Saturday, May 23, 2009

Saturday Aerobic test 13 miles

5 mile aerobic test on the Nederland track at 8400ft elevation. Remember that I am not using MAF as my over-all focus for the marathon training at high altitude. I am basing this test (and all of them) off of marathon HR (AeT) and lactate threshold HR. My test is run at HR 140-150 which puts me a full 15-25 beats below my marathon HR and 27-37 beats below my lactate threshold HR.
Mile 1- 6:17 HR 144
Mile 2- 6:20 HR 146
Mile 3- 6:25 HR 148
Mile 4- 6:20 HR 150
Mile 5- 6:32 HR 148
Max HR did slip up to 154 at one point (I think Disturbed was on my Ipod). This was extremely easy jogging and I think this test is not indicative of my adaptation to altitude, rather it shows just how freaking hilly it is around here. The test was on a track but at 8400ft elevation and when I look back at my training logs for my past marathons- this puts me significantly fitter than I have ever been at 20 weeks before a marathon.

Pic of my GPS:

pm) 4 miles no watch no HR... just jogging.


FatDad said...

Sweet! See it-Be it.

Brett said...

Yea Disturbed...which song...


"So, Are you breathing?
So, Are you breathing?
Now, Now
Are you breathing?
So, Are you breathing?

Wake up, are you alive
Will you listen to me
I'm gonna talk about some freaky shit now."

Or was it Inside The Fire? Thats the best song ever for a 90 cadence I think.

Lucho said...

Brett- It was Indestructible.. killer song with killer lyrics. Voices is awesome too.

GZ said...

... we are all an experiment of one ...

... so here is your conversion data point (obvious) ... go do the six miles at the same HR (and maybe PE) and see what the miles are. I'm going to guess about a 20 second per mile conversion but - as you said, it is all rather individual-istic.

oh yeah - be sure to have the same playlist to to be totally fair in comparasion. ;)

That Ned track is a hoot, ain't it?

Lucho said...

GZ- You mean now go do the same test in Boulder and see what the difference is? So simple I didn't think of it.

Do you think the Ned track is flat? I think it has an uphill on the back stretch (like the track in Boulder). The Garmin said I had 478/ 482ft of gain and loss. HR ups and downs were also indicative of this. Loved the track though! My first time there. A huge herd of elk was grazing across the road. Ned's a cool town in general. You should have stayed!
I think Jeff and I are doing an easy jog in the morning in Louisville if you're interested. 6 miles easy with strides.

Kevin said...

I am down with the high tech down load of the watch data! I am still jealous of your run conditions as I ran this morning in high humidy and low elevation (South Louisiana - elevation is an over-pass). I was in Denver for a meeting this week but running in down town is not ideal (run a block-wait for light-run a block....), stayed on the dread-mill. Thanks for sharing your runs, keep it up.

GZ said...

Yeah ... same test.

Out for the AM. We got a gabizzillion kids over here sleeping over and I have to make pancakes.

I recall Ned track being bumpy, lumpy, uphill, thin on air, weeds growing in lane 3 and out ... quite the hoot. TZ and I will end up in the mountains again someday ... for a few reasons, just not now (as we have discussed). Is the current header pic from up there?

BRFOOT said...

Instead of Boulder go down to as close to see level as you can. Chicago has to be pretty close to sea level.

Lucho said...

GZ- The track has a new surface and that funky turf/ rubber powder infield.

Brfoot- Chicago sounds perfect. I think I'll do a little longer test though, say, 26 miles?

Glenn said...

you crack me up with those photos of your garmin, we need to get you setup to download it though so you can see all the sweet charts that come with your garmin SW. Don't tell Kerrie I said that, she'll only use it to mock me.