Training Log Archive: iansmithIn the 1 days ending May 1, 2013:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | ||||
| |||||||
| We |
Wednesday May 1, 2013 #
Note
Legs feel a bit tired. Getting lots of sleep over the next 11 days must be a top priority.
Yay 90 pts*. This is exciting, though my rank is inflated because of the paucity of A-meet events from the fall; many competitors don't have the requisite 4 races. While it's cool setting a "PR" in the blue rankings, this is basically immaterial because if I have to use my ranking in the trials races, my chances of making the team are very low. I suppose when it gets rescaled, it will pick up a few points - probably to around 92.4. The blue field has been a bit weaker this year than in years past; the onus is on all of us to get faster. Being in the top k in any field is neat, but it should be the goal of the entire community to raise the competitive standard.
*I was buoyed by the change to top four races. All other things equal, my ranking would be 87.4 if the top (n/2+2) races were used, as in the past. Of course, were (n/2+2) used, the rankings for others would also have shifted monotonically down, so maybe I would have normalized higher relative to the field. Dunno.
Yay 90 pts*. This is exciting, though my rank is inflated because of the paucity of A-meet events from the fall; many competitors don't have the requisite 4 races. While it's cool setting a "PR" in the blue rankings, this is basically immaterial because if I have to use my ranking in the trials races, my chances of making the team are very low. I suppose when it gets rescaled, it will pick up a few points - probably to around 92.4. The blue field has been a bit weaker this year than in years past; the onus is on all of us to get faster. Being in the top k in any field is neat, but it should be the goal of the entire community to raise the competitive standard.
*I was buoyed by the change to top four races. All other things equal, my ranking would be 87.4 if the top (n/2+2) races were used, as in the past. Of course, were (n/2+2) used, the rankings for others would also have shifted monotonically down, so maybe I would have normalized higher relative to the field. Dunno.
C • 90+ 3
9 AM
Running 14:10 2.86 km (4:57 / km) +3m 4:56 / km
ahr:155 max:167 shoes: 201304 Asics Gel Cumulus 13
Commute.
11 PM
Running 58:25 11.52 km (5:04 / km) +1m 5:04 / km
ahr:153 max:182 shoes: 201304 Asics Gel Cumulus 13
I stayed at work longer than was advised yesterday, and my legs weren't feeling great, so I postponed the interval workout to today. Last big quality workout before the trials. I warmed up for twenty minutes, ran 4x100m strides, then did 4x400, 1600, 3x400. The last 400 was added on at a whim.
I was very slow out the start - my HR barely reached my lactate threshold on the first three 400s. I didn't look at my watch until the third one, when I realized how slowly I had been running. My mile was pitifully slow, and I was a bit upset. I decided to hammer the last three 400s, and ran satisfactory times. Given my fatigue after West Point, I'm not terribly dissatisfied, and the short quick intervals will hopefully lead to a bit more quickness in my running.
4x400 (1:30 rest): 1:27, 1:25, 1:23, 1:18
1600: 1:27, 1:30, 1:26, 1:24 = 5:47 (r u srs)
3x400: 1:15, 1:16, 1:15
I was very slow out the start - my HR barely reached my lactate threshold on the first three 400s. I didn't look at my watch until the third one, when I realized how slowly I had been running. My mile was pitifully slow, and I was a bit upset. I decided to hammer the last three 400s, and ran satisfactory times. Given my fatigue after West Point, I'm not terribly dissatisfied, and the short quick intervals will hopefully lead to a bit more quickness in my running.
4x400 (1:30 rest): 1:27, 1:25, 1:23, 1:18
1600: 1:27, 1:30, 1:26, 1:24 = 5:47 (r u srs)
3x400: 1:15, 1:16, 1:15