|
Oct 2008
1:35pm, 24 Oct 2008
11 posts
|
manicstreetpounder
I'd echo what's already been said about not using the Garmin as gospel for distances and add that the same could be said for the HR. Being my first marathon I did a bit of reading up on how to pace myself before Abingdon and had a plan sorted based on what I'd done in training etc.
Anyway after the first mile I was already over 10 beats/minute above what I thought I was supposed to be and so ended up going by what my body was telling me. Not necessarily a problem with the Garmin, just proving the point I suppose that you should use your experience as a runner to gauge pace and effort, first of all....and the race markers!!
|
|
Oct 2008
1:38pm, 24 Oct 2008
4,435 posts
|
hellen
Dont get me started on HR, look at my blog for the stats.
My average HR for this marathon (and my last) was 177, (my max is 196 and resting 46 ) so that is around 88%WHR!!!
It was quite high even from the start, the 10 miles average was around 175 on sunday yet 2 weeks before the marathon I did a 12 mile training run at the same pace I ran the 12 miles on sunday and my Av HR was 161!!!!
|
|
Oct 2008
1:40pm, 24 Oct 2008
19,242 posts
|
Hendo
I have no idea what any of you are saying any more.
*heads off to the efficient running thread for some easy reading*
|
|
Oct 2008
1:41pm, 24 Oct 2008
390 posts
|
monki
There's another fairly simple reason for the distance discrepancy - with a twisty course like Abingdon it is almost impossible to run the race route as it was measured - you will almost certainly run it long.
My Garmin was out by about 60m for the first mile (I ran around the outside lane on that opening lap and wasn't too bolshy about clipping corners) - and it stayed like that for more or less the next 10 miles or so. It's internally consistent, but as a pacing guide it's shot. So reverted to maths. That's why pacing bands are so useful....
|
|
Oct 2008
1:51pm, 24 Oct 2008
2,276 posts
|
Treacle
My Polar said the course was 27.5 miles.
So I runned further than EVERYONE else:-)
And I forgot to start my watch until 50 seconds in. So I had no idea what was going on - luckily hubby had my pace band and a stop watch, and I was running with Schnecke for the first 20 miles:-)
Actually - I think it was a good thing so I couldn't be obsessed with pace.
|
|
Oct 2008
1:51pm, 24 Oct 2008
71 posts
|
I'm glad someone else had the same problem.
My garmin kept telling me I'd hit the next mile at least 0.1 mile before the official marker. By the last one I was on 26.14 before I passed the "26" (these things are etched into ones memory)
Mind you, at Angelsey it was the other way round...
|
|
Oct 2008
1:53pm, 24 Oct 2008
2,277 posts
|
Treacle
I would like to point out though that I think the course was probably spot on - its my watch (and its user) that went doolally...
|
|
Oct 2008
1:55pm, 24 Oct 2008
73 posts
|
But you only need to cross roads or circle other runners to add a bit.
|
|
Oct 2008
1:58pm, 24 Oct 2008
2,278 posts
|
Treacle
Zactly Uniqua - very true - but I'm sure it was properly measured on the 'racing' line. I on the other hand must have meandered randomly.
|
|
Oct 2008
2:17pm, 24 Oct 2008
1,480 posts
|
Laura27
I did 27.42 miles, so must have gone the same way as you Treacle
|
