Weekly summary

Monday	Rest
Tuesday	9.2 miles	Steady pace 80% MHR	Hilly!
Wednesday	6.0 miles	Recovery 69% MHR
Thursday	5.9 miles	Tempo run 4miles @84% MHR 8:15/mile	Touch of stitch
Friday	7.0 miles	Recovery 68% MHR	Felt good!
Xmas day	6 miles	70% MHR
Boxing day	14 miles	69%MHR 9:50/mile 120bpm ave	Tired!Too much champagne?
Total	48.1 miles

Managed to keep running through Xmas. Boxing day was a struggle, not surprisingly!

Merry Xmas

Saturday seems to have been cancelled, so rather than do my usual gym session, I put on a white top teamed with a red running vest, donned a Santa hat, and went for a run along the seafront.

This is the one time when you can guarantee that people won't be hurling abuse such as "Get your knees up you fishing lazy can't" (which was said with such malice that to this day I can't understand the mind-set of the guy who said it).

Today was magical. Clear blue skies and a gentle surf rolling in. The sort of day which reminds you of why you go running. Everyone I met had a smile on their face and a kind word to say. Not a heckler in sight.

Merry Xmas everyone!

The 4th mile plot - a spy story

I just had a very good run! Despite being a recovery run, the quality of its pace was on par with last nights quality session run at 90secs/mile faster. How was I able to compare 2 runs of widely differing paces?

For each run, I wear my Garmin Forerunner 201 GPS on my left wrist and my Polar S610 Heart Rate Monitor on the right. The Garmin bleeps the mile splits at me and I tap the laps into the Polar, giving me an average heart rate (HR) for each mile. So I have the data for each run. There just remains the interpretation of it.

There is a fitness test called the Conconi test. It's a method of determining Lactate Threshold by running progressively quicker 200m repetitions and recording HR for each rep. It has been discredited in some quarters, but the graph used gave me an idea. The test involves plotting speed against HR. This gives a straight line for paces below the Lactate threshold.

My idea is to use the same plot, but plot each days speed and HR, rather than Conconi's single session. For the same level of fitness, each point plotted will lie on a straight line. As fitness improves the line will move downwards: for the same HR you can run quicker, or for the same pace you have a lower HR. This way you get a visual representation of your fitness and are able to compare runs at different paces.

There are some caveats though. You must wait for a point in the run where your HR has stabilised. The first mile is always at a much lower HR and is not suitable for this analysis. I wait for the 4th mile of the run, although the 3rd may also be suitable.

You must also ensure that the 4th mile is comparable for each run. For me this is fairly easy as there are no hills within 6 miles of my house. However, you must still be aware of the conditions: it's no good comparing a mile with a tail wind and another with a head wind.

On the other hand, you may decide to plot every mile of every run from the 3rd mile onwards. At least this will give you more data and a denser graph.

Note that you should ideally plot speed (mph or km/h) against HR. If you plot pace (mins/mile) against HR, you won't quite get a straight line. However, it's still a curve that gives a useful comparison, so for simplicity I've used pace vs HR.

Here's the graph:


You can see the straight(ish) line for each month's data. As fitness improves, the line moves down to the right. You can see that November was a very good month for me! You can also see how much I've improved since the beginning of the year. Looking at this months data, the red diamonds, you can see how much the illness affected my fitness - there is a big spread - some are on a par with January's yellow triangles - but the latest are back at my best, particularly the one to the right.

This morning's run is the red diamond at the bottom next to the pale blue triangles. This was a recovery run only 16 hours after a tough tempo run. Despite being tired and buffeted by a strong wind (see the caveat above) it is on a par with my best. Good news!

One other thing that this data tells me. Looking at the slope of the curve, an increase of 10bpm give a 40second improvement in pace. Useful information when estimating training and racing paces!

As you are probably gathering by now, I like data!

Weekly summary

As I seem to be recovered from the chest infection, now seems to be a good time to start weekly summaries:

Monday	Rest
Tuesday	8 miles	4 laps of 1.5miles@9:00/mile 80% MHR	Cardiac drift test - no drift!
Wednesday	5.5 miles	Recovery 70% MHR	Tired!
Thursday	6.2 miles	4x1mile reps 83% MHR 7:50/mile	Felt good!
Friday	5.8 miles	Recovery 70% MHR	Tired!
Saturday	5 miles	Gym session including 5 miles treadmill
Sunday	13 miles	70%MHR 9:50/mile 122bpm ave	Felt good!
Total	43.5 miles

A tough week, but finally back on form, confirmed by the gym session and Sunday's long run.

A study in recovery

Our club coach once told me that you need 2 weeks of catch-up training for every week missed. I'd always wondered if this was the case. I guess I now have the answer.

If you look at A study in loss of fitness, you will see the result of the lay-off in terms of loss of pace on the treadmill.

The plot below is the comparison of my heart rate on the treadmill from 4 weeks ago in blue, with today's plot in red. The first 3 miles are the same 9.6 km/h; the 4th mile 4 weeks ago was a cool down, hence a lower HR. The time line is as follows:

Normal 40 mile training week

Gym session - blue plot

Illness - no running for a week

1 week of gentle running - 20 miles - still recovering

A study in loss of fitness

Normal training week - 40 miles

Normal training week - 43 miles

Gym session - red plot

If we count the second week as a neutral week, just trying to avoid losing any more fitness, then it seems that the 2 for 1 rule is correct!

Chinese recovery run torture

What's harder? An 8 mile steady pace run at 80% of Maximum Heart Rate or an easy recovery run of 6 miles at less then 70% MHR? This isn't a joke along the lines of "What's pink and hard in the morning?*", but a question that get's to the core of the base training philosophy.

A lot of folks will talk about "junk mileage" and the need for quality. If my recovery runs are junk mileage then why are they so tough?

Each week I do 2 'work sessions' - they are what most people call quality sessions but they are not the classic anaerobic, eye balls out, puke your guts up sessions that some seem to love (?!). They are aerobic sessions, run at higher heart rates but still below the aerobic threshold, typically (for me at least) a medium distance (6-9 miles) run at 80% MHR, or some long intervals of 1-2 miles run at 83% MHR. The aim of these runs is to slowly push up the aerobic threshold so that ultimately I will be able to sustain a higher heart rate in the marathon. Monitoring the aerobic threshold is by means of examining cardiac drift, but this is a subject for a later post.

The days following the work sessions are easy recovery runs, to put me in good shape for the next work session. I believe that far from being 'junk mileage' these runs get to the heart of the base training idea and the need for daily running. By running tired and depleted of glycogen they train the fat burning system (this might just be my opinion rather than statement of fact - comments welcome). I also believe that no mileage is 'junk' when it comes to improving your aerobic efficiency. The following day I feel great, so there is a benefit there.

These recovery runs feel tough though, unlike the work sessions when I'm fresh and ready to go. I seem OK for the first few miles of the recovery run, but as the distance ticks monotonously by I get a really hollow feeling and it becomes more of a struggle to keep going.

So after 5 miles of running on empty, we have the following inner dialogue:
Head: "Only another mile and we're done"
Heart: "I'm cold and tired and I want chocolate!"
Head: "We need to do at least the same mileage as last week. Another mile is nothing"
Heart: "My knee hurts, the bruise on my hip hurts, and I want chocolate!!"
Head: "This isn't junk mileage. These are the bread and butter runs of base training"
Heart: "What if my knee isn't just tired muscles but the return of ITBS? Chocolate and a sit down will help!"
Head: "A nice vegetable stir fry with peanut shoots and cashews awaits us - far healthier and better for recovery. Come on - less than a mile!"
Heart: "I want chocolate!!!"

In the end 'we' compromised and did 5.5 miles. The 'chocolate' was an SIS Rego recovery drink, chocolate flavour. The stir fry went ahead though - I quite like them!

*and to answer the other question: The Financial Times crossword. Surely you knew that old chestnut?

36 today

Measuring your resting heart rate should be a simple affair, but somehow I seem to make it complicated.

It is generally accepted that it is a good idea to take your resting pulse rate each morning. If your pulse rate is elevated by, say, 5bpm, you should take it easy that day. More than a 10bpm rise and you should take time off training until it has dropped. These figures may be my interpretation, but they work for me.

In 'Running to the Top', Arthur Lydiard warns not to take too much notice of resting heart rate, due to the vagaries of hydration, room temperature and stress. He may have a point!

I have to take my pulse manually, as I can't seem to get my heart rate monitor to make proper contact, particularly lying on my side. If I take my pulse on waking, the alarm causes my pulse to rocket up. I can't then get settled as I'm thinking about work and the need to get up and ready myself. My pulse is all over the place. No consistency!

So here's the scheme: I pretty much always get up in the small hours to go to the loo - the consequence of a glass of water before bedtime, hydration being the watch-word of all good athletes (no hint of irony!). I get back in bed and take my pulse. I do this by lying on my side holding my wrist and counting. Unfortunately there's no seconds display on the bedside LED alarm clock, so I carefully watch for the minute digit to tick over and count a full minute of beats. Unfortunately I'm very short sighted so I have to wear my glasses. It's tricky to get comfortable lying on your side wearing glasses and I have to get the position of the pillow just right so that it doesn't press my specs into the bridge of my nose. Of course many is the time that the alarm has woken me several hours later, still wearing my glasses, with the bridge of my nose pushed to the far side of my face!

Now having got myself into an apparently comfortable position, I have to wait for my pulse to drop, as I've just got back into bed after visiting the loo. 46bpm, 44bpm, 43bpm, 41bpm, 40bpm, 38bpm, 37bpm, 36bpm, 36bpm. It can take several minutes for my pulse to stabilise. I will generally drop off to sleep, hopefully having remembered to remove my specs, and can fortunately remember my pulse on waking.

If only it was that simple!

It generally goes something like this:

"1, 2, 3, when's the digit going, 4, to change?, 5, 6, my eyes are dry, 7, I can't keep them open, 8, I'll close them for a while, 9, 10, 11, 12, have a peek, 13, not changed yet, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, another peek, ah its changed! "
"1, 2, did it change on 16?, 3, 4, or 18?, 5, 6, or nearer 20?, 21, 22, 23, 24, oh bum! miscount! Wait for the digits again"
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, hmmm eyes are dry, 6, 7, I don't need to look, 8, 9, for a while, so I'll close them for a bit, 10, 11, 12, 13..."
"...39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, check the time, 45, drat! it's changed already! 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, better keep counting, 51, 52, for a second minute, 53, 54..."
"...78, 79, take a peek, 80, 81, 82, digits changed!"
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, so was that a minute of 42?, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, followed by a minute of 40? , 11, 12, 13, 14..."
"...36, 37, 38, digit's changed"
"1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ...18, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33... ....42, should have changed by now, 43, 44, 45, maybe miscounted?, 46, 47, changed! Must have miscounted drat!"
"1, 2, 3... ...35, 36, 37, changed - must have skipped 10 last time?"
"1, 2, 3... ...16, 17... 18.... sleepy... 19.... 20..... 21......... 22........... 23................"
[Sound of alarm]
"Ow my nose hurts! I'm still wearing my glasses? Bugger, not again!"

Some mornings it works better than others. My resting pulse was 36 this morning. This is back down to its lowest ever. A good sign that I might have got over the cold bug and be getting back some fitness!

Arthur Lydiard 1917-2004

Arthur Lydiard died on Saturday 11th December 2004. His death was confirmed today.

The legendary coach came to prominence in the 1950s and 60s, coaching many runners to Olympic gold medals. His methods established the basic principles by which we all train today. Without him I would not be doing my 'Base Training'.

A full biography and transcript of his 1999 lecture tour can be found here.

A sad day indeed.

Happy Birthday to me!

It's my birthday! To celebrate, I thought I'd try some creative use of my Garmin Forerunner 201 GPS unit.

The idea was to set the GPS running and have my Aunt drive me into the heart of the Shropshire countryside. She would then dump me, lost (I bet she's been longing to do that!), and I would use the GPS breadcrumb trail to guide me back home. (That's home on the Shropshire/Staffordshire border, not home on the South Coast, in case you thought I was ultra training!)

Well that was the plan, and I had a very nice 12 mile run, with one important proviso. If the plan had been followed exactly, then not only would I, technically, have been lost, but so too would my Aunt and Uncle. Despite them having: a car, a set of maps, each other, and years of local knowledge, they would have been in more of a predicament than me! I might have even beaten them home! I sincerely hope this wouldn't have happened, but the look of fear on my Aunt's face when I suggested the plan, suggested this might indeed be the case!

So the revised training plan was that I studied the map the night before, carefully planning a scenic but straight route, which no one could get lost on. It started for me in the middle of nowhere, took in the historic Boscobel House with it's famous (infamous?) Royal Oak (not a pub, but the real thing - King Charles II hid up it), and returned home to the lovely village of Pattingham, scene of the annual Bells of Pattingham run, and just down the road from the site of the Tough Guy race. A pretty straight route, with just one right turn to remember. I'd have preferred the adventure of not knowing where I was going, but it just wasn't going to happen!

I had a lovely run, if a little on the cold side. It's unusual for me to have my hat and gloves on for the whole run! The main thing though is it completed my first 40 mile week since the recent virus. I'm still a little slow but I feel good. Long may this continue!

A study in loss of fitness

Two weeks ago I posted Progress, showing how I'd improved dramatically over the course of just one month.

What a difference a week's illness can make!

Today I did my usual Saturday gym session involving a bit of warm up cardio work on the cross trainer and rower, some weights, mostly lower body, and finishing with 4 miles on the treadmill. I felt a lot better! My strength seems to be returning and I coped well - it felt like a normal session.

Looking at my heart rate though revealed a different story. I have slowed sooo much!

Here's the plot of the treadmill session - 3 miles at 9.6km/h (10 minute miling), then slowing for each of the last 2 half miles: 9km/h, 8.5km/h. It's overlaid with exactly the same session from 2 weeks ago.


Today's plot was 10bpm higher than last time! It's gone back to what it was 6 weeks ago.

Between the two plots I've run a slow 13 miles, then a complete week off due to the virus. I started running last Tuesday and have done slow runs of 2.5 miles, 3 miles, 4.3 miles and 4 miles.

Is the lack of form because I still haven't fully regained my strength? Or is it that the week off has caused me to lose the effects of a whole month's training?

I guess I'll just carry on and find out in a week or two's time!

Baby steps

I felt rubbish today, but it made me feel better.

I went for a short 2.5 mile run, the first in 8 days. I still felt a bit tired, it may not have been the ideal thing for my body, but it did wonders for my mind.

I am still rather snotty. My throat is still quite sore. However, I've lost the chesty bit of the infection with all the horrible stuff coming up, which I won't go into (chewy!). My resting heart rate is back to near normal, 38bpm, and has been this for 2 or 3 days now.

The tricky thing now is how to build back up to my 40+ miles per week quickly without injuring myself.

I have to listen to my body. I just hope I can hear it!

I'm in!!!

I've called this Blog 'Running towards London', but until yesterday I wasn't actually sure that my entry had been accepted. I had a reasonable idea, as my cheque was cashed in the first wave on the 29th October. Despite me bequeathing my entry, this was a strong indication that I had been selected in the first ballot - useful source of info those Runner's World forums!

I have my own theories of how the ballot is done. A purely random ballot would result in a natural peak of finishers around the most common finish time - I'm guessing this would be around 4:30, maybe less. Far better would be a steady stream of finishers with no large peak, to avoid congestion at the finish and en route. Your estimated finish time is declared on the outside of the envelope. It seems reasonable to assume that this piece of information is used for the ballot. I'd imagine there are quotas for each time slice. If you put down a fast, less popular, time then you stand a better chance of getting in.

I've been exceptionally lucky as I've got in through the ballot 3 years in a row. Last year I missed out in the main ballot, but got in through the second ballot - even luckier! This year I'm aiming for a faster time - 3:30 if possible, but I'm aiming for at least (or should that be most?) 3:45 to get a 'Good For Age'. My declaration of 3:30-3:45, code D on the entry envelope, may well have been a factor in my ballot success. Hopefully by achieving 3:45 I won't have to go in the ballot next year, having achieved a guaranteed place.

As you've probably gathered by now, my acceptance letter arrived yesterday.

Flora London Marathon April 17th 2005

I'm in baby, I'm in!!!

Drink plenty of fluids

Have you ever thought this is an odd thing to say to someone with a cold? Let's look at the dictionary:

flu·id
noun (plural flu·ids)
1. liquid: anything liquid ( not used in technical contexts )
2. physics chemistry liquid or gas: a substance such as a liquid or gas whose molecules flow freely, so that it has no fixed shape and little resistance to outside stress

Could this be any more non-specific? Even "Drink plenty of liquids" would be better advice. Has anyone considered that plain old air is a fluid?
"Luvvy, I can really recommend a good swig of Domestos - it kills 99% of all throat germs, you know!"
"Darling, I always like a daily shot of motor oil - it keeps me regular as clockwork!"
Yeah right!


I've resolved that breathing is probably a good thing. As I can't actually get any through my nose, I will definitely be drinking in that lovely oxygen fluid.

Bah humbug. I hate being ill. Three days so far without training, and a race looming at the weekend. Why oh why did I post: "Relief! I have a cold"?

Relief! I have a cold

Technology can be a double edged sword. Outdoors I run with a Polar S610 heart rate monitor on one arm, and a Garmin Forerunner 201 on the other. You can see what can be done with the S610 in my previous "Progress" post: I have all my runs' and gym sessions' heart rates (HRs) recorded in detail on my PC. The Forerunner too is a fantastic piece of kit: it tells you how fast you are running, how far you have gone, it will pace you with a 'Virtual Running Partner' and it will even show you the way back home, something which came in very handy a few nights ago when I was left to find my own way back to the Leisure Centre from a new training venue.

So on the one hand you have the positive reinforcement that training is going well, when you can view HR plots such as my previous post, but you equally know instantly when things are not going quite as well as you hoped.

Yesterday I ran the Gosport Half Marathon as a training run. I have the Hayling 10 mile race next week, which I am planning to race flat out, so I needed to ensure I kept Gosport nice and relaxed so that I'm in good shape for next week. I knew the target pace needed to keep my heart rate down, and set the Garmin Forerunner to pace me at a nice relaxed constant pace. I was only a mile into the race when I realised that things weren't quite right. Sure, my heart rate was low, but after recent training runs I was expecting it at least 5, maybe 10, bpm lower.

Was it race day nerves? I'd experienced that before, but I wasn't racing and felt relaxed! Maybe I was too warm? It was a much warmer day than expected after Saturday's arctic blast, and I had to strip off a layer after a few miles. Unlikely though!

Maybe it was the chatting? I can imagine the men out there nodding in disapproval, but many of you have yet to realise the true benefits of chin wagging during a race. Just as pumping your arms is meant to give benefits when pushing up a hill, wagging of the chin has positive benefits on endurance at the rear of a race field. It's true!

My friend decided that maybe the chat was pushing up my heart rate, but I wasn't convinced. Maybe she was too polite to just say "Shut up!"

I managed to do the race at an average of 127bpm which is 73% of my maximum, so a good base training run was achieved. It was still bothering me though that it should have been not much more than 120bpm. Next week in my full on race this could amount to as much as 20 seconds per mile - over 3 minutes difference!


This morning I awoke with the sniffles and a slight sore throat! Hooray! That is why my HR was high on Sunday. I've never been so pleased to catch a cold!

I just hope I'm over it by next Sunday!

Progress

Each Saturday I spend 90 minutes in the gym. The last half of the session is spent on the treadmill. For the last five weeks, I've had the treadmill set at the same speed - 9.6km/h - a gentle jog. I have a heart rate monitor which loads the data onto my PC, so that I can compare each session. As I know that the conditions of each run are identical in the gym, then any improvement in aerobic conditioning shows up as a reduction in heart rate.

I figured I'd see some improvement, but I never expected what I saw when I overlaid the last month's traces! Below are the heart rate traces from the following dates:
16th October 2004
30th October 2004
13th November 2004
20th November 2004


It's easy to spot which trace is which as each subsequent week is at a lower heart rate! I was not expecting progress to be this marked! There has been a 10bpm decrease in heart rate in only 5 weeks.

I haven't had much experience of treadmill running, so this may simply be that I'm getting used to the treadmill, however I am seeing similar improvements on the road. It's just that it is harder to make direct comparisons for road sessions, due to the variables of route, pace, wind, heat, gradient etc.

I'm convinced about the benefits of aerobic base training. Long may this continue!

Paula

I met Paula Radcliffe today!

I offer this stunning piece of photo journalism as evidence:


I think they got my best side!

The Lactic Enemy

Let me tell you about aerobic base training.

We have a nice little thread going on the Runner's World website

To fully understand the methods involved you'll need to read the article referenced on the second posting: Hadd's approach to distance training . Warning! It's good but it'll take at least 30mins to read it!

I will try then to summarise what base training is about. By all means send me comments (you can post on the Runner's World Base Training thread above). There may be inaccuracies that I'd want to correct. I am not an expert, but rather an enthusiastic amateur. I am just summarising what has been discussed in the various articles and threads. Hopefully I can give a flavour of what base training is about, and also to get to understand it better myself.

So taking a deep breath, here goes!

We have 3 basic energy systems (I believe there is a fourth, but this is a summary!)
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Fat burning

Dealing with the anaerobic system first, this is the one sprinters use. You know when you are anaerobic because you can 'feel the burn'. That dead weight burning sensation? That's the lactic acid accumulating in your legs. You are good for short bursts of this but you can't keep going for long at this rate. It's characterised by fast paces and high heart rates. Training of the anaerobic system is all about running fast repetitions. "To run fast, you train fast" is something you'll often hear (but read on - that one is a definite no-no!).

Your aerobic system, by contrast, is far more energy efficient: some 13 times more, apparently. This is the critical one for us base trainers. Even in distances as low as 1500m you are relying on 80% of your energy to be supplied by your aerobic system. As the distance increases, you rely even more on your aerobic system. At moderate paces and heart rates, you are in your aerobic zone, with lactic acid production under control. As pace increases you start to borrow from your anaerobic system. There isn't a sudden switch from one system to another, but there is a notion of an 'aerobic threshold' below which you are mostly relying on your aerobic system, and an 'anaerobic threshold' above which you are relying mostly on your anaerobic system. These thresholds correspond to particular heart rates, different in each individual unfortunately, but it is these heart rates which you will hear 'base trainers' referring to all the time.

A word on fat burning. You will hear talk of a 'fat burning zone' in some circles. Personal trainers seem to love this one. A heart rate below which you are burning fat. The slimmers dream! While it is true that at lower heart rates fat burning is a more significant energy system, again, it doesn't simply switch in below some magical threshold - it is simply more critical at slower paces. In fact marathon runners rely on it - without it you would run out of your aerobic fuel, glycogen, and hit the dreaded wall. And don't worry about being too thin and not having enough fat (if only!). Fat burning is a highly efficient energy mechanism, you don't need much of it! Hooray! Training of your fat burning system is characterised by long slow runs at low heart rates.

So the wisdom is, that if your anaerobic system only contributes a small amount to distance running, then only when you have squeezed the very last drop out of the other mechanisms do you really need to then concentrate on the anaerobic system. So that's what aerobic base training is about - getting our aerobic system (and to a large extent fat burning) to the best it can be, before working on the anaerobic side.

And there's a catch! (There always is, isn't there?!) Unfortunately you train your anaerobic system to the detriment of your aerobic system. Anaerobic running creates lactic acid which is very bad for your aerobic system. For every bit of anaerobic training done, you must do far far more training of your aerobic system to compensate. So for us base trainers, we like to keep the training strictly aerobic, in order to maximise its benefits. No speed sessions! All this is probably a bit alien to you club runners out there, so let me point you at an excellent piece by Ingrid Kristiansen.

So what are the main characteristics of an aerobic base training schedule?
Typically:
Daily running at slow paces, typically 70% of maximum heart rate. Build up slowly and try to get to doing an hour a day of running before moving on.
Patience is the key. Don't rush this. Set aside at least 6 months to build up the running.
No speed work! Keep racing to a minimum.
Once at an hour a day, some work sessions can be introduced, gradually, usually no more than 2 per week at slightly higher heart rates, but still aerobic, less than 80-83% of maximum heart rate.
A weekly long run can be gradually built up but keep it slow, <70% , but keep to less than 2 hours of running.

There is much debate about how you determine your maximum heart rate, which is unfortunate because it is quite important to know what it is! If you estimate a figure that is too high, then you run the risk of reducing the effectiveness of work sessions because they are at too high a rate, and worse, of injuring yourself because your slow runs aren't allowing you to recover properly.

John L Parker in his book 'Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot' (sic) suggests a formula of 205-age/2 as the most accurate for us athletes. Better, is to do a max HR test. Hadd suggests a method in his article (See link above) involving warming up, running 800m as fast as you can, short recovery, then running 400m as fast as you can and reading your heart rate at the end. Another method is to do 5 200m hill reps, pushing harder each time, until going flat out up the final one. Whichever method you use, it is important to get an accurate measure of maximum heart rate.

Typically, your daily easy runs will then be at 70% of maximum. The major comment from base training newbies is "This is way too slow - I have to walk to keep my heart rate down" If this is the case then maybe run a little quicker for the first couple of weeks. Eventually though you will find it easy to keep it slow and you will see your slow pace improving quite quickly!

I won't talk about work sessions at this stage - maybe a later post - in fact I'm a little new to them myself! If you are new to this, then you really shouldn't be doing work sessions anyway but trying to get your running to an hour a day at slow paces.

There will be more to come, including some personal remarks on how my training is progressing, and how I've interpretted all this. There may be inaccuracies in the above, in which case please correct me! Please don't shoot the messenger!

Happy training!

Ouch that's cold!

I've resumed taking ice baths after long runs.

The thought of ice baths may shock some people, but I reckon most have heard of Paula Radcliffe taking them and are now used to the idea. Well I thought I was used to them until Sunday morning!

The theory goes that they help recovery from training sessions. Any physio will tell you of the benefits of putting ice on an injury. Well if you consider the micro-tears that occur when you train hard (I can't help think of the Tiny Tears doll when I see that written), then it seems reasonable that if you treat them with ice they will respond in a similar fashion to a 'real' injury. I gather that there is also a flushing action that occurs when the blood vessels close down and force out accumulated toxins.

Well I 'did' the ice baths for last year's marathon training - a few kgs of ice in a bath of cold water - wearing several layers up top to keep warm - nice hot cup of tea - sit in it for 20-30 minutes - no problems. I had wondered though if I really had it cold enough as the ice melted almost immediately and the thermometer read a balmy 8 or 9 degrees. I felt quite comfortable sitting there listening to a favourite CD, reading a book or magazine. I came to almost enjoy them!

Then I saw Paula Radcliffe on the Frank Skinner show last week, and she said that she would tip an amount of ice "a bit bigger than that box there" pointing to Frank's props box next to his chair. "That's a lot of ice", I thought. She described how it was so cold it would make her bones ache! Hmmm!

So this weekend I thought I'd increase the quantity of ice. I have a domestic ice machine which knocks out about 1 kg of ice each hour. I left it running all day Saturday until I had a load of ice - enough to fill my picnic size cool box. Now factor in the very cold night, which meant that the water tank in the loft must have been a fair bit cooler than I've been used to, and this was going to be a new experience!

The bathroom scene that presented itself after my Sunday morning run was like something from Titanic. The ice covered the surface of the bath. I thought about waiting for it to melt, "to ensure the water was at its coldest", but in I got.

My God the pain! I certainly got the full Radcliffe! My legs went bright red. My feet felt like they were on fire. I had a magazine, but couldn't read it - I was too distracted by the indescribable cold. I had set the timer set for 25 minutes, but after 18 minutes I really couldn't stand it any longer. As I got out there was still unmelted ice in the bath!

I suppose it's a bit like banging your head against a wall. It's lovely when it stops! As the capillaries open and the blood flows in you can feel your legs recharging. All your aches melt away with the ice. It really is a nice sensation. My legs feel great today! I'm wondering though if it was perhaps a tad extreme for an amateur athlete such as myself.

Maybe a touch less ice next time?

Susie's first blog

I was wondering how to introduce myself to the blogging world, and have deleted this first line several times now and retyped it. So after several aborted attempts, I've decided to delay introductions and hit you with a thought I had while I was out running the other day.

This may explain myself, and the reasons why I go running.

Or it may make me out to be a complete fruitcake!


Supposing you had the ultimate training computer. This computer could determine for you the ultimate training plan. Each day it would determine for you the perfect training session. It would do this based on your ultimate goal (in my case the Flora London Marathon), tempered by a few constraints such as the need to work each day. It would have access to all your physiological data such as weight, height, body fat, heart rates, stroke volumes, blood chemistry, lactate, lipids, proteins, enzymes etc; in fact it would know each day exactly how you were feeling and what sort of training stresses it could put you under. It would advise on diet, and could determine what each meal should be in order to provide optimal nutrition.

Each training session would be the perfect one for you. Every meal the perfect balance of nutrients to fuel you. Ultimately, on race day, it determines the perfect race strategy, and you run the perfect race. At the end you will have performed to the utmost, running to the maximum you are capable of.

So what would life be like if such a device existed and you followed its instructions exactly?

Would the next 5 months be the worst torture you have ever experienced in your life? Would you feel like you were always on the verge of injury? Would you feel constantly drained, battling through the training, enduring pain and agony for the sake of your goal? Would the race be the most painful experience of your life, crossing the finish line in total exhaustion, completely destroyed by the effort?

Or would the next 5 months be the best running experience of your life? Every day you have boundless energy. Those little niggling injuries you've always suffered are a distant memory. You really get back in touch with what you love about running. Race day is a fantastic experience. You race for that line totally elated, astonished by the time you've just achieved.

So which scenario would it be?

Given that such a device clearly does not exist, is there a coach out there who is the next best thing, and what are his training methods?

Funny the things you think about when out running!