Ran a 10k - Official Thread (8 Viewers)

[MAC_32]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

Looks like if the pattern change slows even just a few hours your winds will be manageable. Don't know about you, but I rather enjoy 60 and light scattered rain - just as long as it's not a soaker.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

Same issue here, although less wind for 4/28. Highs for Thursday through Sunday: 61/60/61/77
Low of Sunday 58?!

Really hoping to not have the whole race in the 60s and 70s. At least it’s supposed to be cloudy. Maybe the system will be delayed.

I agree with @MAC_32 that if it’s going to be warm and muggy, light rain is your best bet.

 

[-OZ-]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

First tri of the season here, just a sprint. Localish - MTSU, my in laws live in town so I figured I’d crash with them and check it out.
53° and dry. Would be perfect for a running race, a bit chilly on the bike out of the pool.
It’s a practice race, and the roads aren’t blocked off. I’ll aim to break an hour not counting transitions

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

 

[gianmarco]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

At my best fitness a few years ago, I got up to 51, but I'm currently just hanging out at 45. When I'm running semi-regularly, I'll be around 47, latest training last year when I was in decent shape I was at 49.

But I'm also the resident slow guy and just don't run enough/consistently enough to get that number higher even though I know it's possible.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What my watch tells me : 48 > 47 < 58
What I would guess is right : 46 < 47 < 51

You think your watch doesn’t measure resting HR accurately?

And unless you’ve done a formal cardiopulmonary testing, how can you guess your VO2 max?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

 

[-OZ-]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

I’m sticking with the “running all the time is bad, variety is best, DO TRI” philosophy.

A minute slower today mostly due to the bike. Cold AF getting out of the water.
First in the AG, 20th overall. I’m pleased with my swim and run. Although my Piriformis has been bothering me since the oak barrel HM and really bothered me today. I was able to squeak through the run despite it being super tight and somewhat painful (maybe 4/10). I’ll stop running for a week or so, which isn’t a bad thing imo.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

What my watch tells me : 48 > 47 < 58
What I would guess is right : 46 < 47 < 51

You think your watch doesn’t measure resting HR accurately?

And unless you’ve done a formal cardiopulmonary testing, how can you guess your VO2 max?

Logical questions. On the RHR, I don’t wear my watch to bed, so the watch is taking readings during my more active times. I’ve noticed though that when I’m reading or sitting quietly in a meeting it’s not unusual to see mid-40s or even lower. I’m not sure what causes Garmin’s algorithm to spit out what it does but the number it actually gives me for the day kind of bounces all over the place. Based on what I typically see if I check it when I’m fully relaxed I’d guess 44-47 is the “real” number.

No formal testing for me on the VO2max, but the 5k has always been my best race, and I know plus/minus 10 seconds what I’d run if I raced one today. Going off of that and the online calculators seems to me like the best way to get close. Conversely, if I put the Garmin-derived one into running calculators I get ridiculous times that I couldn’t even sniff, so I’m sure that’s too high.

 

[bushdocda]

55>45<56
Garmin estimated times my watch shows are 1 min faster than 5k PR and about 26 mins faster than marathon PR. Assume my VO2 is probably under 50 irl.

My RHR over the past year is 53
and I do sleep with my watch on and I drink AG1 which was supposed to fix everything

 

[JShare87]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

 

[tri-man 47]

@2Young2BBald wore his Garmin “to bed” one time, as I recall from years ago, and his HR went up significantly.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

 

[Terminalxylem]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

I’ll count your sleeping heart rate, to allow you to qualify (barely) for the crown.

Lucky for you, the middle number is easiest to increase, if you're willing to put in the time.

 

[tri-man 47]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

I’ll count your sleeping heart rate, to allow you to qualify (barely) for the crown.

Lucky for you, the middle number is easiest to increase, if you're willing to put in the time.

But by my math ... @JShare87 has another 50 years to go to live up to his billing.

 

[JShare87]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

I’ll count your sleeping heart rate, to allow you to qualify (barely) for the crown.

Lucky for you, the middle number is easiest to increase, if you're willing to put in the time.

Thought the middle number was age. That either increases or it doesn't. Right?

 

[Terminalxylem]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

I’ll count your sleeping heart rate, to allow you to qualify (barely) for the crown.

Lucky for you, the middle number is easiest to increase, if you're willing to put in the time.

Thought the middle number was age. That either increases or it doesn't. Right?

Yes, it is. I was making an aging joke, as obviously your modifiable numbers are stellar.

 

[Terminalxylem]

43>37<60

HR has dropped to mid to low 30s during sleep. Best VO2max my Garmin has given me is 62.

I’ll count your sleeping heart rate, to allow you to qualify (barely) for the crown.

Lucky for you, the middle number is easiest to increase, if you're willing to put in the time.

But by my math ... @JShare87 has another 50 years to go to live up to his billing.

I’ll give him 5 years to make the club, and a decade of membership, maybe.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

 

[Zasada]

47<50<58

Tried a faster run this morning (weather was perfect) and got a "+5" on my watch 1km into it. Figured that meant I'd improve my VO2Max on the run, but no such luck.

 

[Zasada]

@SteelCurtain with two marathons in six days. La-di-dah'd his way to another metronome-like pacing performance in London.

I love how we're so used to him doing this, that it doesn't even get a mention. His #BMFery is just a typical Monday now!

 

[gianmarco]

47<50<58

Tried a faster run this morning (weather was perfect) and got a "+5" on my watch 1km into it. Figured that meant I'd improve my VO2Max on the run, but no such luck.

Pretty sure it's based on previous week, not a single activity.

 

[beer 30]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

I'm your huckleberry, steady 42-43, 59 years young. But I don't run anymore, just bike and I don't do particularly hard workouts and I'm fat and old and not crazy like these nuts so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

I can definitely relate. I enjoy competing, attaining PRs, etc., and walking isn’t nearly as fulfilling in that regard. Rock climbing has replaced some of that competitive drive, though I’ve dialed back there as well, to prevent injury.

My original plan was to beat my 5K PR on my 50th birthday, just as I had bested my age 20 time, when I turned 40. Unfortunately, I developed atrial fibrillation a few months before race day, and had to reset my priorities.

It’s worth mentioning that a fib occurs more frequently in endurance athletes. While I’m not sure that applies to me (there’s also a familial component), a couple heart procedures later, I’m arrhythmia free, and less inclined to push my luck through high intensity training.

Nowadays I choose to walk, rather than run the fine line between benefit and harm from exercise. We only get one set of original parts, and I’ve become a lot more vigilant to preserve them with age. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

I'm your huckleberry, steady 42-43, 59 years young. But I don't run anymore, just bike and I don't do particularly hard workouts and I'm fat and old and not crazy like these nuts so take it for what it's worth.

43 is 95th percentile at age 60, so you’re still no slouch. Closer to an elite athlete, compared to the general population.

 

[SteelCurtain]

@SteelCurtain with two marathons in six days. La-di-dah'd his way to another metronome-like pacing performance in London.

I love how we're so used to him doing this, that it doesn't even get a mention. His #BMFery is just a typical Monday now!

Thank you sir. Another magical London experience.

The fans are crazy fun. I realized at mile 24, I like NYC and Boston a bit more because there are breaks in the fans yelling at you. In London, its pretty solid from mile 2 through 26.2.

I recommend any marathoner at least try to get in their lottery. The draw rate is 1-4% depending on who you ask, so if you get picked, you were MEANT to do the race!

It's almost go time on a new marathon training block so I can hopefully give @bushdocda a race in September. I'm not sure how it will go, but I'm physically recovering from 2 marathons in six days and mentally preparing for a 16 week grind.

 

[SteelCurtain]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

I can definitely relate. I enjoy competing, attaining PRs, etc., and walking isn’t nearly as fulfilling in that regard. Rock climbing has replaced some of that competitive drive, though I’ve dialed back there as well, to prevent injury.

My original plan was to beat my 5K PR on my 50th birthday, just as I had bested my age 20 time, when I turned 40. Unfortunately, I developed atrial fibrillation a few months before race day, and had to reset my priorities.

It’s worth mentioning that a fib occurs more frequently in endurance athletes. While I’m not sure that applies to me (there’s also a familial component), a couple heart procedures later, I’m arrhythmia free, and less inclined to push my luck through high intensity training.

Nowadays I choose to walk, rather than run the fine line between benefit and harm from exercise. We only get one set of original parts, and I’ve become a lot more vigilant to preserve them with age. Of course, YMMV.

I had A-fib at age 42. Kind of scary to be honest.

Had a cardioversion and been on meds since with no issues. And plenty of hard workouts.

Admittedly, I'm not a doctor and I don't pretend to be one either. (And based on your posts over the years, you seem to be very in tune with medical knowledge). My cardiologist specializes in endurance athletes and is okay with me doing a full marathon training block. In fact, he said, he prefers me doing marathons than 5k's,a s the 5K demands you go to the brink cardiovascularly.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

I can definitely relate. I enjoy competing, attaining PRs, etc., and walking isn’t nearly as fulfilling in that regard. Rock climbing has replaced some of that competitive drive, though I’ve dialed back there as well, to prevent injury.

My original plan was to beat my 5K PR on my 50th birthday, just as I had bested my age 20 time, when I turned 40. Unfortunately, I developed atrial fibrillation a few months before race day, and had to reset my priorities.

It’s worth mentioning that a fib occurs more frequently in endurance athletes. While I’m not sure that applies to me (there’s also a familial component), a couple heart procedures later, I’m arrhythmia free, and less inclined to push my luck through high intensity training.

Nowadays I choose to walk, rather than run the fine line between benefit and harm from exercise. We only get one set of original parts, and I’ve become a lot more vigilant to preserve them with age. Of course, YMMV.

I had A-fib at age 42. Kind of scary to be honest.

Had a cardioversion and been on meds since with no issues. And plenty of hard workouts.

Admittedly, I'm not a doctor and I don't pretend to be one either. (And based on your posts over the years, you seem to be very in tune with medical knowledge). My cardiologist specializes in endurance athletes and is okay with me doing a full marathon training block. In fact, he said, he prefers me doing marathons than 5k's,a s the 5K demands you go to the brink cardiovascularly.

Yes, it is safe to train with treated a fib. Heck, I didn't even have symptoms when I self diagnosed, probably because I was decently conditioned.

After I detected the arrhythmia, but before receiving any treatment, I did a hike to see how my heart responded. It's a 4 mile loop with 1700 ft elevation gain, most of it in the first mile. At the steepest section, I felt a little more winded than usual, but nothing I hadn't pushed through before. Turns out my heart rate was 190+.

Two years, a couple cardioversions and ablations later, I'm no longer in a fib. I'm also not taking any medicine.

Although the risk of exercise inducing the arrhythmia is small, I'd prefer to keep things as they are. Walking hills still gets my HR up to Zone 4/5 for brief periods, but I'm sure it's nothing like training for a marathon. Would I be better off with a different regimen? Hard to say.

It would be interesting to know what your cardiologist believes is optimal. Clearly, some cardiovascular exercise is safe and desirable, as long as the arrhythmia is controlled. But what's the tipping point for frequency/intensity/duration?

Anyway, glad to hear you're killin it after the early a fib diagnosis.

Does a fib run in your family (both my mom and grandmother had it)? How were you diagnosed?

 

[gruecd]

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

And then eventually you get to the point (and I think I'm almost there now) where you start caring less about the latter and it reverts back to the former...

 

[-OZ-]

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

And then eventually you get to the point (and I think I'm almost there now) where you start caring less about the latter and it reverts back to the former...

I’m fully there. I enjoy races enough but they can get in the way of strength training if I focused more on fully training for the event. I saw my dad’s health drop big time when he crossed 50. I’m fighting that beast, that’s the race I want to win. (Honestly, delay as long as possible, we all lose health at some point even if that’s at 99, with a heart attack while hang gliding off Mount Everest.

 

[MAC_32]

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

And then eventually you get to the point (and I think I'm almost there now) where you start caring less about the latter and it reverts back to the former...

I presume there's more to it than just small humans, but that is a game changer. I'm curious if the itch will return once they progress to the age in which they don't need/want to be around us much anymore, but from that perspective the last 2 1/2 years have gone as I expected - no desire to compete. So if you think they're commanding a lot of your time & attention now, just wait!

My priority shift has been conveniently helped by my being a hobbling tinman, but even if all of my limbs were intact I don't think I'd be taking training seriously. 2016 taught me that volume is the key for maximizing performance regardless of the distance and 2K miles/year ain't happening again anytime soon.

 

[beer 30]

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

And then eventually you get to the point (and I think I'm almost there now) where you start caring less about the latter and it reverts back to the former...

It's called getting old, at least that's what I tell everyone.

Excluding the medal monger of course.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Excluding the medal monger of course.

To be sure, it can be a battle of attrition, but old age racing seems cool to me. We always hear the “if I knew then what I know now” thing about looking back on athletic accomplishments (or lack thereof). Well, old age running is that chance to use that experience and knowledge to be the best that you can be and compete in the present.

 

[beer 30]

Excluding the medal monger of course.

To be sure, it can be a battle of attrition, but old age racing seems cool to me. We always hear the “if I knew then what I know now” thing about looking back on athletic accomplishments (or lack thereof). Well, old age running is that chance to use that experience and knowledge to be the best that you can be and compete in the present.

One of the locals considered running royalty around here just bumped up to the 70+ age group, he's fun to follow online. Still clocking half's and 5k's everywhere. Slower these days but to hear him complain about the competition is a treat.

Oh, and he just logged a 24 min 5k so no slouch

 

[tri-man 47]

Excluding the medal monger of course.

To be sure, it can be a battle of attrition, but old age racing seems cool to me. We always hear the “if I knew then what I know now” thing about looking back on athletic accomplishments (or lack thereof). Well, old age running is that chance to use that experience and knowledge to be the best that you can be and compete in the present.

Um …yup!!! As for me, I’m really looking forward to getting back on the race circuit this year.

 

[ChiefD]

Hi.

We are under contract for a house here in Wisconsin. Close date of May 24. I started my new job Monday so that is going on as well. The house in KC is supposed to close next week. Family is still there.

I said ope the other day and subscribed to the Kwik Trip Rewards program.

Say a prayer for us so the next 30 days goes smoothly.

Yours in Cheese,

ChiefD

 

[gianmarco]

Hi.

We are under contract for a house here in Wisconsin. Close date of May 24. I started my new job Monday so that is going on as well. The house in KC is supposed to close next week. Family is still there.

I said ope the other day and subscribed to the Kwik Trip Rewards program.

Say a prayer for us so the next 30 days goes smoothly.

Yours in Cheese,

CheeseD

FYP

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Now I'm hungry for cheese curds.

 

[MAC_32]

Speaking of cheese, on your next trip through our nation's greatest state, might I recommend. Had a work thing a few miles away last week and for the first time in my life I got out of there with a bill totaling just 2 digits. Relatedly, my wife was not present.

 

[gruecd]

Speaking of cheese, on your next trip through our nation's greatest state, might I recommend. Had a work thing a few miles away last week and for the first time in my life I got out of there with a bill totaling just 2 digits. Relatedly, my wife was not present.

Awww, that's a cute wittle cheese barn. We have a castle.

 

[xulf]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

Lol, now it's 81/63 for the day. Same wind, likely no rain

 

[Juxtatarot]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

Lol, now it's 81/63 for the day. Same wind, likely no rain

Hopefully it will just be in the 60s during race time. At least it should be overcast.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

I agree with juxt that no sun should be a big help to keep in more manageable.

Things have trended in a better direction for the forecast here for 4/28. Right now on phone I'm seeing 52 at the gun and 59 at the finish with limited wind. Chance of sun is only thing that has me a bit worried still. Supposed to hit 83 on Monday, so at least I'm dodging that.

Do you have your goal/plan worked out @xulf ?

 

[MAC_32]

Early weather report for HM on 4/27 with gun at 8:00.

Hi/Lo : 75/62
Rain : 50%
Wind : 15-25mph




We have a freeze warning tonight...can't it hang on???!!

Lol, now it's 81/63 for the day. Same wind, likely no rain

Hopefully it will just be in the 60s during race time. At least it should be overcast.

Right, suck index of 118 won't be comfortable, but with ~90% cloud cover hopefully it won't impact performance. Silver lining- could be worse, it could be Sunday.

 

[SteelCurtain]

Holy carp, no one in this thread has a VO2 max under 50? That’s like 95th percentile for 50+ year olds.

For most, time spent running/exercising is also well into the 95th percentile. No coincidence, of course.

I suspect I exercise in that range as well (90+ minutes daily), though it isn’t high intensity cardiovascular training.

I need to get with the program, but running is too unkind on the joints imo. Always tricky threading the needle between athletic performance and injury with age.

I’m curious what you think of some of the studies that have pushed back on the “running is bad for the joints” idea. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27333572/

Those studies are methodologically problematic, reflected in their conflicting results. Example showing more arthritis with higher volume running

Ideally, I’d like to see a prospective comparison between runners and people regularly participating in lower impact exercise, followed over decades, with long term outcomes including cardiovascular, bone, and joint disease, as well as overall mortality. I’m not sure such a study exists, so I rely upon anecdotal experience and “common sense” - not my favorite way to formulate opinions.

I don’t have problems in my leg joints, but have degenerative disc disease, with occasional sciatica. So I maintain a healthy weight, strengthen core musculature, and avoid unnecessary vertical forces on my spinal column. This includes jumping and running.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy it, and ran a sub-19 5K as a 40 year old. But I think I can derive similar benefits from brisk walking, incorporating hills to ramp up HR, with less wear-and-tear as I age. For me, this strategy seems like the best of both worlds, though I’m open to evidence suggesting otherwise. Certainly, these lofty vO2 maxes are one argument that running offers more bang for the cardiovascular buck.

But what is the best decision for overall health? I’ve never been injured walking, nor strained/sprained any joint or muscle. I seldom suffer aches and pains. And my VO2 max is still pretty good, as are other health metrics, even if I can’t qualify for the 10K FBG HR/vO2 max/age triple crown.

Just like determining the best diet, I look at how long-lived populations behave. How often are people able to maintain running into their 60s/70s, and beyond? What benefits are derived from mid-long distance running while younger, versus taking the slow and steady, low impact approach?

Yes, everything you state makes sense to me. There is a point for many runners (like most in this thread) where the motivation for running becomes less about health and more about the hobby — achieving goals, competing, etc.

I can definitely relate. I enjoy competing, attaining PRs, etc., and walking isn’t nearly as fulfilling in that regard. Rock climbing has replaced some of that competitive drive, though I’ve dialed back there as well, to prevent injury.

My original plan was to beat my 5K PR on my 50th birthday, just as I had bested my age 20 time, when I turned 40. Unfortunately, I developed atrial fibrillation a few months before race day, and had to reset my priorities.

It’s worth mentioning that a fib occurs more frequently in endurance athletes. While I’m not sure that applies to me (there’s also a familial component), a couple heart procedures later, I’m arrhythmia free, and less inclined to push my luck through high intensity training.

Nowadays I choose to walk, rather than run the fine line between benefit and harm from exercise. We only get one set of original parts, and I’ve become a lot more vigilant to preserve them with age. Of course, YMMV.

I had A-fib at age 42. Kind of scary to be honest.

Had a cardioversion and been on meds since with no issues. And plenty of hard workouts.

Admittedly, I'm not a doctor and I don't pretend to be one either. (And based on your posts over the years, you seem to be very in tune with medical knowledge). My cardiologist specializes in endurance athletes and is okay with me doing a full marathon training block. In fact, he said, he prefers me doing marathons than 5k's,a s the 5K demands you go to the brink cardiovascularly.

Yes, it is safe to train with treated a fib. Heck, I didn't even have symptoms when I self diagnosed, probably because I was decently conditioned.

After I detected the arrhythmia, but before receiving any treatment, I did a hike to see how my heart responded. It's a 4 mile loop with 1700 ft elevation gain, most of it in the first mile. At the steepest section, I felt a little more winded than usual, but nothing I hadn't pushed through before. Turns out my heart rate was 190+.

Two years, a couple cardioversions and ablations later, I'm no longer in a fib. I'm also not taking any medicine.

Although the risk of exercise inducing the arrhythmia is small, I'd prefer to keep things as they are. Walking hills still gets my HR up to Zone 4/5 for brief periods, but I'm sure it's nothing like training for a marathon. Would I be better off with a different regimen? Hard to say.

It would be interesting to know what your cardiologist believes is optimal. Clearly, some cardiovascular exercise is safe and desirable, as long as the arrhythmia is controlled. But what's the tipping point for frequency/intensity/duration?

Anyway, glad to hear you're killin it after the early a fib diagnosis.

Does a fib run in your family (both my mom and grandmother had it)? How were you diagnosed?

I'm not sure the tipping point, but he has me on no restrictions. He wants me to go back to him if my training capabilities start to considerably decline. I also have a watch which claims it can identify a fib.

Heart attacks and a fib run in my family. My dad (a fib and quadruple bypass at 59) and my grandfather (2 heart attacks, second which killed him) both have/had issues.

I knew something was wrong when I almost passed out during a busy work day. I had to sit down as I got super dizzy.

Upon investigation, they believe it was triggered by decongestant in allergy medicine. So I can't take Allegra-D or Claritin-D. I just have to take the regular Claritin or Allegra.

 

[xulf]

Do you have your goal/plan worked out @xulf ?

No

 

[xulf]

Do you have your goal/plan worked out @xulf ?

No

It will be 62 at the start and 67 at finish. Wind will be 13-15mph (better than expected). Looks like no rain, but overcast.

Wind will be from the south tomorrow, which is abnormal here. Based on the course layout, I'm going to positive split (it's inevitable, so may as well go with it).


First 1.5 miles will be into the wind.
1.5-7 will be with the wind
7-8 crosswind
8-finish right in my face.

Probably will go for ~6:40 for the first 7, then hold on the best I can with <7:00 for the remainder. That should put me in position for 1:30.

Surprisingly, this race doesnt have a 1:30 pacer, or that would have been my plan.

Another sub 1:30 would be great, but if I come up short, I come up short. These conditions aren't ideal and after I got sick early in training, I wasn't expecting a PR or even a 1:30. But, may as well go for it and adapt as needed.

Bib #3770. Gun at 8:00 eastern.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Seems like things never quite went right for you this cycle so the goofball weather is just the cherry on top. Still, you put in the work and you have a huge aerobic base to lean on. Your plan seems reasonable to me. Best of luck to you tomorrow - all of the goons here will be rooting for you from the cyber.