35, 5, and 2

Nicely done! If you're ready for it, two "hard" weeks followed by an "easy" step-back week can work pretty well. Just don't go all zealous on us and try for a 20-miler three-peat on three successive weeks! That'd be pushing your luck.

nkrichards wrote:That's a nice improvement in your long run pace with only a slight increase in heart rate.  I'm impressed that you don't have any muscle soreness...not the case for me!

Thanks, Nancy.  I believe the lack of aching is due to my not depending on glycogen as the energy source for my muscles, but solely depending on fatty acids.

Mark B wrote:Nicely done! If you're ready for it, two "hard" weeks followed by an "easy" step-back week can work pretty well. Just don't go all zealous on us and try for a 20-miler three-peat on three successive weeks! That'd be pushing your luck.

Thank you, Mark, but I didn't run the 20's on consecutive weeks.  There was a 15 miler in between.  I hope I'm not hard core by running 20's so early in the cycle, but if I am...meh.

So your max HR is 200?  I think you can push the pace down a bit further early in your long runs so it's hovering in the 150 range and let it drift up to even 160 toward the end without risk of pushing too hard.  My max is right in the neighborhood of 200 and that's typically what I try to do, sometimes less successfully than I'd like though.

mul21 wrote:So your max HR is 200?  I think you can push the pace down a bit further early in your long runs so it's hovering in the 150 range and let it drift up to even 160 toward the end without risk of pushing too hard.  My max is right in the neighborhood of 200 and that's typically what I try to do, sometimes less successfully than I'd like though.

Yup, it's 200, Jim.  Thanks for the idea, I might just try that on Friday on my 15 mile long run.  I know once it gets cooler, I'll speed up.  I've quantified that for every 5 degrees increase in temperature, my pace increases 30 seconds/mile.

I also might try to eat something before the run.

week 5 of 22
Air temperature was 76 degrees with a dewpoint of 73 degrees, this morning.  The plan was a 1 mile warm up, a 4 mile tempo run at 10:48/mile (last week's rabbit pace) and a 1 mile cool down.  I was hoping to find a 4 mile rabbit, but only found a 2 mile rabbit.

And Virtual Trainer on the 305 just ain't the same as a 98.6 degree body for pacing.  The tempo run didn't go as I had hoped.  That last mile was just so difficult.  It was as if I ran out of gears and was coasting.  I had a brief lactic moment at 2.5, but it quickly dissipated.  I thought that was a good thing, as my body was adapting.

4 miles, 44:39, 11:09 pace, 157 avg HR (I think 161 or so is more accurate due to mile 2 HR, 177 max HR in mile 2.

1. 11:06, 150 bpm
   
2. 10:37, 136 bpm (no way this HR could be right)
   
3. 11:10, 172 bpm
   
4. 11:44, 170 bpm
   

I don't have any pain or stiffness as a result of the run.  My suspicion on losing gears was I was doing 85% of hr max and that was as much as my body was wanting to do on such little high HR training.

What do y'all think of doing the next tempo run at 11:05 or doing tempos every other week?  I'm trying to learn, adapt and apply.  Thanks.

Good effort, Doug. It may take several tries before you get these sorts of runs dialed in. The great part of that is, that you'll have them dialed in just as you are peaking for your marathon.  

Start out a bit slower and work into your tempo pace.  Just jumping into it, especially after only a mile warm up, can definitely shock the system.  If I'm doing 6 tempo miles, I usually don't hit 85% until at least halfway in and sometimes later than that.  So, yes, start at 11:05 and maybe knock off 5 seconds per mile and if you do 4 miles, you end up at 10:50 right where you want to be and probably at the correct HR.

9 miles was on the schedule, but the runner always has full rights to change the distance, based on events more current than when the schedule was created.

The air and dewpoint temperatures were not available on the Weatherbug site closest to me, but it was probably 77/74 and no wind.

I let the legs set the pace because I didn't know how hungover my legs were from yesterday's tempo run.  So, let's call it a plodding run.  A slow ass farm tractor with all morning to cut a football field kind of plodding.  Whatever makes the legs happy was acceptable to me.  They didn't hurt, but they were hungover.

At about 2.5 miles, I decided that 9 miles was going to be too long, today.  If I wanted to really be sweet to my legs, it would've been a 5 mile run.  But I decided to split the difference and run 7 miles.  Screw the legs.  Yoga tonight and weights tomorrow.

6.72 miles, 1:39:26, 14:47 pace, 116 avg HR, 129 max HR during mile 6, 1st half pace 14:48, 2nd half pace 14:46.

1. 14:45, 112 bpm
   
2. 14:40, 115 bpm
   
3. 14:55, 114 bpm
   
4. 14:48, 116 bpm
   
5. 15:06, 116 bpm
   
6. 14:37, 120 bpm
   
7. 14:29 pace, 120 bpm
   

Such a yawner, but it probably did some good at clearing out some of the crap in my muscles.

Mark B wrote:Good effort, Doug. It may take several tries before you get these sorts of runs dialed in. The great part of that is, that you'll have them dialed in just as you are peaking for your marathon.  

Tempo runs are so new to me.  Running faster has been an afterthought or a "Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to run faster."  I think having 3 warm up races, starting in late October, should help the speed management.  Jeez, I actually typed 'speed management' in relation to me.  LOL, what a hoot.

mul21 wrote:Start out a bit slower and work into your tempo pace.  Just jumping into it, especially after only a mile warm up, can definitely shock the system.  If I'm doing 6 tempo miles, I usually don't hit 85% until at least halfway in and sometimes later than that.  So, yes, start at 11:05 and maybe knock off 5 seconds per mile and if you do 4 miles, you end up at 10:50 right where you want to be and probably at the correct HR.

Hmmm, interesting.  I just figured my legs would be ready, even if I didn't warm up.  But I could see where warming them up would lessen the shock and lessen potential muscle strains.  Okay, I'll warm up with 2 miles.

So should I consider myself lucky, last week, when I warmed up with 2, then kicked in a 10:48 pace for 4 miles because it's not supposed to happen like that?

Thanks for the great help.  I'll keep doing tempo runs, just to get y'alls feedback! 

Thanks.

And thanks.

Yeah, you definitely need the warm up to get the legs fully ready to run fast.  At least I do anyway.

As an aside, I also usually find the first tempo mile to be the toughest and usually by about a mile and a half or 2 into the tempo part of the run, I'm warm, loose and feeling good, but working at the same time.  In other words, don't be discouraged if that first mile is a little uncomfortable, it should smooth out a bit.

mul21 wrote:Yeah, you definitely need the warm up to get the legs fully ready to run fast.  At least I do anyway.

As an aside, I also usually find the first tempo mile to be the toughest and usually by about a mile and a half or 2 into the tempo part of the run, I'm warm, loose and feeling good, but working at the same time.  In other words, don't be discouraged if that first mile is a little uncomfortable, it should smooth out a bit.

Thanks.  I guess if you need to warm up and I'm 19 years older, then I should REALLY warm up.  I think the first mile of the run was more difficult because I was working on getting the respiration in a good place for the pace.  But I'll try to keep mental track of which is better than another.

*30*

Regarding the concept of Nutritional Ketosis, I have found a website by a Dr. Peter Attia (eatingacademy.com) where he likes being the lab rat on ketosis matters.  This should help me because the book, "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance" is good, but doesn't have exhaustive and thick tests of many and different 'what if..." situations.

This should help me to dial in a tighter menu and blood ketone levels because somebody else has already done the research.

Oh yes, that first mile at a faster tempo can be quite the shock to the system. Easing into it can help.

BTW, if you're looking for a dense read, Hadd's Approach to Distance Training goes into a lot of detail about aerobic runs and what he calls "lactate threshold heart rate runs." Even if the exact formula doesn't work for you, his article links to some interesting bits that explain how the build-up of lactate can be delayed through proper training.

Good first try, Doug - but I'd go to a Hal style tempo which Jim mentioned where you start with a regular mile then progress at a slightly faster pace and build up to reach the 85% in the last mile, you then cool down with a mile at your regular pace.  It helps ease you into it and doesn't shock the system so much.  I'm sure though that it didn't help that the virtual rabbit isn't a fit femme fatale either  .  

Not sure if I mentioned it but there is a local guy that runs a ton of 50K races around here and he often mentions that he is on a low carb diet.  He swears by the approach and according to him, he is running and racing much better this year than last.  He started in mid-2012 and his 2013 racing season has been his best ever.  He is no spring chicken either in that he is 47, so his experience notes that your approach works, but you have to wait for it to work.  That damn patience thing again 

I love this quote from you: "the runner has full rights to change the distance based on events more current than when the schedule was created." Made me smile.

Good job on the tempo run--although I agree that 1 mile is too short a warmup.  At least a 1.5 mile warmup.  One thing you could do that's similar to what Michele suggested is do a progression run.  Instead of trying to hit a target pace, you either run the final 3rd or quarter of the run faster, ie the last 2 miles of a 6 mile run faster, or each mile aim for a split that's faster than the previous mile.  It's not quite as intense as a tempo run, but also a little easier on the system, and you may find that you can do them more frequently.  For me, tempo runs are tough, and if I can do 1 / week, great, but progression runs I can do 2-3 times per week and still feel like they're helping me to improve.  Just my 2 cents.

Sounds like the run the next day helped, though.  Good luck with the low carbs!

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Good first try, Doug - but I'd go to a Hal style tempo which Jim mentioned where you start with a regular mile then progress at a slightly faster pace and build up to reach the 85% in the last mile, you then cool down with a mile at your regular pace.  It helps ease you into it and doesn't shock the system so much.  I'm sure though that it didn't help that the virtual rabbit isn't a fit femme fatale either  .  

Not sure if I mentioned it but there is a local guy that runs a ton of 50K races around here and he often mentions that he is on a low carb diet.  He swears by the approach and according to him, he is running and racing much better this year than last.  He started in mid-2012 and his 2013 racing season has been his best ever.  He is no spring chicken either in that he is 47, so his experience notes that your approach works, but you have to wait for it to work.  That damn patience thing again 

Thanks, Michele, for the tips.  I'll work on it.

Good to hear about the local guy.  As far as the transition to low carb, it can be done in between training cycles.  The book author told me that it could take up to 8 weeks to be transitioned enough that a 20 mile run will work.  For me, 3-7 mile distances took 2-3 weeks and 7 weeks for a 16 mile run.

Penelope wrote:I love this quote from you: "the runner has full rights to change the distance based on events more current than when the schedule was created." Made me smile.

Good job on the tempo run--although I agree that 1 mile is too short a warmup.  At least a 1.5 mile warmup.  One thing you could do that's similar to what Michele suggested is do a progression run.  Instead of trying to hit a target pace, you either run the final 3rd or quarter of the run faster, ie the last 2 miles of a 6 mile run faster, or each mile aim for a split that's faster than the previous mile.  It's not quite as intense as a tempo run, but also a little easier on the system, and you may find that you can do them more frequently.  For me, tempo runs are tough, and if I can do 1 / week, great, but progression runs I can do 2-3 times per week and still feel like they're helping me to improve.  Just my 2 cents.

Sounds like the run the next day helped, though.  Good luck with the low carbs!

Yeah, I've read too many contracts over the years.

Speed workouts are foreign to me, so your help and the others will help me to find the flavor that works best for me.  Thanks.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote: I'm sure though that it didn't help that the virtual rabbit isn't a fit femme fatale either  .  

Yeah, there's no rabbit hologram in that 305 either.  

Hey, Michele, when you mentioned that my peak speed should be 85%.  85% of what?  Even the 11:09 pace from Tuesday was faster than marathon pace...or what my target MP is.  Thanks.

85% effort or 85% of max HR if you are measuring HR.

Thanks, Michele.  I can do that.

-30-

Tuesday evening's yoga class was cancelled, so I moved up the weights to replace the yoga.  I continued to work on above the waist weight routines, except for the 500m row and the 1,000m row as the bookends of the workout.

I even worked on grip strength, even to the degree of holding a 5 pound plate with each finger (1 finger per hand at a time) until failure.  My left hand fingers are clearly stronger than my right hand fingers.  I think that's because I open or unlock doors with my right and hold things (like groceries) with my left.  My left index finger could hold it for 6 minutes and 5 seconds, but my right pinkie finger could only hold it 37 seconds.

So, I didn't run today and Thursday is a rest day before Friday's long run.

Careful...once you get these tempo runs figured out they'll start recommending intervals!
Great job.  I'm betting that you're going to see a huge improvement soon.

nkrichards wrote:Careful...once you get these tempo runs figured out they'll start recommending intervals!
Great job.  I'm betting that you're going to see a huge improvement soon.

Thanks, Nancy.  I'm not bashful about trying unconventional things or new things to me.  But I am conservative on the degree of improvement that might play out, even though I set the bar high for my goals.  I guess that means I execute carefully and don't accept victory until it happens.

I think I went too far on staying out of nutritional ketosis (NK).  This morning's run was, through the 10 miles, uninspiring.  My blood ketone level this morning was 0.4.  This was the first non-"Lo" reading in a while.  I believe as a result, my body was confused or non-committal on the energy source to use and wasn't going to use fatty acids and there wasn't enough glycogen to take up the slack.

The result is backtracking and to get consistently into nutritional ketosis.  My question on how far I can stray from nutritional ketosis and for how long has been answered.  I can be marginally in NK once a week, as long as I've been consistently in NK for the few weeks prior.  And I can't be "Lo" for 6 days and expect to be able to run effectively.  I won't run another 20 miler until I've been in NK for a few days, which might mean October 12.  But, that's okay.

Today's run was really pretty crappy.  And to add injury to insult (yeah, I reversed the order), I was having some cramping in both calves around mile 8.  More than likely that was influenced by not taking any S!Caps with me.  I ran 10 of the 15 I had planned and walked the final 4 miles.

After getting home, my left calf felt very strained.  I placed a frozen block of food under my calf for 10 minutes, rest 5, repeat 3 times.  After the final icing, my pain was gone.  The tightness was gone.  Even now, I have full range of motion without pain.  I can even jump up and down 20 times without pain.  So, I guess it was just a bad cramp.

Temperature at the start was 75 degrees with a dewpoint of 75.

10.36 miles, 2:23:11, 13:49 pace, avg HR 133, max HR 151 during mile 9.

1. 13:37, 125 bpm
   
2. 13:35, 128 bpm
   
3. 13:38, 129 bpm
   
4. 13:54, 133 bpm
   
5. 13:44, 134 bpm
   
6. 13:25, 134 bpm
   
7. 14:00, 132 bpm
   
8. 13:50, 134 bpm
   
9. 14:11, 138 bpm
   
10. 13:52, 143 bpm
    

Wow, as an n=1 sort of experience, this nutritional ketosis experiment seems to be pretty unforgiving.

Do people manage to make this approach work for them over the long term? 

The cramping does *not* sound fun. I'd think you'd need a salt lick, not just S-Caps. 

But at least fall's almost here!

The last time I was in nutritional ketosis was Sept 10 and 11.  Which would seem to indicate that it took 9-10 days to stop or severely limit the fatty acids from fueling my legs.

I did it to myself, Mark.  I was trying to figure out how long I can be less than the NK range of 1.0-3.0 and still be effective.  And the answer is 9-10 days.

So, yeah, it's pretty unforgiving.  But when you're in the range, you're golden.  It could be like a speed limit of 70.  Most cops won't ticket you for 76 or 77, but hit 80 and they'll give you a ticket.

A NK level of 1.0-3.0 means you're going 70.  Between 0.1 and 1.0 and you're going 76.  Lo is 80.

I topped the hill, this morning, and I got pulled over.

And some people don't try to game the system, like I was trying.  They get in the zone and stay there.  I was having troubles maintaining the range by eating the same meal one day and then the next day.

Oh, I get it. I didn't realize you were experimenting. Actually, I wouldn't call falling out of nutritional ketosis for 9-10 days as "unforgiving" at all. That's a pretty substantial cushion for not letting the occasional feast day to keep you from being able to operate well biologically.

Now that you've found the edge, are you going back to seeking ketosis? The next experiment, I suppose, would be how long it takes for you to get back there and get the benefits back.

Mark B wrote:Oh, I get it. I didn't realize you were experimenting. Actually, I wouldn't call falling out of nutritional ketosis for 9-10 days as "unforgiving" at all. That's a pretty substantial cushion for not letting the occasional feast day to keep you from being able to operate well biologically.

Now that you've found the edge, are you going back to seeking ketosis? The next experiment, I suppose, would be how long it takes for you to get back there and get the benefits back.

Absolutely. Ketosis means that I'll be burning fatty acids exclusively during aerobic running.  And if I can get back into it (a range of 1.0-3.0) by Wednesday or Thursday, then I will try a 20 mile run, next Saturday.  There's nothing crucial or 'drop dead' about doing the 20 miler next Saturday, but it'd be nice to test out.

This morning, I was "Lo", so I'll be working from less than zero.