race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Charlie Pendejo, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
    mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
    in training than I thought..."

    McMillan's calculator says 40:42 and 40:51 based on my last two races, but I
    have been training pretty well and hope to better that by a little.

    So it's an absolutely beautiful morning. 57F and sunny according to
    nyrrc.org. Spring's really here, suddently, these last several days.

    At 9:56 I'm slowly jogging from the baggage drop (where I had stripped down
    to shorts & singlet and changed to racing shoes) to the starting line,
    congratulating myself on executing my morning plan well for once and getting
    properly warmed up, everything else taken care of and to the line on time,
    when I am shocked to hear the starting gun four minutes earlier than my
    watch thought proper.

    Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR start
    times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
    their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few more
    minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.

    Ah well, no time to stop and catch my breath. I hurriedly duck under the
    rope and into the river of flesh, coolmax, and eva. Find myself starting in
    a mostly slower crowd once again and it takes 26 seconds to reach the
    starting line.

    I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a few
    weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I pass
    quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow, I'm
    already 24" off 40' pace.

    OK, so keep cool, let's just speed up a notch to 40' pace (6:24/mi) and if
    I'm to win any of those seconds back it can be in the second half, *after*
    the biggest longest hill at the north end of the park.

    That was the intent, but my pace judgement hasn't caught up with my
    improving abilities. I instead ran a 6:15 (OK, I think second mile is more
    down than up) and a 6:17 (oops, even though that mile nets to around zero
    elevation, it's got the biggest down then up).

    The whole time I'm passing, passing, passing. Even on the ups, which is
    fairly novel for me - historically I've always passed many on the downs but
    most of 'em have caught me on the ups.

    I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
    fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
    agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing. Nobody
    else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most worse. I'm
    starting to take more strength from this observation recently in races.
    Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude. (after all,
    vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)

    Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I try
    to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and attempt
    to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to snatch 40:00,
    or at least get as close as possible in the process. I succeed, clocking a
    6:18.

    Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
    maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble over
    that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.

    I think Daniels mentions that an emphasis on short fast reps, per the phase
    I've been in these last 4 weeks (2 more before emphasis moves to long
    intervals), might leave you a bit dead-legged and without much of a kick in
    the short term. But I think I just paced a little unevenly and shot my wad
    a bit prematurely by running the first 9 km at, on average, my 9 km race
    pace. And of course blowing the start didn't help.

    But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
    third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
    place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
    a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039

    Like the last race, those round number like 90 and 40 and even 70% (Robert,
    I take your point, yet my parade will be warm and dry - it's just a nice
    round number to me, which I've been stalking for some time) are getting
    tantalizingly close. That's OK, soon enough those numbers will be behind me
    and I'll be setting my sights on the next round of more ambitious goals.

    Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've already
    PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork sure ought
    to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is what I mean by
    "low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make that a cutback
    week) and probably just take one easy day before.
     
    Tags:


  2. Parker Race

    Parker Race Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of
    > my mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further
    > along in training than I thought..."
    >
    > McMillan's calculator says 40:42 and 40:51 based on my last two races, but
    > I have been training pretty well and hope to better that by a little.
    >
    > So it's an absolutely beautiful morning. 57F and sunny according to
    > nyrrc.org. Spring's really here, suddently, these last several days.
    >
    > At 9:56 I'm slowly jogging from the baggage drop (where I had stripped
    > down to shorts & singlet and changed to racing shoes) to the starting
    > line, congratulating myself on executing my morning plan well for once and
    > getting properly warmed up, everything else taken care of and to the line
    > on time, when I am shocked to hear the starting gun four minutes earlier
    > than my watch thought proper.
    >
    > Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR
    > start times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me
    > taking their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a
    > few more minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.
    >
    > Ah well, no time to stop and catch my breath. I hurriedly duck under the
    > rope and into the river of flesh, coolmax, and eva. Find myself starting
    > in a mostly slower crowd once again and it takes 26 seconds to reach the
    > starting line.
    >
    > I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a
    > few weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I
    > pass quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow,
    > I'm already 24" off 40' pace.


    I had the same experience yesterday, flet very comfortable in the first mile
    and barely broke 7:00 in the first mile. I over reacted a little and tried
    to make it up in mile 2 but paid for it some later.

    >
    > OK, so keep cool, let's just speed up a notch to 40' pace (6:24/mi) and if
    > I'm to win any of those seconds back it can be in the second half, *after*
    > the biggest longest hill at the north end of the park.
    >
    > That was the intent, but my pace judgement hasn't caught up with my
    > improving abilities. I instead ran a 6:15 (OK, I think second mile is
    > more down than up) and a 6:17 (oops, even though that mile nets to around
    > zero elevation, it's got the biggest down then up).
    >
    > The whole time I'm passing, passing, passing. Even on the ups, which is
    > fairly novel for me - historically I've always passed many on the downs
    > but most of 'em have caught me on the ups.
    >
    > I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
    > fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
    > agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing.
    > Nobody else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most
    > worse. I'm starting to take more strength from this observation recently
    > in races. Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude.
    > (after all, vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)
    >
    > Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I
    > try to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and
    > attempt to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to
    > snatch 40:00, or at least get as close as possible in the process. I
    > succeed, clocking a 6:18.
    >
    > Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
    > maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble
    > over that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.
    >


    This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
    A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
    "brutual". I was surprised by her description, maybe it was because she ran
    1:29 about 5 minutes off her best 1/2 time. Wait till she turns 40 and gets
    to run our local Masters 10k!



    > I think Daniels mentions that an emphasis on short fast reps, per the
    > phase I've been in these last 4 weeks (2 more before emphasis moves to
    > long intervals), might leave you a bit dead-legged and without much of a
    > kick in the short term. But I think I just paced a little unevenly and
    > shot my wad a bit prematurely by running the first 9 km at, on average, my
    > 9 km race pace. And of course blowing the start didn't help.


    Funny I think I'm dead legged from all the long trail runs!
    When I saw "blowing" I expected to see a wind comment was it a factor? It
    was for me yesterday it really wore me down in mile 4 of the race I ran. I
    guess I could have pushed my self a little harder, our coach had his college
    kids there. I finished between two of them, 18 yr old women the one who beat
    me was being assisted up the stairs into the school where the race was held
    after. Obviously she gave it all and wasn't going to be embarrassed byt an
    old fart like me!
    >
    > But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas
    > my third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
    > place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more
    > about a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135
    > M3039
    >

    Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't know
    it's going to be tough on the course.

    > Like the last race, those round number like 90 and 40 and even 70%
    > (Robert, I take your point, yet my parade will be warm and dry - it's just
    > a nice round number to me, which I've been stalking for some time) are
    > getting tantalizingly close. That's OK, soon enough those numbers will be
    > behind me and I'll be setting my sights on the next round of more
    > ambitious goals.
    >
    > Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've
    > already PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork
    > sure ought to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is
    > what I mean by "low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make
    > that a cutback week) and probably just take one easy day before.
    >

    I've got a 4 miler on the 17th, doubt it will be a PR but hopefully some
    improvement over my March 4 miler.

    Good Luck,

    PR (intials only right now)
     
  3. Tim Downie

    Tim Downie Guest

    Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    >
    > But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19!


    Well done Charlie! I like to think that I could run that fast (and
    certainly my 5K times would indicate that I can) but the fact of the matter
    is that I haven't so until then, you got me beat. ;-)

    Tim
     
  4. Parker Race wrote:
    > This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
    > A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
    > "brutual".


    It was a lap of the outer loop, which is presumably what they run for the
    More Marathon and Half.

    It's certainly got its share of rolling hills which slow you down and
    extract their toll. It's a lot harder (and/or slower) than pancake flat.
    But "brutal" is overstating it IMO. Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a
    second opinion: she ran 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a new
    age group record. http://tinyurl.com/o2n9q


    > Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't
    > know it's going to be tough on the course.


    Thanks Parker and best of luck. What's with the course?
     
  5. Parker Race

    Parker Race Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Parker Race wrote:
    >> This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
    >> A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
    >> "brutual".

    >
    > It was a lap of the outer loop, which is presumably what they run for the
    > More Marathon and Half.
    >
    > It's certainly got its share of rolling hills which slow you down and
    > extract their toll. It's a lot harder (and/or slower) than pancake flat.
    > But "brutal" is overstating it IMO. Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a
    > second opinion: she ran 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a
    > new age group record. http://tinyurl.com/o2n9q


    I think this person's just frustrated as she should be able to run a better
    time than she did, sometimes I found rolling to be good as long as the hills
    aren't too big.

    >
    >
    >> Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't
    >> know it's going to be tough on the course.

    >
    > Thanks Parker and best of luck. What's with the course?


    It's in the foothills of the Helderberg Mountains
    It 's an out and back course with a major downhill from mile 2 to the 5k
    turnaround
    What goes down must come back up in this case.
    I ran a 1 a second PR on this course in 2003. I'd be happy with sub 44
    minutes this year.

    >
    >
     
  6. Parker Race

    Parker Race Guest

  7. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    > Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
    > mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
    > in training than I thought..."

    ....
    >
    > But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
    > third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
    > place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
    > a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039
    >


    Wow - good job, Charlie! Congratulations - PR for time and WAVA! Nice
    report. Training looks like it's coming together nicely.

    Dot

    --
    "Success is different things to different people"
    -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
     
  8. Ed Prochak

    Ed Prochak Guest

    Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    > Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
    > mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
    > in training than I thought..."
    >

    []
    >
    > But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
    > third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
    > place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
    > a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039


    Cool report and congratulations on the PR!!!!

    >
    > Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've already
    > PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork sure ought
    > to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is what I mean by
    > "low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make that a cutback
    > week) and probably just take one easy day before.


    Good luck. Your consistant training sure is paying off.
    ed
     
  9. Tony S.

    Tony S. Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > ...
    > But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas

    my
    > third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
    > place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more

    about
    > a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039


    Congratulations! After your marathon meltdown and all the banter about that
    last Fall, it's good to see you building on last year's training,
    continuing, and now picking some fruit from it all.

    I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37? I wish I
    could remember what my 10k PR was exactly - I think it's 41:xx, when I was
    in my late 20's on <20mpw. If I had the legs to run roads I might go for it
    again. I never took road running seriously (in that I didn't target my
    training) and did every road race as a flat out fun run, usually with
    positive splits.

    In my recent spring cleaning I came across an old file with a few race
    results. Since in the 80's I was only into orienteering -- un-measurable
    results at best, but mid to top 1/3 in most elite blue courses. In those
    days I trained 5-6 days a week from 1-2 hours per day, no logs, just
    fartleks in the woods and on trails. From that time, my trail PR for the
    hook mountain trail (the trail I grew up on) was 25:45 in 1986, over a 3+
    mile course with about 1000' climb on rocky single track. I never came very
    close to that again, and when in my very best shape in recent years could
    only manage a 33:xx over the same course. I think with the right training I
    might be able to crack 30 mins. You're lucky in that you're on your
    glidepath upward still -- I know with certainty I'll never run over trails
    as fast as I could back then. My goal now is longer races of course.

    Some other random results I found were a 2.5 mile race from 8/1990 in 15:32,
    and more recently, from 1999, a 5k run / 20k bike / 5k run in 1:18:28 with
    5k splits of 22:32 and 22:06, which I thought was rather good since that
    year I only biked until I ran about 15 times in the 2 months before the
    race.

    -Tony
     
  10. good job charlie. when i ascend a hill without getting passed (the
    norm), that's usually a personal victory within the race itself.

    you'll be cracking 70% going forward on your next outing for sure. but
    why aren't you entering the premiere 4 mile event of the year? the
    Thomas G. Labrecque Classic?

    That is a great race stock piled with a very strong field. sometimes
    when you try and fly with eagles, you can get a little lift. it's
    much better race than that 4 miler your looking at. you should
    consider it.
     
  11. Tony S. wrote:
    > Congratulations! After your marathon meltdown and all the banter about
    > that last Fall, it's good to see you building on last year's training,
    > continuing, and now picking some fruit from it all.


    Thanks Tony, that's how I see it too.


    > I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?


    Will be 39 in September.


    > You're lucky in that you're on your glidepath upward still


    The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
    guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential might
    have been.

    But even with an optimistic faith that I've got plenty of potential
    worth working hard to tap, it's also abundantly clear that my talent
    level is very modest, so it's not like it's terribly poignant that
    starting in my mid 30's robbed me of a shot at Olympic glory.

    (I should more likely feel I've done myself an injustice by not having
    spent a moment on math beyond age 18, than having quit the 7th grade
    cross country team or failing to follow up on my AG blue ribbons in
    every 2 mile race I entered the summer I was 9 or 10. But I'm pretty
    well reconciled with that as well: in the long view it was probably
    better if not absolutely necessary to, at that age, reject anything and
    everything my parents, teachers, and society had ever pushed me
    toward...)


    > My goal now is longer races of course.


    And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
    turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
    Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)
     
  12. Parker Race

    Parker Race Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Parker Race wrote:
    >> This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
    >> A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
    >> "brutual".

    >
    > It was a lap of the outer loop, which is presumably what they run for the
    > More Marathon and Half.
    >
    > It's certainly got its share of rolling hills which slow you down and
    > extract their toll. It's a lot harder (and/or slower) than pancake flat.
    > But "brutal" is overstating it IMO. Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a
    > second opinion: she ran 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a
    > new age group record. http://tinyurl.com/o2n9q


    You think maybe her 1/2 Marathon time somehow got recorded as a Marathon
    time?
     
  13. Parker Race wrote:
    >> Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a second opinion: she ran
    >> 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a new age group record.

    >
    > You think maybe her 1/2 Marathon time somehow got recorded as a
    > Marathon time?


    No, I googled her after noticing this result and it appears that she's
    a serious talent and a fierce racer.
     
  14. Kaz Kylheku

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    Scotland 10 km?

    I can picture the starting divisions perfectly:

    7:45 "Here f' th' free water" division.
    8:00 bagpipers
    8:25 sheep
    8:30 drunken Scotsmen in kilts
    8:45 joggers
    9:00 Roger Hunter

    :)
     
  15. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >> I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?

    >
    > Will be 39 in September.


    I didn't run a step until age 39 and did all my 5k(18:30)/10k(38:30) etc
    PR's about age 44 and was running sub 40 at age 51. Hell I just had a PR
    at a 50K(that race that course) this year at age 61. Soooooo, as far as
    I'm concerned you have many PR's in your future.

    > The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
    > guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential
    > might
    > have been.


    Live for today and tomorrow! Anything else is not worth the synapses.


    > And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
    > turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
    > Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)


    Lance with all his superfluous hot air will be the next Karnazes
    although I will get to see K at the Vermont 100 as we are both running.
    My money says he will finish in front of me. :)

    -Doug
     
  16. Parker Race

    Parker Race Guest

    "Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>> I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?

    >>
    >> Will be 39 in September.

    >
    > I didn't run a step until age 39 and did all my 5k(18:30)/10k(38:30) etc
    > PR's about age 44 and was running sub 40 at age 51. Hell I just had a PR
    > at a 50K(that race that course) this year at age 61. Soooooo, as far as
    > I'm concerned you have many PR's in your future.
    >
    >> The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
    >> guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential might
    >> have been.

    >
    > Live for today and tomorrow! Anything else is not worth the synapses.
    >
    >
    >> And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
    >> turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
    >> Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)

    >
    > Lance with all his superfluous hot air will be the next Karnazes although
    > I will get to see K at the Vermont 100 as we are both running. My money
    > says he will finish in front of me. :)
    >
    > -Doug
    >


    Are you doing the 100? A couple of my team mates are. One did it last year
    and broke 24 hrs in his first attempt. The other did the Comrades last year
    and is really coming on. She ran a 5 minutes faster than last year in
    Sunday's race. .
     
  17. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    "Parker Race" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Are you doing the 100?


    I'm all signed up. The HAT run march 25th, Bull run 50 miles April 8th
    and a 32-40 mile relay piece of Laurel Higlands in June are simply
    building blocks for the Vermont 100.

    < A couple of my team mates are. One did it last year
    > and broke 24 hrs in his first attempt. The other did the Comrades
    > last year and is really coming on. She ran a 5 minutes faster than
    > last year in Sunday's race. .


    From my excell 'feat' spread sheet.

    Vermont 100 1995 21:01
    Vermont 100 2000 20:53
    Vermont 100 2001 21:49
    Vermont 100 2002 20:57
    Vermont 100 2003 21:24

    I'm not sure how many more 100's I will do. This will be my first as a
    60 yo. Ask me a week after this year race is over if I plan to do
    another.

    -Doug
     
  18. anders

    anders Guest

    Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:


    > Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
    > mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
    > in training than I thought..."


    ... and rhe scene is perfectly set for doing something stupid in the
    race. It will be the back of your mind getting into a frenzy or a
    premature resignation and making desperate and misguided decisions for
    you.

    OTOH the only cure to this is experience - and we all know what
    experience costs. But never mind, *some* day you'll both have the
    necessary experience and your goal and your back-of-the-mind goal will
    match nicely,

    (FWIW I'm still waiting for that day.)


    > Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR start
    > times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
    > their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few more
    > minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.


    Did the starter's gun really go off at five to? Or do you mean that
    this time it went off without the customary delay at a NYRR race?


    > I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a few
    > weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I pass
    > quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow, I'm
    > already 24" off 40' pace.


    More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
    talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
    was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
    than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
    certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
    maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
    the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).


    > (...)
    > I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
    > fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
    > agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing. Nobody
    > else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most worse. I'm
    > starting to take more strength from this observation recently in races.
    > Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude. (after all,
    > vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)


    That is certainly true. But there's also another German expression,
    "der lachende Dritte", which could be made to fit here: when one runner
    starts too fast and dies and the other doesn't but still panics and
    fades, it is the third who starts slow and accelerates slowly who
    passes them both and laughs all the way to the finish.


    > Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I try
    > to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and attempt
    > to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to snatch 40:00,
    > or at least get as close as possible in the process. I succeed, clocking a
    > 6:18.


    A 10K consists of about 10% keeping cool during the first couple miles
    and 90% maintaining the best possible pace left in you in the last
    couple miles. As you noted, you kind of blew the former but did alright
    in the latter.


    > Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
    > maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble over
    > that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.


    Well, that's OK if none of them were female and/or over sixty. All in
    all, on a scale of 4-10 I'd rate your race execution 6 and performance
    8. The congrats can and have to wait until the next 10K.


    Anders
     
  19. German expression, dies, laughs, execution, etc. Anders aka Franz
    Liebkind
     
  20. marko

    marko Guest

    anders a écrit :
    > More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
    > talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
    > was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
    > than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
    > certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
    > maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
    > the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).


    this is very true, all the more as you did probably lose those 24" in
    the first half of that first mile which was evidently more crowded than
    the second half, when the compactness tends to expand, which means that
    you were probably on pace when you read that 6:48.
    i never accelerate at this point, waiting to see what the next split
    will be.

    anyway, big congrats to you Charlie! you did pretty well!
    sub-40' is soon to be yours!

    m
     
Loading...
Loading...