9/30/2012
Outdoor Week Ending 9/30/12
A little over 12 hours about 8k feet of climb this week, mixed trail
running and hiking.
9/25/2012
Some Pix from last week
The Ramapo highlands of south Harriman
View from Ramapo Torne
My nemesis, the NYS Thruway (exit 15b)
Freedom tower @ 20 miles
Empire state
Ramapo Torne from 2 miles
Praying Mantis -- it turned it's head toward me
Fall colors just starting
Outdoor Week Ending 9/23/12
Though we had some rain, the weather this week was outstanding, with somewhat cooler early fall temps ending the week. This was probably my biggest summer ever in terms of getting outdoors for trail running and hiking, and this was my 2nd 18 hour week in recent months. Though I've been in sharper condition for trail racing, overall my combined running and hiking fitness right now is very good, and I felt strong enough to go very hard at the end of my 2nd 3+ hour run on consecutive days.
I've been wearing the Garmin Forerunner 305 for most of September, but it's too time-consuming to parse the data every week. Since this is a bigger week time-wise I wanted to look at the data. Basically I try to press the lap button every time I switch to a run from a hike or a hike from a run. Since I normally start out every outing hiking easily to warm up, that makes every odd lap hiking and every even lap running. Of course I screw up the lap sometimes, so I have to look at the data. For me it's interesting this time because I've just been doing whatever I feel like at the time, running or hiking. Here's the data:
Hike Run Total
Time 10:57 7:16 18:13 hh:mm
Dist 28.7 33.1 61.8 miles
Climb 7,998 2,168 10,166 feet (looks like I hiked up most of the hills)
Desc 2,955 7,388 10,345 feet (and mostly ran down)
HRavg 120.9 140.7 128.9 bpm
Speed 2.59 4.46 3.44 MPH
All my runs were on fairly slow technical rocky trails, because that's the kind of terrain I like.
Now some fun with numbers. If I was running on flat ground with good footing instead of on hilly rocky technical ground, how many miles would I have run?
The hiking effort of HRavg 120.9 for 10:57, using the MPH/HR table below,
yields 4.54 MPH, for 49.7 virtual miles.
But since I was really hiking during that time, if I walked instead of running, the fastest I would walk is 4 MPH, so that gives 43.8 virtual miles instead.
For the running effort, at HRavg of 140.7 for 7:16 yields 6.75 MPH and 49 miles.
So that makes my virtual summary for the Week:
If Walk & Run 92.8 Miles
If All Running 98.8 Miles
Basically the trails I run -- the technical terrain and climb mean almost 50% less distance is covered for the same heart rate effort, but though that's just fun with numbers, it illustrates why miles
don't tell the story with trail running.
For me it is what it is, and time and effort are all that matter. Terrain and climb for specificity
also matter. Miles alone mean very little, so I basically ignore miles. But the truth is I'm not conditioned to run 98 miles a week, or even 92 miles. Flat terrain running causes overuse injuries, at least for me. Mixing running and hiking is the best, for me.
MPH/HR Table
Estimated Heart Rate at Given Speeds, on flat ground with moderate temps, based on past data points from flat runs:
Running
7 150.00
6 137.50
5 125.00
4 117.50
Walking
4 115.00
3 102.50
2 90.00
I've been wearing the Garmin Forerunner 305 for most of September, but it's too time-consuming to parse the data every week. Since this is a bigger week time-wise I wanted to look at the data. Basically I try to press the lap button every time I switch to a run from a hike or a hike from a run. Since I normally start out every outing hiking easily to warm up, that makes every odd lap hiking and every even lap running. Of course I screw up the lap sometimes, so I have to look at the data. For me it's interesting this time because I've just been doing whatever I feel like at the time, running or hiking. Here's the data:
Hike Run Total
Time 10:57 7:16 18:13 hh:mm
Dist 28.7 33.1 61.8 miles
Climb 7,998 2,168 10,166 feet (looks like I hiked up most of the hills)
Desc 2,955 7,388 10,345 feet (and mostly ran down)
HRavg 120.9 140.7 128.9 bpm
Speed 2.59 4.46 3.44 MPH
All my runs were on fairly slow technical rocky trails, because that's the kind of terrain I like.
Now some fun with numbers. If I was running on flat ground with good footing instead of on hilly rocky technical ground, how many miles would I have run?
The hiking effort of HRavg 120.9 for 10:57, using the MPH/HR table below,
yields 4.54 MPH, for 49.7 virtual miles.
But since I was really hiking during that time, if I walked instead of running, the fastest I would walk is 4 MPH, so that gives 43.8 virtual miles instead.
For the running effort, at HRavg of 140.7 for 7:16 yields 6.75 MPH and 49 miles.
So that makes my virtual summary for the Week:
If Walk & Run 92.8 Miles
If All Running 98.8 Miles
Basically the trails I run -- the technical terrain and climb mean almost 50% less distance is covered for the same heart rate effort, but though that's just fun with numbers, it illustrates why miles
don't tell the story with trail running.
For me it is what it is, and time and effort are all that matter. Terrain and climb for specificity
also matter. Miles alone mean very little, so I basically ignore miles. But the truth is I'm not conditioned to run 98 miles a week, or even 92 miles. Flat terrain running causes overuse injuries, at least for me. Mixing running and hiking is the best, for me.
MPH/HR Table
Estimated Heart Rate at Given Speeds, on flat ground with moderate temps, based on past data points from flat runs:
Running
7 150.00
6 137.50
5 125.00
4 117.50
Walking
4 115.00
3 102.50
2 90.00
9/16/2012
Outdoor Week Ending 9/16/12
6 days mixed hiking and trail running
14:27 time, 8450' climb, 127 average heart rate
A good week, featuring some faster running, and some very slow easy hiking leading an old lost dog back to the trail head.
I like heart rate as a measure. In cycling they use Watts, but for running it's the closest thing we have to tracking effort. You can use % of max, % of heart rate reserve, % over resting, or % over normal activity. If my normal (sedentary worker) activity heart rate is 70, then 127 is 81% more than that. I estimate my HR max is around 191, so 127 is 67% of max. When I was running only and not hiking much, my average HR for the week was probably in the low to mid 70s percent, so not much different when you add in a bunch of vigorous hiking and even some very casual hiking. A cursory review of the data suggest that my hiking HR is mostly in the range 120 to 130, whereas my trail running HR is in the range 135 to 145.
Fall Goal:
I changed my mind! I signed up for a 50 km race on October 20th, the Big Brad 50 km in Pownal, ME. This race is on technical trails, so the time will be slow, but as of now I'm planning to run it hard. We'll see.
14:27 time, 8450' climb, 127 average heart rate
A good week, featuring some faster running, and some very slow easy hiking leading an old lost dog back to the trail head.
I like heart rate as a measure. In cycling they use Watts, but for running it's the closest thing we have to tracking effort. You can use % of max, % of heart rate reserve, % over resting, or % over normal activity. If my normal (sedentary worker) activity heart rate is 70, then 127 is 81% more than that. I estimate my HR max is around 191, so 127 is 67% of max. When I was running only and not hiking much, my average HR for the week was probably in the low to mid 70s percent, so not much different when you add in a bunch of vigorous hiking and even some very casual hiking. A cursory review of the data suggest that my hiking HR is mostly in the range 120 to 130, whereas my trail running HR is in the range 135 to 145.
Fall Goal:
I changed my mind! I signed up for a 50 km race on October 20th, the Big Brad 50 km in Pownal, ME. This race is on technical trails, so the time will be slow, but as of now I'm planning to run it hard. We'll see.
9/09/2012
Outdoor Week Ending 9/9/12
16:52 time on feet this week, running when I feel like it and hiking when I feel like it. I'm not planning my outings anymore, just choose an area, sometimes choose a route, sometimes just wait until I hit a trail junction then choose.
I'm not actively tracking anything right now, but the Garmin is recording everything for later analysis (if I ever get to it): hiking time/miles/climb/HR and running time/miles/climb/HR. I just hit the lap button when I switch activities so that odd laps are hiking and even laps are running. [Garmin has activity options of Run, Bike and Other, but the switching mechanism screws up the upload to Garmin connect, which is where you get the accurate climb data (and other stuff), so laps are much easier if you want to analyze things later].
I'm not training for anything anymore this year, though I may enter a race or two for fun. Just getting out in the woods in these big parks with so many options and doing whatever I feel like at the time is very freeing. The only reason I'm recording stuff with the Garmin, which is set up to display very limited information, is that I'm kind of curious how the numbers will stack up in the running and hiking categories. But chances are I will ditch the Garmin after a time and just wander out there until the sun hits a certain angle in the sky...
I'm not actively tracking anything right now, but the Garmin is recording everything for later analysis (if I ever get to it): hiking time/miles/climb/HR and running time/miles/climb/HR. I just hit the lap button when I switch activities so that odd laps are hiking and even laps are running. [Garmin has activity options of Run, Bike and Other, but the switching mechanism screws up the upload to Garmin connect, which is where you get the accurate climb data (and other stuff), so laps are much easier if you want to analyze things later].
I'm not training for anything anymore this year, though I may enter a race or two for fun. Just getting out in the woods in these big parks with so many options and doing whatever I feel like at the time is very freeing. The only reason I'm recording stuff with the Garmin, which is set up to display very limited information, is that I'm kind of curious how the numbers will stack up in the running and hiking categories. But chances are I will ditch the Garmin after a time and just wander out there until the sun hits a certain angle in the sky...
9/03/2012
Outdoor Week Ending 9/2/12
Run Rclimb Long Lclimb Hike Hclimb OnFeet
4:14 940 1:29 500 11:46 6175 16:00
This is that last week that I will be actively tracking and planning my runs on a weekly basis, and thus ends my more formal training plan for 2012. I will switch to a more free-format running and hiking style, and will blog about that in the near future. It's just time to try something new.
Some Photos from the week:
After seeing lots of Timber Rattlesnakes this year, RIGHT near this sign...
Finally a Copperhead
New Shoes: New Balance MT1010s, See "Transitioning to Minimal Shoes" post
A lake on the way across the park
The view from the other side
Don't know what kind of snake this is...
First pair of New Balance MT110s biting the dust, cut on rocks
Mohonk: Hiking the Crevice, aka "Lemon Squeeze"
Slide Mountain from the Tower
Trapps climbing area, with Millbrook ridge above
Another Copperhead (baby) -- two in one week!
4:14 940 1:29 500 11:46 6175 16:00
This is that last week that I will be actively tracking and planning my runs on a weekly basis, and thus ends my more formal training plan for 2012. I will switch to a more free-format running and hiking style, and will blog about that in the near future. It's just time to try something new.
Some Photos from the week:
After seeing lots of Timber Rattlesnakes this year, RIGHT near this sign...
A lake on the way across the park
9/01/2012
Transitioning to Minimal Shoes
Over the past two years I've been transitioning toward more minimal shoes. This started with the Saucony line of lighter shoes: the Kinvara road shoes and the Peregrine trail shoes. In 2011 I ran mostly in Nike Skylons and Saucony Kinvaras on roads and easier trails, while I wore Montrail Mountain Masochists and Saucony Peregrines on tougher trails, but I never really liked the feel of the Peregrines much. The Peregrines felt harsh; I wasn't ready for them.
This year I've tried three models of New Balance Minimus, first the MT20, then the MT110, and most recently the new MT1010, but I've also changed my mind about the Saucony Peregrine.
Montrail Mountain Masochist, 12.5, 13.25 oz: While in 2011 I liked the feel of the Masochists, they now feel very bulky, and I don't like the greater heel-to-toe drop anymore, probably because I've been running so much in the MT110s, which have a 4mm drop. I rarely use the Masochists now.
Saucony Peregrine, 12.5, 11.5 oz: Recently I've discovered the Peregrines feel much better, especially for long runs over rocky terrain, so these are becoming my go-to shoes for long outings. They recently handled my Slide Mountain loop in the Catskills very well. Saucony came out with a second version of these shoes, which I may try at some point when I need more shoes.
New Balance MT1010, 12.5 EE, 9 oz: I just got these last week, and though New Balance puts them in the Minimus line of shoes, the feel is very different from the MT110 and MT20. They feel spongy and the fit is not nearly as low or secure as the MT110 or MT20. These actually remind me of the spongy feel of the Saucony Kinvara road shoes, or the Nike Lunarglide (which I returned). I really don't see how these belong in the Minimus line. The rock protection is no better than the MT110, and they are not as stable. I wore them for over 6 hours on two outings, and they were extremely comfortable. On the plus side, they have fantastic grip on rock even on angles greater than 45 degrees, and I didn't mind wearing them. I think after the foam gets compacted they will be much better shoes. Overall slightly disappointed with the MT1010, which I thought was going to be similar to the MT110, but suitable for longer distances.
New Balance MT110, 12.5 EE, 9.4 oz: The MT110 is a fantastic shoe in so many ways, and is the best trail shoe I've ever run in, by far. They feel like racing flats with some rock protection, have excellent feel, fit, control, balance, and are a joy to run in. I can't wait to try version 2 of these shoes. The drawbacks of the MT110 are they have minimal cushioning, but enough for long runs once you get used to them. They also protect against rocks much better the newer they are, but still hold up pretty well. The sole is split with rubber front and back and foam in the middle, so the middle wears faster. The upper could be sturdier, and sharp rocks cut into my first pair and shortened it's life. A work in progress, but a truly fantastic shoe.
New Balance MT20, 13, 8 oz: The MT20, also with the same 4mm heel-to-toe drop as the MT1010 and the MT110, have almost no cushioning, but have excellent feel and are very good shoes to help teach natural running form. I like to wear them on short outings to feel the ground, but I prefer the MT110s for most of my running. Surprisingly, despite these having a Vibram sole, the MT110s which don't have better grip, as do the MT1010s (which have a different Vibram sole).
Pictured left to right below: Mountain Masochist, Peregrine, MT1010, MT110 (2x), MT20
This year I've tried three models of New Balance Minimus, first the MT20, then the MT110, and most recently the new MT1010, but I've also changed my mind about the Saucony Peregrine.
Montrail Mountain Masochist, 12.5, 13.25 oz: While in 2011 I liked the feel of the Masochists, they now feel very bulky, and I don't like the greater heel-to-toe drop anymore, probably because I've been running so much in the MT110s, which have a 4mm drop. I rarely use the Masochists now.
Saucony Peregrine, 12.5, 11.5 oz: Recently I've discovered the Peregrines feel much better, especially for long runs over rocky terrain, so these are becoming my go-to shoes for long outings. They recently handled my Slide Mountain loop in the Catskills very well. Saucony came out with a second version of these shoes, which I may try at some point when I need more shoes.
New Balance MT1010, 12.5 EE, 9 oz: I just got these last week, and though New Balance puts them in the Minimus line of shoes, the feel is very different from the MT110 and MT20. They feel spongy and the fit is not nearly as low or secure as the MT110 or MT20. These actually remind me of the spongy feel of the Saucony Kinvara road shoes, or the Nike Lunarglide (which I returned). I really don't see how these belong in the Minimus line. The rock protection is no better than the MT110, and they are not as stable. I wore them for over 6 hours on two outings, and they were extremely comfortable. On the plus side, they have fantastic grip on rock even on angles greater than 45 degrees, and I didn't mind wearing them. I think after the foam gets compacted they will be much better shoes. Overall slightly disappointed with the MT1010, which I thought was going to be similar to the MT110, but suitable for longer distances.
New Balance MT110, 12.5 EE, 9.4 oz: The MT110 is a fantastic shoe in so many ways, and is the best trail shoe I've ever run in, by far. They feel like racing flats with some rock protection, have excellent feel, fit, control, balance, and are a joy to run in. I can't wait to try version 2 of these shoes. The drawbacks of the MT110 are they have minimal cushioning, but enough for long runs once you get used to them. They also protect against rocks much better the newer they are, but still hold up pretty well. The sole is split with rubber front and back and foam in the middle, so the middle wears faster. The upper could be sturdier, and sharp rocks cut into my first pair and shortened it's life. A work in progress, but a truly fantastic shoe.
New Balance MT20, 13, 8 oz: The MT20, also with the same 4mm heel-to-toe drop as the MT1010 and the MT110, have almost no cushioning, but have excellent feel and are very good shoes to help teach natural running form. I like to wear them on short outings to feel the ground, but I prefer the MT110s for most of my running. Surprisingly, despite these having a Vibram sole, the MT110s which don't have better grip, as do the MT1010s (which have a different Vibram sole).
Pictured left to right below: Mountain Masochist, Peregrine, MT1010, MT110 (2x), MT20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)