Sliding toward my goals...

nkrichards wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:

Mark B wrote:

nkrichards wrote:
I did notice that dependent children over 17 aren't even eligible for the additional $500 that children get.  Does that make sense?  NO!  They are either dependent children or independent adults but they are humans and a part of our economy!!

Just dropping in (fun watching the cadence experiments - try it barefoot!) to add this one editorial comment to what you said above.

It WAS a bi-partisan agreement.

I can hear each of our reps saying, "Yeah, I tried SO hard to get a 17 year old included, but it just wasn't to be.  You know, a passing a bill is like making sausag...."

But, are you sure all 17 year olds ARE human?

Can't speak for 17-year-olds, but 19-year-old college students with no job prospects and student loans seem to be the sort of human beings who might actually benefit from emergency help at this time. If aid isn't deemed appropriate to these fully fledged adults, how about to the parents who still provide sufficient levels of support (now doubled, since they were paying for college expenses and now have to pay for them at home) to be able to count them as dependents on their taxes? 

It's a bizarre and punishing oversight. Less for us, because we're doing okay and still have our jobs. But for others?  

Note: I didn't see any partisan inclination to my flaming head, and I haven't reviewed the legislation in question, so I can't say if it was an explicit omission by the bill writers or an interpretation by the executive branch of the legislation. It could be either. I can say with certainty, however, that it'd be nice if whatever it was is specifically rectified in the next bailout bill.

I wouldn't hold my breath.  Not sure if/when the next bailout bill will pass...and will it be a bailout or just a conglomeration of pet projects with just enough of frosting to call it a bailout???

nkrichards wrote:Date  Miles  Pace    HR  Cadence  VO  GTC  Stride
3/18   3      12:48  151    150    10.2  318    .84
3/20   3      12:28  151    152     9.7   315    .85
3/23   3      11:56  146    154     9.9   304    .87
3/24   3      11:46  153    155    10.0  302    .89
3/25   3      11:34  155    155     9.4   300    .90
3/27   5      11:55  154    154     9.6   304    .87
3/28   3      10:58  150    160     9.9   286    .92 Gnome @160
4/2     4      10:25  156    161    10.0  280    .95 forgot Gnome
4/4     5      10:52  159    163     9.4   277    .91 Gnome @170
4/5     3      11:14  148    162     9.7   283    .88 Gnome @165
4/7     5      12:06  146    157     9.6   298    .85 left Gnome home
4/9     4      11:09  153    160    10.0  283    .90 Gnome @165
4/10   3      11:18  149    163    10.1  276    .88 Gnome @165
4/11   4      11:34  145    161    10.0  280    .86 Gnome @165
4/14   4      10:44  152    164      9.9  270    .92 Gnome @165
4/15   5      11:40  147    158      9.8  293    .87 Gnome @165 mile 1 & 5 only


VO = Vertical Oscillation 
GTC = Ground Contact Time

Not a stellar run today but kind of what I was expecting.  I've been hoping to get a 5 mile run in for several days and it just hasn't happened.  I decided to do it today no matter what.  Not the best plan after a pretty hard 4 yesterday.  I got dressed for my run at 10:00.  Life got in the way and I wasn't able to head out till well after 1:00.  It was warm, breezy, to close to lunch and I was flustered.  But determined!  Set the Gnome @ 165 and headed out without great expectations.

5 miles @ 11:40 HR 147 Cadence 158 VO 9.8 GCT 293 Stride .87
10:46 HR 137 Cadence 164 Stride .91
11:37 HR 145 Cadence 158 Stride .87
12:08 HR 147 Cadence 154 Stride .86
12:30 HR 151 Cadence 153 Stride .84
11:18 HR 156 Cadence 162 Stride .88

I realized early in the 2nd mile that if I kept up that effort I wasn't going to be able to finish my 5.  I couldn't hold my cadence and my legs were already complaining.  I turned the Gnome off and just ran without worrying about anything other than finishing safely.  I enjoyed a gorgeous view of the mountains and I saw my fox...good thing I was running slowly.  Once I completed mile 4 I knew I could make it home so I turned the Gnome back on.  Wasn't able to get back to the pace or cadence of that first mile...or yesterday's run...but I did finish well.  

Not sure if I made the right choice or not but I'm pleased that I didn't give up and cut it short.

Tomorrow is another day.

nkrichards wrote:Date  Miles  Pace    HR  Cadence  VO  GTC  Stride
3/18   3      12:48  151    150    10.2  318    .84
3/20   3      12:28  151    152     9.7   315    .85
3/23   3      11:56  146    154     9.9   304    .87
3/24   3      11:46  153    155    10.0  302    .89
3/25   3      11:34  155    155     9.4   300    .90
3/27   5      11:55  154    154     9.6   304    .87
3/28   3      10:58  150    160     9.9   286    .92 Gnome @160
4/2     4      10:25  156    161    10.0  280    .95 forgot Gnome
4/4     5      10:52  159    163     9.4   277    .91 Gnome @170
4/5     3      11:14  148    162     9.7   283    .88 Gnome @165
4/7     5      12:06  146    157     9.6   298    .85 left Gnome home
4/9     4      11:09  153    160    10.0  283    .90 Gnome @165
4/10   3      11:18  149    163    10.1  276    .88 Gnome @165
4/11   4      11:34  145    161    10.0  280    .86 Gnome @165
4/14   4      10:44  152    164      9.9  270    .92 Gnome @165
4/15   5      11:40  147    158      9.8  293    .87 Gnome @165 mile 1 & 5 only
4/16   3      10:20  149    164    10.0  272    .95 Gnome@165

VO = Vertical Oscillation 
GTC = Ground Contact Time


Well I did not listen to Doug's advice.  Laced up my shoes and headed out for the third day in a row.  I did keep it short.  Gnome @165

3 miles @ 10:20 HR 149 Cadence 164 VO 10.0 GCT 272 Stride .95
10:13 HR 137 Cadence 165 Stride .95
10:16 HR 152 Cadence 164 Stride .96
10:32 HR 157 Cadence 164 Stride .93

Happy with that.  Strong headwind took the wind out of my sails...or maybe put the wind against my sails...at the turn around.  Pretty pleased that I was able to hold on during that last mile as well as I did.  Wondering if I'll ever be able to put together a low HR, high cadence run???  I've never been very good at low HR training anyway.

I didn't see my fox today.  It's den is a bit past the turnaround point for a 3 miler.  Will be interesting to see if this was a one time sighting or if I see it often.  As far as a name...no I haven't named it yet.  Any suggestions.  It will have to be a gender neutral name.  I don't know if it's male or female.

Trying to get back into my core/strength workouts.  I did a fun one after lunch today.  Marty won't be able to workout with me much now that irrigation has started.  And I should dust off my bike...

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Date  Miles  Pace    HR  Cadence  VO  GTC  Stride
3/18   3      12:48  151    150    10.2  318    .84
3/20   3      12:28  151    152     9.7   315    .85
3/23   3      11:56  146    154     9.9   304    .87
3/24   3      11:46  153    155    10.0  302    .89
3/25   3      11:34  155    155     9.4   300    .90
3/27   5      11:55  154    154     9.6   304    .87
3/28   3      10:58  150    160     9.9   286    .92 Gnome @160
4/2     4      10:25  156    161    10.0  280    .95 forgot Gnome
4/4     5      10:52  159    163     9.4   277    .91 Gnome @170
4/5     3      11:14  148    162     9.7   283    .88 Gnome @165
4/7     5      12:06  146    157     9.6   298    .85 left Gnome home
4/9     4      11:09  153    160    10.0  283    .90 Gnome @165
4/10   3      11:18  149    163    10.1  276    .88 Gnome @165
4/11   4      11:34  145    161    10.0  280    .86 Gnome @165
4/14   4      10:44  152    164      9.9  270    .92 Gnome @165
4/15   5      11:40  147    158      9.8  293    .87 Gnome @165 mile 1 & 5 only
4/16   3      10:20  149    164    10.0  272    .95 Gnome@165

VO = Vertical Oscillation 
GTC = Ground Contact Time


Well I did not listen to Doug's advice.  Laced up my shoes and headed out for the third day in a row.  I did keep it short.  Gnome @165

3 miles @ 10:20 HR 149 Cadence 164 VO 10.0 GCT 272 Stride .95
10:13 HR 137 Cadence 165 Stride .95
10:16 HR 152 Cadence 164 Stride .96
10:32 HR 157 Cadence 164 Stride .93

Happy with that.  Strong headwind took the wind out of my sails...or maybe put the wind against my sails...at the turn around.  Pretty pleased that I was able to hold on during that last mile as well as I did.  Wondering if I'll ever be able to put together a low HR, high cadence run???  I've never been very good at low HR training anyway.

I didn't see my fox today.  It's den is a bit past the turnaround point for a 3 miler.  Will be interesting to see if this was a one time sighting or if I see it often.  As far as a name...no I haven't named it yet.  Any suggestions.  It will have to be a gender neutral name.  I don't know if it's male or female.

Trying to get back into my core/strength workouts.  I did a fun one after lunch today.  Marty won't be able to workout with me much now that irrigation has started.  And I should dust off my bike...

3 miles is almost as good as a day off.  Nice splits, too.

You and I know the value of looking at figures.  To your statement "Wondering if I'll ever be able to put together a low HR, high cadence run???  I've never been very good at low HR training anyway. "

You're doing it, but as you're keeping about the same HR, you're average pace is dropping like a rock.

Date  Miles  Pace    HR  Cadence  VO  GTC  Stride
3/18   3      12:48  151    150    10.2  318    .84
3/20   3      12:28  151    152     9.7   315    .85
3/23   3      11:56  146    154     9.9   304    .87
3/24   3      11:46  153    155    10.0  302    .89
3/25   3      11:34  155    155     9.4   300    .90
3/28   3      10:58  150    160     9.9   286    .92 Gnome @160
4/5     3      11:14  148    162     9.7   283    .88 Gnome @165
4/10   3      11:18  149    163    10.1  276    .88 Gnome @165
4/16   3      10:20  149    164    10.0  272    .95 Gnome@165



You're speeding up.  That's why your HR isn't dropping like mine has.  Your cadence increase is causing your pace to drop while at pretty much the same HR. 



On March 18, you were doing 12:48 at 151 HR at 150 cadence.

On April 16, you were doing 10:20 at 149 HR at 164 cadence.


So you're right.  Your HR is not dropping and your cadence is increasing.  Pace though has reduces 2 minutes and 28 seconds on a 3 mile run in one month! 



Run at an 11:15 pace for 3 miles at 165 spm and see what your HR is.  Bet it shows a pretty decent HR avg drop.



For the time being, though, you're doing great.  Low pace/high cadence is what you're doing.

ounce wrote:what if you ran a recovery run without the gnome or set the gnome for 156?

Your cadence drops without the gnome, so you should run slower or a lower cadence could do the same.

Or maybe pick a slower pace and dial that pace into your watch as a high side pace workout for 3 miles.

• For a person running 10:00 miles or slower, goal cadence should be 160+.  (170+ for a person with a pace faster than 10:00)
  
• You should expect to run a slower cadence when you slow your pace as in recovery type runs.
  
• Now here's the important part.  The reason that you should run at a higher cadence...if your cadence is "slow" is to change your form.
  

1. Your foot should land under your body with the knee bent...not a straight leg.  Several articles specifically said that it doesn't matter if you land on your heal, mid foot or fore foot as long as you land under your body.
   
2. Your Ground Contact Time should decrease.
   
3. Your Vertical Oscillation should decrease.
   

• End of story.  
  
• No mention of HR.  
  
• No mention of shorter stride as a goal...only as a casual result.  After all if you increase your cadence and shorten your stride you don't go any faster.  
  
• So...the goal is to accomplish the form changes mentioned above to decrease braking, decrease wasted time/energy moving up and down, and decrease injury.
  

• On two different occasions when I was having my running form analyzed I was told that I do a really good job of landing under my body even though I do have a slight heel strike.  
  
• I looked at some of the runs recorded in my training logs from years gone by.  I didn't always record cadence but when I did I realized that when I ran fast I had a cadence in the desired range...or close anyway.  When I ran slow I had a slower cadence...as expected.
  

I disagree that your cadence didn't change your speed.  

That's the whole point.  High cadence isn't supposed to change your speed.  It's supposed to change your form.  In my case it didn't change my form...I just ran faster.


I think your HR hasn't fully adapted to your 10% increase in your cadence from 150 to 165.

My heart rate hasn't adapted to my increase in SPEED.  A higher cadence at the same pace should be more efficient and should result in a lower HR.  That's why I was so frustrated.  I couldn't understand why I would want to increase my cadence if it was less efficient and caused a higher HR...it was the increased pace that was causing my high HR.

But, it would seem as I read further that you've made up your mind, which is peachy. 

The main reason I decided not to continue the high cadence experiment is because I realized that I don't actually have a "slow cadence".  My cadence appears to be appropriate for my speed and my form appears to be correct.  It's efficient for me.  This is apparent when I remember the comments made when I was having my form analyzed AND based on cadence data from old log books.

What I picked up was that my pace couldn't ever get to a 170+ cadence.  THAT'S a relief. Glad I could help. 

I shall watch what you do, most curiously.  Good luck!  I'm curious as well.  I'm looking at Hanson training plans.  I'm looking at half marathons later this summer/fall.  I dusted off my bike and rode both Thursday and today.  I'm starting a new Beachbody group with Natalie tomorrow.  It's a 6 week program with 5 workouts per week.  I'm tired of making excuses and looking for cures.  The cure is obvious to me now.  Work harder...and smarter.  Maybe I'll get in touch with the lady who coached me to my BQ.

nkrichards wrote:Rain/wind/life got in the way on Wednesday.  I got in 45 minutes of core/strength but wasn't able to fit in a run or bike ride.

Thursday - Up early for a very challenging core/strength workout.  Loving this program.
Then headed out for an early run.

5 miles @ 11:35 HR 143 Cadence 160 Stride .87
11:35 HR 129 Cadence 160 Stride .87
11:53 HR 139 Cadence 160 Stride .85
11:34 HR 146 Cadence 159 Stride .87
11:29 HR 150 Cadence 159 Stride .88
11:26 HR 153 Cadence 160 Stride .88

Not a WOW run.  Not a low HR run.  But I can see slow progress...

Woke up tired and a bit sore this morning.  I do plan to do some training today...just not sure what or when yet.

ounce wrote:

nkrichards wrote:Rain/wind/life got in the way on Wednesday.  I got in 45 minutes of core/strength but wasn't able to fit in a run or bike ride.

Thursday - Up early for a very challenging core/strength workout.  Loving this program.
Then headed out for an early run.

5 miles @ 11:35 HR 143 Cadence 160 Stride .87
11:35 HR 129 Cadence 160 Stride .87
11:53 HR 139 Cadence 160 Stride .85
11:34 HR 146 Cadence 159 Stride .87
11:29 HR 150 Cadence 159 Stride .88
11:26 HR 153 Cadence 160 Stride .88

Not a WOW run.  Not a low HR run.  But I can see slow progress...

Woke up tired and a bit sore this morning.  I do plan to do some training today...just not sure what or when yet.

But you're getting there.  Cadence is level and stride is level. Splits are durn near level.  I discount mile 1's HR because it started around 60-70 bpm.  Your heart is very nice taking into account the core/strength workout.  Shows how much of a decathlete you have under the skin.  NOT taking into account the core/strength workout, your HR is still progressing lower.

Your soreness is relative to yesterday's workout.  "Thank you, sir.  May I have another?"

ounce wrote:Your HR explanation for the warmup explains why mile 1 on today's 6 was 138 bpm.  Thanks for that.

Well, your heart is very comfortable at a 156 avg cadence and your speedier mile 6 didn't faze your heart one bit.  Even after the week's activities, not one bit.

So if you don't think your tiredness was breathing related, then yes, your legs are tired, but not too tired.  Imagine if this was the last long run.  Next week you'd decrease mileage and the same for the following week.  Then you'd be hot to trot for a race and be able to do an 8 or 9 mile race at 160 cadence with 1 arm tied behind your back.

SO, if your heart is comfortable at 156 cadence, it will only become more comfortable at 156 and the HR drops a little more.

It's not quite comfortable at 160, but it would be in a couple of weeks.  164, a couple more weeks.

However you want to pursue it.  Woohoo!

• Up at 4 am for 30 minutes of Upper Body weights.  Loving this program!!
  
• I headed out for an "easy" 3 miles.  Apparently I failed to secure the lock on Fast Freddy's closet.  He was sitting on my shoulder before I even finished my warm up.  By the time I reached the half mile mark he was screaming in my ear and taunting relentlessly.  By then my breathing was labored so I figured...what the heck...and took off.  The lungs were the limiting factor in this run.  
  

• Not sure what I was thinking but I headed out for a bike ride after lunch.    I had new toys and wanted to check them out.  Love the new Garmin bike computer even if it isn't a fancy one.  Also love the radar that warns me when a car is approaching.  12 easy effort miles.
  

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:Your HR explanation for the warmup explains why mile 1 on today's 6 was 138 bpm.  Thanks for that.

Well, your heart is very comfortable at a 156 avg cadence and your speedier mile 6 didn't faze your heart one bit.  Even after the week's activities, not one bit.

So if you don't think your tiredness was breathing related, then yes, your legs are tired, but not too tired.  Imagine if this was the last long run.  Next week you'd decrease mileage and the same for the following week.  Then you'd be hot to trot for a race and be able to do an 8 or 9 mile race at 160 cadence with 1 arm tied behind your back.

SO, if your heart is comfortable at 156 cadence, it will only become more comfortable at 156 and the HR drops a little more.

It's not quite comfortable at 160, but it would be in a couple of weeks.  164, a couple more weeks.

However you want to pursue it.  Woohoo!

No arguments from me on your analysis.

As for how I want to pursue it...I'm not sure.  I think I'll just continue to build base and work hard and see what the numbers do.  Not thinking I want to concentrate on any specific number(s) at this point.  It's all one big experiment.

***
Sunday was pretty much a rest day although we did have to get up early for irrigation.  We did a 40 minute Range & Repair workout...deep stretching.  It felt good but I'm actually a bit sore this morning.

It's supposed to be WINDY later this morning so I decided to run first and do my 10 Rounds workout later.  As I'm a bit sore...and still don't feel totally recovered I decided on 4 miles.  My goal was not to push to hard and to concentrate on making sure I kept my feet under me...not out in front.

4 miles @11:19 HR Avg. 145 Max 162, Cadence 163, VO 9.6, GCT 280, Stride .87
11:06 HR 136 Cadence 163 Stride .88
11:34 HR 145 Cadence 163 Stride .85
11:26 HR 147 Cadence 163 Stride .87
11:09 HR 152 Cadence 163 Stride .88

Well that's interesting.  Still thinking about what this means.  Cadence was pretty good...and solid throughout.  That means that any change in pace was strictly stride length.  HR for me was actually decent...taking into consideration my tendency to have a noticeable HR drift and the elevation gain in the second mile of course.  I noticed that my HR was 130 when I started my watch so it went up pretty quickly during my short warmup...and/or was already a bit high today.

I'll do payroll and then do my 10 Rounds workout after lunch.
  
I got a new bike computer as my old one stopped working.  I got a low end Garmin so it should be easy to sync that data with my running watch data.  I also splurged for a tail light/radar combination that will warn me of cars approaching and passing.  I have trouble seeing/hearing cars coming up behind me.  Anxious to test my new toys but it's to windy to ride safely so I'll have to wait.

Ultreya...

nkrichards wrote:Tuesday was a busy day.

• Up at 4 am for 30 minutes of Upper Body weights.  Loving this program!!
  
• I headed out for an "easy" 3 miles.  Apparently I failed to secure the lock on Fast Freddy's closet.  He was sitting on my shoulder before I even finished my warm up.  By the time I reached the half mile mark he was screaming in my ear and taunting relentlessly.  By then my breathing was labored so I figured...what the heck...and took off.  The lungs were the limiting factor in this run.  
  

3 miles @ 10:15 HR 149/166 Cadence 162 VO 10.3 GCT 272 Stride .97
10:20 HR 138 Cadence 163 Stride .95
10:16 HR 152 Cadence 162 Stride .96
10:03 HR 157 Cadence 162 Stride .99

• Not sure what I was thinking but I headed out for a bike ride after lunch.    I had new toys and wanted to check them out.  Love the new Garmin bike computer even if it isn't a fancy one.  Also love the radar that warns me when a car is approaching.  12 easy effort miles.
  

Wednesday I woke up absolutely exhausted.  I wonder why...I did keep this run an easy effort and still struggled to finish it.  I should mention that due to my procrastination is was getting HOT and muggy by the time I headed out.
4 mile miles @11:50 HR 145/160 Cadence 156 VO 10.3 GCT 295 Stride .87
11:21 HR 135 Cadence 158 Stride .89
11:59 HR 147 Cadence 156 Stride .86
12:06 HR 146 Cadence 154 Stride .86
11:55 HR 152 Cadence 154 Stride .87
Followed later in the afternoon by a 10 Rounds boxing workout.

Thursday was another early morning strength workout.  Legs and core.
Then we headed over to Sandy to check on my Mom.  She's very lonely but doing OK.  We were careful and I think she enjoyed the visit.  It was probably good that I didn't have time to run or bike today.  I probably needed a recovery day.

Feels good to be more active on a regular basis.

nkrichards wrote:It's definitely Friday!  

Started my 10 Rounds workout after breakfast and was interrupted...twice...before I finished!  Got it done though.  Boxing today.  I'm constantly amazed at how he's able to make this a strength, core, cardio, balance...workout and wrap it all into a fun boxing theme.  And it is constantly challenging me mentally as well.  

Headed out for my run later in the morning.  I'm going to have to be a bit more diligent to get my running done early as it was already getting warm and it's been slightly muggy.  Not Doug's kind of muggy, but muggy for Central Oregon.  The goal today was 6 miles but it got late and I only had time for 5.  I wanted to make it a moderately challenging run.  Wasn't trying for any numbers in particular but knew it would not be a low HR run or a speed record.

5 miles @ 10:39 HR 155/174 Cadence 161, VO 9.6, GCT 278, Stride .94
10:36 HR 145 Cadence 162 Stride .94
11:09 HR 149 Cadence 162 Stride .89
10:45 HR 155 Cadence 160 Stride .94
10:37 HR 161 Cadence 160 Stride .94
10:07 HR 164 Cadence 162 Stride .98

Considering how much I've been working out in addition to running I'm pretty happy with this effort.  I wasn't trying for a low HR run so I pushed hard the last mile and a half or so and my HR responded as expected.  It felt good.  Would I like to be faster.  Yup.  Can I expect to be faster at this point?  Nope.  I need to build my base back.  I've been lazy.  Maybe I'll get there...maybe I won't.  It's fun to try.  Maybe I'll add a couple short intervals next week.  I don't want to get to carried away and over do it based on my current lack of fitness.

Have a great weekend.

ounce wrote:Sorry I haven't been able to comment on your runs, but I will.

Are you game to be a Fudge Guinea Pig?

ounce wrote:

What 'current lack of fitness' do you think you have?

You're fitter than Michele.  You engage your body in multiple ways, multiple times per week.  I haven't said you're a decathlete for your ego.  Can you get better?  Sure.  Do you have a lack of fitness?  Nope.

I think if you want to have a couple of sub-10 splits, you're almost there and should try

By the way, at what cadence is the gnome set?

• WU 1 mile @ 12:01
  
• .25 @ 9:20 Rest @ 12:23
  
• .25 @ 9:30 Rest @ 12:27
  
• .25 @ 9:15 Rest @ 11:53
  
• .25 @ 9:44 
  
• CD 1 mile @ 12:36
  

nkrichards wrote:

ounce wrote:

What 'current lack of fitness' do you think you have?

You're fitter than Michele.  You engage your body in multiple ways, multiple times per week.  I haven't said you're a decathlete for your ego.  Can you get better?  Sure.  Do you have a lack of fitness?  Nope.

I think if you want to have a couple of sub-10 splits, you're almost there and should try

By the way, at what cadence is the gnome set?

Thanks for the input Doug.  I appreciate the extra "set of eyes" analyzing my numbers.  You often catch something that I miss.

There's a lot of conversation here and I've gotten a bit behind so I'm going to skip to the end and move on from there.

I acknowledge and appreciate your view of my fitness level.  I can't argue that since my cardiac event I've branched out and participate in a much wider range of activities which obviously have helped me become a more well rounded "fit" person.  But in the process of doing so I've backed off on my running and during the last few months I've really struggled to find the motivation to do anything...especially run.  So I do believe that my running fitness has fallen off drastically.  I'm trying to get that back.  I started this journey in 2007 as a runner and I was proud of the runner that I developed into.  I'd like to feel like a runner again...and older runner but a runner.

I haven't been carrying the gnome.  I just found it to annoying and it was taking the fun out of running.  I do think that the time I spent with it has helped me increase my cadence slightly.  I believe my true running cadence was probably around 158 (as evidenced by my cadence in the Heartbreaker Half).  I'm recording some runs in the low 160's now but it's not consistent.  I'm curious what will happen as the length of my runs increases.  My priority now is to pay attention to my stride and make sure I'm not striding out in front of my body.  I believe that is the primary purpose of an increased cadence and if I can make those slight form changes then I'm getting the intended benefits.

I'm realizing that that my goals are somewhat conflicting.  I want to find/develop the runner in me but I want to do it while enjoying running again.  Maybe the priority has to be finding the fun in running again as I won't be motivated to run if it's not fun.  I guess I'm hoping that the fitness will follow if the miles increase.

***

I'm a bit behind on updating so I'll keep this relatively brief.

Saturday - MADras Runners challenge with Janice.   2 miles up and over the M hill.  We walked the steep uphill parts and jogged the rest.  

Sunday - 14 miles on the bike.  Kept the effort relatively low but that's hard to do on my hilly route.  Finished the day with a nice stretching routine.

Monday - 10 Rounds followed by a 5 miles @ 10:52 HR 148/166 Cadence 159 Stride .93  Paces each mile 10:39, 11:06,11:08,10:53,10:34.

Tuesday - Up early for 10 Rounds lower body lifting with Marty.  Then I headed out for a run.  I decided to see what happened when I programmed an interval workout into my watch.  4 x .25 mi with .25 rest. 

• WU 1 mile @ 12:01
  
• .25 @ 9:20 Rest @ 12:23
  
• .25 @ 9:30 Rest @ 12:27
  
• .25 @ 9:15 Rest @ 11:53
  
• .25 @ 9:44 
  
• CD 1 mile @ 12:36
  

Overall run 3.75 miles @ 11:32, HR 142/159, Cadence 158, Stride .88
Good starting point I guess.  The numbers are a bit difficult to translate into anything usable as I do not go to the track to do my interval runs.  I do them on the road on rolling terrain.  It just so happens that 3 of the 4 intervals ended up being uphill.  Can you guess which one was a slight downhill? 

Having a second cup of coffee as I put together a plan for today...