progress



M

Michelle

Guest
When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).

Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).

Admittedly, I wasn't pushing on July 31, and I was pushing today.
Today's run equaled my best race pace in this temperature, and even beat
my pace in the Iron Girl 5K last December (which was my first race
ever).  The only time I've run faster than I did today at this distance
was the New Years Eve race last year, where I did three miles in 39:02
(13:01 pace), but that was in 55 degree weather.

I feel good.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On Sep 12, 10:44 am, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
> run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
>
> Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).
>
> Admittedly, I wasn't pushing on July 31, and I was pushing today.
> Today's run equaled my best race pace in this temperature, and even beat
> my pace in the Iron Girl 5K last December (which was my first race
> ever). The only time I've run faster than I did today at this distance
> was the New Years Eve race last year, where I did three miles in 39:02
> (13:01 pace), but that was in 55 degree weather.
>
> I feel good.
>
> --
> Crossing the starting line is 90%.
> Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

So when is the half?

brianj
 
On Sep 12, 11:44 am, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
> run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
>
> Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).
>

Oh man, I bet your shoes almost melted from the blinding heat you
created at that grueling pace.

> Admittedly, I wasn't pushing on July 31, and I was pushing today.
It shows too! I mean 13:13 A mile? That's incredible! Will you be in
the olympic trials?


> Today's run equaled my best race pace in this temperature, and even beat
> my pace in the Iron Girl 5K last December (which was my first race
> ever). The only time I've run faster than I did today at this distance
> was the New Years Eve race last year, where I did three miles in 39:02
> (13:01 pace), but that was in 55 degree weather.
>

Incredible! Blinding! Fast!

> I feel good.
>

After a monumentous effort like that, I am amazed you could recover so
quickly.
> --
> Crossing the starting line is 90%.
> Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.


You need a serious math lesson.
 
You're making quite some progress, Michelle! It'll help a lot
when it cools down, trust me. I almost start getting desperate
running here in summer, so slow, then come October when it starts
cooling down my times get faster again. Good luck with your 1/2
training!

Teresa in AZ (S.)

Michelle wrote:

> When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
> run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
>
> Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).
>
> Admittedly, I wasn't pushing on July 31, and I was pushing today.
> Today's run equaled my best race pace in this temperature, and even beat
> my pace in the Iron Girl 5K last December (which was my first race
> ever). The only time I've run faster than I did today at this distance
> was the New Years Eve race last year, where I did three miles in 39:02
> (13:01 pace), but that was in 55 degree weather.
>
> I feel good.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Teresa Bippert-Plymate <[email protected]> wrote:

> You're making quite some progress, Michelle! It'll help a lot
> when it cools down, trust me. I almost start getting desperate
> running here in summer, so slow, then come October when it starts
> cooling down my times get faster again.

I'm sure that you can imagine how much I'm looking forward to that
cooling.

> Good luck with your 1/2 training!

Thanks.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On Sep 12, 1:24 pm, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> brianj <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So when is the half?
>
> October 21st. Six and a half weeks from now.
>
Well, best of luck to you. As Teresa pointed out, you are going to
love the fall temperatures. I never really appreciated fall until I
started running. What have been your long runs so far, and how are
they going?

brianj
 
In article <[email protected]>,
brianj <[email protected]> wrote:

> What have been your long runs so far, and how are they going?

My longest long run to date has been six miles. A week and a half ago,
it sucked; I couldn't make it past four miles and had to walk in the
last two miles. And that was with walking one minute after each mile.

This past Sunday, it went very well; I did all six miles without walking
and had enough left at the end to speed up for the last fifth mile.

This coming Sunday, I'll do seven miles. Then the following two
Sundays, it's eight, followed by nine once, and then ten once. The race
is the Sunday after that.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On 2007-09-12, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my first
> run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
>
> Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13 min/mile).

That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it would be great
news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't mean a whole lot in terms
of your stated goal of running a half marathon.

As it is, I think you're making a really good case for dumping the half and
running a 5k or 10k instead. I still don't really understand why you're using
a training program that is appropriate for a 5k or 10k, to prepare for a
half marathon.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:

> > When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my
> > first run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
> >
> > Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13
> > min/mile).
>
> That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it would
> be great news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't mean a
> whole lot in terms of your stated goal of running a half marathon.

Why is that? My goal is to complete a half marathon; it is not to win a
medal for placing in a half marathon. I do have a secondary goal--a
time goal, and I believe that I have a very good chance of meeting that
goal.

This past Sunday, I ran six miles; this coming Sunday, I'll run seven
miles.

> As it is, I think you're making a really good case for dumping the
> half and running a 5k or 10k instead. I still don't really understand
> why you're using a training program that is appropriate for a 5k or
> 10k, to prepare for a half marathon.

The training program is a half-marathon training program.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On 2007-09-12, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > When I started the half-marathon training plan on July 31st, my
>> > first run was three miles; I did it in 42:56 (14:18 min/mile).
>> >
>> > Today my short run was three miles; I did it in 39:41 (13:13
>> > min/mile).
>>
>> That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it would
>> be great news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't mean a
>> whole lot in terms of your stated goal of running a half marathon.
>
> Why is that?

Because how fast you can run a short distance race has very little to do with
whether or not you can succesfully complete a long distance race.

> My goal is to complete a half marathon; it is not to win a
> medal for placing in a half marathon. I do have a secondary goal--a
> time goal, and I believe that I have a very good chance of meeting that
> goal.

Running faster at shorter distances, generally will result in a faster time
at longer distances.

> This past Sunday, I ran six miles; this coming Sunday, I'll run seven
> miles.

That would make a solid program for finishing a 5k-10k race reasonably well.

>> As it is, I think you're making a really good case for dumping the
>> half and running a 5k or 10k instead. I still don't really understand
>> why you're using a training program that is appropriate for a 5k or
>> 10k, to prepare for a half marathon.
>
> The training program is a half-marathon training program.

We've already had this discussion. It is the best possible solution given
absurd constraints, which are that you insist on attempting the distance
on inadequate training (being barely able to run *half* the race distance,
6 weeks from the race is in my book woefully inadequate)

Impatience is not a virtue in this sport. Long term thinking is.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it
> >> would be great news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't
> >> mean a whole lot in terms of your stated goal of running a half
> >> marathon.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Because how fast you can run a short distance race has very little to
> do with whether or not you can succesfully complete a long distance
> race.

OK, this was a short-run day; the program calls for one short run per
week; this was it. I try to run the short runs faster than the long
runs and normal runs.

> > This past Sunday, I ran six miles; this coming Sunday, I'll run
> > seven miles.
>
> That would make a solid program for finishing a 5k-10k race
> reasonably well.

This is halfway through the program.

> > The training program is a half-marathon training program.
>
> We've already had this discussion. It is the best possible solution
> given absurd constraints, which are that you insist on attempting the
> distance on inadequate training (being barely able to run *half* the
> race distance, 6 weeks from the race is in my book woefully
> inadequate)

That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I was
able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier. I could
have gone farther than the six miles that run called for, but I knew
enough not to.

I have established certain qualifiers for me to decide to forego this
race; if I hit those qualifiers, I'll forego it, but so long as I am
able to keep up with the training plan, I'll continue to train for the
race. I can cancel my hotel reservation up to 6 PM on October 16th
without penalty, so I'm in no rush to give up.

And every day following the plan helps me in the long run--if not for
this race, then for another race down the pike. And I know enough to
not do anything that would injure me while following it.

No one is going to dissuade me from attempting this race; my own body
may tell me that I can't do it, but no one else's input is going to
change my mind.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
Michelle wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> That's certainly good progress in terms of your fitness, and it
>>>> would be great news if your goal race was 5k-10k. But it doesn't
>>>> mean a whole lot in terms of your stated goal of running a half
>>>> marathon.
>>> Why is that?
>> Because how fast you can run a short distance race has very little to
>> do with whether or not you can succesfully complete a long distance
>> race.
>
> OK, this was a short-run day; the program calls for one short run per
> week; this was it. I try to run the short runs faster than the long
> runs and normal runs.
>
>>> This past Sunday, I ran six miles; this coming Sunday, I'll run
>>> seven miles.
>> That would make a solid program for finishing a 5k-10k race
>> reasonably well.
>
> This is halfway through the program.
>
>>> The training program is a half-marathon training program.
>> We've already had this discussion. It is the best possible solution
>> given absurd constraints, which are that you insist on attempting the
>> distance on inadequate training (being barely able to run *half* the
>> race distance, 6 weeks from the race is in my book woefully
>> inadequate)
>
> That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I was
> able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier. I could
> have gone farther than the six miles that run called for, but I knew
> enough not to.
>
> I have established certain qualifiers for me to decide to forego this
> race; if I hit those qualifiers, I'll forego it, but so long as I am
> able to keep up with the training plan, I'll continue to train for the
> race. I can cancel my hotel reservation up to 6 PM on October 16th
> without penalty, so I'm in no rush to give up.
>
> And every day following the plan helps me in the long run--if not for
> this race, then for another race down the pike. And I know enough to
> not do anything that would injure me while following it.
>
> No one is going to dissuade me from attempting this race; my own body
> may tell me that I can't do it, but no one else's input is going to
> change my mind.
>

As long as you listen to your body, it might work. However, sometimes
only experience can help us interpret what the body is trying to tell
us. Depending on the length of that experience, the quality of the
interpretation will vary. In other words, it's probably prudent to not
rule out completely the chance that others' input might actually be
helpful regardless of whether it might change your mind.

I don't think Donovan was trying to dissuade you. He was probably
telling you not to overshoot your expectations and set unattainable
goals which might potentially lead to demotivation in the event of
failure. Your body won't be able to tell you much in that case, only
experience can.

Anyway, good luck with your training and hope you reach your goals.

jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jobs <[email protected]> wrote:

> As long as you listen to your body, it might work. However, sometimes
> only experience can help us interpret what the body is trying to tell
> us. Depending on the length of that experience, the quality of the
> interpretation will vary. In other words, it's probably prudent to
> not rule out completely the chance that others' input might actually
> be helpful regardless of whether it might change your mind.

Agreed; however, when various inputs conflict with each other, then
what? I have more people telling me that I can do it than I have
telling me that I'm setting the bar too high. In fact, Donovan is the
only rational person telling me that the bar is too high.

> I don't think Donovan was trying to dissuade you. He was probably
> telling you not to overshoot your expectations and set unattainable
> goals which might potentially lead to demotivation in the event of
> failure.

I think that I've explained sufficiently that my goals are flexible
enough that I won't wind up with an unattainable one. I'm not going to
fall off the horse; I'd dismount if/when I see that I can't stay on.

In January, I injured myself by trying too much, and then compounded
that injury by trying again too soon. If anything would have
demotivated me, that would have. But a month later, I was back,
starting over from zero again. (Hmm, for some reason, I had been
thinking that it had been two or three months, but I just checked my
records, and it was only about five weeks.)

> Anyway, good luck with your training and hope you reach your goals.

Thanks.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:31:22 -0700, Michelle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> jobs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As long as you listen to your body, it might work. However, sometimes
>> only experience can help us interpret what the body is trying to tell
>> us. Depending on the length of that experience, the quality of the
>> interpretation will vary. In other words, it's probably prudent to
>> not rule out completely the chance that others' input might actually
>> be helpful regardless of whether it might change your mind.
>
>Agreed; however, when various inputs conflict with each other, then
>what? I have more people telling me that I can do it than I have
>telling me that I'm setting the bar too high. In fact, Donovan is the
>only rational person telling me that the bar is too high.

Well, he may be the only rational person saying it so far, but he's
not the only one thinking it (assuming you include me in "rational
people"). What I wrote about your idea of a Feb marathon sort of
applies to this half-marathon as well. While the goal is admirable, I
think you will have a lot more fun - and stick with the sport much
longer - if you get some more mileage - done in longer-distance chunks
- under your belt before entering longer races. I realize you are
doing a half-marathon training program and you're 5 or 6 weeks out
from the race, but I think this half is going to be a struggle for
you, or anyway much harder than it has to be. Hopefully the cooler
weather will help some.

It sounds like you're set on trying this, so good luck to you.

Karen



live! vicariously!
 
On 2007-09-13, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,

> OK, this was a short-run day; the program calls for one short run per
> week; this was it. I try to run the short runs faster than the long
> runs and normal runs.

Does the program call for that ? In general, it's not a good idea.

>> That would make a solid program for finishing a 5k-10k race
>> reasonably well.
>
> This is halfway through the program.

6 weeks is not a viable time frame for making substantial improvements in
fitness level.

The body doesn't adapt that fast, and being over 60 doesn't make it adapt
any faster.

You can't just ramp up training to arbitrary levels. It doesn't work like that.
Training level increases, your body adapts, then repeat over. Increasing
training loads at a faster rate than that at which your body wants to adapt
doesn't accelerate pacew of adaption, it is a fast track to injury.

>> > The training program is a half-marathon training program.
>>
>> We've already had this discussion. It is the best possible solution
>> given absurd constraints, which are that you insist on attempting the
>> distance on inadequate training (being barely able to run *half* the
>> race distance, 6 weeks from the race is in my book woefully
>> inadequate)
>
> That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I was
> able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier. I could

No, you were not able to run the distance period. Now you're a week ahead
of not being able to run the distance.

> have gone farther than the six miles that run called for, but I knew
> enough not to.

Why not ?

> I have established certain qualifiers for me to decide to forego this
> race;

I understand that you think that you know what you are doing.

The problem is that you need to learn to approach training with a little more
foresight than *reacting* to adverse events.

> No one is going to dissuade me from attempting this race; my own body
> may tell me that I can't do it, but no one else's input is going to
> change my mind.

Yes, but do you have the capacity to take an honest look at this, and change
your own mind ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord
 
On 2007-09-13, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jobs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As long as you listen to your body, it might work. However, sometimes
>> only experience can help us interpret what the body is trying to tell
>> us. Depending on the length of that experience, the quality of the
>> interpretation will vary. In other words, it's probably prudent to
>> not rule out completely the chance that others' input might actually
>> be helpful regardless of whether it might change your mind.
>
> Agreed; however, when various inputs conflict with each other, then
> what?

They don't.

If you were to ask any credible source whether not being able to complete
half the race distance 6 weeks prior to the race constituted (a) good, (b)
satisfactory, (c) poor race preparation, *any* credible source will reliably
say, (c).

Some exceptions may be made for extreme cases (e.g. beginners with NO prior
training attempting a race short enough that walking the entire distance would
be OK) but generally, the standard advice is overwhelmingly (c).

The endorsements you've received so far are very cautious at best. No-one is
arguing against the wisdom of gradually increasing training load. No-one is
arguing that it is *optimal* to do what you're doing. At best, some are saying
that you *might* be able to do it. I would agree that you *might*.

Because of your tendency to both push for validation, and ignore those who
disagree with your approach, you've come to an erroneous conclusion.

> I have more people telling me that I can do it than I have
> telling me that I'm setting the bar too high. In fact, Donovan is the
> only rational person telling me that the bar is too high.

You pay too much attention to the tone of some of the posts and not enough to
the content. The fact that a poster has a nasty edge doesn't make the content
of the post incorrect. It's fine to say that you don't value these people as
mentors, but if you want to properly appraise "public opinion", you can't
selectively exclude those with a more combative tone, because that clearly
colors your sample.

> I think that I've explained sufficiently that my goals are flexible
> enough that I won't wind up with an unattainable one. I'm not going to
> fall off the horse; I'd dismount if/when I see that I can't stay on.

You don't know that you're not going to fall off. You can "fall off" in
training as well as racing.

> In January, I injured myself by trying too much, and then compounded
> that injury by trying again too soon. If anything would have
> demotivated me, that would have. But a month later, I was back,
> starting over from zero again.

You injured yourself because you were impatient, and now you're still being
impatient.

Impatience is not a virtue in this sport.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Elflord <[email protected]> wrote:

> > OK, this was a short-run day; the program calls for one short run
> > per week; this was it. I try to run the short runs faster than the
> > long runs and normal runs.
>
> Does the program call for that ? In general, it's not a good idea.

The program doesn't call for any speed; all it prescribes is distance.

But why isn't it a good idea?

> > That was seven weeks from the race; at six weeks before the race, I
> > was able to run half the distance without the "barely" qualifier.
> > I could
>
> No, you were not able to run the distance period.

Wrong! At six weeks, the plan called for me to run six miles for my
long run; I ran that six miles without walking even one step. I do not
see where you get "you were not able to run the distance period" from.

> > I could have gone farther than the six miles that run called for,
> > but I knew enough not to.
>
> Why not ?

Because the last time I tried to run further than what I should have, I
injured myself.

> > No one is going to dissuade me from attempting this race; my own
> > body may tell me that I can't do it, but no one else's input is
> > going to change my mind.
>
> Yes, but do you have the capacity to take an honest look at this, and
> change your own mind ?

Yes, I do.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
joe positive <[email protected]> wrote:

> I realize you are doing a half-marathon training program and you're 5
> or 6 weeks out from the race, but I think this half is going to be a
> struggle for you, or anyway much harder than it has to be.

There's always a reason to put something off, whether it's running a
race, buying a new computer, or whatever. One can't put things off
forever. I probably shouldn't have run my first 5K when I did; it was
only two or three weeks after finishing the couch to 5K program, and I
had never actually run 5K in that program; the farthest I had gone was
about 2 1/2 miles, and even in the weeks after that, I didn't get more
than 2 3/4 miles. (I had been following the time goals rather than the
distance goals in the C to 5K.) But I entered that race anyway,
finished it, and enjoyed doing it.

> Hopefully the cooler weather will help some.

That, and the lower altitude.

> It sounds like you're set on trying this,

If at all possible. If it becomes apparent to me that I can't, I'll
reschedule for another time.

> so good luck to you.

Thanks.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.
 
On Sep 13, 12:52 pm, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

> If at all possible. If it becomes apparent to me that I can't, I'll
> reschedule for another time.

I have to say that I also worry about you injuring yourself by doing
too much, too soon. But then i stop myself from posting that, because
it may simply be that my own history of injuries colors my view, and I
tend to be ultra-conservative.

Here's what worries me: it's your pace. If you were an 7-8 minute per
mile runner, you'd only need to be on your feet for something like 100
minutes to complete a half. But since your pace is more like 13-14
minutes, you'll need to be on your feet for nearly twice that.

So for you to run a half marathon on this training program, is the
equivalent of a 7-8 minute per mile runner attempting to run a full
marathon on the same length training program. I could be wrong about
this - and if I am, I'm sure someone will point that out. :)

But IME, as far as injury goes, it's time-on-feet that counts more
than distance. This is particulary true, I think, for beginner
runners, because the joints and ligaments take longer to adapt than
the muscles, heart and lungs.... which is why so many beginner runners
end up injured. And - because you had to restart from the couch to 5K
recently - essentially you are still in that window during which your
joints and ligaments may not yet have adapted.

Just for comparison, way-back-when, I ran my first 5K after a full
year of fitness running, without any concern for pace or distance. I
would run at the gym around a track for 30 minutes with no idea how
far or fast. I ran a few 5K's the second year, and came to the
conclusion I didn't really enjoy competing for speed. Instead, I liked
going the distance. So I started increasing my distance, and then in
the fourth year, I trained to run a 10 miler.

Yes, I may be too conservative, but I never had a single injury in
five years of running!! The original injury that sidelined me from
running, actually had nothing to do with running. It was only when I
tried to get back into it and thought I could simply lace up the shoes
and run my previous level that I injured myself... again, and again,
and again.

So this past year I have only run two 5K's. The first one in October,
which got me started back into running, and which I should *never*
have run because I wasn't conditioned for it. I did end up injured
after that - plantar fasciitis. Duh. The second in March. The next
won't be until October. I would not dare run anything longer than a
5K, at this stage of the game.

But then again, as I've mentioned, I'm probably ultra-conservative.
It's just that my primary goal is to remain injury-free. I'd rather be
80 years old and have 40 years of running and numerous races under my
belt, than 80 years old with one marathon, but no other runs because I
never recovered from injury!

At any rate, your mileage may vary, because we're different people
with different physiologies. And I do think you're smart enough to
ditch the plans if necessary. Despite my worries, I am rooting for
you. A part of me thinks to myself, if you can do this... then I have
hope too. :) (But I'm still going to wait until next year and after a
10K and maybe another 10 miler to try!)

jen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back