Pete Pfitzinger Marathon Training - FTW!

Whew...just finished week five of the 18-week Pete Pfitzinger Marathon Training Plan. The long run yesterday was a 16 miler, in which I was supposed to run a number of miles at marathon race pace (well, who's kidding who, I was supposed to run 10 of the 16 miles at marathon race pace, but that just wasn't going to happen).

So we're now three months away from my goal race in Newport. Will I be ready to run at Boston pace in three months? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

I think I'm improving. If we compare my run yesterday to a long run (12 miles) from three weeks ago, I'm definitely getting faster. In both runs, I had five miles that were at a pace well above average. In the run three weeks ago, those five fast miles were averaged at 8:15. Yesterday, those five fast miles were averaged at 7:48. Which is good, because that's the pace I need to run the whole stinking marathon at in Newport.

So the speed is coming around. But what about the endurance? I won't lie, I don't think I could hold that pace for more than about eight or nine miles right now. Can I increase that to 20 or 22 in three months (figuring that I can somehow survive the last few miles on willpower alone, I guess)? I don't know, but that's the goal.

Sometimes you've got to put the over-thinking and worrying aside and just trust in the program. The Pfitzinger Plan has worked for lots and lots of runners - there's no reason it shouldn't work for me, right?

Right?

170

Garmin vs. Nike+

Head to Head.

Mano a Mano.

Well, actually it was the Garmin 110 watch on my left wrist and the Nike+ plugged into my iPod Nano on my right arm.

So more like "Mano a Nano..."

Ha?

Nevertheless, they both made the entire 50k trip with me last Saturday as I ran the McDonald Forest 50k. So let's check the numbers and see which one we trust.

Mileage:
Well, officially the McDonald is a 50k. I'm guessing the course was actually just a touch short, but I can't confirm that, so we'll just say it's 31.4 miles. And what did the competitors say?
Garmin: 30.76 miles
Nike+: 34.23 miles
Yeah, the Nike+ wasn't even close. Admittedly, that isn't the right kind of course for the system it's using - it's better suited to nice, smooth roads and even pace, but it's got to do better than that. The Garmin looked to be a little short, but it matched the race mileage signs perfectly through about 25 miles, so I'm wondering if the course itself was a touch short.

Time:
Now, they should both keep time, but I've complained about the Nike+ here before, so let's check.
Garmin: 7:16:19
Nike+: 7:16:23
Close enough. I actually turned off the Garmin first, then the Nike+, so that's probably pretty good.

Calories:
Garmin: 4115
Nike+: 4993
I don't know how they each figure the calories, but since the Nike+ had me going four extra miles, it's not a surprise that it thinks I burned 800 more calories.

Pace:
Garmin: 14:11/mile
Nike+: 12:45/mile
Again, the Nike+ thinks I went over 34 miles, so clearly the pace is going to be way faster than the Garmin.

Elevation:
Well, the Nike+ doesn't have elevation readings, but I must mention that the Garmin found 8202 feet of elevation gain on the course, while the race directors said it was 6700 feet. That's a pretty big difference. Is the Garmin off by that much? I hope not, but I don't know for sure.

Website:
This is where it gets scary different. The Nike+ is just old technology. That said, it's also around $30, while the Garmin was $200, but here are some screenshots and you can decide for yourself.

Winner?
If you've got the money, it's not even a contest: the Garmin leaves the Nike+ in the dust.

Garmin Forerunner 110 Review!

Yes, I decided to buy a big watch for my girlie little wrist.

Thankfully, Garmin finally came out with a simple GPS watch, the Forerunner 110, to accompany the other watches in their GPS line, including the Star Trek Communicator-size 305 - now that thing would dwarf my wrist like Snow White on a bad hair day (yeah, that didn't make any sense). Anyway, I've gone on three long runs now with the 110 and I'm loving it.

First, it's simple. It's meant to track your runs (or bike rides, if that's your thing) without a bunch of fancy bells and whistles and that's what it does. Punch the button and it starts locating satellites. There have been some complaints about how long it takes to find them, but it's found them for me between one and three minutes every time. I mean, come on, I think people are getting a little too used to the high-tech life. Three minutes is too much for a watch size GPS unit to find satellites in freaking OUTER SPACE that it communicates with to tell you your exact position on the Earth? Yeah, I think three minutes is fine.



Once you finish your run and download the run, you get distance, pace, a map of the run (above), elevation profile of the run, calories burned, pace for each mile, etc. It's a wealth of info.

Did I mention I love it?

So if you've got an extra $200 to blow, I totally recommend it.