Good to get such messagenick rockliff wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2025, 1:23 pmGot my biannual bowel cancer screening result back today which was negative. Having had bowel cancer already it's always a tense time waiting for the result. It's good to see that they are bringing the screening age down to 50 too, I was 50 when I was diagnosed.
Great news Rocky. I didn't know about dropping the screening age, so that's also good newsnick rockliff wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2025, 1:23 pmGot my biannual bowel cancer screening result back today which was negative. Having had bowel cancer already it's always a tense time waiting for the result. It's good to see that they are bringing the screening age down to 50 too, I was 50 when I was diagnosed.
What holds you back on >10k is different, so arbitarily setting targets from formulae that don't apply is not helpful. By all means add a few S/500M and just do some "grey" sessions over the longer distances, but I find that these sessions that are done below threshold are limited by cardiac drift (largely dehydration in warm or humid conditions) and muscular fatigue. They also require more mental resilience as the amount left when we are feeling the effects can seem very daunting and there is plenty of time to dwell on this as the end takes a long time to get noticeably nearer. The latter should not be underestimated. Coupled with the longer recovery required from longer TTs, I recommend generally only doing occasionally. I find it much easier to keep going when under recent paces, if I am on the ragged edge at a pace you have completed the distance at recently, motivation can rapidly desert me!p_b82 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2025, 6:14 amYou're forgetting my lack of CV ability (fairly certain that I've got a genetic deficiency inherited as my mother has bad asthma & that's part the reason my HR runs so "hot" when exercising) .... so actually 1hr + HM (and FM) are all always ambitious targets for me based on the rough predictions.
This is great to hear. I lost my Mom to Colon cancer when she was just 60 and I was in early 30s. With that I started getting screenings early as did other members of my family. Sure enough a couple of us (including me) had precancerous polyps. I have gone 3 years to 5 years ever since with screenings.nick rockliff wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2025, 1:23 pmJust a steady away 40r20 this evening
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
40:00.0 9,527m 2:05.9 175 902 20 124
5:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 116
10:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 120
15:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 122
20:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 126
25:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 127
30:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 128
35:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 130
40:00.0 1,191m 2:05.9 175 902 20 130
Had to pop in to the office this morning for a couple of hours. Only 20 miles but got stuck in some temporary traffic lights in the middle of Leeds on my way back so had to have lunch much later than normal. Don't like rowing so soon after eating.
Got my biannual bowel cancer screening result back today which was negative. Having had bowel cancer already it's always a tense time waiting for the result. It's good to see that they are bringing the screening age down to 50 too, I was 50 when I was diagnosed.
Excellent; going sub-1:45 pace for 5k is a great milestone. No doubt all those long sessions you're doing are paying off!Sakly wrote: ↑January 19th, 2025, 10:15 amCTC today.
Mind was sharp, but body couldn't follow, what I targeted. Satisfied anyway, this gives me a ~13s PB to my (fairly) old one
Decided to go for long intervals 4x10min 3:30r at r26, suggested by #ergenduranceseries afterwards.Code: Select all
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M ❤️ 17:26.2 5,000m 1:44.6 306 1351 27 170 3:28.4 1,000m 1:44.2 309 1364 28 167 3:29.0 2,000m 1:44.5 307 1355 28 170 3:29.7 3,000m 1:44.8 304 1345 28 171 3:29.8 4,000m 1:44.9 303 1343 27 173 3:29.1 5,000m 1:44.5 306 1354 29 173
Negative splits, starting slow, as legs were a bit wobbly after the 5k
Need to work more on higher rate stuff...Code: Select all
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M ❤️ 40:00.0 10,799m 1:51.1 255 1177 26 164 10:00.0 2,617m 1:54.6 232 1099 26 161 10:00.0 2,678m 1:52.0 249 1156 26 162 10:00.0 2,725m 1:50.0 262 1202 26 164 10:00.0 2,778m 1:47.9 278 1256 26 170
Thx Justin! It also shows to me the ratio of long sessions and sharper sessions is not optimal. If I would do more of the faster sessions, I am sure I could have performed way better, but I am not used to the higher paces, as I do so few of them.Jbrown1215 wrote: ↑January 25th, 2025, 2:02 amExcellent; going sub-1:45 pace for 5k is a great milestone. No doubt all those long sessions you're doing are paying off!Sakly wrote: ↑January 19th, 2025, 10:15 amCTC today.
Mind was sharp, but body couldn't follow, what I targeted. Satisfied anyway, this gives me a ~13s PB to my (fairly) old one
Decided to go for long intervals 4x10min 3:30r at r26, suggested by #ergenduranceseries afterwards.Code: Select all
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M ❤️ 17:26.2 5,000m 1:44.6 306 1351 27 170 3:28.4 1,000m 1:44.2 309 1364 28 167 3:29.0 2,000m 1:44.5 307 1355 28 170 3:29.7 3,000m 1:44.8 304 1345 28 171 3:29.8 4,000m 1:44.9 303 1343 27 173 3:29.1 5,000m 1:44.5 306 1354 29 173
Negative splits, starting slow, as legs were a bit wobbly after the 5kNeed to work more on higher rate stuff...Code: Select all
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M ❤️ 40:00.0 10,799m 1:51.1 255 1177 26 164 10:00.0 2,617m 1:54.6 232 1099 26 161 10:00.0 2,678m 1:52.0 249 1156 26 162 10:00.0 2,725m 1:50.0 262 1202 26 164 10:00.0 2,778m 1:47.9 278 1256 26 170
That is exactly why I'm not interested in these types of watches. There's just too much random data that is no better than intuition and can sometimes be detrimental.Sakly wrote: ↑January 25th, 2025, 4:00 amMy new Garmin toy is a funny one.
Did a 15min warmup in the gym on the rower (skierg was occupied), 1:51.x average at r21. After that, watch told me to have 45h of rest!
I started my actual strength training, went well, had plenty of power and control in all movements
When I finished the session on the watch, it told me to have 96h(!) of rest
If I would follow these recommendations, I could do 2 trainings a week
Yes, that's why I don't rely on the data for planning my training.Dangerscouse wrote: ↑January 25th, 2025, 4:49 amThat is exactly why I'm not interested in these types of watches. There's just too much random data that is no better than intuition and can sometimes be detrimental.Sakly wrote: ↑January 25th, 2025, 4:00 amMy new Garmin toy is a funny one.
Did a 15min warmup in the gym on the rower (skierg was occupied), 1:51.x average at r21. After that, watch told me to have 45h of rest!
I started my actual strength training, went well, had plenty of power and control in all movements
When I finished the session on the watch, it told me to have 96h(!) of rest
If I would follow these recommendations, I could do 2 trainings a week
You need to get yourself one of those new fangled smart watches. It would have told you that you needed a rest the day before!Dangerscouse wrote: ↑January 25th, 2025, 4:46 amI had an unplanned rest day yesterday as I just couldn't get out of bed, so it was a bit of a higher level than intended just to see how I react
Code: Select all
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M ❤️
1:24:55 21,097m 2:00.7 199 983 18 144
12:15.3 3,000m 2:02.5 190 954 18 145
1:04:00 6,000m 10:40.0 1 304 0
12:15.3 9,000m 2:02.5 190 954 18 145
12:18.8 12,000m 2:03.1 187 945 18 142
12:04.9 15,000m 2:00.8 198 983 18 144
12:18.8 18,000m 2:03.1 187 945 18 142
12:04.9 21,000m 2:00.8 198 983 18 144
11:55.6 21,097m 1:01:28 0 300 19 149I'm very dubious that it can track sleep too. Sleeping is complicated and that's why they have to wire you up to all sorts of electrodes to monitor it in a proper controlled environment. Resting HR is different as that's easy to track.