Thursday, January 18, 2007

What doesn't kill me...

Got out for a "recovery" run today lunchtime. I headed from my office over to Gosho (the Imperial Guesthouse). I just ran at a relaxed pace, which began at around 5:00/km and peaked at around 4:40/km. Oh, there was that one little downhill where I let fly for 100 m or so and smiled as I saw the pace readout on my watch say 3:09/km. Ha ha ... it was fun. It would have truly been a nice recovery run if I'd stopped at two laps (around 8 km total). But no, I had to go and run another lap didn't I. No damage or anything, but with 11.4 km all up I am feeling a little more fatigued now than I should be (but think of the adddition to the weekly mileage!)

I also spent a bit of time wrassling with Bloglines and learned how to add a Blogroll, which you should now see over at the right. It lists all the Namban Rengo bloggers. Please let me know if you notice any omissions.

8 comments:

Marco said...

Hi Stephen,

You have got an interesting blog.

>pace readout on my watch say 3:09/km

I have always been wondering how accurate this kind of function on running watches is. What is your experience? Which model are you using?

Regards,
Marco

Stephen Lacey said...

Hi Marco, thanks for dropping in and the nice comment. I am using a Polar RS200SD. The accuracy depends on how well you have the footpod calibrated - and you need to make periodic checks on that by comparing its measured distance against known routes. Mine is working pretty well at the moment. Because there is averaging over the previous 10, 20, 30 m and so on, the instantaneous readouts can be a little inaccurate. I feel that I have to have been running at a fairly steady pace for at least 30 m or more before I put much weight on the instantaneous readout. In the case I mentioned in my post, it was probably about right -- but I would never make a categorical statement that I was running at such and such a pace based on the instantaneous readout. In the post, I said that was the readout, not that I was necessarily running at that pace. The main thing was that I was going pretty quick as it is a steepish downhill and I let fly.
Steve

Tesso said...

You seem to be getting so much stronger as the marathon draws closer.

I reckon you will have a great race. As Kath would say ... "I can feel it in me waters" ;-)

Ewen said...

4:40 - 5 is too fast Steve. One day you'll learn how to do a recovery run.

Stephen Lacey said...

Ouch .. Ewen you are harsh. But probably right. But let me say this in defence. I was mainly basing my effort on heart rate and also perceived effort. I never once pushed teh pace except for the little burst down the hill. While heart rate did get up a bit on some of the uphills, in general I was never above 135 and the average for the entire run was 134. That's only 72% of HRmax, so I think it is pretty much squarely in recovery territory. I thought that if I did anything wrong it was bite off that last lap. It's marathon training though, and inevitably I think you do need to make a few calculated risks. We'll see.

Ewen said...

Yes, I probably was just a bit harsh. My recovery runs are at 75% of max, but then again, I don't have the marathon fitness which would get the HR lower.

Your pace was about 20% over marathon race pace. Comparing this to elite male runners (although this is risky), it would have them doing recovery runs at 3:38/km pace. I think most of them would run slower - 35 to 40% (or even more for some runs) over marathon race pace.

P.S. Heaps of my feeds are buggered again [!] Bloody blogger!

Stephen Lacey said...

Ewen, you're right of course. McMillan classifies my run and the 3:38/km elite marathoners run as "easy run" rather than recovery jog. I suppose this is really what I should have called my run because I don't think the previous evening's effort justified a trued recovery jog. That would be the real issue we should discuss. I thought that the easy run at the pace I ran at was about appropriate. It is slow enough to not place much stress, even allows some recovery, but also gives the system a little push as well.

Marco said...

Hi Steve,
thank you for the explanation. I was always wondering how accurate these watches are. I will look into the Polar watch you mentioned and maybe buy one, too. Being somewhat accurate on average over long distances is enough for me.
Regards,
Marco