re: Official Running Log/Marathon Training Thread

quote:

---

Past injury issues?

---

Just some minor aches and pains. I injured my AC joints last summer. Running didn't cause the injury, but it kept me from running for a couple of weeks. Other than minor shin splints and piriformis syndrome, I haven't been injured since I started running in 2013. i haven;t had shin splints since my first year, and my pririformis issues went away after I started training with heavy weights a few years ago.

My biggest struggle has been in staying consistent from year to year. Like the poster I was just replying to, I used to take weeks off at a time in the past which in retrospect kept me from improving much over time. I would also begin training cycles and abandon them 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through when I ran into life issues that made it difficult for me hit all of my planned workouts.

I was running 60 miles a week back in 2016 when training for a marathon, so I knew I could handle a relatively high volume. I agree, however, that my cycle was too long for 5K. 12 weeks worked well for me in the past. This will be the first time going into a cycle with a really good base of fitness, so maybe 10 weeks would be better.

Something in that 19 to 20-minute range would be very satisfying and would be an indicator that I'm ready for a Boston Qualify attempt.

Not necessarily more important, just enjoy playing. Thanks for the tips though. I’ve considered changing my running to the mornings, it’s doable but man I love lazy mornings. That said, feel like if I did switch to morning runs, I’d probably never go back. One of these days maybe.

I just find that the extra mileage helps prepare me for more intense workouts later in my training cycles and allows me to better maintain my aerobic base while adding in more intensity. For example, if I build more total mileage than I need during the first half of my cycle, I can switch from 4 easy/2 intensity days per week to 3 and 3 without losing aerobic fitness while sharpening up in the second half of my cycle. I believe 30-40 miles per week is pretty normal for semi competitive half marathon training, but I realize that everyone is different. Many elites do like 80-100.

I like your approach and definitely agree; now of course considering what happened to me a couple months ago. I was banging out 35-40 mpw in the dead heat of the Summer, which to some here that is nothing.

I just feel like it burned me out and put my body under un necessary stress. Even though I was eating right and (trying) to get adequate sleep. While no white coat between here and Chicago directly related it to my Carotid artery dissecting and causing stroke(s), I gotta feel like it didn't help.

I'll take a more laid back approach at least for the near future and not be concerned with banging out intervals at the track (and may never be).

quote:

---

Here is my weekly mileage since October 10th, so the last 2 months:

11.3
24.7
21.3
11.3
25.3
17.5
5.0
14.4
21.1

---

My weekly mileage has dropped off significantly since mid-October. This week will be my first >10 mile week running in a month.

But I'm just a giant wuss in even mildly cold weather. I hate it.

quote:

---

I was putting in high mileage weeks all spring, and got burned out.

---

I didn't know that. I just joined this thread a couple of months ago.

quote:

---

How do y'all deal with runner's knee? I just got back into running and I guess I upped my intensity faster than my body liked, and my knees are killing me.

---

Where does it hurt?

Patellar tendonitis. I just got a mild case of it for the first time in my right knee. It seems to have gotten better after reducing my running volume for a few days. If it gets worse, you might have to ice and reat for a while. Strength training should help prevent getting it again after it improves.

I went from a cheap Timex w/ chest strap to a Garmin Foreunner 205 to a Garmin Vivoactive to a Garmin Forerunner 35.

Thanks to a post in here several weeks ago, I got my Forerunner 35 on sale for like 70 bucks. It is better than the 205 which was basically an older version of the 35. The charger is more durable, and this one has a wrist HR monitor. My chest strap can be connected to it if I want to use it, but the wrist monitor seems to be about as reliable as the strap. It has all of the basic features I use and none of the other things my vivoactive had that I didn't use for 1/4 of the cost.

Basically, the vivoactive has a touch screen and some extra smart capabilities that the forerunner 35 doesn't have. If you are looking for something cheap, durable and that allows you to easily track your pace, speed, distance, heart rate, cadence, and time, then the forerunner 35 is the watch for you. You can see basic data on the watch or more detailed data on Garmin Connect which your watch will automatically upload to when in range and connect via bluetooth. You can also program simple interval workouts, such as 4 X 400m with 1 minute rest intervals or 3 X 1 mile with 1/4 mile rest intervals. There is also a virtual pacer mode and run/walk mode that might be useful. I used the virtual pacer for my last 5K race, and it seemed to work pretty well. If I hadn't ignored it for the first mile, I would have been better off. It looks like there are still some available on Amazon for under 100 bucks if you are interested.

There are more expensive models of the Forerunner that allow you to program more complex workouts and send them to your watch, but those are like 300-500 bucks. I would like that feature, but it isn't worth hundreds more to me. I don't recommend the vivoactive unless you really want a touch screen and the ability to customize your watch face. It isn't worth it. After a year, my screen cracked somehow, which rendered the watch virtually useless.

No problem. I've been happy with mine since I got it a couple of months ago.