Midt i februar tabte jeg min Garmin Forerunner 305 i Roskilde. Jeg vil meget gerne have den tilbage og vil give en findeløn. Hvis du har fundet den så skriv til mig eller kommentér nedenfor.
Med venlig hilsen
Brian Nielsen
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Efterlysning: har du set min Garmin Forerunner 305 med serienummeret 13V310633
Med venlig hilsen
Brian Nielsen
Sunday, January 2, 2011
How problems with the USB cable for my Garmin Forerunner 305 showed up
Earlier this year I had major problems transferring data from my Garmin Forerunner 305 to my computer, after traying all kinds of installation changes I ended up buying a new USB cable and Voilá all problems were gone. Here's a couple of screenshots of how it looked.
It wouldn't be detected correctly:
and driver problems
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Yet Another Conconi Running Test
What a difference a couple of days make or doing it a bit differently. Friday I did yet another Conconi running test, since the weather in Denmark currently is very training unfriendly AND I didn't really like the result of the previous one, so either it was bad or I had to reevaluate my status.
This one turned out to the better. For one I hadn't done any training since the last test Tuesday (that followed a tempo run on Sunday), so my legs were fresh. Second I figured out how to make the treadmill show distance all the time, and third I chose another approach for the test. The warm up thing didn't work out right the last time and normally I don't do that kind of separate warm up in a workout - I decided to just start out a little slower, here's the plan:
As can be seen on the splits, this plan gave me much short times at the speed above 12 km/h were I expect my AT, with the final ones on just 0.:45 versus the 2:00 minutes the last time. Clearly running longer at or above AT will increase HR and make it harder to endure further speed increase/time.
The workout graph was:
The most obvious difference was that I reached 15,6 km/h as top speed and my maximum HR was 168.
The recovery was just 16 bpm for the first 30 seconds and another 23 bpm in the next with a total of 39 in the first minute (versus the 59 bpm in the previous test!). Once more I did a short cool down interval of at 9 km/h not passing 140 bpm.
Two different test within 4 days with quite different results, the conclusion is blahhhhhh - I've improved :-).
Together with the other tests this enters as second best,and with a HR drop of app. 10 bpm at each speed level or app. 1.5 km/h faster per HR:
This one turned out to the better. For one I hadn't done any training since the last test Tuesday (that followed a tempo run on Sunday), so my legs were fresh. Second I figured out how to make the treadmill show distance all the time, and third I chose another approach for the test. The warm up thing didn't work out right the last time and normally I don't do that kind of separate warm up in a workout - I decided to just start out a little slower, here's the plan:
Dist (km) - speed(km/h)
1.0 - 9,2
1,4 - 9,6
1,8 - 10.0
2,2 - 10,4
2,6 - 10,8
3,0 - 11,2
3,4 - 11,6
3,8 - 12,0
4,0 - 12,4
4,2 - 12,8
4,4 - 13,2
4,6 - 13,6
4,8 - 14,0
5,0 - 14,4
5,2 - 14,8
5,4 - 15,2
5,6 - 15,6
As can be seen on the splits, this plan gave me much short times at the speed above 12 km/h were I expect my AT, with the final ones on just 0.:45 versus the 2:00 minutes the last time. Clearly running longer at or above AT will increase HR and make it harder to endure further speed increase/time.
The workout graph was:
The most obvious difference was that I reached 15,6 km/h as top speed and my maximum HR was 168.
The recovery was just 16 bpm for the first 30 seconds and another 23 bpm in the next with a total of 39 in the first minute (versus the 59 bpm in the previous test!). Once more I did a short cool down interval of at 9 km/h not passing 140 bpm.
Two different test within 4 days with quite different results, the conclusion is blahhhhhh - I've improved :-).
Together with the other tests this enters as second best,and with a HR drop of app. 10 bpm at each speed level or app. 1.5 km/h faster per HR:
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Comparing results from five Conconi running tests
Today I performed yet another Conconi running test, adding up to a total of 5 recorded within the last one and a half year (See my post Performing a Conconi running test, from 9. july 2009 for a little background info).
The test today consisted of first 1,5 km warm up (around 11 km/h), then after a short break I started out at 9,6 km/h, and increased the speed with 0,4 km/h each 2 minutes (I couldn't figure out to get the display show distance, so that I could have used my normal approach with increase each 200 m). The recording was done with my Garmin Forerunner 305 configured for data sampling each second. Here's the hrm profile:
One thing that stands out is the fact that the terminal pace was (only) 14 km/h and that at an HR of 171 bpm, close to my maximum HR. It was my judgement that I could not complete 2 minutes at 14,4 km/h though it somehow didn't feel as hard as 171 bpm normally does, the few time I've hit it in interval training.
The recovery for the first 30 seconds after I stopped the test was 30 bpm and thereafter another 29 bpm, with a total of 59 bpm within the first minute. After that i did a 5 min after jog at 9 km/h and look what happened, my HR just increased to the level of what should be app. 11 km/h! and even a walk at 5 km/h didn't send my HR below 100.
As usual the graph is not an clear cut ideal step wise flat curve, but my qualified measurement gave me these numbers, entered in the same spreadsheet as my previous Conconi running tests:
Transformed into a graph with Open Office Calc gives:
The test today consisted of first 1,5 km warm up (around 11 km/h), then after a short break I started out at 9,6 km/h, and increased the speed with 0,4 km/h each 2 minutes (I couldn't figure out to get the display show distance, so that I could have used my normal approach with increase each 200 m). The recording was done with my Garmin Forerunner 305 configured for data sampling each second. Here's the hrm profile:
One thing that stands out is the fact that the terminal pace was (only) 14 km/h and that at an HR of 171 bpm, close to my maximum HR. It was my judgement that I could not complete 2 minutes at 14,4 km/h though it somehow didn't feel as hard as 171 bpm normally does, the few time I've hit it in interval training.
The recovery for the first 30 seconds after I stopped the test was 30 bpm and thereafter another 29 bpm, with a total of 59 bpm within the first minute. After that i did a 5 min after jog at 9 km/h and look what happened, my HR just increased to the level of what should be app. 11 km/h! and even a walk at 5 km/h didn't send my HR below 100.
As usual the graph is not an clear cut ideal step wise flat curve, but my qualified measurement gave me these numbers, entered in the same spreadsheet as my previous Conconi running tests:
Transformed into a graph with Open Office Calc gives:
The test has once more proved not to be usable for the original idea, but as usual that won't prevent me from drawing my own conclusions.
As a little background info, I haven't been running much since April when I got an injury in my right Calf in a training pass (LSD) after at successful half-marathon.That surprisingly didn't hinder me in getting a new personal best it this years DHL-stafet with 22:10 for the 5 km, with an to my extremely high HR ending with 176 bpm.
The overall behavior is the same in all measurements, no clear tipping point. Overall the maximum speed is like the other tests except for the phenomenal one a year ago. The maximum HR is high. One thing that does seem different is that the slope, where the others seem parallel (same slope shifted left or right), this test shows a steeper slope, as if I've primarily lost ability to keep top speed.
what can i really use if for? - not much. Though I surely was in a better running condition last autumn and spring, it does seem as if plenty of other factors influence much, like for an example the10K I did last Sunday (48:25).
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
WS-I dumped off at OASIS - The last stand for WS-*
All right that's push the drama a bit. WS-I has seemed to dead for quite some time and I still think there's a need for it, IF you're into the WS-* stack. I actually thought that it had already gone somewhere else but found this piece of news from OASIS: WS-I Transitions to OASIS. The dear Mr. Liscia has to believe in revitalization, though I'm not so optimistic on that point.
Update 11. november It's now officially closed, with this press release from WS-I: WS-I Completes Web Services Interoperability Standards Work [PDF], with these finale products:
Update 11. november It's now officially closed, with this press release from WS-I: WS-I Completes Web Services Interoperability Standards Work [PDF], with these finale products:
The release of WS-I member approved final materials for Basic Profile (BP) 1.2 and 2.0, and Reliable Secure Profile (RSP) 1.0 fulfills WS-I’s last milestone as an organization. By publishing the final three profiles, WS-I marks the completion of its work. Stewardship over WS-I’s assets, operations and mission will transition to OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), a group of technology vendors and customers that drive development and adoption of open standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
