Funkadelic Happening

Mark, you can access police blotters, right?  Maybe you should watch the one for Ounce's neighborhood in case he needs bail help?

I've used the 405 for a number of years and have been happy with it, except in wet weather where it sometimes borders on the useless.  With my recent foray into triathlon, I got a 910xt and have really been happy with it.  The only problem (sorry Mark) has been the barometric altimeter.  I've had to had Garmin replace it 3 times when the altimeter crapped out.  On the last replacement, they at least said they had finally figured out what the problem was and it should now be fine.

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:It works for me, because it has to work for me.

As light as traffic is at that time of night, it peaks about 2:30, then drops until 5.  The biggest (but dangerous for them) hoot are the cars that are stopped with their driver asleep.  One time, there was a BMW X5 that was stopped on a very low traffic, 40 mph road.  I ran past him, then an hour later when I was running back home along the same route, he was still there.  I thumped the quarter panel, fairly hard, with no response.

Wow. Hope he wasn't, well, you know...


... because you left your prints on his car.

Oh oh...

Jim Lentz wrote:

Mark B wrote:

ounce wrote:It works for me, because it has to work for me.

As light as traffic is at that time of night, it peaks about 2:30, then drops until 5.  The biggest (but dangerous for them) hoot are the cars that are stopped with their driver asleep.  One time, there was a BMW X5 that was stopped on a very low traffic, 40 mph road.  I ran past him, then an hour later when I was running back home along the same route, he was still there.  I thumped the quarter panel, fairly hard, with no response.

Wow. Hope he wasn't, well, you know...


... because you left your prints on his car.

Oh oh...

I can see it now....Law & Order:  Special Runners Unit.  The Case of the Thumping Runner

Today is replacing Friday's run.  16 miles.  This was the longest run since January's Houston.  I've put in a lot of running over the Summer, changed running methods to ChiRunning, and still doing LC/HF eating.  Friday's run was washed out due to persistent rain.  For as much as I wanted to run a good time, doing it today was the best alternative.  A cool front caused the rain, but the payoff was spectacular weather Saturday and Sunday with morning lows in the mid-50's, alas, this morning it was 72 degrees with a dewpoint of 66.  Not too shabby compared to 78 with a dewpoint of 77 for the Summer.

I wanted to run a very good time.  I would categorize 'very good' as anything substantially under 12:30/mile average pace.  Sub-13 would be 'good.'  Because I need to start working my times down and I need to get my body used to doing that.  Further, I need to see what happens to my legs when trying to lengthen my stride for an extended time.

I also had set the screens like I wanted them on my refurbed 220 and hoping the measuring was going to be accurate.  Didn't happen.

16 miles, 3:23:38, 12:40 pace, 158 avg HR, 173 max HR during miles 14 & 15, 165 cadence, 0.76 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:34, 2nd half pace 12:46.  The watch measured 15.83.
1.  13:00, 147 bpm, 164 spm, 75 sl
2.  13:09, 147 bpm, 163 spm, 75 sl
3.  12:21, 149 bpm, 165 spm, 79 sl
4.  12:42, 151 bpm, 165 spm, 77 sl
5.  12:59, 152 bpm, 164 spm, 75 sl
6.  12:15, 153 bpm, 165 spm, 80 sl
7.  12:01, 154 bpm, 164 spm, 81 sl
8.  12:07, 152 bpm, 164 spm, 81 sl
9.  12:45, 157 bpm, 164 spm, 77 sl
10. 12:59, 161 bpm, 165 spm, 75 sl
11. 12:50, 164 bpm, 164 spm, 76 sl
12. 12:38, 163 bpm, 165 spm, 77 sl
13. 12:29, 165 bpm, 164 spm, 79 sl
14. 14:22, 170 bpm, 165 spm, 68 sl  (this is where the time became inaccurate.  Stupid watch)
15. 13:14, 170 bpm, 166 spm, 73 sl
16. 13:49 or so, 167 bpm, 166 spm, 68 sl

I had not run since last Wednesday, so I think the early 150's HR was 10 bpm higher than normal.  It also could be the HR strap.  Seems like different straps measure differently.

Mile 14's time really pissed me off.  If you saw the map of the run, you'd know that something fishy was going on.  So, I'm going to be calling Garmin again.  It was a little off at mile 2, but I got to a point that with 4.04 miles to go where it would be within 0.03 miles of right.  Then, mile 14 measured short and it ended up thinking that I ran 15.83 miles for a total.

As far as the run itself, the times sadly look like how I run marathons.  Sort of all over the place, then a general slowing with 3 miles to go.  But that's not necessarily a good thing.  With lengthening my strides over a longer distance, the after-effects generated some tired hamstrings and tired gluteal muscles.  I think the run ended up as a pretty good test.  I'm not just wonderfully impressed with the time, though.  Lots of work ahead and I hope the muscles hang in there.

Well, it's not a bad test, especially considering you're still smack in the middle of training.

That Mile 14 time is weird, for sure. Your stride length changed significantly, too. Weird.

Nevertheless, you hit your "good" target and almost reached "very good." So keep at it!

Have you considered trying out Hadd's "initial lactate threshold" heart rate runs? After all this aerobic stuff, it might be time to add something new to the mix. Your legs might appreciate it.

ps. I'm kind of relieved that the barometric altimeter on Tom's ultra-luxe Garmin doesn't work. Makes me less likely to succumb to techno-lust.

Mark B wrote:Well, it's not a bad test, especially considering you're still smack in the middle of training.

That Mile 14 time is weird, for sure. Your stride length changed significantly, too. Weird.

Nevertheless, you hit your "good" target and almost reached "very good." So keep at it!

Have you considered trying out Hadd's "initial lactate threshold" heart rate runs? After all this aerobic stuff, it might be time to add something new to the mix. Your legs might appreciate it.

ps. I'm kind of relieved that the barometric altimeter on Tom's ultra-luxe Garmin doesn't work. Makes me less likely to succumb to techno-lust.

No, it's not a bad test, but it's not where I want to be, either.  I have a Half on the 26th, so I want to do well.  The route I took was rollier than I usually do, but I needed to get some rolls in because the Half course is partly on the full marathon course in January, especially the double underpass that is mile 23.

I haven't considered Hadd's initial lactate threshold runs.  I do have Michele's 10 mile assessment runs that she had ran 3 times over an 18 week period, I think.

And anything to keep lust out of your life is a good thing.  Right?  Hello?  Is this microphone on?

Thanks for the thoughts from that noggin of your.

With lengthening my strides over a longer distance, the after-effects generated some tired hamstrings and tired gluteal muscles. 

I took a Meloxicam before bedtime for the tired hams and glutes.  It typically works very well at relieving stiffness.  And it did wonderfully what it typically does.  Just very minor whisps of tightness in the right upper hamstring.  No pain, just a bystander.  I didn't want to do any weights this morning, as I wanted to see how my legs felt.  I needed the sleep, what with me getting up at 1 a.m. on Monday morning, and I clocked in at 9 hours.

So, I should be good for some running in the morning.

Yesterday afternoon, I had called mother Garmin about the ill-measuring 220 that I just received last Thursday.  It was about 5 updates behind (tells you how long that thing had been sitting on the shelf).  Like my first 220, I agreed to do the updates, then wait for it to screw up again, so I can send it back for yet another 220.  I downloaded the updates, last night.

6 miles was on the schedule and I increased the distance by 11% to a whopping 6.66 miles.  Again, this workout was going to be faster than previous runs.  I need to get the pace down and the only way to run faster is to run faster.  Something with a pace of less than 12:15 would be pretty good and a negative split pace of 15 seconds would be really nice.

I was curious how my hamstrings and glutes were going to respond after Monday's 16 mile run.  AND I was curious to see how the 220 was going to measure.

It was 74 degrees with 100% humidity or 74 degree dewpoint.  Cadence on the gnome was set at 165 spm.

6.68 miles, 1:20:57, 12:07 pace, 154 avg bpm, 169 max bpm during mile 7, 164 spm avg cadence, 0.81 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:23, 2nd half pace 11:51
1.  12:54, 142 bpm, 163 spm, 77 sl
2.  12:23, 148 bpm, 165 spm, 79 sl
3.  11:58, 154 bpm, 164 spm, 82 sl
4.  11:52, 156 bpm, 164 spm, 83 sl
5.  12:01, 158 bpm, 165 spm, 81 sl
6.  11:59, 159 bpm, 165 spm, 82 sl
7.  11:27 pace, 164 bpm, 165 spm, 85 sl

First, the watch.  It measured the first mile long, but somehow adjusted the total distance to be within 0.01 miles of normal.  More testing to come.
Second, the run.  While walking out to where I start my runs, my legs were really loose.  My hip flexors were more limber than usual.  Maybe a side benefit of a longer stride length is being looser, too.     I was really pleased with the run.  Having 4 sub-12 times (two were barely under) and a 12:01 is really nice.  On the last mile, I got into this zone where I could lean forward a little more than I had been and my stride seemed to lengthen without much effort.  My arm swing lowered and I was just in a nice groove.  It reminded me of Porsches that have the little spoiler rise, once it attains a certain speed or rpm.

So I attained the 15 second pace negative split with 16 seconds and attained the pretty good for the 12:07 pace.  Plus, no pain from the body and walking around the office is not terribly labored at all.  Friday is a long run of between 14-18 miles.

This week's running makes me curious about running Monday long at a faster pace than LSD, Wednesday faster still but shorter, and Friday as a traditional LSD.  Thoughts, please?  15 weeks before Houston and 18 days to the Half.  Thanks.

Sweet!

Every Garmin I have had is more accurate the further I run. A 50K I did on the lakefront some years back came right in at 31.1 miles.

Jim Lentz wrote:Sweet!

Every Garmin I have had is more accurate the further I run. A 50K I did on the lakefront some years back came right in at 31.1 miles.

Thanks, Jim.  This refurbed model screwed up on mile 14, but maybe doing 5 updates will help it out.  It didn't on the first 220 I had, but juuuuuuust maybe it'll work. 

ounce wrote:

Jim Lentz wrote:Sweet!

Every Garmin I have had is more accurate the further I run. A 50K I did on the lakefront some years back came right in at 31.1 miles.

Thanks, Jim.  This refurbed model screwed up on mile 14, but maybe doing 5 updates will help it out.  It didn't on the first 220 I had, but juuuuuuust maybe it'll work. 

Where you run is there unobstructed view of the sky? When I run in the forest preserve, especially if it is cloudy, my watch is off for distance and pace. Forget trying to use it for any kind of repeats, but it works fine for repeats on a track.

Jim Lentz wrote:

ounce wrote:

Jim Lentz wrote:Sweet!

Every Garmin I have had is more accurate the further I run. A 50K I did on the lakefront some years back came right in at 31.1 miles.

Thanks, Jim.  This refurbed model screwed up on mile 14, but maybe doing 5 updates will help it out.  It didn't on the first 220 I had, but juuuuuuust maybe it'll work. 

Where you run is there unobstructed view of the sky? When I run in the forest preserve, especially if it is cloudy, my watch is off for distance and pace. Forget trying to use it for any kind of repeats, but it works fine for repeats on a track.

There is an unobstructed view of the sky, except for when I run under an overpass.  But the thing is that I'm running the same routes I have for 9 years with the 305 with no troubles.  Even the first 220 was right a lot of the time, but then it got into drugs, cheap liquor with the wrong crowd and that was it.  The second 220 arrived last Thursday and it must've been in rehab a while because it still has issues.


At least mother Garmin can see what it's doing in my GarminConnect account and know I'm not taking hits off a bong, when I call.

Nice run! Don't you love it when you can run a negative split AND walk with relatively little discomfort the next day.

congrats on the negative split!

nkrichards wrote:Nice run!  Don't you love it when you can run a negative split AND walk with relatively little discomfort the next day.

Gosh, yes.  Let's see if it continues over the next 15 weeks.

Julie wrote:congrats on the negative split!

Thanks, Julie.  I'd like to believe that it's not the last one

Nice run!

I think you could up the tempo once a week now, though you'd want to watch it the week after you do the half - or just count that as your uptempo effort for the week.

Interesting about the 220 measuring incorrectly.  One of the women that I run with has a 220, and of course, I have the 620.  We can start our watches at the exact same time and hers always lags mine and not by 0.01 miles but often at east 0.1-0.2- I wonder what the deal is with that.  I wonder what Mother Garmin is saying in Kansas when she sees that Houston number pop up on the phone. 

Michele \"1L" Keane wrote:Interesting about the 220 measuring incorrectly.  One of the women that I run with has a 220, and of course, I have the 620.  We can start our watches at the exact same time and hers always lags mine and not by 0.01 miles but often at east 0.1-0.2- I wonder what the deal is with that.  I wonder what Mother Garmin is saying in Kansas when she sees that Houston number pop up on the phone. 

Michele, you should take a look at my Monday 16 mile run to see where it had me going.  And I ran an out 'n back route.

Wednesday's run did fine and today's was 0.07 off.  Now, if I could only figure out why the runner flopped.

I'm catching up on the writing of two runs.

Friday, October 10
This was the LSD for the week.  14 miles.  Usually, Friday is the long run, but since Monday the 6th was a 16 mile run, I had to make it a LSD run.  This week capped off a 37 mile week for me, which is a lot this early in the cycle for me.  Not only that, but the prior two runs of the week were speed enhanced, so I was curious as to how my legs and/or body would treat the 14 mile run.  I didn't want to make this another speed workout because there was no reason other than to supremely piss my legs off.

I was wise, but the legs were doing their best to carry my lard ass along.  The last 5 miles were difficult and not adding to the difficulty was the fact that it was 77 degrees with a dewpoint of 72 degrees.  Welcome back, August, and wtf are you doing back?

14 miles, 3:05:28, 13:12 pace, 155 avg bpm, 167 max bpm during mile 12, 164 cadence and 0.73 m stride length
1.  13:20, 148 bpm, 164 spm, 73 sl
2.  12:54, 152 bpm, 164 spm, 76 sl
3.  13.00, 152 bpm, 164 spm, 75 sl
4.  13:16, 155 bpm, 164 spm, 74 sl
5.  13:10, 151 bpm, 163 spm, 75 sl
6.  12:59, 152 bpm, 163 spm, 76 sl
7.  12:47, 152 bpm, 165 spm, 77 sl
8.  12:41, 153 bpm, 164 spm, 77 sl
9.  13:45, 157 bpm, 163 spm, 72 sl  (watch messed up)
10. 13:49, 159 bpm, 164 spm, 71 sl
11. 13:59, 159 bpm, 164 spm, 70 sl  (runner messing up)
12.  13:43, 160 bpm, 164 spm, 72 sl
13.  14:08, 156 bpm, 164 spm, 70 sl
14.  14:11, 159 bpm, 160 spm, 71 sl

So, there's the slow up.  I had to stop a couple of times.  I think it was a combination of the losing some of the acclimatization and the week's distance & pace.  Such is the life of the nocturnal runner.

Sometimes we need to be reminded to look at our runs in context. Sounds like you've done that and already analyzed your results appropriately. Keep up the good work.

nkrichards wrote:Sometimes we need to be reminded to look at our runs in context.  Sounds like you've done that and already analyzed your results appropriately.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Nancy.  I sure hope so.  I'm now at the point to where even little, tiny victories are great.

-30-

This is the report on Monday's 10 mile run.  Of course, the watch screwed up.  I agreed to check for a chip set that Garmin suggested that I upload to the watch.  It was there and I have uploaded it.  I will check out how it does, tomorrow.

It was 75 degrees with a dewpoint of 72.  This would be the warmest morning of the week, as a cold front was due to arrive before lunch and drop morning temps by 20 degrees.

10 miles, 2:09:54, 12:58 pace, 141 avg bpm, 154 max bpm during mile x, 164 cadence, 0.73 m avg stride length.
1.  13:35, 133 bpm, 164 spm, 72 sl
2.  13:20, 134 bpm, 165 spm, 73 sl
3.  13:23, 134 bpm, 164 spm, 73 sl
4.  12:25, 144 bpm, 165 spm, 79 sl
5.  12:48, 141 bpm, 164 spm, 77 sl
6.  13:24, 139 bpm, 163 spm, 74 sl
7.  12:53, 145 bpm, 164 spm, 76 sl
8.  14:44, 146 bpm, 165 spm, 66 sl  (watch messed up)
9.  13:27, 145 bpm, 165 spm, 73 sl
10.  13:34, 145 bpm, 163 spm, 73 sl

There was nothing to prove with this run.  Hopefully the watch would perform correctly and accurately. It did not.  Hopefully my body would do right and log another 10 miles.  It did.  I was very pleased with the heart rate.  I'm starting to get my HR in the low 140's while running sub-12's.    THAT'S because of the endurance I generated over the summer.   Gosh, I hope that continues to pay dividends.

Tomorrow is my first run with temps below 60 degrees since May.  As I write this, the temperature is 60 degrees with a dewpoint of 51.  No multi-layers tomorrow.

It was 51 degrees, this morning with 100% humidity.  But when the morning temperature in Houston is below 60, it doesn't matter what the humidity is.  Not one bit.  And there was no wind either, so maximum radiational cooling was in effect since midnight because the Wind Gust for the day on the Weatherbug site nearest me showed 1 mph out of the north.  The extent of my layering, this morning, was a shirt with short sleeves, instead of a singlet.

Eight miles was the objective and the chip set update to the 220 was accomplished & the satellite was found, last night.  I've learned that whenever an update is done on the 220, to let the watch find the satellite the night before because it takes a few minutes to find the durn thing.

8 miles, 1:34:01, 11:45 pace, 150 avg bpm, 164 avg cadence, 0.83 m avg stride length, 1st half pace 12:03, 2nd half pace 11:27.
1.  12:43, 147 bpm, 162 spm, 78 sl
2.  12:08, 145 bpm, 164 spm, 81 sl
3.  11:54, 148 bpm, 164 spm, 82 sl
4.  11:32, 152 bpm, 165 spm, 84 sl
5.  11:21, 153 bpm, 166 spm, 85 sl
6.  11:51, 149 bpm, 163 spm, 83 sl
7.  11:24, 151 bpm, 165 spm, 86 sl
8.  11:06, 153 bpm, 165 spm, 88 sl

Oooh, boy!  That's the lowest HR with the fastest pace that I've ever seen.  I'm sure I could probably find a better one, but at least in the past few months there is nothing better.  Regarding time only, this was the fastest 8 miles since April 30.  In fact, I thought the HR strap was mis-recording.  So in the last 200 yards, I floored it to see if the HR would increase.  It did.  I got it up to 160 bpm, then backed it down.  HR strap was working.  The only other explanation is the cool weather.  My heart was not having to work near as hard as it did over the summer.

This was further evidenced by the post-run non-dripping shorts, not leaving a sweaty footprint on the concrete after taking off my shoes outside.  And I didn't have to leave my socks, sweatband, and shorts hanging on the fence to drip and dry during the day.  LOVE that.

This was just a really nice run.  I kept working on lengthening my stride and keeping my chest somewhat upright, so my lean would be more at the ankles than the waist.  0.88 stride length on the last mile is the best done to date and I think the 0.83 average was the longest, too.  The watch worked really well, but I'm not confident in it yet.

Friday's long run is supposed to have a temperature of 62 and the weekend is supposed to get back into a 65/83 temperature forecast.  I think 16-18 miles will be the distance. 

The Half race is Sunday, the 26th, plus I have to go up on the 25th and run/walk the Wild Hare 50 course for Reina to get my impression of the course, plus the elevation changes via my 220.  The elevation changes on this course, vis a vis the AR50 course that she is used to running, are huge in that AR50 is MUCH hillier.  That race is November 22 in Warda, Texas which is about 90 minutes from Houston.  The hotel is in La Grange, Texas.  Remember ZZ Top's first hit called "La Grange"?  THAT La Grange.  Warda is 10 miles north.

Thanks for reading AND your comments.

Between the nice run and the hopefully fixed watch, that is great news! Got to love this cooler weather, especially there.

Jim Lentz wrote:Between the nice run and the hopefully fixed watch, that is great news! Got to love this cooler weather, especially there.

True dat, Jim.  This morning, it was 8 degrees warmer and it'll probably be 65 tomorrow for my long run.  Still good, considering it was 77 last Friday.

-30-

Today, I slept in for 8 hours sleep.  Also have a 5:30 yoga class, this evening ahead of an early to bed, early to rise long run tomorrow morning.

8 hours sleep.  How do you do that?