Friday, 4 January 2008

Friday 4th January

Last Week: 42.5 miles 3157 feet (plus another 20 miles and 6045 feet walked)

A short week because of a few days walking in the Lakes between Christmas and New Year but with a total of about 9000 feet of climbing it hasn't been a bad one. As before, I am not completely sure about including walking miles/feet and I am interested in your thoughts. I still think excluding walking miles is right and including the climbing not least when it is in the Lakes where I would have walked anyway (had I been out of a run) and it usually involves carrying more weight. Let me know what you think.

Last night's hill session was encouraging, albeit at the end of a short week, because I managed a PB on the last rep of the session. 0.65 mile uphill in 5:05 - my previous best was 5:08 and a year ago 5:10 - 5:12 was more likely. The target now has to be to get under 5 minutes without 'resting' on the previous reps.

Next Week:

On Saturday we will join members of The Rucksack Club (as guests) on their first meet of the year, the annual Marston-Edale walk. Sunday will have to be my long run and unusually it won't follow a rest day so that should be interesting. Club training will be back to normal and I intend to continue with track and hill sessions because it is not enough to only do long slow runs.


Bob Wightman said...

I'd include walking miles especially if they were in the Lakes and long walks. In effect it is time on your feet that counts and if you are going to include the height gain...

F S Shuffler said...

I can see the logic especially for long walks and where the climbs are sustained - I suppose I would prefer to understate the mileage and have the benefit rather than adding in all the miles and feeling I could ease off a bit.

F S Shuffler said...

Thanks for responding