Well parkrun Wardi. My 5000m champs effort was pretty lame TBH, but at least I didn't blow up as I have on previous occasions: I treated it like a road race and did manual splits every lap to keep myself honest. I was looking for 82sec laps to be close to 17 min, but they went out as far as 86s for a 17:32 finish -- no quicker than the pace I managed in a road 10K in the autumn (5:38/M). But worth a vet gold medal, as the vet turnout was pretty poor!
And then 24M including some hill reps this morning, as I want to keep a thread of endurance adaptations leading through to the Borrowdale race on 1st Aug, and haven't done a proper LSR since London until today. Felt fine actually, could happily have done more -- maybe that's why my 5K speed is so pants...
Like Wardi I should be taking advantage of the windless conditions -- and track -- to check where I'm at, leaving me no excuses. It's the county champs 5000m race tomorrow. On a previous occasion I had the indignity of coming last. I figured out today that even 17:00 is 84.something% WAVA as an MV45, which is about the best I do, so even sub-17 would be a very happy outcome given my recent lack of speed. After that... well I could do a proper long run on Sun or Mon to keep the endurance machine ticking over, maybe take in some hills too (though the Lakes are still some way off).
OS -- you have to fill in a very detailed list of everything you ate and drank for 24 hours, and a big questionnaire about your normal eating habits. I felt like a bit of a goody-two-shoes when I completed those I should say! And exercise, though that was a bit tricky as 'travel to work' was explicitly separated, and of course my training is mainly commuting. But anyway, they have enough info there to at least understand why I'm an outlier... and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Though the treadmill guy did say that 41 bpm when standing and 122 bpm at the end of the jogging bit were the lowest numbers he'd seen in a good long while... I only reached 60 bpm when walking at 4 kph or something, lower than an average resting rate. (He's just entered the VLM ballot, is a run-commuter too, and has done a near-80 min half, so was sympathetic to my desire to get all available info and be signed up to a proper VO2max test if poss.)
Legs still distinctly stiff from my 10K on Sunday, but did a super-slow 6M jog to work anyway as a) I want to front-load this week, having entered the county 5000m race on Sat, and b) I wanted some more typical training volume while my activity is being monitored, as that should help tell me typical energy use etc when I get the report.
Edit: TickTock -- always save to the clipboard before you click Submit! And good luck with the ultra training
Cor JAP, well done on the AG prize and position. Hope you get something tangible for that! (I always wonder if VLM has AG prizes, but if they did I'm sure we'd have heard about them here...)
bains -- sorry about the protracted recovery. I've not checked my report from 5 years ago, but my weight as changed only slightly so it seems I really do have another 500g of fat somewhere! (Don't know what the error bars are on those measurements.) I vaguely thought that 5% fat was about right for an elite runner, but when I came to Google it I found studies with DEXA-obtained values closer to 10% on average, so maybe I'm doing OK after all.
DOMSd calves today, so it's the bike for me too. (Which doesn't show up so well in the activity monitor derived energy stats I recall -- HR goes up but almost no movement.) And sunburn! Like an idiot I didn't bother with sun cream yesterday, but ended up trotting around in full sun waiting for prizes in my club vest, exposing my rarely-revealed shoulders... can't remember the last time I let that happen.
JoeH -- wow, amazing to be within 30 sec of PB one day and do another the next!
OS -- the Fenland Study is open to anyone -- you get invited via your GP, and my non-running Mrs did it too -- but I can't help thinking that fitness geeks are considerably more likely to sign up, so there must be some selection bias! I begged the more detailed report the X-ray machine had this time (not sure if they were supposed to let me have it), so lots of interesting numbers. Sadly not Bone Mineral Density (i.e. per unit area), only BM Content (total mass) -- the former is what some papers I've read talk about.