Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Restructuring my fall schedule.

I'm cutting back to 2 big races that I'm going to let my entire fall success ride on. I was going to be running the St George Marathon in 2 1/2 weeks, but I decided after Cascade Crest that I'm not ready for it. I'd been doing fairly consistent speed/tempo work through July, but didn't really do any in August, so I'm going to want to rebuild a bit of that top-of-the-line speed and add even more on before I run another marathon. I've decided to do the Las Vegas Marathon in early December. That gives me 2 1/2 months to peak, which is precisely what I'll need to hit it perfectly. The course is flat instead of downhill like St George, but since it's basically right at sea level compared to the 2000-5000 feet that St George is at, it shouldn't be much slower.

I'm still going to be running the Helen Klein 50 miler on Halloween, but it's not really a typical ultra. Based on the heart rate I was able to sustain for 50 miles at Mt Disappointment (~160 average), I should be able to hold a little over 160 bpm average at HK50 since it's a faster course that will require less time at any given level of effort. On a flat course at very nearly sea level, 160 will put me well under 8:00/mile, so figuring maybe 10 minutes in for water bottle refills, very quick 30 second breaks to pound down high calorie foods, and an almost certain bathroom break, I think i should be able to run somewhere around the 6:30:00 range (6:40:00 would be 8:00/mile if I never stopped). 6:30 sounds somewhat ambitious, but I split the halfway point at American River 50 (which runs on the same bike path as HK50 for the first 27 miles) in 3:17 and I was able to hold a pretty similar effort for the second half (only it was on much slower trails, which took a lot longer to run). Also, my fitness will certainly be much better going into this race than going into American River, so I think I should be able to have a better performance.

As for training, I've been kicking up the speed. On the easy days that Karl gives me, I'm trying to find the flattest ways to run that I can so even if my effort is low, my pace will still be pretty fast. My long runs are mostly mountain runs right now where the pace is slow, but the intensity and time taken to complete the run are both pretty high due to very long strenuous climbs, etc. I'm also going to be consistently hitting tempo-range track workouts at least once a week pretty much every week between now and December. My cardiovascular system is definitely much more efficient than it was at the beginning of the summer, so my VO2 max has certainly improved, which gives me room to raise my lactate threshold, and therefore drop my racing times a fair amount.

8 comments:

  1. "On the easy days that Karl gives me, I'm trying to find the flattest ways to run that I can so even if my effort is low, my pace will still be pretty fast."

    is that something Karl says to do? I'm interested because I was always under the impression an easy day should mean easy pace/effort/volume etc. If it's a flat route with a fast pace then your effort level really shouldn't be that low...and aren't you defeating the purpose of an "easy" day meant for recovery?

    -Alyssa

    ReplyDelete
  2. Easy vs hard is all about effort, not pace. As long as my heart rate stays low, it's "easy". Karl is fine with that, yeah. Any moderate distance run where my heart rate typically stays below 170 is going to be very easy no matter what pace I'm running at, so as long as I'm not pushing faster than marathon pace, I can recover doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. alyssa - he meant "fast for most humans", but easy for him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 170bpm is really high no matter who you are or what you're doing

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keeping it below 170 means that I'm never breaking into my threshold range, so as far as I'm concerned, that means it's pretty easy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would direct you to this pic of heartrate zones:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exercise_zones.png

    Ryan is right - no matter how you cut it 170 is way too high to make your cutoff for an easy day. I realize you would probably say your easy is higher than others' easy, but still - 170 is ridiculous. Easy is supposed to mean easy. Even like 150 is barely "easy."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've undergone cardiopoint testing to figure out my zones and they're shifted up a lot from those on the wiki page. Those are for an average non-athlete, a trained runner will have zones considerably higher than that. My easiest zone (for recovery days after a race and/or super super easy warmup) is 150-160, so 150 is not barely "easy" to me. 170 is the cap of my easy/endurance training mode, so not going above 170 means that I don't go above my easy zone. My max is about 200 and I have been able to average over 160 for over 9 hours, so I would not call 170 hard at all. I've never worn a HR monitor in a marathon previously, but I should be able to hold about 170 for the entire duration if I'm in shape in December. Keeping my effort at or easier than marathon effort for 45 minutes or so definitely constitutes easy...

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS, Alyssa, your graph says that 80% of my heart rate is "anaerobic". I guess that means a 50 mile race (80.5% max average in the one that I've worn a HR monitor in) is in my anaerobic zone. :)

    ReplyDelete