Building A Better Bumblebee

This is interesting stuff Mark.  I can't quite figure out the scales though,  

I would like to get a similar profile done at some point.  How did you go about arranging this?

mountandog wrote:This is interesting stuff Mark.  I can't quite figure out the scales though,  

I would like to get a similar profile done at some point.  How did you go about arranging this?

Yeah, it's a little hard to follow. The easiest thing to see is when I went into Zone 5. Those lines shot up like a rocket.

Here's the color-coded table that shows heart rate ranges, calorie and fat consumption and effort (in watts), as well as the recovery time. The table below the numbers explains what's happening in each zone.



As far as getting a test yourself, my local community college did the testing. I'd start checking at places like that. They tend to go by word of mouth, however; I'd been in town for nearly 10 years before discovering this program.

I've been less than diligent running this week. It's partly due to the fact that I tweaked my lower back or sacrum (?) after sitting too long at work last week, but also because it's spring vacation and squeezing in runs means getting up early in the only week where getting a regular dose of decent sleep can happen. (I'm taking the week off, too.) Still, maybe I'll get something accomplished tomorrow.

It's not that the week is a total waste, mind you. We've spent time going through the stockpile of items we never bothered to take out of the boxes in our garage. Some of it is going back in the house, but a chunk of it is headed for a garage sale or donations.



Not the greatest fun ever, but it's been hanging over us for months now. It's good to move toward closure.

One other thing. I've heard that it's difficult to improve your VO2 max much with training, so I plugged in my numbers (40.44) into a race predictor to see what sort of times they yielded. I was surprised to find that it suggested 5K and marathon times that are actually quite close to my PRs at those distances. (5K 23:53 vs 24:01 actually; marathon 3:47:34 vs 3:46:17 actually).

If that's true, it suggests that I did a pretty good job of maxing out my potential through my training approach. Still, it'd be interesting to see if it's possible to boost those numbers at least a little. (I have read in some places that some improvement - maybe up to 25% - is possible for moderately fit people.) We'll see if that ever makes it from "interesting" to "doing."

Trail Run: 2.61 miles with Alita

Weather: Sunny and mild. About 50 degrees. Gear: Altra Superiors, shorts, T. Fuel/fluid: None

Finally got out after too many days off. Went for a trail run with Alita, who wants to start getting back into running again. I took it easy and was very happy to see that I could ease up hills at a HR well below my target... the same hills that had my HR bouncing up not so long ago. Nice!

Part of me wonders if this is because my brain/body has accepted my new target as the proper one.

The paces were very easy, with some walking now and then. It was a nice morning, and the company was nicer.



Walked first and last 5 (or so). Average HR for entire run: 116

Mark B wrote:Trail Run: 2.61 miles with Alita

Weather: Sunny and mild. About 50 degrees. Gear: Altra Superiors, shorts, T. Fuel/fluid: None

Finally got out after too many days off. Went for a trail run with Alita, who wants to start getting back into running again. I took it easy and was very happy to see that I could ease up hills at a HR well below my target... the same hills that had my HR bouncing up not so long ago. Nice!

Part of me wonders if this is because my brain/body has accepted my new target as the proper one.

The paces were very easy, with some walking now and then. It was a nice morning, and the company was nicer.



Walked first and last 5 (or so). Average HR for entire run: 116

 What a nice way to spend the morning!

Mark B wrote:One other thing. I've heard that it's difficult to improve your VO2 max much with training, so I plugged in my numbers (40.44) into a race predictor to see what sort of times they yielded. I was surprised to find that it suggested 5K and marathon times that are actually quite close to my PRs at those distances. (5K 23:53 vs 24:01 actually; marathon 3:47:34 vs 3:46:17 actually).

If that's true, it suggests that I did a pretty good job of maxing out my potential through my training approach. Still, it'd be interesting to see if it's possible to boost those numbers at least a little. (I have read in some places that some improvement - maybe up to 25% - is possible for moderately fit people.) We'll see if that ever makes it from "interesting" to "doing."

Poppycock.  You're too old to PR!

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:Trail Run: 2.61 miles with Alita

Weather: Sunny and mild. About 50 degrees. Gear: Altra Superiors, shorts, T. Fuel/fluid: None

Finally got out after too many days off. Went for a trail run with Alita, who wants to start getting back into running again. I took it easy and was very happy to see that I could ease up hills at a HR well below my target... the same hills that had my HR bouncing up not so long ago. Nice!

Part of me wonders if this is because my brain/body has accepted my new target as the proper one.

The paces were very easy, with some walking now and then. It was a nice morning, and the company was nicer.



Walked first and last 5 (or so). Average HR for entire run: 116

 What a nice way to spend the morning!

It was very nice! Alita didn't tell me this until the end, but she wanted to extend it to 49 minutes as a way of celebrating her 49th birthday.

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:One other thing. I've heard that it's difficult to improve your VO2 max much with training, so I plugged in my numbers (40.44) into a race predictor to see what sort of times they yielded. I was surprised to find that it suggested 5K and marathon times that are actually quite close to my PRs at those distances. (5K 23:53 vs 24:01 actually; marathon 3:47:34 vs 3:46:17 actually).

If that's true, it suggests that I did a pretty good job of maxing out my potential through my training approach. Still, it'd be interesting to see if it's possible to boost those numbers at least a little. (I have read in some places that some improvement - maybe up to 25% - is possible for moderately fit people.) We'll see if that ever makes it from "interesting" to "doing."

Poppycock.  You're too old to PR!

I guess time will tell on that, Ounce. I didn't bother to mention what a 25% improvement in VO2 max would translate to in a marathon, but suffice it to say, it was eye-popping. And pretty much impossible to visualize. (If I could quit my job and be paid to train, with the services of coaches, PTs, nutritionists, etc., maybe I could get closer to that "potential." But in the real world? Ha!)

Back to reality, and back to it:

Low HR Run: 12 miles (longest in more than a year)

Weather: Increasing clouds, with a bit of sun. Mild. 47-53° Gear: Luna Sandals, shorts, T, jacket (stripped after a couple of miles). Fuel: Nothing. Only water (and a lowish-carb breakfast, too).

Today was my day to break through a big mental block. I'd never taken the sandals (or my bare feet) over 10 miles, and part of me was starting to wonder if that was my ceiling for such minimalist running, because I'd never gotten past it. 

Mission accomplished. I ran 12 miles, pacing myself as easily as I could, hitting/accepting my new/true HR target as much as possible. Pace didn't matter, especially since I switched to a lower-carb breakfast and went fuel-free on the run. Time to burn some butter!

The run went pretty well. It got a bit more difficult after 10, but not horribly so - and that was more fuel than footwear. So I'll consider that a success.

Being that this is the farthest I've ran in more than a year, the farthest I've ever run in a near-barefoot condition -- and that I ran it on minimal carbs -- success is maybe an understatement.


Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run 128

Woohoo!!!

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Woohoo!!!

Thanks, Michele! Not overly sore this morning, either, so that's a good thing. Onward!

Looks like that was a challenging out that was well executed.  Nice job.
Is Beacon Rock looking doable?

nkrichards wrote:Looks like that was a challenging out that was well executed.  Nice job.
Is Beacon Rock looking doable?

I think so, yes. But there is a 99% chance that I'll be dropping down to the 25K.

It's a challenging course, so it'd be a good confidence builder.

I was all set to sign up for the Oregon Coast 50K in October, but the race organizers pushed the sign-up date back for the second time because of permitting problems. Hm. Seems possible this big goal race of mine might not happen...

Walk: 2.2 miles

Weather: Mostly cloudy, a little sun, a few raindrops. 50°

An active recovery walk at lunch, out along the Columbia River. I kept it easy, and it felt good.

Barefoot Run: 3.1 miles

Weather: Fog/overcast, chilly. 37° Gear: Bare feet, tights, T, pullover, jacket, hat, gloves (peeled layers off as my feet warmed up). Fuel: None, lowish carb breakfast.

Squeezed in a barefoot run on damp asphalt on an unusually cool and foggy spring morning. It felt Monday's longer run a bit, with a slight heaviness in the legs as the run progressed, but my pace was pretty good and my HR more or less behaved.

Mark B wrote:Barefoot Run: 3.1 miles

Weather: Fog/overcast, chilly. 37° Gear: Bare feet, tights, T, pullover, jacket, hat, gloves (peeled layers off as my feet warmed up). Fuel: None, lowish carb breakfast.

Squeezed in a barefoot run on damp asphalt on an unusually cool and foggy spring morning. It felt Monday's longer run a bit, with a slight heaviness in the legs as the run progressed, but my pace was pretty good and my HR more or less behaved.

 It was unusually chilly on this side of the mountain this morning as well...23 degrees...my asparagus had frozen when I went out to pick it for lunch.
But it was sunny and the mountains were beautiful!

nkrichards wrote: It was unusually chilly on this side of the mountain this morning as well...23 degrees...my asparagus had frozen when I went out to pick it for lunch.
But it was sunny and the mountains were beautiful!

Oh, no! I can imagine what that poor asparagus looked like.

But the views? I bet it was spectacular. It took a while for the fog and low clouds to clear out, but it ended up sunny and bright. Looks like we're getting the sunny and bright right away this morning. Woot!

Heading to Nike for a bit of dynamic testing. I'll wear my HR monitor there for a change and treat it as short tempo repeats. How fast can I run at a HR of 143 (my tested LT) now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Mark B wrote:One other thing. I've heard that it's difficult to improve your VO2 max much with training, so I plugged in my numbers (40.44) into a race predictor to see what sort of times they yielded. I was surprised to find that it suggested 5K and marathon times that are actually quite close to my PRs at those distances. (5K 23:53 vs 24:01 actually; marathon 3:47:34 vs 3:46:17 actually).

If that's true, it suggests that I did a pretty good job of maxing out my potential through my training approach. Still, it'd be interesting to see if it's possible to boost those numbers at least a little. (I have read in some places that some improvement - maybe up to 25% - is possible for moderately fit people.) We'll see if that ever makes it from "interesting" to "doing."

Nerd alert!

I was recalling a conversation I was having with the tester on the impact weigh has on calculating VO2max. The way it works is dividing the volume of O2 consumed (in milliliters), by your weight in kilograms. When we were chatting, I incorrectly assumed a lower weight would mean a lower VO2 max due to the math. He agreed, but I started thinking about it and actually ran the numbers to see.

The result? VO2max IMPROVES with the same effort at a lower weight. If I'd put out the same effort and weighed about 158 pounds (72kg) instead of 186 pounds (84.4kg), my VO2 max would have been about 45.6, not 40.44. Plugging that into the trusty race predictor shows a 5K of 21:34, a half marathon of 1:39 and a marathon of 3:26. That actually sounds within the realm of possibility as a best-possible effort.

I've cross-checked some of the results based on the data, and they don't entirely match up. He seems to have used some more specific numbers that aren't in my paperwork. One alternative calculation puts a potential VO2 max at about 47 at 72kg. But the point is still the same, and fairly obvious: lighter=more efficient/faster.

Okay, back to reality, if running around the Nike World HQ counts as "reality..."
(Note, for the track and field fans, that I saw Jordan Hasay doing a workout when I was there. Lordy.)

Dynamic Testing/Tempo Run: 2.73 miles total (Two sessions of 1.37 miles each)

Weather: Sunny, mild, about 50.

Off to Nike to test some shoe conditions, and see what sort of speed happens at what the lab test estimates as my lactate threshold (a measly 143 bpm).

Maybe it was the shoes, maybe it was the slight hill, or maybe it's something else, but 143 bpm felt like *nothing* when I was running... and my legs wanted to go faster, pushing me far above that level. I did two out-and-back loops, and I said the heck with it and pushed the last bit of the second repeat and easily got my HR up to what the lab said was my utter maximum heart rate of 172... and I was far from maxed out. In fact, I was just hitting "comfortably hard" at that point. Hm. (I must note that I saw the HR monitor in the lab his 183 when I shut it down, but he took 172 for reasons I don't quite understand.)

So.. what's up with that?

Anyway, this all suggests to me that (aside from treadmill tests not necessarily reflecting real world conditions) maybe I have become what Maffetone calls "anaerobically deficient." That shouldn't come as a surprise, I suppose, and it means that I should actually figure out how to add some routine intensity to my training and see if it helps.

(Yes, you did just see a pig fly by your window.)

Average HR for entire run: 148, MaxHR: 172.

Low HR Run: 4 miles

Weather: Sunny and mild. 57-60° (kind of as shock to the system) Gear: Luna Sandals, shorts, T. Fuel: Lowish-carb breakfast. Only water during run.

I wasn't sure how this run was going to go, or even if I should do it, after my higher-intensity escapade at Nike yesterday. My mileage is back up this week after a two-week hiatus, and rest might have been a good idea. I decided to run, anyway, but promised myself that I'd listen to my body and adjust the length of the run accordingly.

I ended up doing more, and I'm glad I showed restraint. I had a tough time keeping control of my HR as the run progressed. It was either the running I did yesterday, or the sun, or the fact that I'm cutting back on carbs in the morning. (I have dropped from 187 a week ago to 184 this morning, so that's nice.) Regardless, the last mile was kind of crappy, despite the beautiful spring morning.

Rest day tomorrow, for sure.

Walked first and last 5 minutes. Average HR for entire run: 123

Part 1

Low HR Run: 4 miles (with a MAF mile thrown in for good measure)

Weather: Clear, cool with a bit of a breeze. Gear: Luna sandals, shorts, T, jacket until warmed up. Fuel: Just coffee before. Only water during.

Met up with my training partner at the track. He's a little beat up, so it seemed like a good idea to make it as easy as possible, with an option to bail out every quarter mile. I'm doing a trail run with Alita later, so easy sounded good to me.

This wasn't a full MAF test, but I aimed for my target HR (129/130) and was very pleased to see a sub-12 pace (11:55) in the first post-warmup mile with an average HR of 129. (That's 30+ seconds faster than last time, so it's a big improvement. It also technically counts as a MAF mile pace, so I did a little happy dance and added it to my chart for future reference.)

The second mile was slower (12:43) but with a lower HR, and a brief walking break that slowed us down quite a bit, so it doesn't really count. So not bad. The last mile was slower, with more walking.

Average HR for entire run: 114

Part 2:

Trail Run: 2.6 miles (more than my Garmin said, due to pausing error on my part)

Weather: Sunny, warm. 64 degrees. Gear: Lunas, shorts, T. Fuel: Low-carb breakfast, carried water.

Out for my second run of the day, this time a trail outing with Alita.

I decided today would be a good day to see if my Luna Monos could handle the somewhat gravely trails in the local park -- I used to be able to go barefoot there until they buffed them out for all-season use -- and I experimented with Luna's supplemental "tech straps" that wrap around the ankle to make them more secure on uneven terrain.

The run went well. Alita did fine, and we did the same distance as last time. We walked a little, as it was warmer than last time and the low-carb breakfast didn't exactly leave us brimming with energy.

The sandals handled the terrain fine, though a couple of rocks caught the underside of my arch and made me yelp. I'm not sure if the tech straps had any impact. The sandals felt a bit more secure on (more like Tevas than flip-flops with heel straps), and they seemed to handle steeper downhills easier. On flats and climbs? Not so much. I did notice that it tended to shift the position of one of my feet to where the toe strap rubbed, which was odd. So, jury's still out.

It was a pretty day, with good company. Looking forward to doing this more.

Average HR for entire run: 117

Trail Run: 9.8 miles (est)

Weather: Sunny, in the 50s at the start, warming to close to 70. Gear: Altra Superiors, shorts, T, Camelbak. Fuel: Lowish-carb breakfast w/coffee. During run: 2 packs of granola bars and 1 gu. Also about 5 Endurolytes. Only water in pack.

Tried something different this morning and ran the Larch Mountain Trail, which offers about the most vertical you can get in this area. The trail starts at an elevation of about 20 feet near the Columbia River and tops out above 4,000 feet at the top of Larch Mountain on a 7.2-mile trail.

I didn't make it all the way up -- I didn't have time -- but I made it 4.8 miles from the trailhead before I turned around. I'd hoped the return trip would be faster -- it's pretty seriously steep -- but it's also pretty technical in places, which made downhill running not a consistent option. It also jammed my ankles and jabbed my feet several times, which has me thinking that a bit more underfoot protection would be wise on trails like this. (Yes, you just saw another pig fly by your window.)

I used my lab-tested LT level of 143 as a red line target on the way up and did a pretty good job of keeping it below that level as I hiked steadily up (the scenery was amazing). I revved it a bit when I met up with a hiker who wanted to walk with me and was going slightly faster, but I hit the turnaround point at about 2,900 feet in elevation and started heading back.

Up: 2 hours, 15 minutes.
Down: 1 hour 35 minutes.

Note: The GPS distance was wildly inaccurate, so I'm going by trail markers.

Footing was tricky. These shoes have poor traction on water when wet, and that's scary on some of the jackhammered-out sections I was negotiating. But when I hit the last section, when I descended from the top of Multnomah Falls to the parking lot below, I hit asphalt and was able to let it go a little faster... while dodging folks with strollers, of course.

Average HR for entire run: 131


No, the climb wasn't that much. Strava estimated it at about 3,200 feet total, and that sounds about right. Distance here is off, too, if the trail maps and markers are to be believed.

Now a few photos. There are more on my Facebook page.


One of the many waterfalls on the path. The price of admission to this area is climbing up out of the Columbia River Gorge, past the top of Multnomah Falls, and following the water as it cascades down the mountainside above.


When the water wasn't plunging over big drops, it was working its way downslope thusly. The steepness of the stream pretty much matched the steepness of the trail.


Low-engineered footbridge. Log, leveled off, with handrail.


This shows one of several small waterfalls that came down right on the trail, which in areas like this near the water were quite rocky and somewhat tricky to navigate. I discovered here that my old Altra Superiors stink at traction while wet. Scared the daylights out of me a couple of times.


Speaking of rocks, and tricky footing... here's the beginning of a rockfall once you got away from the water. Trail? Well, it's there somewhere.


Here I am, wondering 1) how to get make it through without breaking an ankle and 2) wondering just how far this rockfall stretched, because it wrapped around a hill and I couldn't see the other side.


Here's what I was looking at. It ended up being several hundred yards, maybe a quarter mile. Going up was tricky; going down was worse.

My Superiors have a thin rock plate in them, but I'm going to be checking out the more robust Lone Peak soon. I love thin and flexible, with lots of ground feel more than most, but there are limits. It's no fun if you bash up your feet, and I came down with a sharp-edged rock on my lateral arch a couple of times and ye-ouch! That hurts. I had a couple of near-twists, but my ankles were strong enough to handle it. That's good news.

Recovery Walk: 1.3 miles

Weather: Overcast, 60. Shoes: Vivobarefoot work shoes

As expected I was pretty sore this morning after yesterday's rocky climb/descent, but mostly in my lower legs. My feet and ankles were in pretty good shape, which I take as a sign my ankle strengthening efforts have paid off. I'm feeling it where I should -- in the muscles that support the ankle -- rather than in the joint itself.

I probably should have taken this as a rest day, but I was feeling restless and went out at lunch to see if I could get some blood flowing and help the recovery process. I kept it short and was glad I did; I never loosened up. Glad I didn't try to get ambitious.

Heh. I might have failed to take the possibility of DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness) into account in my post on Tuesday.

Later that night, ka-POW! My quads started complaining. A lot.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I did (mostly) run down about 3,200 feet of steep trail on Monday. The eccentric load on my quads was significant. But it's crazy how it seems fine at first before blowing up. I read that it's possible to continue training with DOMS and not do further damage to the muscle (they're not even really sure what it is), but the tightness has made one leg kind of wobbly, so I've opted for rest.

The quads in my right leg have mostly cleared, but my left leg is still touchy, so another rest day today.

It's been kind of inconvenient from a training standpoint, but hopefully I'll get some benefit out of it. Even if I don't, it was still worth it.