Voice Cat LLC & voice-cat.com

Two questions:

1) How do you measure your blood ketone level?

2) What has this diet done for your bloodwork numbers? (Cholesterol, tryglycerides, etc.)

And a bonus question, for inquiring minds: What prompted you to start this?

Mark B wrote:Two questions:

1) How do you measure your blood ketone level?

2) What has this diet done for your bloodwork numbers? (Cholesterol, tryglycerides, etc.)

And a bonus question, for inquiring minds: What prompted you to start this?

2 answers:

1.  With a blood ketone meter.    Similar to blood glucose meter, in fact, mine can report both but I'd have to insert a different testing strip for the glucose.
2.  From my blog "Fracking the System around November 9, 2013.  The below excerpt gives the figures from my physical in November, 2013 which was 6 months after starting it around Memorial Day.


To recap, I had gone to a local lab testing facility to get my hs-CRP (high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein) measured.  This is a baseline figure for the future and measures the likelihood of having a sudden cardiac event.  My number was 1.38, and the report says 1.0 - 3.0 is considered average.  I was expecting a lower number, but that's fine.  Anything under 2.0 is good and under 1.0 is ideal.

So, here are the cholesterol figures.

Total Cholesterol:  262
Total LDL:  177
Total LDL Particles:  2,882 (anything over 2,185 is considered high by the non-LC/HF people)
LDL Medium and Small (the bad ones):  845 (high end of range is 856 by non-LC/HF people)
Percentage of Medium and Small to Total LDL Particles: 29%.  (LC/HF people want <20%)
HDL:  76
Triglycerides:  47
Triglycerides:HDL ratio:  0.618:1
Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio:  3.4:1

So, copying my October 8 post here, I can add:

Total Cholesterol - April 20, 2012 177
Total Cholesterol - Sept 28, 2013 230
Total Cholesterol - Nov 7, 2013 262

LDL-C - April 2012 129
LDL-C - Sept, 2013 148
LDL-C - Nov 7, 2013 177

HDL - April 2012 51
HDL - Sept, 2013 69
HDL - Nov, 2013 76

Triglycerides - April 2012 47
Triglycerides - Sept 2013 53
Triglycerides - Nov 2013 47

Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - April 2012 0.92:1
Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - Sept 2013 0.77:1
Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - Nov 2013 0.62:1

So by the numbers on a LC/HF diet, I'm in a good place, but I need to work my hs-CRP and Small particles lower.  The Small particles can by lowered by tweaking down the protein and carbs, plus keeping up my consumption of healthy fats (saturated and monounsaturated).  Knowing what I eat, I can lower the protein down some, but I believe I won't get a 9% reduction (29% -20% small particle %-age).  I could be wrong.

Bonus answer:
In 2012, Abel James (who started The Fat Burning Man podcast and website, AND was on the "My Diet Is Better Than Your Diet" on ABC as the proponent of his "The Wild Diet" a couple of weeks ago), had been fat adapted and was telling how he could run by not eating carbs.  He didn't have the detailed how-to on doing it.  He just explained how he did it.  I tried it for a few weeks, but couldn't get it going in time to start a training cycle. 

But I researched the idea in the fall of 2012 and found "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance" which explains in detail how to do what Abel James had been doing.  I started it in May 2013.

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Two questions:

1) How do you measure your blood ketone level?

2) What has this diet done for your bloodwork numbers? (Cholesterol, tryglycerides, etc.)

And a bonus question, for inquiring minds: What prompted you to start this?

2 answers:

1.  With a blood ketone meter.    Similar to blood glucose meter, in fact, mine can report both but I'd have to insert a different testing strip for the glucose.
2.  From my blog "Fracking the System around November 9, 2013.  The below excerpt gives the figures from my physical in November, 2013 which was 6 months after starting it around Memorial Day.


To recap, I had gone to a local lab testing facility to get my hs-CRP (high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein) measured.  This is a baseline figure for the future and measures the likelihood of having a sudden cardiac event.  My number was 1.38, and the report says 1.0 - 3.0 is considered average.  I was expecting a lower number, but that's fine.  Anything under 2.0 is good and under 1.0 is ideal.

So, here are the cholesterol figures.

Total Cholesterol:  262
Total LDL:  177
Total LDL Particles:  2,882 (anything over 2,185 is considered high by the non-LC/HF people)
LDL Medium and Small (the bad ones):  845 (high end of range is 856 by non-LC/HF people)
Percentage of Medium and Small to Total LDL Particles: 29%.  (LC/HF people want <20%)
HDL:  76
Triglycerides:  47
Triglycerides:HDL ratio:  0.618:1
Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio:  3.4:1

So, copying my October 8 post here, I can add:

Total Cholesterol - April 20, 2012 177
Total Cholesterol - Sept 28, 2013 230
Total Cholesterol - Nov 7, 2013 262

LDL-C - April 2012 129
LDL-C - Sept, 2013 148
LDL-C - Nov 7, 2013 177

HDL - April 2012 51
HDL - Sept, 2013 69
HDL - Nov, 2013 76

Triglycerides - April 2012 47
Triglycerides - Sept 2013 53
Triglycerides - Nov 2013 47

Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - April 2012 0.92:1
Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - Sept 2013 0.77:1
Triglycerides to HDL Ratio - Nov 2013 0.62:1

So by the numbers on a LC/HF diet, I'm in a good place, but I need to work my hs-CRP and Small particles lower.  The Small particles can by lowered by tweaking down the protein and carbs, plus keeping up my consumption of healthy fats (saturated and monounsaturated).  Knowing what I eat, I can lower the protein down some, but I believe I won't get a 9% reduction (29% -20% small particle %-age).  I could be wrong.

Bonus answer:
In 2012, Abel James (who started The Fat Burning Man podcast and website, AND was on the "My Diet Is Better Than Your Diet" on ABC as the proponent of his "The Wild Diet" a couple of weeks ago), had been fat adapted and was telling how he could run by not eating carbs.  He didn't have the detailed how-to on doing it.  He just explained how he did it.  I tried it for a few weeks, but couldn't get it going in time to start a training cycle. 

But I researched the idea in the fall of 2012 and found "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance" which explains in detail how to do what Abel James had been doing.  I started it in May 2013.

Are you comfortable with those numbers Doug?

The author of the book that I mentioned when we started this conversation quotes a study in which 4 diets were compared.  One was the Atkins.  His stats indicate that on the Atkins diet the participants LDL only increased by 1 point, Triglycerides were down 29 points, HDL was up 5 and BP was down 4.  Those numbers sounded good but I wasn't ready to go all in.  Seeing your numbers makes me even more hesitant.

I guess I'm convinced that cutting carbs in the form of cake, bread, potatoes and fruit juice are a good thing but I'm not convinced that I need to give up my fruit, corn when it's fresh from the garden, and dairy products.  We've always had a bit more red meat, cheese and butter in our diet than suggested and maybe I won't feel quite so guilty about that but I'm not going to increase the saturated fat in my diet based on what I've read.  I'll replace the cake with nuts or something.

Part of the decision for me is that whatever I choose to do must be sustainable and enjoyable.  I don't think I could sustain or enjoy a LC/HF diet any more than I would a LF/HC diet.  So, I'll continue to eat a balanced diet in moderation with maybe a bit fewer processed carbs.  I'll continue to wonder if I'm making good choices.  And I'll get on with living my life.

Thanks for the conversation and for sharing your experiences.  It's both fun and educational.

Oh...don't forget to let us know how you're doing with your running...

Nancy, I am comfortable with the numbers.  Two years ago in my blog "Fracking the System", you wrote that you were reading the book "The Great Cholesterol Myth" about how LDL, HDL, and triglycerides do not tell the whole story and that LDL as a number is not very telling. 

So below is an extract from the prior post:
Total Cholesterol:  262
Total LDL:  177
Total LDL Particles:  2,882 (anything over 2,185 is considered high by the non-LC/HF people)
LDL Medium and Small (the bad ones):  845 (high end of range is 856 by non-LC/HF people)
Percentage of Medium and Small to Total LDL Particles: 29%.  (LC/HF people want <20%)
HDL:  76
Triglycerides:  47
Triglycerides:HDL ratio:  0.618:1
Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio:  3.4:1


The key stat from above is the "Total LDL Particles part."  This paragraph is the break down of the Total LDL number and the big fluffy particles is good at 2,882 and the Medium and Small particles was under the high side range from the book.  So, I don't fret over the LDL.

ounce wrote:Nancy, I am comfortable with the numbers.  Two years ago in my blog "Fracking the System", you wrote that you were reading the book "The Great Cholesterol Myth" about how LDL, HDL, and triglycerides do not tell the whole story and that LDL as a number is not very telling. 

So below is an extract from the prior post:
Total Cholesterol:  262
Total LDL:  177
Total LDL Particles:  2,882 (anything over 2,185 is considered high by the non-LC/HF people)
LDL Medium and Small (the bad ones):  845 (high end of range is 856 by non-LC/HF people)
Percentage of Medium and Small to Total LDL Particles: 29%.  (LC/HF people want <20%)
HDL:  76
Triglycerides:  47
Triglycerides:HDL ratio:  0.618:1
Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio:  3.4:1


The key stat from above is the "Total LDL Particles part."  This paragraph is the break down of the Total LDL number and the big fluffy particles is good at 2,882 and the Medium and Small particles was under the high side range from the book.  So, I don't fret over the LDL.

Yes, Doug...it was much easier to be an independent thinker before my cardiac event.  It's tougher to go against the generally accepted consensus now. 

I will say that I tend to be just as skeptical of the pro-statin message as I am of the anti-statin message.  Hence my reluctance to take statins as a preventative measure and my willingness to accept my husbands decision not to take them even though he has low HDL which results in a poor ratio. 

Moving on to the diet issue.  I'm just as skeptical of the LF diet recommended by the American Heart Assoc. as I am of the LC/HF diet we've been discussing here.  Since I can't figure out which one is right I choose neither and just try to eat a balanced diet, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise on a regular basis.  I'm comfortable eating the level of saturated fats that I currently eat as my cholesterol levels are within acceptable ranges and always have been.  I'm not comfortable changing my diet in a way that might raise those cholesterol levels though.  

Kudos to you for being willing to research and experiment and change your lifestyle in ways that you believe are healthier for you.  And once again...thanks for your willingness to share and discuss that with us here.

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:Nancy, I am comfortable with the numbers.  Two years ago in my blog "Fracking the System", you wrote that you were reading the book "The Great Cholesterol Myth" about how LDL, HDL, and triglycerides do not tell the whole story and that LDL as a number is not very telling. 

So below is an extract from the prior post:
Total Cholesterol:  262
Total LDL:  177
Total LDL Particles:  2,882 (anything over 2,185 is considered high by the non-LC/HF people)
LDL Medium and Small (the bad ones):  845 (high end of range is 856 by non-LC/HF people)
Percentage of Medium and Small to Total LDL Particles: 29%.  (LC/HF people want <20%)
HDL:  76
Triglycerides:  47
Triglycerides:HDL ratio:  0.618:1
Total Cholesterol:HDL ratio:  3.4:1


The key stat from above is the "Total LDL Particles part."  This paragraph is the break down of the Total LDL number and the big fluffy particles is good at 2,882 and the Medium and Small particles was under the high side range from the book.  So, I don't fret over the LDL.

Yes, Doug...it was much easier to be an independent thinker before my cardiac event.  It's tougher to go against the generally accepted consensus now. 

I will say that I tend to be just as skeptical of the pro-statin message as I am of the anti-statin message.  Hence my reluctance to take statins as a preventative measure and my willingness to accept my husbands decision not to take them even though he has low HDL which results in a poor ratio. 

Moving on to the diet issue.  I'm just as skeptical of the LF diet recommended by the American Heart Assoc. as I am of the LC/HF diet we've been discussing here.  Since I can't figure out which one is right I choose neither and just try to eat a balanced diet, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise on a regular basis.  I'm comfortable eating the level of saturated fats that I currently eat as my cholesterol levels are within acceptable ranges and always have been.  I'm not comfortable changing my diet in a way that might raise those cholesterol levels though.  

Kudos to you for being willing to research and experiment and change your lifestyle in ways that you believe are healthier for you.  And once again...thanks for your willingness to share and discuss that with us here.

I agree with you, Nancy.  I would, however, find out what your C-Reactive Protein (CRP) level is from your last blood work.  Doctors use the test to measure the likelihood of a heart attack.  And for the next blood work, ask for a VAP (Vertical Auto Profile) or a LPP (Lipoprotein Particle Profile).  This is from page 171 of "The Great Cholesterol Myth" book.  You're getting figures on how your blood is doing.  It's numbers. 

You're doing what you think is best and no one can argue with that.  I'm beginning to believe, though, that too much pharmacological involvement in the body that begins to result in the body not performing as it was before the medications were prescribed means that a serious discussion needs to occur to assess whether the total medications are playing nice together or not.

Since you and I are bean counters, you understand why I like figures.  The conversation has been good and I wouldn't be surprised if you could pull off a way of eating that could fuel your running without carbo-loading.  I envy your growing corn.  Is it true that there's only 1 ear of corn per plant and that you need 2 plants to grow corn (I think it's something like cross-pollination or something)>

I'll work on getting the numbers that you mentioned Doug.  I'm also hoping that now that I'm nearing the anniversary of my cardiac event we can start decreasing some of the meds that I've been on.  I guess the first year has the highest risk of another event so I may be able to reduce or eliminate some of my prescriptions.

In answer to your corn questions...  Our garden is about 75' x 125' and we plant at least half of it to corn every year.  There are a lot of differences in varieties but we've been planting Bodacious the last couple years.  It normally has two ears of corn per stalk but the second ear is slightly smaller and matures later if at all.  We have a short growing season so it depends on the weather.  We don't have any trouble with pollination due to the size of the plot we plant.  We try and plant at 3 different times about 10 days apart to extend the time when we have ripe corn.  Even with the 3 plantings we still have a reasonably large area planted each time.  I have heard of people successfully growing just one or two stalks of corn in a pot but from everything I've been told you need more stalks to successfully pollinate.  Maybe they are growing varieties more suited for self pollination.

We eat a lot of corn on the cob when it's ripe and also can or freeze some for winter.  We also box up corn to take to the fire station and area businesses to thank them for their services during the year.  We do the same with fresh strawberries that my folks bring over from the valley.  The rest of the garden is planted to peas, beans, potatoes, cucumbers, summer and winter squash, carrots, radish, spinach, onions, beets, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, asparagus.....  Each family has their own garden and we often share produce but we all plant our own corn.  We've been competing for the first ripe corn ever since I can remember.  We were competing with my Grandpa from the time I was a toddler...maybe before.  It's fun to now be in competition with our grandkids!

nkrichards wrote:I'll work on getting the numbers that you mentioned Doug.  I'm also hoping that now that I'm nearing the anniversary of my cardiac event we can start decreasing some of the meds that I've been on.  I guess the first year has the highest risk of another event so I may be able to reduce or eliminate some of my prescriptions.

In answer to your corn questions...  Our garden is about 75' x 125' and we plant at least half of it to corn every year.  There are a lot of differences in varieties but we've been planting Bodacious the last couple years.  It normally has two ears of corn per stalk but the second ear is slightly smaller and matures later if at all.  We have a short growing season so it depends on the weather.  We don't have any trouble with pollination due to the size of the plot we plant.  We try and plant at 3 different times about 10 days apart to extend the time when we have ripe corn.  Even with the 3 plantings we still have a reasonably large area planted each time.  I have heard of people successfully growing just one or two stalks of corn in a pot but from everything I've been told you need more stalks to successfully pollinate.  Maybe they are growing varieties more suited for self pollination.

We eat a lot of corn on the cob when it's ripe and also can or freeze some for winter.  We also box up corn to take to the fire station and area businesses to thank them for their services during the year.  We do the same with fresh strawberries that my folks bring over from the valley.  The rest of the garden is planted to peas, beans, potatoes, cucumbers, summer and winter squash, carrots, radish, spinach, onions, beets, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, asparagus.....  Each family has their own garden and we often share produce but we all plant our own corn.  We've been competing for the first ripe corn ever since I can remember.  We were competing with my Grandpa from the time I was a toddler...maybe before.  It's fun to now be in competition with our grandkids!

Thanks for the narrative on the produce.  I'm pleased that you're able to grow all that food.

-30-

So last week (a weights and speedwork week), I started going to 24 hour fitness to do some weight lifting, et al.  I start out by doing 5 minutes on a rower, then various upper and lower body stationary machines doing 3 sets of 15 or 20 lifts. One thing that I'm diligently working on is dead lifts because it's an overall great exercise for a multitude of muscles.  That afternoon and the next day, I didn't have any soreness, except for the right deltoid muscle. 

I lifted weights again another day, then on Thursday, I went to a middle school track to do some sprints.  Yes, SPRINTS!  I thought the 3 lane track was a 400 meter track.  Don't know because the Garmin said 1 lap was 0.23 miles.  I also thought the field inside the track was a 100 yard football field that was marked off for soccer and lacrosse.  It might be.

Anyhoo, I warmed up (Mark...surprise!) for a mile and a half under the beautiful blue Texas sky with a 10 mph north wind.  Then, lined up on the field for 9 sprints, with a rest period to get my HR back down to 130 bpm.  I haven't done 100 meter sprints in eons, but I figured that I need to do that so I can work on some speed during longer distances.

1.  29.0
2.  29.3
3.  28.1, 147 bpm, 161 max, 169 spm, 1.24 sl
4.  28.0, 141 bpm, 159 max, 143 spm, 1.39 sl
5.  27.2, 149 bpm, 162 max, 167 spm, 1.27 sl
6.  27.6, 144 bpm, 158 max, 168 spm, 1.17 sl
7.  26.7, 144 bpm, 159 max, 159 spm, 1.36 sl
8.  26.1, 150 bpm, 167 max, 155 spm, 1.39 sl
9.  24.9, 147 bpm, 166 max, 186 spm, 1.36 sl

A starting HR of 130 up to 159 max, for example, gets the 144, I guess.  So, I don't think that I should go 'yippee' on that avg bpm.  My quads were aching a bit on Friday and Saturday, but it was in the same spot, bi-laterally.  Guess my quads were confused.

Fast forward to today (a running week), I ran 4 miles with the temp 40 degrees with a light north wind.  The idea was to do 6.66, but I guess that I've lost some endurance.  All 4 were sub-13 with the last mile at 11:56.  It felt good and I'm not feeling any problems.  Tomorrow, I'll do a distance heretofore not known.

Nice job on the weights and speedwork Doug.  That sort of stuff should have you much better prepared to run well.  I wouldn't worry about the loss of endurance...it's come back quickly.

Yay on the deadlifts - one of my all time favorite exercises.  Try to do both bent knee and straight leg and then as you get more proficient, toss in some one legged ones with balance.  Oh what fun!!!!

I'm sure the track in a 400 m track and remember that 400 m is really not a full 1/4 mile - close so the 0.23 is probably right.  In using the track, warm up running clockwise as opposed to the normal counter-clockwise and use the outside lane.  It will help with keeping the body in balance for when you decide to run 200s, 400s, or even some of those nasty 800s - as you will want to run those in the standard counter-clockwise direction (especially if anyone else is on the track when you are).  Love that you did the sprints on the field - I love to do that myself!  One of the only times I ever run barefoot is on the high school field (which is some kind of turf? special grass? not sure) as it sure feels great underfoot  - even and soft.

Way to mix it up, Ounce!

nkrichards wrote:Nice job on the weights and speedwork Doug.  That sort of stuff should have you much better prepared to run well.  I wouldn't worry about the loss of endurance...it's come back quickly.

I sure hope it will and I'm sure the endurance will be back in a week or so.  Guess I have to convince the muscles that they've rested enough.  Thanks, Nancy.

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Yay on the deadlifts - one of my all time favorite exercises.  Try to do both bent knee and straight leg and then as you get more proficient, toss in some one legged ones with balance.  Oh what fun!!!!

I'm sure the track in a 400 m track and remember that 400 m is really not a full 1/4 mile - close so the 0.23 is probably right.  In using the track, warm up running clockwise as opposed to the normal counter-clockwise and use the outside lane.  It will help with keeping the body in balance for when you decide to run 200s, 400s, or even some of those nasty 800s - as you will want to run those in the standard counter-clockwise direction (especially if anyone else is on the track when you are).  Love that you did the sprints on the field - I love to do that myself!  One of the only times I ever run barefoot is on the high school field (which is some kind of turf? special grass? not sure) as it sure feels great underfoot  - even and soft.

I guess I'm used to a 440 track.  How do you keep your back from getting out of whack on a straight leg deadlift?

I'll do the clockwise warm up, as you suggest.  For the whole run (but especially for the sprints), I wore my trail shoes that have a little grip to them, instead of flat road shoes.  Don't know if I'll run them barefoot as there was some bare spots at the middle of the field.

Mark B wrote:Way to mix it up, Ounce!

You get the blame. 

-30-
So, I saw a story about a trail run at the Franklin Mountains out in El Paso, a scant 762 miles from me.  I became curious and found it was about 4 races, with the headliner a 50K.  It was a 1 loop course.  From the website, the race is defined as:
This is a True Texas Mountain Race on the Franklin Mountains. The races will be run around altitude at 5000' and climb to 7192' for the 50k. Most of the trails low are desert trail that is run able terrain with easy technical trail. The climb to the North Franklin Peak is a combination of straight climbing and switchbacks. 
The start/finish will be at the pavilion area circle inside of the Franklin Mountains State Park. 
50k will be one loop of 32.0 miles 
Total Elevation will be 9000' up and 9000' down

At mile 6 you go up 2,500 feet over 5 miles, then you go down 2,500 feet over 3 miles.  After that, it's 'nothing more' than going up and down 500 feet for 3 times in the remaining 17 miles, as hopefully seen below.

Question:  The race is in September.  So, would it be better to run this September with no Javelina Jundred to run in late October of 2016 as a piece of the marathon training for 2017 Houston OR would this be a good race to do in advance of the October 2017 Javelina Jundred as a 'last long run' training run.  The Franklin Mountain run would be around September 10, 2017 and the JJ100 would be the last weekend of October or about 6 weeks in between.

The time allowed to finish Franklin is 15 hours or a pace of 25 min/mile.  The terrain at JJ100 is not Franklin's, except probably the last 17 miles of Franklin.  I think the 6 weeks would be enough recovery, especially if the training before Franklin has been going well.

Thoughts?  What is this flatlander missing?

ounce wrote:Thoughts?  What is this flatlander missing?

Missing? How about your mind? 9,000 feet of elevation change in 50K is brutal.

Definitely NOT a training run. Better to do this year, months before Houston Marathon, than only a month before Javelina in 2017. It will kick your butt and challenge you in all sorts of new exciting ways. That's not to say you shouldn't do it -- but not if you need to be able to get back to a training cycle in a short period of time.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Thoughts?  What is this flatlander missing?

Missing? How about your mind? 9,000 feet of elevation change in 50K is brutal.

Definitely NOT a training run. Better to do this year, months before Houston Marathon, than only a month before Javelina in 2017. It will kick your butt and challenge you in all sorts of new exciting ways. That's not to say you shouldn't do it -- but not if you need to be able to get back to a training cycle in a short period of time.

+1  I admire your spirit but this one will break the spirit and the body.  Definitely do it...but not when you have another race on the schedule.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Thoughts?  What is this flatlander missing?

Missing? How about your mind? 9,000 feet of elevation change in 50K is brutal.

Definitely NOT a training run. Better to do this year, months before Houston Marathon, than only a month before Javelina in 2017. It will kick your butt and challenge you in all sorts of new exciting ways. That's not to say you shouldn't do it -- but not if you need to be able to get back to a training cycle in a short period of time.

I just wish, Mark, that you would give it to me straight, rather than beating around the bush.

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:Thoughts?  What is this flatlander missing?

Missing? How about your mind? 9,000 feet of elevation change in 50K is brutal.

Definitely NOT a training run. Better to do this year, months before Houston Marathon, than only a month before Javelina in 2017. It will kick your butt and challenge you in all sorts of new exciting ways. That's not to say you shouldn't do it -- but not if you need to be able to get back to a training cycle in a short period of time.

+1  I admire your spirit but this one will break the spirit and the body.  Definitely do it...but not when you have another race on the schedule.

Oh, I don't know that it was as much spirit as it was being able to do 32 miles in 15 hours.  I'm not trying to be a hero, as I get closer to 60.

It would probably be still hot, right after Labor Day, even starting at 5,000 feet.  They get a south or southwest dry wind right out of Mexico.  Heck, even a Pacific tropical system could be dragged into El Paso by the sub-tropical jet stream.

Okay.  That's out of my system.  However, there is a 50K in April very close to home with cute, full-size alligators, too.  It's liable to be warm, then, too.  Might be a good race for 2017.

Thanks, y'all.

This morning, I ran 4 miles again, like I did on Tuesday.  It was 57 degrees or 17 degrees warmer than Tuesday morning, but the data shows that I ran faster today.  Mmmm, okay.

I felt like I was giving the same effort.  I guess Wednesday was muscle clean up day?

4 miles, 48:13, 12:03 pace, 144 avg bpm, 164 max bpm, 169 avg spm, 0.79 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:23, 2nd half pace 11:43.
1.  12:51, 118 bpm, 168 spm, 74 sl
2.  11:55, 150 bpm, 170 spm, 80 sl
3.  11:46, 155 bpm, 170 spm, 80 sl
4.  11:41, 152 bpm, 170 spm, 80 sl


These were Tuesday's numbers:
4 miles, 49:40, 12:25 pace, 147 avg bpm, 163 max bpm, 169 avg spm, 0.77 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:43, 2nd half pace 12:07
1.  13:00, 134 bpm, 169 spm, 73 sl
2.  12:23, 147 bpm, 169 spm, 77 sl
3.  12:23, 151 bpm, 169 spm, 77 sl
4.  11:54, 157 bpm, 169 spm, 80 sl

This morning, it was 58 degrees with 100% humidity.  While that's a lot of humidity, it doesn't count in Houston when the air temperature is below 60.  The goal of this run was to be a long run for the week of somewhere between 7 and 9 miles.  Next week is the weights and wheels (wheels being speed work) week.

Starting a couple of weeks ago, I bumped up the cadence from 168 to 170.  Not much of an increase, but I can work into that change easier than jumping 4 or 6 steps.

6.68 miles, 1:25:21, 12:46 pace, 147 avg bpm, 171 max bpm, 169 spm, 0.75 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:53, 2nd half pace 12:39
1.  12:59, 114 bpm, 169 spm, 73 sl
2.  12:45, 148 bpm, 170 spm, 74 sl
3.  12:58, 139 bpm, 167 spm, 74 sl
4.  12:44, 148 bpm, 168 spm, 75 sl
5.  12:56, 161 bpm, 169 spm, 74 sl
6.  12:28, 161 bpm, 170 spm, 76 sl
7.  12:31 pace, 159 bpm, 169 spm, 76 sl

Mile 5 was pretty difficult, I guess because it was further than the 4 miles from yesterday and Tuesday.  About half way through the mile, the pace was 13:27 and I didn't want to have a split that slow.

Is that how runners get faster, by pushing?

This makes 15 miles for the week.  Thanks for stopping by.

Full humidity doesn't count? Did you crack a sweat? More than usual? Then it counts.

Anyway, yes. Pushing can get you faster. You have to also work the weaknesses, not the strengths, to balance it all out.

Just not all the time, otherwise, you get hurt.

Mark B wrote:Full humidity doesn't count? Did you crack a sweat? More than usual? Then it counts.

Anyway, yes. Pushing can get you faster. You have to also work the weaknesses, not the strengths, to balance it all out.

Just not all the time, otherwise, you get hurt.

Nah, it counts when the temperature is higher.  I cracked a sweat when it was 50 degrees with a 25% humidity.  'More than usual' to me means when my socks leave a wet imprint on the concrete (didn't happen).  Losing 5 pounds would count (didn't happen).  Squeezing water out of the spongy areas of my shoes count (didn't happen).  Wringing water out of my headband counts (didn't happen).

We're just happy to have temps under 65!

By 'weaknesses,' you mean not the main running muscles that need to be as strong as the main running muscles?  Thanks!

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Full humidity doesn't count? Did you crack a sweat? More than usual? Then it counts.

Anyway, yes. Pushing can get you faster. You have to also work the weaknesses, not the strengths, to balance it all out.

Just not all the time, otherwise, you get hurt.

Nah, it counts when the temperature is higher.  I cracked a sweat when it was 50 degrees with a 25% humidity.  'More than usual' to me means when my socks leave a wet imprint on the concrete (didn't happen).  Losing 5 pounds would count (didn't happen).  Squeezing water out of the spongy areas of my shoes count (didn't happen).  Wringing water out of my headband counts (didn't happen).

We're just happy to have temps under 65!

By 'weaknesses,' you mean not the main running muscles that need to be as strong as the main running muscles?  Thanks!

No, I mean that if you don't do anything up-tempo, the systems that makes bursts or speed (or sustained speed) possible don't develop. If you're solid in endurance but weak on speed, it's worthwhile to pay some attention to speed. At least that's the conventional wisdom.

I have to keep remembering just how different it is on the Gulf Coast. Even "cool" is hot.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:Full humidity doesn't count? Did you crack a sweat? More than usual? Then it counts.

Anyway, yes. Pushing can get you faster. You have to also work the weaknesses, not the strengths, to balance it all out.

Just not all the time, otherwise, you get hurt.

Nah, it counts when the temperature is higher.  I cracked a sweat when it was 50 degrees with a 25% humidity.  'More than usual' to me means when my socks leave a wet imprint on the concrete (didn't happen).  Losing 5 pounds would count (didn't happen).  Squeezing water out of the spongy areas of my shoes count (didn't happen).  Wringing water out of my headband counts (didn't happen).

We're just happy to have temps under 65!

By 'weaknesses,' you mean not the main running muscles that need to be as strong as the main running muscles?  Thanks!

No, I mean that if you don't do anything up-tempo, the systems that makes bursts or speed (or sustained speed) possible don't develop. If you're solid in endurance but weak on speed, it's worthwhile to pay some attention to speed. At least that's the conventional wisdom.

I have to keep remembering just how different it is on the Gulf Coast. Even "cool" is hot.

The ability to go faster over any distance is as lacking as follicles on my head.  Since fertilizer on the head only worked on Elmer Fudd, I'll have to work on the fertilizer for the legs.


-30-
This morning, I went to lift some weights.  I did 2 sets of 5 dead lifts @ 115 pounds, 2 sets of 15 overhead press @ 50 pounds, then on machines it was 3 sets of 15 lateral pull downs @ 50 pounds, 15 adductor press @ 50, 15 abductor pres @ 50 pounds, 20 bicep each arm, 20 tricep each arm, 2 sets of 15 deltoid press, all at 50 pounds.  60 leg lifts.

Continuing the weights and wheels week, I went to the middle school track before sunrise to do 10-100m sprints.  It was 45 degrees with 100% humidity and high clouds.  Today's high is to be 80 and the odds are pretty much zero that we're to have another freeze this winter.  February is our coldest month.

I ran a 6 lap warm up plus a 1 lap cool down.  This time, I ran on the track because it had rained yesterday and the field was probably wet plus it was dark and I don't want to be injured. 

1.  31.3, 150 spm, 1.25 sl
2.  28.6, 172 spm, 1.15 sl
3.  27.7, 172 spm, 1.15 sl
4.  25.7, 153 spm, 1.18 sl
5.  25.3, 184 spm, 1.29 sl
6.  26.3, 176 spm, 1.18 sl
7.  25.5, 176 spm, 1.27 sl
8.  25.9, 173 spm, 1.15 sl
9.  24.7, 179 spm, 1.28 sl
10. 24.6, 165 spm, 1.23 sl

I would've posted the HR, but I wasn't convinced the figures were right, as they were some 20-30 bpm lower than last week.  It did seem like I recovered quicker, this week (last week, I was waiting for my HR to get to 130 before the next sprint).  However, I've been around my heart long enough to know that just because my heart has recovered, doesn't mean the legs are ready for the next sprint.

Nicely done!

One Maffetone training trick for intervals is to pay heed to the time of recovery after each hard run. I think the rule was to walk until your HR fell back below your target low HR, then go again. Once the distance of the recovery walk matched the distance of the fast run, you should shut it down because you've got as much out of it as you could this session.

And I think it's kind of the point to have the legs not feel refreshed when you start again. At least for one type of speed training.

Well, that's interesting about the trigger for the next sprint.  

So, is there any issue for me to run some 400's on Thursdays?  Say 5-400s w/200 recovery at 10k pace?

That would make weights MWF and speedwork TTh of 100s on Tuesdays and 400s on Thursdays.

ounce wrote:Well, that's interesting about the trigger for the next sprint.  

So, is there any issue for me to run some 400's on Thursdays?  Say 5-400s w/200 recovery at 10k pace?

That would make weights MWF and speedwork TTh of 100s on Tuesdays and 400s on Thursdays.

Nice job on the sprints Doug...both the times and cadence are looking good!

I'd be a bit careful about doing two speed work sessions in the same week.  Especially if you haven't been doing much speed work recently.  I've always been told that you need to be careful not to do too many quality/high intensity runs to close together.

Keep up the good work but be careful!