Re: What is a non-pathetic 1/2 marathon performance?

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just haven't challenged themselves
with terrain and/or are probably in the younger age classes.

Aint that the truth. Today I ran a 9 mile race in 2:08:06. If it wasn't
the contour lines I was fighting, it was the knee deep bogs.

Tim

--
Remove the *obvious* to reply by mail

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

FWIW, there was a 14 mi race (the last mile was downhill) near my home
recently (I watched) where the course record is a tad over 3 hr. And I
have nothing but respect for the folks who ran in at 6+ hrs. Yes, they
were running the last leg. IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just
haven't challenged themselves with terrain and/or are probably in the
younger age classes.

I had a nasty shock when I ran a 10k race once. I'd heard the course wasn't
that hilly (this was true). I looked up last years times, and the winner was
36:xx. Everyone else was slower than 37. So I showed up expecting a reasonable
time, and thought I had a reasonable chance of a win, or at least a top 3
overall. Anything slower than 37:00 in reasonable conditions on a reasonable
course would be slow for me right now.

Unfortunately, it appears the course was quite long ! The winner, who typically
runs just over 5 minutes per mile was awarded an official time of 36:xx. Who
knows what time he really crossed in though -- I was awarded a 39:30 though I
crossed the time in 38:48. I noticed the guy in front of me was awarded a
38:48, so maybe the times got "shifted" (it was tag scored).

Between terrain, heat, and all the other variables (some that don't usually
occur to us), race times don't mean a whole lot unless they're put in context.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ignoramus23984 said:

It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a good
goal for the first try. Thanks.

Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as your
first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get a feel
for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the half
marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week? This is
not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that for
several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also, once
you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up with a
reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites for
that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz

Here's a good training program for beginners attempting their first
half marathon: http://www.halhigdon.com/halfmarathon/novice.htm

Also, this same site has a lot of good information for beginning
runners: http://www.halhigdon.com/beginrunner/intro.htm

It seems that you are getting into this half marathon obsession for all
the wrong reasons. You should take the time to learn about what you are
doing before making up your mind.

I admire you for your weight loss and I respect your determination to
achieve your goals. But your determination is getting in the way of
clear thinking, IMO.

tkb

Ignoramus23984 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus23984 said:

It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a

good

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

goal for the first try. Thanks.

Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as your
first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get a

feel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the half
marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week? This

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also,

once

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up with a
reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites for
that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz

I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A couple of
days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was fine. I
think that 20k is within reach.

OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs? Plug
those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know how you
can expect to do for the half marathon.

tkb

There are [censored] out there who will mock this, but this, IMHO is one very
good reason why we run.

Thank you for cheering the auld fella and I'm sure he is thanking you too.

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There was
no one left at the finish line and they were starting to tear everything
down. My friend and I both stopped and appluaded and cheered the guy on.
He was an older fellow and he was running for a local charity... and he
looked pretty overjoyed when he walked across that finish line. It made
us smile as well.

Ignoramus23984 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus23984 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

> Ignoramus23984 wrote:
>
>> It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would be a

good

Quoted message said:

>> goal for the first try. Thanks.
>
> Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon as

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least get

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

feel

Quoted message said:

> for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then the

half

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a week?

This

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is

Quoted message said:

> not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold that

for

Quoted message said:

> several months before even thinking about a half marathon. Also,

once

Quoted message said:

> you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug those
> numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up

with a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite sites

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz

I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A couple

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was fine.

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think that 20k is within reach.

OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs? Plug
those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know how

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can expect to do for the half marathon.

I never ran a 10k, but my 5K result was 25 minutes 13 seconds.

Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
assuming appropriate training for the distance.

tkb

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

FWIW, there was a 14 mi race (the last mile was downhill) near my home
recently (I watched) where the course record is a tad over 3 hr. And I
have nothing but respect for the folks who ran in at 6+ hrs. Yes, they
were running the last leg. IMHO, people that laugh at "slow" times just
haven't challenged themselves with terrain and/or are probably in the
younger age classes.

I had a nasty shock when I ran a 10k race once. I'd heard the course

wasn't

Quoted message said:

that hilly (this was true). I looked up last years times, and the winner

was

Quoted message said:

36:xx. Everyone else was slower than 37. So I showed up expecting a

reasonable

Quoted message said:

time, and thought I had a reasonable chance of a win, or at least a top 3
overall. Anything slower than 37:00 in reasonable conditions on a

reasonable

Quoted message said:

course would be slow for me right now.

Unfortunately, it appears the course was quite long ! The winner, who

typically

Quoted message said:

runs just over 5 minutes per mile was awarded an official time of 36:xx.

Who

Quoted message said:

knows what time he really crossed in though -- I was awarded a 39:30

though I

Quoted message said:

crossed the time in 38:48. I noticed the guy in front of me was awarded a
38:48, so maybe the times got "shifted" (it was tag scored).

Between terrain, heat, and all the other variables (some that don't

usually

Quoted message said:

occur to us), race times don't mean a whole lot unless they're put in

context.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than laziness or
not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
proper?

Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate results.
That would not play in my town.

Sam said:

There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than laziness or
not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
proper?

Maybe it's not the same people. Some of the NJ races are pretty small (just
a few hundred people). I'm trying to get a handle on how to identify "good"
NJ races. I think from now on I'm going to stick to the ones that draw the
top regional runners -- less chance of a trophy, but more chance of running a
good race.

Quoted message said:

Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate results.
That would not play in my town.

Doesn't play well with me either (-; For the most part, I'll be avoiding NJ
races, as they are always manually scored, by the same mob who scored this
race, and generally not as well organised. But for the 10k distance, I'm
largely stuck with NJ. NY has good half marathons, 4 mile and 5 mile races, but
not much at the 10k distance. So I'm just going to have to choose my races
wisely.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

TenKBabe said:

Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
assuming appropriate training for the distance.

And proper nutrition (sorry, couldn't resist)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is no excuse for a course being long or short other than
laziness or
not giving a damn. Why do people keep showing up if the course is not
proper?

Great question and we seem to have a local 10k example which attracts
many people and is one or two tenths shy. I'm going to use the poll
feature on my local yahoo group to see how they answer. Maybe many
people are like me and don't really care - the course is the same each
year. What adds to the caldron is that some people may have PR's and not
know this.

I'll be interested to see how many care.

Quoted message said:

Also sounds like the organizers care little for getting accurate
results.
That would not play in my town.

I don't know if the RD knows.

-DF

Ignoramus23984 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus23984 said:

In article

<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

TenKBabe said:

>
> Ignoramus23984 wrote:
>> In article

<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> TenKBabe wrote:
>> > Ignoramus23984 wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would seem, then, that trying to do it under 2:30 would

be a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> good
>> >> goal for the first try. Thanks.
>> >
>> > Is there a particular reason you want to do a half marathon

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your

Quoted message said:

>> > first race? You should start with a shorter race to at least

get

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

> feel
>> > for what a race is like. Then progress to a 10K race, then

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

half

Quoted message said:

>> > marathon. Am I correct in that you are running 6 miles a

week?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This

Quoted message said:

> is
>> > not enough. You should build up to at least 20 MPW and hold

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> for
>> > several months before even thinking about a half marathon.

Also,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> once
>> > you determine your race times for 5K and 10K, you can plug

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > numbers into one of many online pace calculators and come up

with a

Quoted message said:

>> > reasonable half marathon time. Here's one of my favorite

sites

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

>> > that: http://tinyurl.com/34haz
>>
>> I am not a novice to running. I ran for about 20 years. A

couple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

>> days ago I ran 9 miles just to see if I can do it, and I was

fine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

>> think that 20k is within reach.
>
> OK, I stand corrected. Then what are your 5K and 10K race PRs?

Plug

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> those times into the pace calculator and you'll be able to know

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you

Quoted message said:

> can expect to do for the half marathon.

I never ran a 10k, but my 5K result was 25 minutes 13 seconds.

Then you should be able to run the half marathon in 1:56:34. That's
assuming appropriate training for the distance.

How did you calculate this?

You must have skimmed my post. Go here http://tinyurl.com/34haz
Put in your 5k time and you'll see what your expected times should be
at most distances up to a marathon. Of course the closer the race is to
the half marathon distance the more accurate it will be. When was the
5K? If it was quite a while ago, then these numbers will not mean much.

Much of this also depends on your training? Are you training for the
distance? What is your miles per week? What are your longest weekly
runs? Maybe you've already said this, but I'm not finding it anywhere.

Quoted message said:

I would love to accomplish that, but it seems out of the realm of

possibility

Quoted message said:

for me at the moment.

Why?

Quoted message said:

My added difficulty is that I have no experience running halves, so,
budgeting my strength and energy over the run is problematic.

This is exactly why I think you need to get some more race experience
in at a distance such as a 10K, then maybe a 10 mile, then a half
marathon.

Quoted message said:

Hence, I will try to err on the conservative side.

That's a good idea.

tkb

TenKBabe said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hence, I will try to err on the conservative side.

That's a good idea.

You're just saying that cos you're a republican

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ignoramus30067 said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

Quoted message said:

Go here http://tinyurl.com/34haz

Thanks, a great calculator.

Quoted message said:

Put in your 5k time and you'll see what your expected times should
be at most distances up to a marathon. Of course the closer the

race

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is to the half marathon distance the more accurate it will be. When
was the 5K? If it was quite a while ago, then these numbers will

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mean much.

The 5K was on April 26.

Quoted message said:

Much of this also depends on your training? Are you training for

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distance?

Not too much.

Quoted message said:

What is your miles per week?

Probably about 6 miles per week.

Quoted message said:

What are your longest weekly runs? Maybe you've already said this,
but I'm not finding it anywhere.

No problem. I experimented recently and ran about 9 miles in 1 hour

35

Quoted message said:

minutes. That was my longest run in quite a while. Usually, I run for
30 minutes, 40 at most, recreationally.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would love to accomplish that, but it seems out of the realm of

possibility

Quoted message said:

for me at the moment.

Why?

I don't think that I could run that fast, that long... Maybe I am
wrong and your calculator is right.

No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half. Maybe you
are one of those rare genetically gifted individuals that can do it on
virtually no training, but don't count on it.

Anyway, like I said before, your determination is getting in the way of
clear thinking. Just my opinion, FWIW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My added difficulty is that I have no experience running halves,

so,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

budgeting my strength and energy over the run is problematic.

This is exactly why I think you need to get some more race

experience

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in at a distance such as a 10K, then maybe a 10 mile, then a half
marathon.

You have a great point.

But will you do it? I guess my main concern is seeing someone that is
so motivated that they end up destroying themselves in the process. Do
you want to make running part of your lifestyle or do you want to self
destruct and end up hating running?

tkb

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.

This is a ridiculous claim. I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon in
2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday and then get
1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days). I ran 3 hours this past
weekend and 4 hours the week before, and felt plenty strong at the end
of each.

What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance slowly
to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing the
racee.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is not
even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be running
at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.

This is a ridiculous claim. I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon in
2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday and then get
1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days). I ran 3 hours this past
weekend and 4 hours the week before, and felt plenty strong at the end
of each.

Proof, if proof were needed, that H. Buck Esq. is clinically insane.

Quoted message said:

What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance slowly
to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing the
racee.

Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic) training system
of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in the face
of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a luddite
needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training. Tell all
by return.

Harold Buck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

TenKBabe said:

No, the caculator assumes appropriate training. 6 miles per week is

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even decent for a 5K. So forget the calculator. You need to be

running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at least 25 miles per week before thinking about the half.

Quoted message said:

This is a ridiculous claim.

Then you didn't read the rest of my post. You didn't quote it, so I
assume you didn't. Here it is:

Quoted message said:

Maybe you are one of those rare genetically gifted individuals that
can do it on virtually no training, but don't count on it.

Quoted message said:

I probably average about 20 mpw (plus a
little crosstraining) and think I'll have no trouble with my marathon

in

Quoted message said:

2 weeks or my 50k in 5 weeks. I get a long run every Sunday

How many miles is your long run?

Quoted message said:

1-3 other runs in during the week (usually about 30-40 minutes, with
some speed or tempo work on 1 or 2 days).

How many miles are those runs?

Quoted message said:

I ran 3 hours this past weekend and 4 hours the week before, and
felt plenty strong at the end of each.

I'm really bad at math so help me to understand how this can add up to
20 miles per week. You didn't give me any distances only times.

Quoted message said:

What I would say is that if you aren't building up your distance

slowly

Quoted message said:

to the vicinity of a half-Marathon, you probably shouldn't be doing

the

Quoted message said:

racee.

I agree with that.

tkb

In article <[email hidden]>,

np426z said:

Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic) training system
of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in the face
of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a luddite
needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training. Tell all
by return.

You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.

You need far less training to complete endurance events than most people
believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc., My
biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.

The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try to
run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run in.
The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some intervals
on another day.

But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if I
did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably
end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.

Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

np426z said:

Harold, dear child, you really must detail this racee (sic)

training system

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of yours for the delight and edification of us all. It flys in

the face

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of all that I've learnt over the years but, hell, maybe I'm a

luddite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

needing to adopt a more scientific-based approach to my training.

Tell all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by return.

You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.

You need far less training to complete endurance events than most

people

Quoted message said:

believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc.,

My

Quoted message said:

biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.

The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try

to

Quoted message said:

run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run

in.

Quoted message said:

The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some

intervals

Quoted message said:

on another day.

But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if

I

Quoted message said:

did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably

Quoted message said:

end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.

Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?

The key words in that sentence are "have to" and "do." You don't "have
to" do high-volume to merely "do" a half-Marathon or Marathon. If you
just want to do them, then very little training is required other than
a few long runs, like you said. Personally, I don't want to just do a
race, I'd rather train for it properly and complete it to the best of
my ability. And I don't think that suggesting someone be running 25
miles per week is out of line. If you build up to it, 25 MPW is not the
type of mileage that is gong to break you down.

tkb

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're a rude troll, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell, you're an idiotic, closed-minded individual, but I speak to you too.

Quoted message said:

You need far less training to complete endurance events than most people
believe. I did an Ironman last year on a severely curtailed training
schedule because of my wife losing her job, us having to move, etc., My
biggest week of training was about 12 hours. My biggest run week was
about 25 miles, and my biggest bike weeks were around 140 miles.

I think the key word here is 'complete'. Sure, I wouldn't take serious
exception with anything you've written thus far if your aim is merely to
take part. However, I was talking about 'racing', not 'competeing'.

Quoted message said:

The key to doing a Marathon, as I understand it, is building up your
long runs. I've been building up my long runs since March. I also try to
run 2-3 other times per week, but often can only get one other run in.
The shorter runs are around 30-40 minutes, and I'll often run a very
fast pace for about 20 minutes on one day, and maybe do some intervals
on another day.

But, as I said, I'm having no trouble doing my long runs, and I feel
good after them. I don't think I'd be in signficantly better shape if I
did my long run plus 4-5 other 8 mile runs per week, and I'd probably
end up getting injured if I tried that kind of volume.

Perhaps. But perhaps not. If you don't try you'll never know.

I guess it all comes down to personal goals. If you're happy floating
around a course at 60%-70% effort and finishing fresh as a spring lamb then
fine, your theory works. Personally, I'd view that as a long training
session. Races are *meant* to hurt.

Quoted message said:

Can you cite some sources that show you have to have high-volume
training to do a half-Marathon or Marathon?

Yunno, I come from a world where we rarely have conversations about professi
onal matters, we simply cite studies. It isn't very fulfilling nor, I
suspect, does it lead to better medicine. It does, however, fully
compensate of a lack of insight or innovative thought on behalf of both
parties to the conversation. Here I prefer to throw out an opinion or
two - totally without thought - and see what comes back. Guess that's my
roundabout way of saying "no, I wouldn't care to cite any studies".