To Infinity and Beyond - Becoming a Better DopeyBadger (Comments Welcome)

[Naomeri]

One of the DJs during the Monsters Inc 10K had a joke I thought was pretty funny (though it could’ve been the sleep deprivation )

What do you call a group of scared giraffes?

A tower of terror

 

[DopeyBadger]

That is a HILARIOUS idea.

My son was recently in a huge Monsters Inc. phase so if you need suggestions, hit me up. Also check out the Monsters at Work show on Disney Plus!

Thanks! We saw MAW as well, but we'll definitely need a refresher to make sure we didn't miss any details to our costumes.

One of the DJs during the Monsters Inc 10K had a joke I thought was pretty funny (though it could’ve been the sleep deprivation )

What do you call a group of scared giraffes?

A tower of terror

We're going to try and come up with a selection of jokes centered around different Disney characters. So when we see someone dressed as a certain character the joke we tell them will be centered on them. Feels like the joke will hit better then.

 

[bovie]

This is amazing! I can sew reasonably well, please feel free to hit me up if you need anything! If you got one of the more popular new Brother machines, there tend to be a bazillion YouTube tutorials for every problem.

 

[PaDisneyCouple]

Wow! The extent to which the two of you are planning this is amazing! I think most people make a costume and that's it but do not act out their characters like the two of you are planning. May costumes look great in pictures but there are probably not many that look great and put on a show at the same time.

I have a question that to me seems very simple but I'm wondering if you can provide more in-depth answers that may not be as obvious so that we can learn. As you know I completed a half marathon yesterday (I hope to put up a report). There was a marathon at the same time and I'm thinking about doing it next year (my first marathon). Looking at the results, we noticed that several runners "blew up" in the second half. Obvious reasons come to mind - undertrained, overconfident, went out too fast, injury, not familiar with the course. Also, what is a statistically significant split? I imagine that 5 or 10 minutes either way is not significant (bathroom break). If the person did not blow up can we assume that their overall pace reflects their ability (probably not?). I picked a random person. This person finished 208 out of 216 finishers. I have no idea who this person is, I just chose them as an example. There were some who had an hour between the two halves. This was an easy course. Very flat. "Uphill" for 1st half and "downhill" for 2nd. I used quotation marks because the elevation is barely noticeable. Weather was good, in the sixties, just enough cloud cover and no wind. What do you think? Does it just come down to the easiest explanations?

 

[DopeyBadger]

This is amazing! I can sew reasonably well, please feel free to hit me up if you need anything! If you got one of the more popular new Brother machines, there tend to be a bazillion YouTube tutorials for every problem.

Thanks for the offer and I'll be sure to hit you up if I hit a snag. It's a Brother SM1704.

Wow! The extent to which the two of you are planning this is amazing! I think most people make a costume and that's it but do not act out their characters like the two of you are planning. May costumes look great in pictures but there are probably not many that look great and put on a show at the same time.

That's what we're aiming for this time around. Hoping to hit the mark!

Obvious reasons come to mind - undertrained, overconfident, went out too fast, injury, not familiar with the course.

Those are the easiest explanations without knowing the runner. But maybe they had a goal of 5:00, was on pace for 5:07, and decided that wasn't worth it and shut it down into a 5:42 finish. There's a lot of possible explanations.

Also, what is a statistically significant split? I imagine that 5 or 10 minutes either way is not significant (bathroom break).

I don't think I have an answer for this one. There are positive splits (slow down), even splits (roughly the same), and negative splits (get faster as it goes along). How much does something have to be slower or faster than the first half to not be even? Well strictly speaking, anything that's not equal to a difference of zero between the first and second half is now "even". A few seconds here or there, and a person is likely to refer it to as "pretty much even" or "slightly negative". But I'm not sure there's a statistically significant definition. That's probably defined on a case by case basis depending on what you're applying the statistics to. But I would argue that a 5-10 min increase or decrease in total time in the second half is definitely different than an even split.

I have no idea who this person is, I just chose them as an example. There were some who had an hour between the two halves. This was an easy course. Very flat. "Uphill" for 1st half and "downhill" for 2nd. I used quotation marks because the elevation is barely noticeable. Weather was good, in the sixties, just enough cloud cover and no wind. What do you think? Does it just come down to the easiest explanations?

If you really wanted to dig into it, then look up the person's name in Athlinks. That website pulls from all sorts of running results based on names or profiles. You can find other results for people on there and compare those recent results to that of their marathon. How far off was their first half pacing from the race predicted values from their other recent races? Then check Strava and see if they have a public profile. See what their training was like and whether it was justifiable to use their recent race as a predictor or if their training was insufficient. Maybe see mentions of injuries, or other things. There are a lot of possible explanations, but without knowing specifics we'd just be throwing out blind guesses.

 

[PaDisneyCouple]

Thanks for the great answers!


Sean talked to this person yesterday and found out they did a 25k trail run (real trail run, not a rail trail) 2 weeks ago.

I'm intrigued when I see these results because I want to learn from them and improve my chances of success. I assume that everyone wants negative splits and does their best to achieve those splits.

I guess it just comes down to experience and training. I need to also remember that these people finished the race and there are some that started but were unable to finish.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Thanks for the great answers!

View attachment 759502
Sean talked to this person yesterday and found out they did a 25k trail run (real trail run, not a rail trail) 2 weeks ago.

I'm intrigued when I see these results because I want to learn from them and improve my chances of success. I assume that everyone wants negative splits and does their best to achieve those splits.

I guess it just comes down to experience and training. I need to also remember that these people finished the race and there are some that started but were unable to finish.

Achieving a negative split can be easy. You walk the first half and then do the second half at pace. But doing a negative split close to predicted max fitness level off good training is hard. Because in a marathon there is a razor thin margin between appropriately paced and pacing too quickly. I have a lot of experience racing marathons and I’d like to think I’ve done quite a few off really good training cycles, and even with that in my favor I’ve only negative split a max level fitness marathon attempt once out of my 17 attempts. Many times it’s from inflating what I think I can do with what I can actually do. Pacing a hard effort marathon is really really hard.

 

[DopeyBadger]

In ranked order of best to worst, these are the differentials between second half and first half splits in my marathons:

-4:53 (Lake 2015 *First Hansons training cycle)
+1:22 (Disney 2017 - Dopey)
+2:22 (Chicago 2018)
+3:01 (Lake 2016)
+3:15 (Disney 2014 - Dopey)
+4:21 (Disney 2015 - Dopey)
+4:27 (Disney 2018 - Dopey *3rd Best)
+4:43 (Madison 2021 *2nd Best)
+7:01 (Lake 2017 *PR)
+8:31 (Disney 2016 - Dopey)
+9:03 (Wisconsin 2016)
+12:37 (Non-Cancelled 2021)
+15:56 (Madison 2022 *Intentionally pulled back)
+21:42 (Madison 2014)
+22:50 (Disney 2020 *Injured)
+40:56 (Haunted Hustle 2012 *First marathon & race)
+54:53 (Wisconsin 2015 *Intentionally pulled back)

 

[PaDisneyCouple]

Interesting. I would think weather has a lot to do with it especially at Disney. At the start the conditions may be good but later in the race get very warm/humid/sunny.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Interesting. I would think weather has a lot to do with it especially at Disney. At the start the conditions may be good but later in the race get very warm/humid/sunny.

I've been lucky in that many of the marathons I've done at Disney haven't been that bad in terms of weather. It helps that I'm generally off the course by 8-9am. But definitely a consideration for others. MW particularly has pretty much an equal chance across the board of the very best weather conditions to the very worst. But even my biggest fades were in good weather (including outside Disney). So in general yes, weather matters. But for my particular data, weather plays a far smaller role.

 

[SheHulk]

Billy I watched a Kofusi YouTube video this week about why he uses a 9-day training cycle week instead of a traditional 7-day training cycle week. It sounds like it's better for, ahem, mature runners and I haven't stopped thinking about it since. Do you have any thoughts on this? It sounds like it's three 3-day blocks of easy, tempo, rest; easy, strength/interval, rest; easy, long run, rest.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Billy I watched a Kofusi YouTube video this week about why he uses a 9-day training cycle week instead of a traditional 7-day training cycle week. It sounds like it's better for, ahem, mature runners and I haven't stopped thinking about it since. Do you have any thoughts on this? It sounds like it's three 3-day blocks of easy, tempo, rest; easy, strength/interval, rest; easy, long run, rest.

I'm assuming this is the youtube video you are referencing:

Also to note, this is his Strava profile:

https://www.strava.com/athletes/20649629

As he states multiple times, the main consideration for doing the 9-day training cycle is flexibility in your schedule. A traditional 7-day plan is popular because it means that the longest duration efforts always occur on the weekend. If you have a traditional work week schedule, then always having long runs on the weekend makes it easier. Same goes from someone with a less traditional work week scheduled but you always have the same days on/off (like always having Wednesdays off and then you can schedule the 7-day schedule around the Wednesday LR). A person that does a 9-day schedule needs the flexibility to do LRs on a work week schedule that has flexibility. For example,

M- easy
T- easy
W- SOS
R- easy
F- easy
Sa- SOS
Su- easy
M- easy
T- LR
W- easy
R- easy
Sa- SOS
Su- easy
M- easy
T- SOS
W- easy
R- easy
F- LR
Sa- easy
Su- easy
M- SOS
T- easy
W- easy
R- SOS
F- easy
Sa- easy
Su- LR

In this four week sequence the "LR" occurs on Tues, Fri, and Sunday. If doing a marathon training cycle, do you have time to do a 90-120 (but more likely a 120-180 min) run?

One quibble, at the 8:39 mark he is discussing the number of SOS and LR workouts that would occur in a 9 week span of time when on the 7-day plan and 9-day plan. I count 7 LRs and 14 SOS like he does in the 9-day plan. However, the 7-day count seems off. He has 9 LRs (which makes sense at 1 per week), but the range of SOS is 9-12. Shouldn't it be 9-18. Either one SOS per week, or two SOS per week. So 2*9 would be 18 SOS? That graphic seems to bias the initial reaction as to how the 14 SOS in the 9-day plan would be a boost over anything you could do in the 7-day plan.

One thing I'd like to see defined is the "LR" itself. In most traditional 7-day plans, the LR tends to bounce around from a moderate length LR (90-120 min) and a long length LR (>120 min). So the question is are the 7 LRs in the 9-day plan all >120 min, which would be 7 long LRs vs in the 7-day plan while it may have 9 LRs, the split is more like 4 mod LRs and 5 long LRs. So the 9-day plan would have more long LRs.

I'm curious to dig into the two marathon training plans he did and plug them into my training load calculator. But that'll take some time and I'll get back to you with the results to see if the training load shows us something else. Additionally, look back at my Canova training plan which follows a hybrid of a 7-day plan at the start and then has more rest days between SOS in the second half.

 

[SheHulk]

I'm assuming this is the youtube video you are referencing:

Yup, that's it! I may have spelled his handle wrong

As he states multiple times, the main consideration for doing the 9-day training cycle is flexibility in your schedule. A traditional 7-day plan is popular because it means that the longest duration efforts always occur on the weekend. If you have a traditional work week schedule, then always having long runs on the weekend makes it easier. Same goes from someone with a less traditional work week scheduled but you always have the same days on/off (like always having Wednesdays off and then you can schedule the 7-day schedule around the Wednesday LR). A person that does a 9-day schedule needs the flexibility to do LRs on a work week schedule that has flexibility.

Yeah, I was thinking this might be do-able for me next time around because it's Chicago, which is October 8, which means most of my training is over my summer break, when I have a lot of flexibility. The 5 weeks leading up to the race, I'm going to be on a 5-day in-office schedule, but even then, I think my work schedule is flexible enough in the fall that I would be able to make it work. I think counting backwards in 9-day blocks from the race (on a Sunday), in those last 5 weeks, my long runs, if they were on day 9, would be on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, which are my most flexible days in the fall (I think you missed a Friday in your example, and that Tuesday would really be a Wednesday).

The other reason I'm interested is because I've been feeling pretty darn fatigued toward the end of my training plans recently, and I'm wondering if more quality runs + more recovery days might help put more spring in my step. As we have been operating, I've had those 4 days in a row Friday-Monday and by Monday I'm pretty pooped. Also I'm just interested what would happen if I switched things up.

One quibble, at the 8:39 mark he is discussing the number of SOS and LR workouts that would occur in a 9 week span of time when on the 7-day plan and 9-day plan. I count 7 LRs and 14 SOS like he does in the 9-day plan. However, the 7-day count seems off. He has 9 LRs (which makes sense at 1 per week), but the range of SOS is 9-12. Shouldn't it be 9-18. Either one SOS per week, or two SOS per week. So 2*9 would be 18 SOS? That graphic seems to bias the initial reaction as to how the 14 SOS in the 9-day plan would be a boost over anything you could do in the 7-day plan.

One thing I'd like to see defined is the "LR" itself. In most traditional 7-day plans, the LR tends to bounce around from a moderate length LR (90-120 min) and a long length LR (>120 min). So the question is are the 7 LRs in the 9-day plan all >120 min, which would be 7 long LRs vs in the 7-day plan while it may have 9 LRs, the split is more like 4 mod LRs and 5 long LRs. So the 9-day plan would have more long LRs.

I'm curious to dig into the two marathon training plans he did and plug them into my training load calculator. But that'll take some time and I'll get back to you with the results to see if the training load shows us something else. Additionally, look back at my Canova training plan which follows a hybrid of a 7-day plan at the start and then has more rest days between SOS in the second half.

I'd have to go back and re-watch to see about the estimated number of SOS for the 7-day plan... He might have just been referring to what he, personally, did, which may have been 1 on one week, 2 on the next, or 1 most weeks, and 2 maybe every 3rd week? If you are just talking the general number you could have, then yes 9-18 makes sense.

The pattern I was referring to, must have been something I read somewhere else on tips for Master's runners following this plan... and they said the benefit came from like an easy, a "quality" workout, a rest type pattern every 3 days. I see he runs every day which is not appealing to me.

I also struggle to fit in strength training, but if it was in my running plan as part of my "strength/interval" running day I might be more likely to stick to it. I'm very motivated to stick to my running plan but other things kind of get forgotten if I'm tired.

One thing I'd like to see defined is the "LR" itself. In most traditional 7-day plans, the LR tends to bounce around from a moderate length LR (90-120 min) and a long length LR (>120 min). So the question is are the 7 LRs in the 9-day plan all >120 min, which would be 7 long LRs vs in the 7-day plan while it may have 9 LRs, the split is more like 4 mod LRs and 5 long LRs. So the 9-day plan would have more long LRs.

I'm curious to dig into the two marathon training plans he did and plug them into my training load calculator. But that'll take some time and I'll get back to you with the results to see if the training load shows us something else. Additionally, look back at my Canova training plan which follows a hybrid of a 7-day plan at the start and then has more rest days between SOS in the second half.

Yeah I figured that about more "long" LRs in the 9-day plan. But more rest days in between so maybe ok?

I didn't mean to give you work to plug things in... I was just wondering if you think this is a stupid idea, and I asked here in your training journal because I thought others would be interested in your thoughts too. If you were interested in making me a plan like this I would use it though, just saying...

 

[DopeyBadger]

Alright @SheHulk I went through Michael's training plans leading into Grandmas (2:58:36) and Tokyo (2:57:00). I analyzed the nine weeks leading into the race because in both cases he was coming off a period of lower training and did a really short training plan. Here's what I found:

Grandma's (2022) - 2:58:36
9w Mileage - 545 miles (60.6 mpw)
Duration - 79:25 hrs (8:50 hrs pw)
Days off - 7
Biking Days - 4
Runs over 120 min - 5
SOS not including >120 min runs - 14
Total SOS runs - 19

Tokyo (2023) - 2:57:00
9w Mileage - 637 miles (70.8 mpw)
Duration - 95:42 hrs (10:38 hrs pw)
Days off - 2
Biking Days - 0
Runs over 120 min (includes doubles) - 11
SOS not including >120 min runs - 9
Total SOS runs - 20






Between the two races, he PR'd at Tokyo by about 7 sec/mile.

Yeah I figured that about more "long" LRs in the 9-day plan. But more rest days in between so maybe ok?

Yep, that's exactly what happened. He did five in the 7-day plan and eleven in the 9-day plan. Of the 16 LRs, only one was a traditional sustained LR pace. The other 15 were M Tempos or on occasion a T workout.

It's the stance I tried in the Canova training plan. More rest days in-between hard workouts, but the hard workouts were much harder. So harder quality, but less of it from day to day. The main critique of the last Canova plan was I felt like there should have been more sustained M Tempos.

Yeah, I was thinking this might be do-able for me next time around because it's Chicago, which is October 8, which means most of my training is over my summer break, when I have a lot of flexibility. The 5 weeks leading up to the race, I'm going to be on a 5-day in-office schedule, but even then, I think my work schedule is flexible enough in the fall that I would be able to make it work. I think counting backwards in 9-day blocks from the race (on a Sunday), in those last 5 weeks, my long runs, if they were on day 9, would be on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, which are my most flexible days in the fall (I think you missed a Friday in your example, and that Tuesday would really be a Wednesday).

The other reason I'm interested is because I've been feeling pretty darn fatigued toward the end of my training plans recently, and I'm wondering if more quality runs + more recovery days might help put more spring in my step. As we have been operating, I've had those 4 days in a row Friday-Monday and by Monday I'm pretty pooped. Also I'm just interested what would happen if I switched things up.

Well you've got the flexibility then, and that's the major hurdle.

Is the way you're going to adjust your schedule away from a Fri-Mon 4 day sequence for the 9-day plan something you could also do in a 7-day plan as well?

I'd have to go back and re-watch to see about the estimated number of SOS for the 7-day plan... He might have just been referring to what he, personally, did, which may have been 1 on one week, 2 on the next, or 1 most weeks, and 2 maybe every 3rd week? If you are just talking the general number you could have, then yes 9-18 makes sense.

Based on the breakdown, it looks like he averages 2.1-2.2 SOS workouts per week (including runs >120 min) in both the 7-day and 9-day plans. So at least for Grandma's he wasn't doing 3 SOS per week very often.

I also struggle to fit in strength training, but if it was in my running plan as part of my "strength/interval" running day I might be more likely to stick to it. I'm very motivated to stick to my running plan but other things kind of get forgotten if I'm tired.

That could be done in a 7-day plan as well. If you've got the time for a >120 min mid-week run for a 9-day plan, then you could do a 90 min mid-week run + 30 min strength on the same day. Whether they occur back to back or morning/evening is a different question.

I didn't mean to give you work to plug things in... I was just wondering if you think this is a stupid idea, and I asked here in your training journal because I thought others would be interested in your thoughts too. If you were interested in making me a plan like this I would use it though, just saying...

Not a stupid idea. It can work. I'm up to 644 different training plans and no two are the same. With that, and based on people's goals/availability, can make for some "different" concoctions. But that didn't preclude them from being successful. So that's to say what may seem "untraditional" can still be successful.

 

[SheHulk]

It's the stance I tried in the Canova training plan. More rest days in-between hard workouts, but the hard workouts were much harder. So harder quality, but less of it from day to day. The main critique of the last Canova plan was I felt like there should have been more sustained M Tempos.

I think I'm listening to my watch too much... I had the lowest-level Garmin Forerunner (a 35) for about 5 years. It just gave me basic numbers on pace, distance, HR, with no "judgment". Since I "upgraded to a FR 255, it keeps giving me feedback on my runs like whether it was "Productive", "Recovery", "Maintenance". etc. And even though I was tired a lot, sometimes really tired to the point where I"m experiencing a little mental fog, the watch never told me my training was productive. It was always "Maintenance" or "Recovery". I know the watch doesn't know everything but it's been making me wonder if I need more quality (i.e., "harder") workouts and more rest. I don't know.

Well you've got the flexibility then, and that's the major hurdle.

Is the way you're going to adjust your schedule away from a Fri-Mon 4 day sequence for the 9-day plan something you could also do in a 7-day plan as well?


That could be done in a 7-day plan as well. If you've got the time for a >120 min mid-week run for a 9-day plan, then you could do a 90 min mid-week run + 30 min strength on the same day. Whether they occur back to back or morning/evening is a different question.

Yeah, you're convincing me that I could still do a 7-day plan, just break up the days differently than we have been doing the past 5 years (Is that right? I think so ) If I have enough flexibility in the week to squeeze in a long run, I should be able to fit in the strength training. It's just a matter of doing it.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I think I'm listening to my watch too much... I had the lowest-level Garmin Forerunner (a 35) for about 5 years. It just gave me basic numbers on pace, distance, HR, with no "judgment". Since I "upgraded to a FR 255, it keeps giving me feedback on my runs like whether it was "Productive", "Recovery", "Maintenance". etc. And even though I was tired a lot, sometimes really tired to the point where I"m experiencing a little mental fog, the watch never told me my training was productive. It was always "Maintenance" or "Recovery". I know the watch doesn't know everything but it's been making me wonder if I need more quality (i.e., "harder") workouts and more rest. I don't know.

Right, so you want to know what those things mean. My understanding is that the Garmin is using two main inputs to give those outputs. First is your Garmin VO2max value, and the second is your training load data.

We've all had these discussions a few times, but the Garmin VO2max value is not infallible. First off, it requires that you have accurate or unchanged maxHR data (I can't remember whether it also uses the resting HR information as well). The Garmin VO2max value is a function of the relationship between your pace and your HR data as a % of your max/rest. So if your pace gets faster at the same HR, then your VO2max value goes up. If your pace gets slower at the same HR, then your VO2max value goes down. So the question then becomes, what things can influence your HR during a run? Temperature is a big one. If the temp is 50F one week and 100F the next, you're likely to see your pace slow at the same HR. Thus your Garmin VO2max value is likely to fall. If the temp goes the other direction, then you're likely to see your Garmin VO2max increase if the pace gets faster at the same HR. Some of the more recent Garmins are apparently adjusting for temperature in their Pace vs Relative Effort calculations. I'm not 100% positive my Garmin 245 does, but it absolutely fluctuates a heck of a lot less than my Garmin 235 did. I think that's because the Garmin is using temperature data. What other things outside temp can effect the Pace vs HR relationship? If you do lots of flat running, and then lots of hill running. Caffeine, stress, poor sleep and several other possibilities. So, it's important to remember that Pace vs HR (Garmin VO2max) can go up and down, and it's only reflective of what you're currently doing in this current moment.

The second input is the training load data. It's based on the same thing as shown above for Michael Ko's data breakdown, but the calculation they use is different than the one I use. With that being said, the premise of the calculations are the same. You want the training you're doing today to be enough different than what you were doing to elicit gains, but not too much that you're overtaxing yourself, and not too little that your body isn't forced to make the adaptations to the training. So there's an "optimal zone" to be in. One big caveat with training load is that based on the mathematical formula to stay in the optimal zone, you need to be ever increasing training vs what you were doing in the last 4-6 weeks. But in reality, we can't keep increasing and increasing the training load over the course of months and months and years. You'd continue to stay in "optimal" training zone, but there needs to be a point where you pull back. I believe that limit is around 10-14 weeks for running. Try to stay in the optimal zone for much longer than that and you'll likely stagnate physically.

So now the combination of those two create the output of Overreaching, Peaking, Productive, Maintenance, Recovery, Unproductive, Detraining, and No Status.





In my opinion, the terms mean the following combos of the two inputs:

Overreaching = Training Load (above "optimal") & VO2max (doesn't matter)
Peaking = Training Load (lower end of "optimal" and less than recent & VO2max (increasing)
Productive = Training Load (optimal) & VO2max (increasing)
Maintaining = Training Load (optimal) & VO2max (the same)
Recovery = Training Load (sub-optimal) & VO2max (the same)
Unproductive = Training Load (optimal) & VO2max (decreasing)
Detraining = Training Load (sub-optimal) & VO2max (decreasing)
No Status = Not enough recent data to calculate

In my experience, if your VO2max (Pace vs HR) is increasing very slowly and you're staying in the optimal training zone, then you're likely to see yourself in "Maintaining". So the rate of increasing your VO2max matters too in my experience. I use the "Performance Condition" that I get right at the start of the run as a prompt, and the output at the end of the run to judge how much my fitness is increasing. The "Performance Condition" value is a real-time look as to how much your VO2max is increasing in small increments. The more times you see the PC value as a positive value, then the more likely you're making small incremental gains. Does that mean I see a positive PC value every time I run? No. Many times the day after a really hard run, my HR will be higher at the same pace, and thus my PC goes negative.

So let's tie this back to Michael Ko's data.

His 9-day plan had a higher training load, then the 7-day plan. This is mostly because he was doing about 2 hrs per week more of running in the 9-day plan (8:50 hrs vs 10:40 hrs). Then we can look at the following to see whether he was in optimal training.

The columns in the middle and at the very right are the difference in "recent last week volume" vs "last six weeks volume". The 9-day plan is the column in the middle and the 7-day plan on the right. Green is "optimal" training. You can tell he's essentially in the "optimal" zone the same amount ASSUMING that he enters both training plans at a similar training load value. Given the downturn in training he had in both, it's a good assumption, but not rock solid. So despite the 9-day plan having a higher training load running average, the 7-day plan was "just as optimal". So for his Garmin, he was likely to see lots of "Productive" and "Maintaining" based on his Garmin VO2 value since he was in optimal training.

So the second input would be, did he see a significant change in his Garmin VO2max value? Probably not. The 2:58:38 was a 54.0, and the 2:57:00 was a 54.6. The previous two Marathons were a 3:00:30 (53.4), and a 3:04:00 (52.2). Given the very small difference in VDOT values between Tokyo and Grandma's, it's more likely than not that his Garmin VO2max value wasn't dramatically different between the two. Thus, he probably spent an equal amount of time at each VO2max value within each training plan.

Thus, the combination of his training load data and possible Garmin VO2max value leads me to believe he likely spent a lot of time in "Maintaining". Not because he was doing anything wrong. Just based on the two inputs. In both cases, he ran really good conversions of what he's done in other races. His M performances are some of his best compared to his 5k, 10k, and HMs.

I believe his overall volume of training that he's able to maintain is a large contributing factor. One reason he can handle that volume is because he's doing his easy days really really slow comparatively. He can run a marathon in 6:40 pace. Yet his easy days are 9-10 min/mile pace. That would be like you doing most of your easy days in the 11:45-13:00 pace zone.

Outside of his M Tempo long runs, he's not doing anything terribly difficult for SOS workouts. He's doing T paced workouts in reps of about 6 min usually with minimal RI, and total volume is usually only about 36 min or so. But those M Tempo workouts are very hard with many in the 8-12 miles of M Tempo range.

Hope that helps!

 

[SheHulk]

This all makes sense, thank you! My VO2Max estimate has not gone up at all since I started using this watch in January. I ran my 10 miler pretty much in line with what my previous race (a half in November) would predict, off by a minute and a half but I ran this race more conservatively, so not shocking. So maybe all that "Maintaining" status just means my training load was optimal but VO2 Max not budging. I don't like not being told my training is productive though, even by an inanimate object.

Not sure what to think about the 9-day cycle. It sounds like I can make changes within a 7-day cycle to achieve whatever goals I have right now.

 

[DopeyBadger]

2023 Summer Training - LIIFT4, LIIFT More, and Easy Running

Just to put a quick pen to paper on the plan for the 2023 summer training plan. I plan to do LIIFT4 (8 weeks) and LIIFT More (8 weeks) in consecutive run throughs that will bring me to the start of Disneyland training in the beginning of September.

LIIFT4 is four days per week of weight lifting, HIIT, and core work. The workouts last about 30-45 min. So I'll aim to do LIIFT4 workouts on Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. I chose to start on Saturday because then the Legs/HIIT workout ends up on Wednesday (mid-week). I've got more time on the weekends so having the non-Legs day on a weekday allows me to easily double up with running on the weekends. I'm planning on running four days per week on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The goal is to run between 45-60 min each day at a very easy pace. This will keep me around 3.5 hrs of strength training and 3.5-4 hrs of running per week. That running load will maintain me just under the 50% of my normal peak and thus should help me maintain my endurance through the summer.

LIIFT More is five days per week of weight lifting, HIIT, and core work. The workouts mostly last 45 min. I'm aiming to do the workouts on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. The muscle focus is similar to LIIFT4 except that they split the Leg days into two separate workouts (Quads/Calves and Hamstrings/Glutes). Every other workout is a HIIT day. So the plan is to run on non-HIIT lifting days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Some some weeks will be five days of running (Tues/Thurs/Fri/Sat/Sun), and other weeks four days (Wed/Fri/Sat/Sun). Since I'm running on lifting days mid-week, I'll limit the mid-week runs to 30 min (so total workouts will end up being something like 75 min. All running will be kept easy during this period as well. In total, that should give me 3.5-4 hrs of running and 3.75 hrs of strength per week.

LIIFT More requires a bench, so I bought this one on sale from Amazon (link). It came a few weeks ago and seems like it'll work well for me. It does have a taller base, which means it might not work as well for those with shorter legs. I'm 6 ft and comfortable on it, and Steph is 5'6" but with longer legs than torso and it works for her as well.

 

[DopeyBadger]

2023 Summer Training - Week 1-3 of 17 weeks




5/1/23-5/7/23
Tues (5/2): 3.5 miles @ Easy
Wed (5/3): 3.5 miles @ Easy
Thurs (5/4): 3.5 miles @ Easy
Fri (5/5): 3.5 miles @ Easy
Sat (5/6): 3.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Chest/Triceps
Sun (5/7): 3.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Back/Biceps

Total Run Miles - 20.6 miles
Total Run Time - 3:01 hours
Total Strength Time - 1:03 hours
Total Training Time - 4:04 hours





5/8/23-5/14/23
Tues (5/9): LIIFT4 - Shoulders + McMillan Legs
Wed (5/10): LIIFT4 - Legs
Thurs (5/11): 6.5 miles @ Easy
Fri (5/12): 3.5 miles @ Easy on Treadmill
Sat (5/13): 6.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Chest/Triceps
Sun (5/14): 6.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Back/Biceps

Total Run Miles - 23.1 miles
Total Run Time - 3:25 hours
Total Strength Time - 2:36 hours
Total Training Time - 6:01 hours




5/15/23-5/14/23
Tues (5/16): LIIFT4 - Shoulders
Wed (5/17): OFF
Thurs (5/18): GOTR Practice 5k
Fri (5/19): OFF
Sat (5/20): 6.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Chest/Triceps
Sun (5/21): 6.5 miles @ Easy + LIIFT4 - Back/Biceps

Total Run Miles - 15.2 miles
Total Run Time - 2:49 hours
Total Strength Time - 1:20 hours
Total Training Time - 4:09 hours




Alright, time to play a little catchup in the journal. For long time readers, you may or may not have noticed that I haven't been as good about updating the journal in a timely manner. For a few reasons I can't get into at this moment, work has been "different". So I've been dealing with things revolving around that and that's taken away from my ability to do things elsewhere (including this journal). When I can share, I will.

For the week of 5/1, the goal was simply giving my body an easy time after the Non-Cancelled HM. I ended the training cycle on a high note and healthy too. So I cut myself a little break and dropped the training load. As mentioned in the 2023 summer training plan post, I started the LIIFT4 workouts on the weekend so the leg day would end up mid-week. So that weekend, I started LIIFT4. Boy, it's always shocking to get back into weight lifting and how badly you feel when you do. I stopped lifting once we got back from Princess due to time constraints. So about two months off, and boy was my body not pleased with me. I was crazy crazy sore in my arms and chest after this weekend.

For the week of 5/8, I did the shoulders and legs workouts. I also threw in a McMillan Legs for good measure. The combo of these three workouts tore me up. You'd think being able to run a 7 min/mile for 13 miles would mean I had some good leg strength, but that strength is very runner focused and is lacking in plenty of other leg areas. So I could barely walk for a few days after the Wednesday workout. You could have convinced me that I had run a marathon and not simply done a 40 min weight lifting exercise. Thankfully as it usually goes, things were feeling fine eventually, but it did seem to take about until Monday of the next week to get there. G had two auditions to film over the weekend. One for the Green Bay Packers, and one for a car battery manufacturer in Milwaukee.

For the week of 5/15, it was all about going with the flow. G got a callback and confirmation of hiring for the car battery manufacture with a scheduled filming for Friday. She was actually a little bummed at first because the 2nd graders were visiting her school Friday morning and they were going to get to buddy up with them and show them around. There were tears involved. But we decided to take her mind off that on Wednesday by heading over to Von Maur to do some shopping on some new outfits that might fit the role for filming on Friday. She was partaking in a "safety" video where the moderator would ask the kids about safety and they'd have unscripted and genuine kid like responses. I suspect they'll use these as part of their safety training in their manufacturing plants. So not something the public will ever see on TV for something like a commercial. She had fun shopping for new outfits and the mood was pivoted. But because of that, it meant no Wednesday strength workout. Thursday morning G had changed her mind and wanted me to come to the GOTR Practice 5k that evening. So I took off work early and made it in time. We had a good time, and it ended up running with some of her friends here and there. She's going to miss the real 5k because of the Taylor Swift concert in Chicago. During some of the pre-practice fun we were playing a game like tag and I'm pretty sure I tweaked my left calf. Felt like when it cramps in the middle of the night, or when I try too hard on hills. So it'll probably linger for a week or so based on past precedent. I probably didn't stretch well enough.

On Friday, she had her big shoot. She did really well, and made us very proud. We didn't get to see the actual filming, and that's for the best because then she can just focus on being in her element. There were five kids there in total. She had one segment of about 40 min straight of Q/A with the moderator in a solo, and then another 20-30 min in a duet scene, and then about 5-10 min with all the kids. The director was very happy with how she did and said he really enjoyed working with her. The handler said she really liked working with G and hopes their Ad agency reaches out to our agent with some future roles because she was a top talent to work with. So those things always bring a smile to all our faces and she continues to perform well in this capacity.



They chose one of the new outfits for filming.



Waiting to get called for filming.



A microphone pack that they strapped to her leg.



Where the filming took place, but we couldn't see anything.



G being proud of her accomplishments.

I decided to take that afternoon off to give my calf a break, but also because I've been called upon to create another costume. As you may or may not remember, G was cast as Chip in the upcoming adult production of Beauty and the Beast. We reached out to them and offered my assistance in making the Chip costume for G. I showed them a general idea of how I thought I could make it, and was given the green light to do my thing. So I'll update in a different post about that new costume making adventure.

I ran this morning (Saturday) and the calf was noticeable, but not terrible. So I'm thinking I'm on the same path I've been on before. I've been pleased with how the effort has felt and the data feedback I've been getting. So things are going well there.

So bumps here and there along the way, but so far the summer training has gotten off to a decent start!

 

[azrivest]

The goal is to run between 45-60 min each day at a very easy pace. This will keep me around 3.5 hrs of strength training and 3.5-4 hrs of running per week. That running load will maintain me just under the 50% of my normal peak and thus should help me maintain my endurance through the summer.

So interesting because I was looking at how to plan my summer runs this morning. Does this mean you're not planning any "long" run during the summer and all runs will be in the same time range?