Chicago Mar. report

[ahass]

I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13 5-
5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51 16-16.5-don't
know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on pace, but didn't feel as
great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not a good sign. A pack of around 30 guys formed
up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild, culminating with the 5:13 4th mile. That kinda
was really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of time on me quickly even though
I was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as I knew I couldn't do it that day
and wanted to salvage a 2:24-
2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8 on, and around 12 I started
having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the over-training feeling in my
legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I slowed some more to just try and
jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under 2:29). Then at 15 I began having
serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At 16 I hit the portajon, and half a
mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much time and be over 2:30, so when I saw
my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my training partner came thru, and I briefly
ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped up and locked by
this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind of disappointing.
The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good day feeling good I would have made it at least 20 if
not all the way. I've never experienced leg problems like that in a race, so I have to attribute
that to over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying window opens in spring
2006, so I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast now. Next spring I'll try for 2:24-25 and
move on from there. Andy Hass

[Doug Burke]

Hi Andy: Been reading the thread above (Andy's bib no.) about your race and I want to take the
opportunity now to say I feel for you. I think it goes without saying your disappointment is shared
and felt by all the runners here. You've achieved a level most of us only dream about and it's
apparent your positive attitude is going to take you higher. Lesser men would have been broken by
Sunday's events but you're right back talking about 2006. Reminds of some words of John Bingham when
he observes: "By running I learned how to be defeated but not beaten and I learned how to admire
those who were faster than me without believing they were better than me". You attitude is amazing.
You set a fine example for all of us both on and off the course. Thanks. Doug Burke

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:
> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on pace,
> but didn't feel as great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not a good sign. A pack of
> around 30 guys formed up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild, culminating with the
> 5:13 4th mile. That kinda was really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of
> time on me quickly even though I was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as
> I knew I couldn't do it that day and wanted to salvage a 2:24-
> 2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8 on, and around 12 I
> started having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the over-training feeling
> in my legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I slowed some more to just
> try and jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under 2:29). Then at 15 I began
> having serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At 16 I hit the portajon,
> and half a mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much time and be over 2:30, so
> when I saw my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my training partner came thru,
> and I briefly ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped up
> and locked by this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind
> of disappointing. The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good day feeling good I would have
> made it at least 20 if not all the way. I've never experienced leg problems like that in a race,
> so I have to attribute that to over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying
> window opens in spring 2006, so I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast now. Next spring
> I'll try for 2:24-25 and move on from there. Andy Hass

[David Hallswort]

Hey Andy,

Have never run a marathon but that sounds like really tough luck. However, we all know that you're
experienced enough to let something like this slide, and kick its ass next time!

Best, Dave

--
To email, remove SPAM.com and replace with wadham DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk

[Scott Williams]

Andy, what component(s) of your training do you suspect pushed you over the edge? The
3-digit-mileage weeks?

I'm really surprised that the B-standard guys were so squirrely with the early pacing -- as they
were all going after a time, not placings. I would have assumed that they would have the
experience/savvy to be methodical about it. Chalk it up to adrenalin I guess ...

How did you finally get seeded with the qualifying group? Last I read, they turned you down,
inexplicably.

Scott

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:

> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on pace,
> but didn't feel as great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not a good sign. A pack of
> around 30 guys formed up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild, culminating with the
> 5:13 4th mile. That kinda was really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of
> time on me quickly even though I was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as
> I knew I couldn't do it that day and wanted to salvage a 2:24-
> 2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8 on, and around 12 I
> started having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the over-training feeling
> in my legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I slowed some more to just
> try and jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under 2:29). Then at 15 I began
> having serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At 16 I hit the portajon,
> and half a mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much time and be over 2:30, so
> when I saw my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my training partner came thru,
> and I briefly ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped up
> and locked by this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind
> of disappointing. The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good day feeling good I would have
> made it at least 20 if not all the way. I've never experienced leg problems like that in a race,
> so I have to attribute that to over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying
> window opens in spring 2006, so I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast now. Next spring
> I'll try for 2:24-25 and move on from there. Andy Hass

[Urban Bettag]

Dude! Awesome splits, you can make the transition into a world class runner!

What was that about over-training? I did two consecutive weeks with 160m, which I think actually
helped me to take off two minutes of my 10k time. But then I cut back to 100m again. How long
does the effect of over-training (increased heart rate) drags on? Can that ruin your whole
marathon built up?

Also I have been reading about Josh Cox's training schedule, mentioning too hard workouts too close
to race day. When do you think your last hard session should be prior to the marathon?

Good luck for Boston! Urban

[Brent Peterson]

Andy,

First, I want to thank you for posting your training on this newsgroup every week. It's been
interesting and fun to read about your progress over the last year. I've had a couple of thoughts
about your training approach which I've kept to myself--you had a coach, a plan, and a goal; and it
doesn't do much good to hear a bunch of unsolicited ideas about training when you're in the middle
of executing a plan. Now that you are in a rest/rebuilding phase, I thought it wouldn't hurt to
share a couple of observations.

In your effort to lower your marathon time by 7 minutes, you substantially increased the number of
miles your ran. This made sense--almost all elite marathoners (including the national class runners
who run around the 2:20 time that you were aiming for) run in excess of 100 miles per week. I think,
however, that it is very difficult for a runner to tolerate (and improve) on high mileage if he has
a full-time job or other activities that take an equivalent amount of time. In other words, it is
hard to run a lot if you have a life. Based on your training reports, it sounds like you have
several responsibilities and activities to which you devote your time and energy. It's possible that
your training load was too high given all that was going on in your life.

I also think that, regardless of how much one rests, each person has a training load above which
running performance starts to decline. This limit is different for everyone. Just because Halle
Gebrselassie improves while running 150 miles per week doesn't mean that someone else will. In fact,
one of the qualities that makes elite runners elite is the ability to tolerate high mileage. It's
very possible that something like 70 or 80 miles per week is the optimum level for you. (I noticed
that, as your mileage increased, your average pace on your easy/medium days started to slow down;
this is usually not a good sign.)

Again, we all have a different limit. I can run a 33-minute 10K on 30 miles per week. If I up my
mileage to 50 per week and really focus on rest, I can knock about a minute off that time. But once
I get much above 50, my performance starts to decline. I hate this. I don't think it has anything to
do with motivation or drive. I would run 150 miles per week if I continued to improve up to that
level, but my body just fails to absorb additional training once I pass a fairly low threshold. You,
obviously, can continue to improve well past 50 miles per week. But it's possible that your
threshold is somewhere in-between 70 and 100. This threshold can be gradually raised over time with
steady training, but the improvement isn't infinite.

Once I accepted that I didn't adapt well to high mileage, I saw substantial improvement by focusing
on running my aerobic miles as fast as possible--basically, doing a lot of steady runs at just above
LT. I found that running 8 miles at an average of 5:50/mile would tire me just as much as running 8
miles at 6:30/mile (and would tire me less than running 12 miles at 6:40 - 7:00 pace).

Despite the fact that most elite marathoners have very high mileage totals, there are exceptions
which suggest that high volume isn't a prerequisite to elite performance. Jack Foster, at the age of
41, ran a 2:11 marathon while averaging 70 miles per week. Steve Jones ran one 2:07 and four 2:08
marathons (including a world record) on 70 to 90 miles per week. These performances don't prove that
lower mileage is better, but it does indicate that an elite level can be reached without putting in
100+ miles per week. It might be worth lowering your volume a bit, increasing your average training
speed a bit, and then seeing what happens.

Thanks again for sharing your training and racing reports.

-Brent

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote in message news:<PGUib.3534$H91.80442@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on pace, but
> didn't feel as great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not a good sign. A pack of around
> 30 guys formed up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild, culminating with the 5:13 4th
> mile. That kinda was really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of time on me
> quickly even though I was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as I knew I
> couldn't do it that day and wanted to salvage a 2:24-
> 2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8 on, and around 12 I
> started having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the over-training feeling
> in my legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I slowed some more to just
> try and jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under 2:29). Then at 15 I began
> having serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At 16 I hit the portajon,
> and half a mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much time and be over 2:30, so
> when I saw my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my training partner came thru,
> and I briefly ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped up
> and locked by this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind
> of disappointing. The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good day feeling good I would have
> made it at least 20 if not all the way. I've never experienced leg problems like that in a race,
> so I have to attribute that to over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying
> window opens in spring 2006, so I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast now. Next spring
> I'll try for 2:24-25 and move on from there. Andy Hass

[Joe]

Same thing happened to me at a race in May of this year. I felt a little run down at the starting
line and knew it wouldn't be a good day. I slowed down after the 1/2 way point and dropped out at
16. Its hard to do. I really feel your pain. There is nothing worse than having to drop out when
you've trained so hard.

Sorry Andy, JOe

<ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:PGUib.3534$H91.80442@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on
pace,
> but didn't feel as great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not
a
> good sign. A pack of around 30 guys formed up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild,
> culminating with the 5:13 4th mile. That kinda
was
> really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of time on me quickly even though I
> was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as I knew I couldn't do it that day
> and wanted to salvage a
2:24-
> 2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8
on,
> and around 12 I started having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the
> over-training feeling in my legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I
> slowed some more to just try and jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under
> 2:29). Then at 15 I began having serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At
> 16 I hit the portajon, and half a mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much
> time and be over 2:30, so when I saw my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my
> training partner
came
> thru, and I briefly ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped
> up and locked by this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind
> of disappointing. The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good
day
> feeling good I would have made it at least 20 if not all the way. I've
never
> experienced leg problems like that in a race, so I have to attribute that
to
> over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying window opens in spring 2006, so
> I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast
now.
> Next spring I'll try for 2:24-25 and move on from there. Andy Hass

[Dell Todd]

Nice 25k. Am I reading something wrong here ?! Why do you need to wait
2.5 years for the next Olympic cycle ??? Did they just close qualification for the Olympic Trials
Marathon ? Why can't you run NYC Marathon for your 2:21:59 ? With a 2:45 qualifying time you get
to bypass the lottery. Perhaps it IS too late for that one, but for Trials qualification, it would
seem that they would give you a bib.

As you only raced 25k, you did not take it all out of the bank, and you did nothing to reduce your
ability to stay on peak from now till the NYC Marathon. Don'tgive up so quickly my man !! You simply
had a physiologically excellent workout at Chgo.

Now make it happen.

I will look for your sub 2:22 @ the NYC Marathon.

PS: I too had tummy trouble (no more pre race gatorade !). Was on pace to break 3, solo as I had a
General Admission ticket & was unable to work up to the 3 hr pacesetter. Stomach was bad @ mi 8,
and horrible by 18. I was still in goal vicinity by 21, when I was by the side of the road
retching. I was slow in getting to 25, when my body finally found the eject button. I finally
felt so good I slammed it home to make my consolation goal; Boston qualifier. 29 sec to spare.

[Layne Wallace]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:33:03 GMT, ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:

>
[epic report]

Andy,

You really did an excellent job, IMHO. Yes, the disappointment is there. I still hurt for you but
can't tell you how glad I am to have had the chance to cheerlead for you during the run (and wish I
could have done so before the run). Still, you played the hand you were dealt and did it
intelligently. It's my thought that this wasn't just one run but a run in a series of events. Now
come the other events.

A fan, Layne

-------------------------------------------------------
The rec.running report archives may be found at http://kinder.cis.unf.edu/rec.running

[Swstudio]

Andy,

It's comforting to see you take this so well. I would be furious.

I truly hope you make your goal one day.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

<ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:PGUib.3534$H91.80442@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know So I got right up front, only about 2 sec off the line. Got right on
pace,
> but didn't feel as great as I usually do at the start of a marathon. Not
a
> good sign. A pack of around 30 guys formed up to attack 2:22:00. The pacing was a little wild,
> culminating with the 5:13 4th mile. That kinda
was
> really, really bad. I let them go after 8, and they put a lot of time on me quickly even though I
> was right no pace until after 10. I slowed a bit on purpose as I knew I couldn't do it that day
> and wanted to salvage a
2:24-
> 2:25 out of the deal. However I had been fighting a small stitch from 8
on,
> and around 12 I started having stomach problems and has to stop taking on water. By 13 the
> over-training feeling in my legs that plagued me through August and September returned, and I
> slowed some more to just try and jog in to PR (I had a HUGE amount of time banked to get under
> 2:29). Then at 15 I began having serious lower GI difficulties that forced me into a real jog. At
> 16 I hit the portajon, and half a mile later I was looking for another. I would lose too much
> time and be over 2:30, so when I saw my fiancee at 16.5 I dropped out. A few minutes later my
> training partner
came
> thru, and I briefly ran again to try and rejoin and pace him through 2:30, but my legs were ripped
> up and locked by this point. So I stopped again and walked to the finish line the short way. Kind
> of disappointing. The pace wasn't overly taxing yet, on a good
day
> feeling good I would have made it at least 20 if not all the way. I've
never
> experienced leg problems like that in a race, so I have to attribute that
to
> over-training still being a problem. Oh well. The next qualifying window opens in spring 2006, so
> I have 2.5 years to work my way down that fast
now.
> Next spring I'll try for 2:24-25 and move on from there. Andy Hass

[ahass]

Scott Williams <swims@yewmich.edu> wrote:
> Andy, what component(s) of your training do you suspect pushed you over the edge? The
> 3-digit-mileage weeks?

> I'm really surprised that the B-standard guys were so squirrely with the early pacing -- as they
> were all going after a time, not placings. I would have assumed that they would have the
> experience/savvy to be methodical about it. Chalk it up to adrenalin I guess ...

> How did you finally get seeded with the qualifying group? Last I read, they turned you down,
> inexplicably.

> Scott

---I didn't. As it turned out, they started the regional elites (where I would have been) behind the
elites on the RIGHT half of the line...the area behind the elites on the left was completely open. I
was in the front line of the competitive start, so when the gun went off I had a straight shot over
the line and was out ahead of half the regional elites :) Andy Hass

[ahass]

Urban Bettag <urban@bettag.com> wrote:
> Dude! Awesome splits, you can make the transition into a world class runner!

> What was that about over-training? I did two consecutive weeks with 160m, which I think actually
> helped me to take off two minutes of my 10k time. But then I cut back to 100m again. How long does
> the effect of over-training (increased heart rate) drags on? Can that ruin your whole marathon
> built up?

> Also I have been reading about Josh Cox's training schedule, mentioning too hard workouts too
> close to race day. When do you think your last hard session should be prior to the marathon?

> Good luck for Boston! Urban

--I run my last hard session 1.5 weeks out. Over-training is more than elevated heart rate...that is
just one symptom. Vaguely, over-training is when the body stops responding positively to the
stressed of training and resonds negatively instead. So the harder you work, the worse you get. In
my case, the key symptom was that I could no longer run fast even when I tried and my legs would
inexplicable get sore/tired even on 12-mile easy runs that used to be full recovery days. Also,
recovery times from workouts had doubled. Recovery times vary. I am already partially recovered from
my taper and cutting back even before the taper, so I think 2-3 weeks off and a slow return to full
training will do it. Andy Hass

[ahass]

Brent Peterson <brentpeterson01@yahoo.com> wrote:
> share a couple of observations.

---Always welcome! :)

> In your effort to lower your marathon time by 7 minutes, you substantially increased the number of
> miles your ran. This made sense--almost all elite marathoners (including the national class
> runners who run around the 2:20 time that you were aiming for) run in excess of 100 miles per
> week. I think, however, that it is very difficult for a runner to tolerate (and improve) on high
> mileage if he has a full-time job or other activities that take an equivalent amount of time. In
> other words, it is hard to run a lot if you have a life.

--Very true. I almost drool when I think what I could accomplish if I could take an hour nap in the
early afternoon and sleep 9 hours every night.

> Based on your training reports, it sounds like you have several responsibilities and activities to
> which you devote your time and energy. It's possible that your training load was too high given
> all that was going on in your life.

---I thought the same thing. My over-training got me during a very stressful time at work when I was
also in the process of moving and planning a wedding. Not a coincidence I think.

> I also think that, regardless of how much one rests, each person has a training load above which
> running performance starts to decline. This limit is different for everyone. Just because Halle
> Gebrselassie improves while running 150 miles per week doesn't mean that someone else will. In
> fact, one of the qualities that makes elite runners elite is the ability to tolerate high mileage.
> It's very possible that something like 70 or 80 miles per week is the optimum level for you. (I
> noticed that, as your mileage increased, your average pace on your easy/medium days started to
> slow down; this is usually not a good sign.)

---Well, that depends. I purposely slowed some of them down because I thought I was doing my
recovery days too fast. If you look at the time of year, you'll also see I slowed them down during
the hot summer and that they got faster again toward September when it cooled down again. But yes,
overall, I ran slower recovery days as miles increased. But I don't think this is a bad thing
necessarily.

> Again, we all have a different limit. I can run a 33-minute 10K on 30 miles per week. If I up my
> mileage to 50 per week and really focus on rest, I can knock about a minute off that time. But
> once I get much above 50, my performance starts to decline. I hate this. I don't think it has
> anything to do with motivation or drive. I would run 150 miles per week if I continued to improve
> up to that level, but my body just fails to absorb additional training once I pass a fairly low
> threshold. You, obviously, can continue to improve well past 50 miles per week. But it's possible
> that your threshold is somewhere in-between 70 and 100. This threshold can be gradually raised
> over time with steady training, but the improvement isn't infinite.

---In the spring I could handle very abusive training loads on 95 mpw. Over this number I could
handle less. I think as the summer progressed (before overtraining) I could handle a lot on 100-105.
So my limit is pretty high, that has always been one of my strengths. I have never responded well to
low mileage. I was a 34:18 10K guy in college off 30-40 mpw. It was through increased mileage that
I've gotten fast, even though my track workouts are much less intense now. It seems I get the most
benefit from moderate track workouts and high miles. I've tested the combinations, this is where I
personally saw results.

> Once I accepted that I didn't adapt well to high mileage, I saw substantial improvement by
> focusing on running my aerobic miles as fast as possible--basically, doing a lot of steady runs at
> just above
> LT. I found that running 8 miles at an average of 5:50/mile would tire me just as much as running
> 8 miles at 6:30/mile (and would tire me less than running 12 miles at 6:40 - 7:00 pace).

---Each person responds differently...In my case, I really believe in being able to hammer the hard
days as best as possible and recovering in between them. At 50-60 miles per week, I'm sure I could
do as you describe...in fact I used to. But in my case, I seem to get better results by doing more
slower miles (rarely slower than 7:00 though) and more hard stuff on hard days. The one thing I
wanted more of that I didn't get (over-trained right when I was supposed to start doing them) was
long (8-10 mile) tempo runs.

> Despite the fact that most elite marathoners have very high mileage totals, there are exceptions
> which suggest that high volume isn't a prerequisite to elite performance. Jack Foster, at the age
> of 41, ran a 2:11 marathon while averaging 70 miles per week. Steve Jones ran one 2:07 and four
> 2:08 marathons (including a world record) on 70 to 90 miles per week. These performances don't
> prove that lower mileage is better, but it does indicate that an elite level can be reached
> without putting in 100+ miles per week. It might be worth lowering your volume a bit, increasing
> your average training speed a bit, and then seeing what happens.

---I wish I had the talent of those guys, or that my best even was shorter for that matter! :)

> Thanks again for sharing your training and racing reports.

> -Brent

---Thanks for the insights, very interesting! Andy Hass

[ahass]

Dell Todd <delltodd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nice 25k. Am I reading something wrong here ?! Why do you need to wait
> 2.5 years for the next Olympic cycle ??? Did they just close qualification for the Olympic Trials
> Marathon ? Why can't you run NYC Marathon for your 2:21:59 ? With a 2:45 qualifying time you get
> to bypass the lottery. Perhaps it IS too late for that one, but for Trials qualification, it
> would seem that they would give you a bib.

---I'm over-trained, I need to take weeks off to shake that. Otherwise I would! ;) Andy Hass

[ahass]

Parker Race <prman@wazoo.int> wrote:

> <ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:PGUib.3534$H91.80442@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>
>> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4-
>> 5:13 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
>> 16-16.5-don't know
> <rest of report snipped>

> It sounds like my October experience last year, but you were smarter in ending it then instead of
> prolonging the agony. Did you run into my neighbor and former team mate, Jamie Rodriguez? I
> haven't seen him yet but I'm sure he must be dissapointed to not have gotten a 2:20 - 2:22. His
> splits were looking good up to 20 and then he put in a 37 minute 10k to finish. (I'd kill to run a
> 37 minute 10k)

> You're both young as marathoners go and will have more opportunities to get it done. Good health
> and luck in your training and racing.

> Parker Race

---I saw him, he was in front of me in the group though so I didn't get a chance to say
hi. Andy Hass

[Parker Race]

<ahass@dontspamumich.edu> wrote in message news:PGUib.3534$H91.80442@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> I'll start with the splits. 1- 5:27 (minus 2 sec to get to line so 5:25) 2- 5:21 3- 5:29 4- 5:13
> 5- 5:28 6- 5:24 7- 5:25 8- 5:25 9- 5:26 10-5:24 11-5:32 12-5:43 13-5:42 14-5:48 15-5:51
> 16-16.5-don't know
<rest of report snipped>

It sounds like my October experience last year, but you were smarter in ending it then instead of
prolonging the agony. Did you run into my neighbor and former team mate, Jamie Rodriguez? I
haven't seen him yet but I'm sure he must be dissapointed to not have gotten a 2:20 - 2:22. His
splits were looking good up to 20 and then he put in a 37 minute 10k to finish. (I'd kill to run a
37 minute 10k)

You're both young as marathoners go and will have more opportunities to get it done. Good health and
luck in your training and racing.

Parker Race

[Mike Tennent]

> Kind of disappointing.

Sometimes you eat the bear. Sometimes the bear eats you.

There will be other races.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

[Globaldisc]

Why can't you run NYC Marathon for your 2:21:59 ?
____

2 reasons:

A. Wrong Course. Few if any elite runner's PR @ NYC. Chicago is a fast track and a place where many
elite runner's indeed PR.

B. Wrong Weather. Ya know there's a 50/50 chance many of the elite runners will be wearing some head
gear to keep warm through most of the race along with gloves. Honestly...there's a 50/50 chance
the weather will not be pleasant at all on race day in NYC.

Andrew...

[Parker Race]

"Globaldisc" <globaldisc@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031015105906.15549.00000743@mb-m28.aol.com...
> Why can't you run NYC Marathon for your 2:21:59 ?
> ____
>
> 2 reasons:
>
> A. Wrong Course. Few if any elite runner's PR @ NYC. Chicago is a fast
track
> and a place where many elite runner's indeed PR.
>
> B. Wrong Weather. Ya know there's a 50/50 chance many of the elite
runners
> will be wearing some head gear to keep warm through most of the race along
with
> gloves. Honestly...there's a 50/50 chance the weather will not be pleasant
at
> all on race day in NYC.
>
> Andrew...

I like the idea of cool weather, assuming it's not accompanied by a torrential downpour and strong
winds. My nightmare is a hot and humid day.

[Parker Race]

"Globaldisc" <globaldisc@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031015130506.07067.00000279@mb-m28.aol.com...
> I like the idea of cool weather
> ---
>
> Wrong. No one said "cool". Do you prefer running in wool headbands,
caps, and
> with gloves on? Are you saying that's your preference? Not an uncommon
site
> w/the elite runners at many a NYC marathon.
>
> I think it was about 2 years ago when the female winner finally tossed off
her
> WOOL MITS she ran in for 25 miles in the last mile of the race. I've seen
male
> winners wear WOOL CAPS during the entire race.
>
> Last year it was a gorgeous day. However, I've seen serious rainstorms as well. The weather in
> Marathon Day in NYC is a total roll of the dice and
I
> would not count on it being "ideal" unlike Marathons this time of the year
in
> the SW, etc. Sure, it can be inclimate anywhere....however in NYC
there's a
> 50/50 chance the weather will not ideal the first week of November.

I live in upstate NY so I know about November weather. There were many mornings when it was single
digit temps when I headed out the door last winter. It's doubtful I'll run in more than a singlet,
shorts and light gloves and maybe a light hat unless it's ridiculously cold and windy I don't mean
50 when I say cool, if it's somewhere in the 20's to 40's I'd be happy. I would have considered last
year a little on the warm side. I ran a marathon in Georgia last February in shorts and singlet. The
locals must have thought I was crazy, they were wearing tights, jackets,etc. You should of seen the
look a couple walking on the beach shot my way when I got into the Ocean (46F) after the race.

.