slipping on the wet pavement and me taking a digger at 30 mph. Of course, when something like that concerns me, it ends up being a non factor because I'm much more willing to lose a little time and ride the brakes to keep from slipping. I've been through the 'I should have listened to the little voice in my head' situation too many times.
So - here is the stat line from the race:
Age Group: M 30-34
Swim - Age Group Place: 23 (of 39)
Swim - Overall: 216 (of 444)
Swim - Time: 16:09
Swim HR (avg/end): 166/176
T1 - Time: 5:59
T1 - HR (avg/end): 158/167
Cycle - Age Group Place: 35 (of 39)
Cycle - Overall: 279 (of 444)
Cycle - Time: 43:17
Cycle - HR (avg/end): 161/160
T2 - Time: 1:21
T2 - HR (avg/end): 152/159
Run - Age Group Place: 27 (of 39)
Run - Overall: 173 (of 444)
Run - Time: 21:59
Run - HR (avg/end): 171/180
Overall - Age Group: 30 (of 39)
Overall - Total Field: 233 (of 444)
Overall - Time: 1:28:47
So:
- The swim was actually my best event with regards to my age group and overall. I'm reasonably happy about that, but I know I am capable of doing better. First of all, being an open water newbie, I found I was unable to swim in a straight line - I kept veering off to the right. If I could find a way to swim in more of a straight line, I'm certain I could knock off 30 seconds or more pretty easily.
- The T1 time was very slow. Getting out of the water, I was quite winded - and saw my HR up above 181 soon thereafter. I ended up walking for a fair amount of the T1 - which was about 1/4 mile away from the swim exit. Most people had a T1 time around 3-4 minutes. I wonder whether I'd have been better off keeping the HR up and recovering on the bike - while it may have added a minute or so to my overall bike time - I may have been able to take 2 minutes off of T1, gaining me a minute overall.
- My cycling ability sucks. There's just no way around that. I did ok on the first half, which had a good amount of uphill - but I was being passed quite a bit on the second half, especially the last 3-4 miles. It wasn't because I was tired - my avg HR of 161 is something I can sustain for a while - I think I just didn't want to overexert and pay for it on the run. Another part to my cycling sucking (in addition to the fact that I just dont do it enough) is that my bike is > 30 lbs. I felt like in the last few miles I was able to 'feel' the extra weight I was having to pull along, and that it was accounting for a fairly significant degree of the exertion I was putting out - maybe 30%.
- The run was the highlight of the whole thing, performance wise. First off, I knew that the transition from bike to run is difficult and your legs feel like dead weight. So I was mentally prepared for this. Second - I also knew that although it feels strange, it doesn't necessarily mean the body is working a lot harder then it would otherwise. In other words, the HR stays fairly reasonable, even though it feels like a lot more effort.
During the run, I maintained a high 160's to low 170's HR - a pace I knew I could maintain for the 3 miles. I also tried a couple mechanical changes to see what the effect would be. One of the changes was to try and increase my cadence - take shorter strides and take them more often. This is a form difference that I'm going to be looking to incorporate into my natural running form because it ends up being faster and lower impact. The second thing I did was to use my calf muscles a lot more. Instead of pushing off with my entire leg - including my quads and hamstrings - I tried to keep my upper leg as still as possible, and get much more of my forward motion from my calfs. Partially because my calfs hadn't really been used during the swim or the bike, but also because that takes better advantage of the motion of the ankle, and makes it do more of the work of running.
The end result of this? I was able to maintain well under 8 min/miles (around 7:25), and I was able to maintain pace much more efficiently and smoothly while going up hills. In fact, even though the course was relatively flat - the small hills were where I passed a good handful of people. Finally, I was still able to finish strong and able to increase pace for the last half mile or so. This was a big difference between this tri and the Sudbury one - at the end of that tri I was pretty much exhausted and had a much harder time on the run.
Overall - I'm quite content with my results, especially the run. It is nice to see improvement, since thats the area I've been concentrating on this year in preparation for the matahon. I have to remind myself that four weeks beforehand, I was barely able to move thanks to a back injury. That pretty much sapped all ability to train for the month leading up to the event - aside from a day of running mile repeats in the final week. With that in mind, I have to be pretty happy with the results. However I know I can do a good deal better - but at least I have a bar for next year.
The other major difference was that this one was an open water swim. I've never cared for swimming in lakes and ponds - always preferring the nice clean water of a pool. However, most triathlons are open water swims - and there can be something to be said about simply swimming from point A to point B, as opposed to up and back numerous times in a pool. So, this tri would be a good way to gain exposure to open water swimming (with wave based starts), as well as see how I could do in a full length sprint distance.
The days leading up to the event, the weather was looking like it was going to be rainy. Fortunately, the rain held off, and we just had overcast skies - so it definately could have been worse. My main fear leading up to the thing was not the rain itself - I couldn't care less about it raining while swimming or running - but the potential for slick roads during the bike. I knew that this course had a good windy downhill followed by a very sharp and immediate right hand turn. So my concern was someone wiping out right near me and taking me with them, or my own bike slipping on the wet pavement and me taking a digger at 30 mph. Of course, when something like that concerns me, it ends up being a non factor because I'm much more willing to lose a little time and ride the brakes to keep from slipping. I've been through the 'I should have listened to the little voice in my head' situation too many times.
So - here is the stat line from the race:
Age Group: M 30-34
Swim - Age Group Place: 23 (of 39)
Swim - Overall: 216 (of 444)
Swim - Time: 16:09
Swim HR (avg/end): 166/176
T1 - Time: 5:59
T1 - HR (avg/end): 158/167
Cycle - Age Group Place: 35 (of 39)
Cycle - Overall: 279 (of 444)
Cycle - Time: 43:17
Cycle - HR (avg/end): 161/160
T2 - Time: 1:21
T2 - HR (avg/end): 152/159
Run - Age Group Place: 27 (of 39)
Run - Overall: 173 (of 444)
Run - Time: 21:59
Run - HR (avg/end): 171/180
Overall - Age Group: 30 (of 39)
Overall - Total Field: 233 (of 444)
Overall - Time: 1:28:47
So:
- The swim was actually my best event with regards to my age group and overall. I'm reasonably happy about that, but I know I am capable of doing better. First of all, being an open water newbie, I found I was unable to swim in a straight line - I kept veering off to the right. If I could find a way to swim in more of a straight line, I'm certain I could knock off 30 seconds or more pretty easily.
- The T1 time was very slow. Getting out of the water, I was quite winded - and saw my HR up above 181 soon thereafter. I ended up walking for a fair amount of the T1 - which was about 1/4 mile away from the swim exit. Most people had a T1 time around 3-4 minutes. I wonder whether I'd have been better off keeping the HR up and recovering on the bike - while it may have added a minute or so to my overall bike time - I may have been able to take 2 minutes off of T1, gaining me a minute overall.
- My cycling ability sucks. There's just no way around that. I did ok on the first half, which had a good amount of uphill - but I was being passed quite a bit on the second half, especially the last 3-4 miles. It wasn't because I was tired - my avg HR of 161 is something I can sustain for a while - I think I just didn't want to overexert and pay for it on the run. Another part to my cycling sucking (in addition to the fact that I just dont do it enough) is that my bike is > 30 lbs. I felt like in the last few miles I was able to 'feel' the extra weight I was having to pull along, and that it was accounting for a fairly significant degree of the exertion I was putting out - maybe 30%.
- The run was the highlight of the whole thing, performance wise. First off, I knew that the transition from bike to run is difficult and your legs feel like dead weight. So I was mentally prepared for this. Second - I also knew that although it feels strange, it doesn't necessarily mean the body is working a lot harder then it would otherwise. In other words, the HR stays fairly reasonable, even though it feels like a lot more effort.
During the run, I maintained a high 160's to low 170's HR - a pace I knew I could maintain for the 3 miles. I also tried a couple mechanical changes to see what the effect would be. One of the changes was to try and increase my cadence - take shorter strides and take them more often. This is a form difference that I'm going to be looking to incorporate into my natural running form because it ends up being faster and lower impact. The second thing I did was to use my calf muscles a lot more. Instead of pushing off with my entire leg - including my quads and hamstrings - I tried to keep my upper leg as still as possible, and get much more of my forward motion from my calfs. Partially because my calfs hadn't really been used during the swim or the bike, but also because that takes better advantage of the motion of the ankle, and makes it do more of the work of running.
The end result of this? I was able to maintain well under 8 min/miles (around 7:25), and I was able to maintain pace much more efficiently and smoothly while going up hills. In fact, even though the course was relatively flat - the small hills were where I passed a good handful of people. Finally, I was still able to finish strong and able to increase pace for the last half mile or so. This was a big difference between this tri and the Sudbury one - at the end of that tri I was pretty much exhausted and had a much harder time on the run.
Overall - I'm quite content with my results, especially the run. It is nice to see improvement, since thats the area I've been concentrating on this year in preparation for the matahon. I have to remind myself that four weeks beforehand, I was barely able to move thanks to a back injury. That pretty much sapped all ability to train for the month leading up to the event - aside from a day of running mile repeats in the final week. With that in mind, I have to be pretty happy with the results. However I know I can do a good deal better - but at least I have a bar for next year.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
4 x 1 mile repeats (running) - 6/18
It seems that this week is where the hard work really begins. There was the 15 miler this past weekend, and the upcoming run this weekend is supposed to be 4 x 1 mile repeats. However, with the Webster Lake tri on Sunday, and a 17 miler the following week that I wanted to make sure I'm well rested for - I decided to do the mile repeats today.
According to Galloway, the distance of one mile for interval training (at 20 seconds per mile faster than the goal race pace) tends to be the best distance when training for distance races greater than 10k. There are multiple goals for these mile repeats. The first goal is that the mile distance, which is essentially 2 x 800m intervals strung together (the 800m distance is also a very common speed work distance), is a meld of the speed benefits gained from the 800m sessions and the running form used in marathons. Better running form is obtained by learning how to minimize extraneous movements, and maximizing overall efficiency in the mechanics of running. Another goal is the benefit of pacing - both mentally and physically. This coincides with doing mile repeats at 20 seconds/mile faster - but no more than that. If all your body has been exposed to during training is long slow distance and short fast intervals, the goal pace that would reside in between those two extremes could be a bit of a surprise to your muscles and oxygen delivery system, decreasing efficiency.
So for today's mile repeats, I just did the mile long loop (actually - 1.05 miles) around the house. This loop is about 1/2 mile of a very gentle downhill, about 1/4 mile of fairly flat, and then about 1/4 mile of a reasonable uphill (about 7%). I figured the hills at the end of the repeat would be a little bit of a kick in the ass. I seriously doubt I'll do all mile repeats in this same fashion - but I needed to start somewhere. Each repeat was followed by a 5 minute walk - from what Galloway says, the benefits gained from the mile repeat are the same whether you take a 400m walk break or an 800m walk break. Since I tend to walk a mile in about 15-20 minutes, 5 minutes falls somewhere between 400m and 800m.
(time, avg hr, end hr)
Warm up mile - 8:49
Rest 1 - 3:00, 125, 104
Repeat 1 - 7:06, 171, 177
Rest 2 - 5:00, 129, 113
Repeat 2 - 7:37, 170, 178
Rest 3 - 5:00, 130, 115
Repeat 3 - 7:51, 167, 177
Rest 4 - 5:00, 130, 119
Repeat 4 - 7:52, 167, 179
Rest 5 - 5:00, 130, 130
The first repeat was definately too fast - but being the first repeat, I didn't really have a good idea of the required pace. The second mile was still a bit fast, especially when we are talking about seconds here, and the mile loop is actually 1.05 miles - but it was much closer to the goal pace than the first one. The last two repeats were just about right on the money (actually, still a tad fast) - when adjusting for the .05 miles extra, they come in at about a 7:27 pace.
However, this is also including some grade. So while I'm pleased with having been able to meet the goal times - my next mile repeat workout should definately have some varied terrain that is more random.
According to Galloway, the distance of one mile for interval training (at 20 seconds per mile faster than the goal race pace) tends to be the best distance when training for distance races greater than 10k. There are multiple goals for these mile repeats. The first goal is that the mile distance, which is essentially 2 x 800m intervals strung together (the 800m distance is also a very common speed work distance), is a meld of the speed benefits gained from the 800m sessions and the running form used in marathons. Better running form is obtained by learning how to minimize extraneous movements, and maximizing overall efficiency in the mechanics of running. Another goal is the benefit of pacing - both mentally and physically. This coincides with doing mile repeats at 20 seconds/mile faster - but no more than that. If all your body has been exposed to during training is long slow distance and short fast intervals, the goal pace that would reside in between those two extremes could be a bit of a surprise to your muscles and oxygen delivery system, decreasing efficiency.
So for today's mile repeats, I just did the mile long loop (actually - 1.05 miles) around the house. This loop is about 1/2 mile of a very gentle downhill, about 1/4 mile of fairly flat, and then about 1/4 mile of a reasonable uphill (about 7%). I figured the hills at the end of the repeat would be a little bit of a kick in the ass. I seriously doubt I'll do all mile repeats in this same fashion - but I needed to start somewhere. Each repeat was followed by a 5 minute walk - from what Galloway says, the benefits gained from the mile repeat are the same whether you take a 400m walk break or an 800m walk break. Since I tend to walk a mile in about 15-20 minutes, 5 minutes falls somewhere between 400m and 800m.
(time, avg hr, end hr)
Warm up mile - 8:49
Rest 1 - 3:00, 125, 104
Repeat 1 - 7:06, 171, 177
Rest 2 - 5:00, 129, 113
Repeat 2 - 7:37, 170, 178
Rest 3 - 5:00, 130, 115
Repeat 3 - 7:51, 167, 177
Rest 4 - 5:00, 130, 119
Repeat 4 - 7:52, 167, 179
Rest 5 - 5:00, 130, 130
The first repeat was definately too fast - but being the first repeat, I didn't really have a good idea of the required pace. The second mile was still a bit fast, especially when we are talking about seconds here, and the mile loop is actually 1.05 miles - but it was much closer to the goal pace than the first one. The last two repeats were just about right on the money (actually, still a tad fast) - when adjusting for the .05 miles extra, they come in at about a 7:27 pace.
However, this is also including some grade. So while I'm pleased with having been able to meet the goal times - my next mile repeat workout should definately have some varied terrain that is more random.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
40 minute run - 6/16
The past few times I've run on Tuesdays after the 'long run' weekend, I've done some sort of higher intensity run - either a hill workout, or a tempo run. Since the 15 miler on Sunday was the longest run I've ever done, I thought it would be a good idea to take todays run a bit easy. So I did 40 minutes of an easy trail run.
Total Distance: ~4 miles
Total Time: 40:47
Avg HR: 145
The distance is unknown - being a trail run, its much more difficult to get a good idea of the distance covered, as trail maps are not very accurate. However with the HR well below 150, I figure I was doing probably 10 minute miles - so I think the 4 mile distance estimate is reasonable.
Total Distance: ~4 miles
Total Time: 40:47
Avg HR: 145
The distance is unknown - being a trail run, its much more difficult to get a good idea of the distance covered, as trail maps are not very accurate. However with the HR well below 150, I figure I was doing probably 10 minute miles - so I think the 4 mile distance estimate is reasonable.
Monday, June 15, 2009
18 minute swim - 6/15
Having just done a 1/2 mile swim on Saturday, with the approximate level of exertion relatively fresh in my mind as well as having some decent HR information, I thought I'd start trying to find some correlations with effort and speed in the endless pool vs a pool or open water. I knew without even trying that having the power setting at 40 would be too low. I also knew that 70 would be too much - as that is what my interval sessions are at. So I figured I'd split the difference, and start with 55.
Unfortunately, the endless pool has a tendency to drift and decrease over time. So, what I did was to set it to 60 in the beginning, figuring it would drift down to 55 after a few minutes.
So for this session, I just did an approximately equivalent amount of time as it took to do the 1/2 mile the other day - as I wanted to get some more exposure to swimming that kind of distance non stop.
Total Time: 18:37
Avg HR: 150
Power Setting (avg): 55
I found that after I finished up, the power setting had drifted down closer to 50 - so I'm estimating the average to have been 55. A few minutes after the start, I felt like the level of exertion was about similar to Saturday's swim - mildly uncomfortable, but definately sustainable. After probably 10-12 minutes, that went away and it became more a mental exercise. Just like running on a treadmill - I tend to get bored when there isn't something passing by (even turning at a wall every 50 yards does wonders for breaking the monotony). In retrospect, the physical exertion level probably felt like it decreased because it probably had - since the power setting drifted down to 50.
So in the end, with the avg HR of 150 vs 162 the other day, this was a decent start to getting a correlation. It's difficult because in a pool or open water, you have to propel yourself - whereas in an endless pool you just have to overcome friction. So the stroke cadence can be the same, but when propeling yourself more actual strength is required, which can drive up HR. I have a feeling that if I were to get a HR of 162 in the endless pool, it'd be at such a fast pace that it might be counter productive as it would be training my arms to swim at a pace that they'd be unable to maintain in a normal swim.
Unfortunately, the endless pool has a tendency to drift and decrease over time. So, what I did was to set it to 60 in the beginning, figuring it would drift down to 55 after a few minutes.
So for this session, I just did an approximately equivalent amount of time as it took to do the 1/2 mile the other day - as I wanted to get some more exposure to swimming that kind of distance non stop.
Total Time: 18:37
Avg HR: 150
Power Setting (avg): 55
I found that after I finished up, the power setting had drifted down closer to 50 - so I'm estimating the average to have been 55. A few minutes after the start, I felt like the level of exertion was about similar to Saturday's swim - mildly uncomfortable, but definately sustainable. After probably 10-12 minutes, that went away and it became more a mental exercise. Just like running on a treadmill - I tend to get bored when there isn't something passing by (even turning at a wall every 50 yards does wonders for breaking the monotony). In retrospect, the physical exertion level probably felt like it decreased because it probably had - since the power setting drifted down to 50.
So in the end, with the avg HR of 150 vs 162 the other day, this was a decent start to getting a correlation. It's difficult because in a pool or open water, you have to propel yourself - whereas in an endless pool you just have to overcome friction. So the stroke cadence can be the same, but when propeling yourself more actual strength is required, which can drive up HR. I have a feeling that if I were to get a HR of 162 in the endless pool, it'd be at such a fast pace that it might be counter productive as it would be training my arms to swim at a pace that they'd be unable to maintain in a normal swim.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
15 mile run - 6/14
I finally got out to do the 15 mile run, and get back on track with the marathon training. There are quite a few things that are worthy of mention from this run, so bear with me.
I decided that I'd do my 6 mile loop 2x, followed by my 3 mile loop afterwards. The reason for this (as opposed to the original 7.5 mile out and back I had been tossing around in my head about a month ago before the back injury) was that it would give me an opportunity to drop off one water bottle after about an hour and pick up the next. It would also give me an opportunity to abort the run if need be. Afterall, this is over a month since my last long run of 13 miles - and although things have been progressing well with the back, I still wanted to leave myself an out.
So when I first started out, I was a bit stiff. It wasn't long after waking up (when I'm usually a bit tight anyway) that I started off. I'm not sure whether I was still a little stiff from Thursdays tempo run, or from the short bike ride yesterday - but I'm guessing it was a combination of both. I stretched a bit after the first mile, and before too long, things had loosened up and I was on my way.
For these long runs, I've been following the run-walk strategy. I cannot definitively say that it results in a better time - as I have little to compare against. However, it definately makes things easier mentally. Since the point of these long runs is to improve aerobic capacity and NOT time, it becomes a way to force myself to slow down and keep from getting into and potentially staying in an aerobic exercise state. So in following the run-walk method, I basically stopped running at each mile marker, walked for 1 minute, and then started running again. So each mile essentially became a 1 minute walk plus the run time. There were a few exceptions - mile 1, mile 7 and mile 13 - as they had no 1 minute walk break beforehand.
The laps listed below are broken up into mile segments. For those grouped with a walk break, the total time for the entire mile segment is the combination of the walk plus the run (so, generally between 10-11 minutes/mile pace):
Mile 1 - 8:51, avg HR 142
Walk/stretch break - 1:00, end HR 115
Mile 2 - 9:12, avg HR 156
Walk break - 1:01, end HR 129
Mile 3 - 8:48, avg HR 151
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 120
Mile 4 - 9:59, avg HR 152
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 128
Mile 5 - 9:16, avg HR 151
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 125
Mile 6 - 9:19, avg HR 153
Walk/stretch break - 8:45, end HR 106
Mile 7 - 9:39, avg HR 143
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 129
Mile 8 - 8:41, avg HR 154
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 128
Mile 9 - 8:33, avg HR 153
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 127
Mile 10 - 9:45, avg HR 153
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 138
Mile 11 - 9:14, avg HR 152
Walk break - 1:02, end HR 124
Mile 12 - 9:00, avg HR 155
Walk/stretch break - 9:15, end HR 109
Mile 13 - 9:21, avg HR 150
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 133
Mile 14 - 9:38, avg HR 159
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 130
Mile 15 - 9:32, avg HR 158
Total Distance: 15 miles
Total Time: 2:49:05
Avg HR: 148
So there are a couple patterns I see looking at the above mile segments. First, since the 6 mile loop was done twice, it gives an opportunity to compare mile segments to see how performance differed from the first loop to the second. Since the HR information is available, it gives the ability to look not only at time, but also the true exertion level. In looking at this data, it is interesting that aside from the first mile, in every case the second time around the loop actually had a lower time than the first time around! The HR was very similar for each mile - plus/minus 2-3 bpm. Such a narrow range of HR difference, and the fact that the times were virtually identical tells me that I was maintaining effort in an exercise zone sustainable for that period of time (in this case, happens to be the aerobic zone). Another indication of maintaining in the aerobic zone was that the end HR after the one minute walk breaks were generally in the high 120's or low 130's - which I know from previous experience that this is when my body is 'rested up'. A look back at my last interval workout shows that after a hard effort interval - even after a full minute my HR was only able to get down to the 140's. In today's case, I was below 140 often within about 35-40 seconds.
Another pattern visible is that the mile segments that took more time (such as mile 3-4, and 9-10) did so on the same mile segments for both runs. In the case of these particular segments, there is a bit more uphill to overcome.
Finally, we start to see towards the end that the times get a bit longer, especially mile 14 and 15. In addition, the HR gets higher, starting to get into the low 160's (although the average stayed below 160). I started feeling more and more stiffness starting around mile 11, but my mile 14 and mile 15, my legs and hips were just about calling it a day. The fact that times got longer and HR increased tells me that at that point, my bodies ability to maintain the aerobic zone was coming to an end.
Last fall, I had noticed that after around an hour and twenty minutes of running, my hips would start to tighten up. Not anything debilitating - but it was a wall, of sorts - even if it wasn't too difficult to run through. My body was telling me something - that it had gone beyond its current level of comfortably fitness and was pushing back the boundaries of what it was capable of. Today, having started feeling this soreness around mile 11, this translated to about an hour and fifty minutes - an improvement of about 30 minutes. I think there are two major factors as to why this boundary got pushed back so far - one is simply conditioning, but I think the bigger factor is the walk breaks. By allowing my body to have a minute every now and again to rest up a bit, efficiently flush away metabolism byproducts such as lactic acid by drastically lowering production of them for a brief period of time, as well as any other variables that I'm not aware of - I can definately see why the run-walk method can translate to faster times. Each segment may be slightly slower - but the ability to maintain a consistent and predictable pace through a long distance run can definately trump the wall that so many people hit - where they start off an event like a marathon at 9 minute miles, but by the time they reach the 18-19 mile mark, they have gradually slowed down to 12 minute miles (for example)
I decided that I'd do my 6 mile loop 2x, followed by my 3 mile loop afterwards. The reason for this (as opposed to the original 7.5 mile out and back I had been tossing around in my head about a month ago before the back injury) was that it would give me an opportunity to drop off one water bottle after about an hour and pick up the next. It would also give me an opportunity to abort the run if need be. Afterall, this is over a month since my last long run of 13 miles - and although things have been progressing well with the back, I still wanted to leave myself an out.
So when I first started out, I was a bit stiff. It wasn't long after waking up (when I'm usually a bit tight anyway) that I started off. I'm not sure whether I was still a little stiff from Thursdays tempo run, or from the short bike ride yesterday - but I'm guessing it was a combination of both. I stretched a bit after the first mile, and before too long, things had loosened up and I was on my way.
For these long runs, I've been following the run-walk strategy. I cannot definitively say that it results in a better time - as I have little to compare against. However, it definately makes things easier mentally. Since the point of these long runs is to improve aerobic capacity and NOT time, it becomes a way to force myself to slow down and keep from getting into and potentially staying in an aerobic exercise state. So in following the run-walk method, I basically stopped running at each mile marker, walked for 1 minute, and then started running again. So each mile essentially became a 1 minute walk plus the run time. There were a few exceptions - mile 1, mile 7 and mile 13 - as they had no 1 minute walk break beforehand.
The laps listed below are broken up into mile segments. For those grouped with a walk break, the total time for the entire mile segment is the combination of the walk plus the run (so, generally between 10-11 minutes/mile pace):
Mile 1 - 8:51, avg HR 142
Walk/stretch break - 1:00, end HR 115
Mile 2 - 9:12, avg HR 156
Walk break - 1:01, end HR 129
Mile 3 - 8:48, avg HR 151
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 120
Mile 4 - 9:59, avg HR 152
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 128
Mile 5 - 9:16, avg HR 151
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 125
Mile 6 - 9:19, avg HR 153
Walk/stretch break - 8:45, end HR 106
Mile 7 - 9:39, avg HR 143
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 129
Mile 8 - 8:41, avg HR 154
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 128
Mile 9 - 8:33, avg HR 153
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 127
Mile 10 - 9:45, avg HR 153
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 138
Mile 11 - 9:14, avg HR 152
Walk break - 1:02, end HR 124
Mile 12 - 9:00, avg HR 155
Walk/stretch break - 9:15, end HR 109
Mile 13 - 9:21, avg HR 150
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 133
Mile 14 - 9:38, avg HR 159
Walk break - 1:00, end HR 130
Mile 15 - 9:32, avg HR 158
Total Distance: 15 miles
Total Time: 2:49:05
Avg HR: 148
So there are a couple patterns I see looking at the above mile segments. First, since the 6 mile loop was done twice, it gives an opportunity to compare mile segments to see how performance differed from the first loop to the second. Since the HR information is available, it gives the ability to look not only at time, but also the true exertion level. In looking at this data, it is interesting that aside from the first mile, in every case the second time around the loop actually had a lower time than the first time around! The HR was very similar for each mile - plus/minus 2-3 bpm. Such a narrow range of HR difference, and the fact that the times were virtually identical tells me that I was maintaining effort in an exercise zone sustainable for that period of time (in this case, happens to be the aerobic zone). Another indication of maintaining in the aerobic zone was that the end HR after the one minute walk breaks were generally in the high 120's or low 130's - which I know from previous experience that this is when my body is 'rested up'. A look back at my last interval workout shows that after a hard effort interval - even after a full minute my HR was only able to get down to the 140's. In today's case, I was below 140 often within about 35-40 seconds.
Another pattern visible is that the mile segments that took more time (such as mile 3-4, and 9-10) did so on the same mile segments for both runs. In the case of these particular segments, there is a bit more uphill to overcome.
Finally, we start to see towards the end that the times get a bit longer, especially mile 14 and 15. In addition, the HR gets higher, starting to get into the low 160's (although the average stayed below 160). I started feeling more and more stiffness starting around mile 11, but my mile 14 and mile 15, my legs and hips were just about calling it a day. The fact that times got longer and HR increased tells me that at that point, my bodies ability to maintain the aerobic zone was coming to an end.
Last fall, I had noticed that after around an hour and twenty minutes of running, my hips would start to tighten up. Not anything debilitating - but it was a wall, of sorts - even if it wasn't too difficult to run through. My body was telling me something - that it had gone beyond its current level of comfortably fitness and was pushing back the boundaries of what it was capable of. Today, having started feeling this soreness around mile 11, this translated to about an hour and fifty minutes - an improvement of about 30 minutes. I think there are two major factors as to why this boundary got pushed back so far - one is simply conditioning, but I think the bigger factor is the walk breaks. By allowing my body to have a minute every now and again to rest up a bit, efficiently flush away metabolism byproducts such as lactic acid by drastically lowering production of them for a brief period of time, as well as any other variables that I'm not aware of - I can definately see why the run-walk method can translate to faster times. Each segment may be slightly slower - but the ability to maintain a consistent and predictable pace through a long distance run can definately trump the wall that so many people hit - where they start off an event like a marathon at 9 minute miles, but by the time they reach the 18-19 mile mark, they have gradually slowed down to 12 minute miles (for example)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
12 mile bike ride - 6/13
It's been 3 weeks since my last bike ride. Still not completely sure what caused my back issues (I'm thinking the most likely scenario is tight hamstrings), I've been reluctant to jump back on the bike until as much time as possible has passed to allow maximum healing. However, at a certain point you have to get back on the horse, as they say. It seemed to me that a week before the Webster Lake Tri would be a good time - 3 weeks of healing, and 1 week of testing out the cycling waters so that I feel comfortable that there won't be a re-flareup on race day.
So today after the swim, my friend Dave and I did the bike course. I was mostly interested in two things: one was the hills that are on the course, as I've read they are a bit tough; twp was how my lower back and hips would feel after being on the bike - would they seize up like they still do when I've been in my car seat for 30 minutes or more?
The hills on the course were definately something to not take lightly - but they also weren't anything that a little patience with a low gear couldn't handle. The mapmyride.com web site indicates that a portion of the route is about a 4% grade, but it certainly seems a bit steeper, at least comparing that hill to other hills I've gone up. Either way - it was a good experience to see what the hills were like, as well as to see what the course was like - especially because after a downhill section where you can easily get > 30 mph, there is a hard right hand turn that kind of sneaks up on you. Having knowledge of where that hill is is good information to have.
After the ride was over, my lower back felt a little bit stiff. It's hard to say how much of that is residual due to my recent back issues, vs just being on a bicycle that naturally tends to stiffen the lower back a bit. Either way, though - transitioning to the run shouldn't be a hurdle that cannot be overcome, although I may end up taking a little extra time. It's hard to say - because I'm still noticing daily improvements with my lower back. But now that I think of it - maybe a good strategy would be to lie on my back while removing the cycling shoes and putting on the running shoes. That way I get my 30 seconds or so of lying on my back while still being productive.
Total Distance: 11.83 miles
Total Time: 44:18
Avg HR: 147
So today after the swim, my friend Dave and I did the bike course. I was mostly interested in two things: one was the hills that are on the course, as I've read they are a bit tough; twp was how my lower back and hips would feel after being on the bike - would they seize up like they still do when I've been in my car seat for 30 minutes or more?
The hills on the course were definately something to not take lightly - but they also weren't anything that a little patience with a low gear couldn't handle. The mapmyride.com web site indicates that a portion of the route is about a 4% grade, but it certainly seems a bit steeper, at least comparing that hill to other hills I've gone up. Either way - it was a good experience to see what the hills were like, as well as to see what the course was like - especially because after a downhill section where you can easily get > 30 mph, there is a hard right hand turn that kind of sneaks up on you. Having knowledge of where that hill is is good information to have.
After the ride was over, my lower back felt a little bit stiff. It's hard to say how much of that is residual due to my recent back issues, vs just being on a bicycle that naturally tends to stiffen the lower back a bit. Either way, though - transitioning to the run shouldn't be a hurdle that cannot be overcome, although I may end up taking a little extra time. It's hard to say - because I'm still noticing daily improvements with my lower back. But now that I think of it - maybe a good strategy would be to lie on my back while removing the cycling shoes and putting on the running shoes. That way I get my 30 seconds or so of lying on my back while still being productive.
Total Distance: 11.83 miles
Total Time: 44:18
Avg HR: 147
~ 0.45 mile open water swim - 6/13
The Webster Lake Triathlon is the first tri I'll be doing with an open water swim portion. I've never really liked lake or pond swimming, so there is a certain degree of psychological aversion I have to being 100% completely comfortable (scuba diving is a different story..). Plus, a few weeks ago I tested the waters of open water swimming in the Hopkinton Reservoir and found out I was experiencing a phenomenon known as 'cold water immersion' - which resulted in the reflex reaction of breathing in when my face was sumberged. Not good.
So - I really needed to get some practice in, and I also wanted to get a better idea of what the water temp would be - now that it is mid June. So today I met up with my friend Dave (who will be doing the tri with me - but he'll crush my performance in every event) and we did the swim portion. I was happy to find out that right away I was able to swim with no cold water immersion symptoms, and had no major issues with swimming in open water with the seaweed and other things that are in lakes and ponds that are not in chlorinated pools.
Total Distance: ~0.45 miles
Total Time: 17:29
Avg HR: 162 (peak 171)
So - I really needed to get some practice in, and I also wanted to get a better idea of what the water temp would be - now that it is mid June. So today I met up with my friend Dave (who will be doing the tri with me - but he'll crush my performance in every event) and we did the swim portion. I was happy to find out that right away I was able to swim with no cold water immersion symptoms, and had no major issues with swimming in open water with the seaweed and other things that are in lakes and ponds that are not in chlorinated pools.
Total Distance: ~0.45 miles
Total Time: 17:29
Avg HR: 162 (peak 171)
Thursday, June 11, 2009
6 mile tempo run - 6/11
I had no set plan in mind for what intensity levels I'd do various runs this week - the priority was just getting out and trying to build mileage back up so I can continue with the long runs as soon as possible. As it stands right now, if I were to do the 15 miler this weekend, I'd be right on the original training schedule (as opposed to the month ahead I started out with).
After the 5 mile run on Tuesday, and still feeling improvement day by day with the back, I decided that I'd do a 6 mile tempo run today to start re-establishing some speed. I had originally thought I might make todays run something a bit longer like 9-10 miles as further build up - but if I wanted to do 15 miles this weekend, I'd probably be better off with something shorter today. Plus, I wanted to see how I'd fare adding some distance to my previous tempo runs of 5 miles, where I was able to do sub 8 min/miles for the entire distance.
My 'goal' was to see how close to an 8 min/mile (the only real basis I have for a tempo run) I could maintain for the entire 6 miles. When I started off, I went the first few hundred yards a bit quicky - the classic rookie mistake. I quickly realized the faulty logic, and forced myself to slow down - knowing that even if I did a 9 minute mile on the first mile, I'd be MUCH better off in the long run by starting a bit slower and should be able to make up that lost minute.
I passed the first mile marker around 8 minutes, and then walked for 30 seconds. I then started off again - passing the 2 mile mark around 16 minutes. That meant I did the next mile in about 7:30 - which was my magic mile time back in the beginning of April. I realized this as I passed the two mile mark, and was pleased at this - because it was a definitive indication that I had improved quite a bit in the two months time. I then ran to about the 4.3 mile mark, and stopped to walk for a minute - I had just finished a half mile hill, and my HR was pushing the high 170's for a few minutes, and I didn't want to overdo it. The total time at this point was 34:39 - so my pace was an average of about 8:04 min/mile. The segment between the end of mile 1 and the 4.3 mile mark was 26:06, so that 3.3 miles had a pace of 7:55 min/mile. The remainder of the run was done in a total of 14:22, and the distance was the 1.7 miles left - so an average pace of 8:27 min/mile during that last bit.
Total Distance: 6 miles
Total Time: 49:01
Avg HR: 166
Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the run. For one thing, its a dramatic improvement from last weekend - and while it can be expected that after a few burn-in runs after a short period of time off, it is still nice to actually progress through it. Second, it is by far the best time I've had for that loop thus far - so while the two weeks off set me back a bit, I seem to be bouncing back pretty quickly as I am able to sustain a moderately high HR for an extended period of time, while maintaining good speed (for me).
On the other hand - if I am going to do the marathon in 3:30, I have to repeat that, plus add another 20.2 miles to it while maintaining the same pace. Now that there is funny - I don't care who you are!
After the 5 mile run on Tuesday, and still feeling improvement day by day with the back, I decided that I'd do a 6 mile tempo run today to start re-establishing some speed. I had originally thought I might make todays run something a bit longer like 9-10 miles as further build up - but if I wanted to do 15 miles this weekend, I'd probably be better off with something shorter today. Plus, I wanted to see how I'd fare adding some distance to my previous tempo runs of 5 miles, where I was able to do sub 8 min/miles for the entire distance.
My 'goal' was to see how close to an 8 min/mile (the only real basis I have for a tempo run) I could maintain for the entire 6 miles. When I started off, I went the first few hundred yards a bit quicky - the classic rookie mistake. I quickly realized the faulty logic, and forced myself to slow down - knowing that even if I did a 9 minute mile on the first mile, I'd be MUCH better off in the long run by starting a bit slower and should be able to make up that lost minute.
I passed the first mile marker around 8 minutes, and then walked for 30 seconds. I then started off again - passing the 2 mile mark around 16 minutes. That meant I did the next mile in about 7:30 - which was my magic mile time back in the beginning of April. I realized this as I passed the two mile mark, and was pleased at this - because it was a definitive indication that I had improved quite a bit in the two months time. I then ran to about the 4.3 mile mark, and stopped to walk for a minute - I had just finished a half mile hill, and my HR was pushing the high 170's for a few minutes, and I didn't want to overdo it. The total time at this point was 34:39 - so my pace was an average of about 8:04 min/mile. The segment between the end of mile 1 and the 4.3 mile mark was 26:06, so that 3.3 miles had a pace of 7:55 min/mile. The remainder of the run was done in a total of 14:22, and the distance was the 1.7 miles left - so an average pace of 8:27 min/mile during that last bit.
Total Distance: 6 miles
Total Time: 49:01
Avg HR: 166
Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the run. For one thing, its a dramatic improvement from last weekend - and while it can be expected that after a few burn-in runs after a short period of time off, it is still nice to actually progress through it. Second, it is by far the best time I've had for that loop thus far - so while the two weeks off set me back a bit, I seem to be bouncing back pretty quickly as I am able to sustain a moderately high HR for an extended period of time, while maintaining good speed (for me).
On the other hand - if I am going to do the marathon in 3:30, I have to repeat that, plus add another 20.2 miles to it while maintaining the same pace. Now that there is funny - I don't care who you are!
Swimming: intervals @ 70/60 - 6/10
The past few interval swimming sessions, I had done six intervals, and this time I was determined to do a couple more. I debated whether to keep the power setting same as last time (65 throughout), but instead opted to go with the setting of 70 for a few intervals, and then lowering the power as needed to be able to finish the 8 I had set out to do.
It ended up being that the first 3 intervals were at 70, and then I went with 3 at 60, then back up to 70 for the next one, followed by the last one at 60. Each interval had 1 minute of rest in between.
Below are the times, power setting and end of interval heart rates (exception being the warm up, which was an average)
Lap 1 - 5:56, 50, 141
Lap 2 - 2:02, 70, 168
Lap 3 - 2:02, 70, 172
Lap 4 - 2:00, 70, 170
Lap 5 - 2:02, 60, 166
Lap 6 - 2:02, 60, 165
Lap 7 - 2:03, 60, 167
Lap 8 - 1:29, 70, 174
Lap 9 - 2:05, 60, 169
It ended up being that the first 3 intervals were at 70, and then I went with 3 at 60, then back up to 70 for the next one, followed by the last one at 60. Each interval had 1 minute of rest in between.
Below are the times, power setting and end of interval heart rates (exception being the warm up, which was an average)
Lap 1 - 5:56, 50, 141
Lap 2 - 2:02, 70, 168
Lap 3 - 2:02, 70, 172
Lap 4 - 2:00, 70, 170
Lap 5 - 2:02, 60, 166
Lap 6 - 2:02, 60, 165
Lap 7 - 2:03, 60, 167
Lap 8 - 1:29, 70, 174
Lap 9 - 2:05, 60, 169
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
5 Mile run - 6/9
After a couple 3 mile runs this past weekend to test the waters on readiness to start running again, I felt like today I should be able to handle upping the mileage a bit. So I did my 5 mile loop.
I definately felt much stronger than I did on Saturday when I did the initial 3 mile test run. In that run, my legs felt fatigued rather quickly (like half way through) and my HR was pretty high in the high 160's. For a 9 min/mile pace, that was definately a shock.
Today though, my HR was much more normal and my legs felt pretty strong throughout the whole run.
Total Distance: 5.25 miles
Total Time: 46:21
Avg HR: 158
Once I looked at the numbers, I have to say I'm rather pleased. The times aren't anything spectacular - but they aren't nearly as far off as I had thought they might be. It's a similar HR and 1 minute faster than the same run I had done at the beginning of May. Any other trips on the 5 mile loop since that time have been either fast tempo runs, or intervals - neither of which provide a good comparison.
I definately felt much stronger than I did on Saturday when I did the initial 3 mile test run. In that run, my legs felt fatigued rather quickly (like half way through) and my HR was pretty high in the high 160's. For a 9 min/mile pace, that was definately a shock.
Today though, my HR was much more normal and my legs felt pretty strong throughout the whole run.
Total Distance: 5.25 miles
Total Time: 46:21
Avg HR: 158
Once I looked at the numbers, I have to say I'm rather pleased. The times aren't anything spectacular - but they aren't nearly as far off as I had thought they might be. It's a similar HR and 1 minute faster than the same run I had done at the beginning of May. Any other trips on the 5 mile loop since that time have been either fast tempo runs, or intervals - neither of which provide a good comparison.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Intervals: swimming 6/8
Today I decided to set the power back to 65 for my intervals, as I haven't been able to keep up with the power setting of 70 for all six intervals over the past couple days. So the first goal with this was to maintain the same speed for all six intervals, but I also wanted to see about stretching it to 8 intervals and getting a little more work in.
As before, all intervals were for two minutes, with a one minute rest in between - and HR are end-of-interval rates.
Warm Up: 4:56 / 116
Lap 1: 1:59 / 159
Lap 2: 2:02 / 164
Lap 3: 1:57 / 167
Lap 4: 2:00 / 169
Lap 5: 2:00 / 170
Lap 6: 1:58 / 175
As before, all intervals were for two minutes, with a one minute rest in between - and HR are end-of-interval rates.
Warm Up: 4:56 / 116
Lap 1: 1:59 / 159
Lap 2: 2:02 / 164
Lap 3: 1:57 / 167
Lap 4: 2:00 / 169
Lap 5: 2:00 / 170
Lap 6: 1:58 / 175
Intervals: swimming 6/7
Previously, the maximum power setting limit I could use on the endless pool with the HR monitor was about 60 - and even that was with the strap on pretty tight. I tried a couple times at 70, but it would just slide too far off and be unable to get a reading. So any time I had done intervals recently, I just didn't bother to use the HR monitor.
This morning I got a swimming top (actually, a triathlon top - but whatever). I wanted something that would help keep the strap from being exposed to the counter current (which was the main reason why it wouldn't stay in place), but it can also double as a top that I can wear during all three events of a triathlon. So with the top, I can now get some HR information during these interval swim workouts.
Todays workout was three intervals at 70, followed by three intervals at 60, with one minute rest in between (except for after the third interval, where I took 90 seconds rest). Heart rates given are end-of-interval rates, as opposed to average.
Warm up: 4:57
Lap 1: 1:58 / N/A
Lap 2: 1:59 / 176
Lap 3: 1:59 / 181
Lap 4: 1:59 / 172
Lap 5: 1:57 / 172
Lap 6: 2:05 / 175
This morning I got a swimming top (actually, a triathlon top - but whatever). I wanted something that would help keep the strap from being exposed to the counter current (which was the main reason why it wouldn't stay in place), but it can also double as a top that I can wear during all three events of a triathlon. So with the top, I can now get some HR information during these interval swim workouts.
Todays workout was three intervals at 70, followed by three intervals at 60, with one minute rest in between (except for after the third interval, where I took 90 seconds rest). Heart rates given are end-of-interval rates, as opposed to average.
Warm up: 4:57
Lap 1: 1:58 / N/A
Lap 2: 1:59 / 176
Lap 3: 1:59 / 181
Lap 4: 1:59 / 172
Lap 5: 1:57 / 172
Lap 6: 2:05 / 175
Sunday, June 7, 2009
3 Mile run - 6/6 and 6/7
On Friday, I did a short one mile run to test the waters with getting back into the activity. After speaking with my doctor on Thursday, he recommended starting back slowly - and suggested a very short 1/2 mile for starters just to make sure that the pounding of running wouldn't shred any nerve or something that might be pinched in a way that could be aggrevated. I ended up going for a bit longer, because things felt perfectly fine after 1/2 mile, so I figured I'd go another 1/2 mile. At that point, I forced myself to stop, as I had already gone much further than was suggested. The plan was to do a short run on the first day, and then see how things felt the following day (as sometimes it can take 12 hours or so for an injury or something to really start showing itself). I didn't bother to time the run or get HR information because that kind of data was so insignificant to the purpose of the run that it just doesn't matter.
Saturday came, and I felt pretty good - so I decided to start lengthening the distance to build back up. Just about anyone would agree that after two weeks off with a moderate lower back injury that required several days of bedrest, continuing right back on my marathon training schedule (which would be 15 miles) is stupid. So I decided that I'll spend this week slowly building up the mileage. My running this year has been three times a week so far, but I figure with more frequent shorter runs (three miles one day, maybe five the next, then a day of rest, then maybe six miles two days in a row) runs over the next seven days, I can allow more time for the final touches of the healing process to be applied, as well as build up my endurance again.
So on Saturday I started with my three mile loop. During the run, my back felt pretty good - not perfect - but pretty good. It was obvious that three miles was probably a good distance to go with. I also noticed that while my legs weren't really fatigued, my breathing was a bit labored, and my HR seemed high. It was just interesting that it appears as though my breathing and oxygen absorption seemed to be set back further then the muscles in my legs.
Total Distance: 3.04 miles
Total Time: 27:14
Avg HR: 169
Saturday evening, I spent a lot of time sitting, as we went to a friends wedding in Connecticut. I ended up having to take some advil, because my hamstrings were tightening up and causing some discomfort - so I'm definately glad I didn't go further than the three miles.
This morning (Sunday) I awoke and although my back was stiff, it seemed to have fared well with yesterdays run - as it certainly didn't seem any worse off for the effort. However, considering the fact that post-run on Saturday I experienced a little more discomfort than I was anticipating, I decided to hold off on my original plan of doing five miles today, and just repeat the three. Depending on how tomorrow goes, I may either end up taking a full running rest day, or do the five miles.
Total Time: 27:52
Total Distance: 3.04 miles
Avg HR: 165
The HR is high for both runs, but then again, both days it was mid-day at a time of year when the weather is getting hotter (into the 80's). So the heat accounts for some of it. The majority, though, is just the fact that I haven't run in two full weeks - or done any sort of exercise at all. I'm sure the HR will come down, but it'll likely take a week or two. I'm less worried about that than I am the ability for me to run without aggrevating the back too much - as I believe I'm finding that the healed injury is tighter and less flexible than it was originally. So I won't be surprised if it ends up taking a month or more for any minor soreness to go away.
Saturday came, and I felt pretty good - so I decided to start lengthening the distance to build back up. Just about anyone would agree that after two weeks off with a moderate lower back injury that required several days of bedrest, continuing right back on my marathon training schedule (which would be 15 miles) is stupid. So I decided that I'll spend this week slowly building up the mileage. My running this year has been three times a week so far, but I figure with more frequent shorter runs (three miles one day, maybe five the next, then a day of rest, then maybe six miles two days in a row) runs over the next seven days, I can allow more time for the final touches of the healing process to be applied, as well as build up my endurance again.
So on Saturday I started with my three mile loop. During the run, my back felt pretty good - not perfect - but pretty good. It was obvious that three miles was probably a good distance to go with. I also noticed that while my legs weren't really fatigued, my breathing was a bit labored, and my HR seemed high. It was just interesting that it appears as though my breathing and oxygen absorption seemed to be set back further then the muscles in my legs.
Total Distance: 3.04 miles
Total Time: 27:14
Avg HR: 169
Saturday evening, I spent a lot of time sitting, as we went to a friends wedding in Connecticut. I ended up having to take some advil, because my hamstrings were tightening up and causing some discomfort - so I'm definately glad I didn't go further than the three miles.
This morning (Sunday) I awoke and although my back was stiff, it seemed to have fared well with yesterdays run - as it certainly didn't seem any worse off for the effort. However, considering the fact that post-run on Saturday I experienced a little more discomfort than I was anticipating, I decided to hold off on my original plan of doing five miles today, and just repeat the three. Depending on how tomorrow goes, I may either end up taking a full running rest day, or do the five miles.
Total Time: 27:52
Total Distance: 3.04 miles
Avg HR: 165
The HR is high for both runs, but then again, both days it was mid-day at a time of year when the weather is getting hotter (into the 80's). So the heat accounts for some of it. The majority, though, is just the fact that I haven't run in two full weeks - or done any sort of exercise at all. I'm sure the HR will come down, but it'll likely take a week or two. I'm less worried about that than I am the ability for me to run without aggrevating the back too much - as I believe I'm finding that the healed injury is tighter and less flexible than it was originally. So I won't be surprised if it ends up taking a month or more for any minor soreness to go away.
Swimming: intervals - 6/3 & 6/5
On Wednesday, I although I was still a ways away from feeling anywhere near 100%, I was feeling well enough to start back on some swimming intervals. The near weightlessness of swimming actually provides a bit of a break for my back, and the twisting motion helps with blood flow. At least - I think it does.
On 6/3 I did six intervals, the first two at a power setting of 70, followed by four at a power setting of 60. I just didn't have the strength to continue with four more intervals at a setting of 70. All intervals were for two minutes, followed by a minute of rest in between.
On 6/5 I did six more intervals, but this time I was able to keep the power setting at 70 for all six intervals. Once again, the intervals were for two minutes, followed by a minute of rest in between. It was good news for me to be able to maintain the power setting at 70 for all intervals - while I'm sure I lost a step with two weeks of inactivity, it was encouraging to see the rate of bounce back.
On 6/3 I did six intervals, the first two at a power setting of 70, followed by four at a power setting of 60. I just didn't have the strength to continue with four more intervals at a setting of 70. All intervals were for two minutes, followed by a minute of rest in between.
On 6/5 I did six more intervals, but this time I was able to keep the power setting at 70 for all six intervals. Once again, the intervals were for two minutes, followed by a minute of rest in between. It was good news for me to be able to maintain the power setting at 70 for all intervals - while I'm sure I lost a step with two weeks of inactivity, it was encouraging to see the rate of bounce back.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Getting back in the saddle
It's been a couple weeks since my last post. Thats because I've spent the better part of two weeks on my back and unable to do any exercise thanks to a sprained ligament or tendon in my lower back as a result from the bike ride the other week.
I have no idea what I did or how it happened, but there are a few thoughts - none of which hold a whole lot of water. More on that later, though.
First - in retrospect, there were signs something was wrong right away. When I got off the bike, my lower back was very tight. At the time, I assumed it was just normal soreness from having been hunched over for a few hours. Over the next few hours, the tightness increased, and it started becoming a little bit more painful.
By the next day, if it was general soreness, things should have gotten better. They didn't. The following evening it was starting to become actively painful. Sitting in my car, and going from a sitting to standing position was getting extremely uncomfortable. I thought that I must have tweaked my back in a way that I've done a couple times in the past, where applying heat helped, but in general didn't really debilitate me all that much. In those instances, within a short time I would literally feel something in my lower back snap back into place, and all was well. Oddly enough, that following evening when it was actively painful, we went to see a movie, and I made a conscious effort to keep my back nice and straight. The ride home was completely comfortable, and I went to bed pain free. I thought I was passed the worst of it.
Sunday morning I awoke to a stiff lower back again, and one that was constantly painful. I took a couple advil, but that didn't seem to help. I also noticed that my hip was way out of line - I'd stand straight and it looked like I was kicking my hip out to the left. This resulted in my right leg being noticably shorter - about 3/4" - than my left. Throughout that day, I found sitting to be more and more painful, and had a few instances where I would try to stand up, and literally couldn't because the pain was so intense during that transition.
Monday (Memorial day) came, and I had to head out to Ohio for work. I'm not sure how I did it, but I somehow managed to deal with luggage, driving to the airport, going through security, waiting for the plane (it was delayed), sitting in the plane, and then getting to the hotel in Baltimore where I was stuck for the night thanks to missing a connection. Monday night began the most painful 24 hours of my life. Between not sleeping well that night, not being able to get comfortable at all, having to wake up early the next day to catch a flight to Ohio, going through the airport and sitting in an airplane again (which not only have uncomfortable seats for the lower back, but you're also very constrained and cannot move around much to get more comfortable), having to drive 2 hours to the customer site (remember, sitting was painful for me at this point), and then having to put in a full day of work - I was in real rough shape Tuesday night. I ended up calling my doctor Tuesday afternoon to try and make an appointment - something was wrong and I needed to find out why. He told me to take 800 mg of ibuprofin for 5 days, and see if the issue just goes away.
That Tuesday evening, I started taking the ibuprofin. A few hours later, I finally got some relief from the pain. It was at this point that I found that lying down was relatively pain free - basically, if I kept pressure off my back, I was in much better shape.
So the next couple days I stayed loaded up on Advil, and things were somewhat better. Still painful, but I returned home on Wednesday and was able to work from home Thursday and Friday while lying on the couch. Improvement was very slow, almost imperceptable.
As luck would have it, I needed to travel for work on the following Monday and Tuesdaay as well. By Sunday evening, after having spent a good 4 days on my back, I was feeling quite a bit better, and had learned how to compensate for most daily activities (putting on socks, tying shoes, drying off after the shower, etc) without stressing the painful area of my back. So while I was still not anywhere close to all better, I was managing.
Monday night to Tuesday was a real turning point. The amount that I would fidget when sitting down, and the amount of pain I would be in when standing went down noticably between those two days. I still ended up making an appointment with my doctor for later in the week - because improvement had still been very slow that I was concerned about something more than soft tissue damage.
Each day since Tuesday had seen major improvements (funnily enough, one of the best indicators was the increased ease at which I was able to put my socks on in the morning), with Wednesday being the first day I felt definitively better than 50%.
On Thursday I went to the doctor, and the verdict was a sprained ligament. As things have healed, I've been able to identify where I think the injury is - just to the right of the lower back, where the back muscle attaches to the hip. At this point, that is the only place where soreness exists. I think what happened was that the tissue got damaged on the right hand side, and the left hand side of the back tensed up (which I could feel) to provide support that the right hand side couldn't (a form of a defense mechanism against causing further damage). Due to the constant tension, my hip got pulled way out of whack, which explains why it looked like it was kicked out. Then, the inflammation around the injury was putting pressure on and pinching nerves, which did their part to scream 'OW!' and also possibly cause other secondary muscle spasms.
So - at this point, I'd say I'm 90% of the way back to normal. I still find that my hip is out of alignment if I've been sitting for a while (it really depends on the seat/chair), and there is some general soreness near the area of the injury. But after 2 weeks - I'm just damn glad I can move around for most daily activities.
As far as what caused this whole mess - as I said before, I'm not entirely sure. It wasn't a longer or more intense ride then any other I've done this year. So it's not really an obvious case of doing too much too soon. There was this one incident on the way back where I almost fell, but I managed to get my foot out of the pedal and get my hand down to keep me from completely spilling over. It's possible that reflex action in that case made the muscles tense up so much that they actually caused damage. Another possibility is that I took a 45 minute break - perhaps that was enough for my already normally tight hamstrings to get just a little too tight, pull more on my pelvis then normal, and during the ride back there was simply a lot of tension between my pelvis and my back muscle. The third possibility - just a freak thing. I mean, even pro athletes who do the same moves 10,000 times end up once in a while having a freak accident.
I have no idea what I did or how it happened, but there are a few thoughts - none of which hold a whole lot of water. More on that later, though.
First - in retrospect, there were signs something was wrong right away. When I got off the bike, my lower back was very tight. At the time, I assumed it was just normal soreness from having been hunched over for a few hours. Over the next few hours, the tightness increased, and it started becoming a little bit more painful.
By the next day, if it was general soreness, things should have gotten better. They didn't. The following evening it was starting to become actively painful. Sitting in my car, and going from a sitting to standing position was getting extremely uncomfortable. I thought that I must have tweaked my back in a way that I've done a couple times in the past, where applying heat helped, but in general didn't really debilitate me all that much. In those instances, within a short time I would literally feel something in my lower back snap back into place, and all was well. Oddly enough, that following evening when it was actively painful, we went to see a movie, and I made a conscious effort to keep my back nice and straight. The ride home was completely comfortable, and I went to bed pain free. I thought I was passed the worst of it.
Sunday morning I awoke to a stiff lower back again, and one that was constantly painful. I took a couple advil, but that didn't seem to help. I also noticed that my hip was way out of line - I'd stand straight and it looked like I was kicking my hip out to the left. This resulted in my right leg being noticably shorter - about 3/4" - than my left. Throughout that day, I found sitting to be more and more painful, and had a few instances where I would try to stand up, and literally couldn't because the pain was so intense during that transition.
Monday (Memorial day) came, and I had to head out to Ohio for work. I'm not sure how I did it, but I somehow managed to deal with luggage, driving to the airport, going through security, waiting for the plane (it was delayed), sitting in the plane, and then getting to the hotel in Baltimore where I was stuck for the night thanks to missing a connection. Monday night began the most painful 24 hours of my life. Between not sleeping well that night, not being able to get comfortable at all, having to wake up early the next day to catch a flight to Ohio, going through the airport and sitting in an airplane again (which not only have uncomfortable seats for the lower back, but you're also very constrained and cannot move around much to get more comfortable), having to drive 2 hours to the customer site (remember, sitting was painful for me at this point), and then having to put in a full day of work - I was in real rough shape Tuesday night. I ended up calling my doctor Tuesday afternoon to try and make an appointment - something was wrong and I needed to find out why. He told me to take 800 mg of ibuprofin for 5 days, and see if the issue just goes away.
That Tuesday evening, I started taking the ibuprofin. A few hours later, I finally got some relief from the pain. It was at this point that I found that lying down was relatively pain free - basically, if I kept pressure off my back, I was in much better shape.
So the next couple days I stayed loaded up on Advil, and things were somewhat better. Still painful, but I returned home on Wednesday and was able to work from home Thursday and Friday while lying on the couch. Improvement was very slow, almost imperceptable.
As luck would have it, I needed to travel for work on the following Monday and Tuesdaay as well. By Sunday evening, after having spent a good 4 days on my back, I was feeling quite a bit better, and had learned how to compensate for most daily activities (putting on socks, tying shoes, drying off after the shower, etc) without stressing the painful area of my back. So while I was still not anywhere close to all better, I was managing.
Monday night to Tuesday was a real turning point. The amount that I would fidget when sitting down, and the amount of pain I would be in when standing went down noticably between those two days. I still ended up making an appointment with my doctor for later in the week - because improvement had still been very slow that I was concerned about something more than soft tissue damage.
Each day since Tuesday had seen major improvements (funnily enough, one of the best indicators was the increased ease at which I was able to put my socks on in the morning), with Wednesday being the first day I felt definitively better than 50%.
On Thursday I went to the doctor, and the verdict was a sprained ligament. As things have healed, I've been able to identify where I think the injury is - just to the right of the lower back, where the back muscle attaches to the hip. At this point, that is the only place where soreness exists. I think what happened was that the tissue got damaged on the right hand side, and the left hand side of the back tensed up (which I could feel) to provide support that the right hand side couldn't (a form of a defense mechanism against causing further damage). Due to the constant tension, my hip got pulled way out of whack, which explains why it looked like it was kicked out. Then, the inflammation around the injury was putting pressure on and pinching nerves, which did their part to scream 'OW!' and also possibly cause other secondary muscle spasms.
So - at this point, I'd say I'm 90% of the way back to normal. I still find that my hip is out of alignment if I've been sitting for a while (it really depends on the seat/chair), and there is some general soreness near the area of the injury. But after 2 weeks - I'm just damn glad I can move around for most daily activities.
As far as what caused this whole mess - as I said before, I'm not entirely sure. It wasn't a longer or more intense ride then any other I've done this year. So it's not really an obvious case of doing too much too soon. There was this one incident on the way back where I almost fell, but I managed to get my foot out of the pedal and get my hand down to keep me from completely spilling over. It's possible that reflex action in that case made the muscles tense up so much that they actually caused damage. Another possibility is that I took a 45 minute break - perhaps that was enough for my already normally tight hamstrings to get just a little too tight, pull more on my pelvis then normal, and during the ride back there was simply a lot of tension between my pelvis and my back muscle. The third possibility - just a freak thing. I mean, even pro athletes who do the same moves 10,000 times end up once in a while having a freak accident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)