Training Archive: PBrickerIn the 7 days ending 2006-12-24:
| [csv] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| M | T | W | H | F | S | S | |||||||
Sunday Dec 24 | ||
| Trail Run 54:44 [3] 5.22 mi (10:29 / mi) | |
| Mt Tom loop, 3 1/2 minutes slower than last Aug when I was in 20 minute 5k shape: I've got a lot of work to do. Just didn't have anything on the hills, partly due to my sore left quad which has been acting up again. I have about six chronic injuries that seem to just rotate in and out.
Forerunner strikes again, claiming the distance was 4.56 miles. I used to log this as 6 miles, which I knew was way too high since there's about 350 meters of climb and a couple of rock scrambles. But I never doubted it was over 5 miles! Looking at the route blown up on Garmin training center (I don't yet know how to overlay it on a OCAD map), some doubts about FR accuracy crept in. It showed the starting point was about 500 feet north of the finishing point (for a loop!). It seems the errors creept in mostly the two times I stopped the watch for a minute or two (once to take a dump, once to admire the view and stretch a sore achilles at the top of Whiting Peak); so it may not have affected the calculation of distance. Checking runs with FR earlier this week, the distance between start and end points was much less: about 200 feet on my Frost out-and-back; about 150 feet on the Toby run. Might this have to do with the movement of the satelites over the course of the run? Splits with FR distances; 12:54 (1.00), 9:13 (.82), 12:38 (.53), 7:24 (.79), 5:29 (.56), 7:02 (.86). Addendum: sport tracks says this is 5.22. That sounds more accurate to me! | ||
Saturday Dec 23 | ||
| Trail/Road Run 46:00 [3] 5.0 mi (9:12 / mi) | |
| From home, inner loop of XC course, plus Smith track and fields. Very easy pace.
I spent some time testing the accuracy of the Forerunner, which continues to impress (though this test was all in the open). When I measured a lap on the track and the 100 meter run, it was accurate to within a foot or two. When I did the 100 again with switchbacks across all 8 lanes of the lap, it lost less than half of the extra distance; when I did switchbacks across just three lanes it lost about 3/4. As viewing it in map mode confirmed, it wasn't always getting data points close enough to the turnaround points. If you move slowly, it records moves of less than 5 feet, though the distance measurement fluctuates as much as 5-10 feet from noise, even when standing still, so the accuracy is probably dependable only up to 10 feet. When I got home, I read in the manual that I was using the default for data recording which is "smart recording", and which is less accurate (records fewer data points) than the setting "every one second". Recording every second, it should have no trouble (at my pace) catching trail twists and turns greater than 5 feet, or 10 feet at the worst. Unless, that is, its accuracy diminishes substantially under tree cover. | ||
| C • So when you have it so that it... 4 | ||
Friday Dec 22 | ||
| Trail Run 53:41 [3] 6.03 mi (8:54 / mi) | |
| With PG, the Sugar-Gunn loop, plus an extra half mile loop near the caves to keep the ramp going for Peter. A steady, moderate pace: no incentive to push the pace since I was sure Peter wouldn't let me get away, and so it would have been pain without gain. Though I did notice that every time I drifted 5-10 meters ahead Peter used the trick of asking some question, knowing that would draw us back together.
Down by the farm, Peter inexplicably stopped to slobber over a flock of wild turkeys. I commented that turkeys only interested me when they were on my plate. I guess I need an attitude adjustment if I'm to become AOWN. Splits: 17:05 (1.77, power line), 8:54 (1.02), 4:39 (.5 extra loop), 7:02 (.85, bottom Gunn), 6:02 (.65, top Gunn), 6:06 (.8, turn off N. Mt), 3:44 (.44) The distances were recorded by my new Forerunner. Peter was impressively accurate in his estimations, usually no more than a couple hundredths off, and sometimes spot on. I guess he's more of a "realist" about training, and I'm more of an "idealist". Makes me think of a box score I once saw for a baseball game (last column is the final score): Realists 351 403 231 0 Idealists 000 000 000 1 | ||
| C • So I assume the proper reading... 3 | ||
Thursday Dec 21 | ||
| grass 22:48 [3] 2.7 mi (8:26 / mi) | |
| 3 laps around UMass field. I'm saving myself for a run tomorrow with PG.
Forerunner says each lap is .89, which is below the lower bound of my earlier guestimate of .9-.95. Back in the toilet. (Well, I shouldn't be surprised: the turf is thick, soft, and uneven.) | ||
| C • Excellent workout today! You ... 2 | ||
Wednesday Dec 20 | ||
| Trail Run 48:20 [3] 5.5 mi (8:47 / mi) | |
| Juggler. My body, including my back, is feeling a bit sturdier. 8:19, 9:38, 7:01 (24:59), 6:34, 9:14, 7:32 (23:21)
This is my standard "6 mile" trail run. The forerunner measured it at 5.45, which pisses me off. I threw it in the toilet. | ||
| C • Forerunner Water Immersion Test 4 | ||
Tuesday Dec 19 | ||
| machines 38:00 [3] | |
| bike, 8:00 (waiting for an elliptical to free up).
Elliptical, 30:00, h14. After a lot of lifting. I'm doing heavier weights on all the machines than a couple months ago: does that mean the 5 pounds I've added is all muscle mass? Fat chance. | ||