race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

  1. anders wrote:
    > Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:
    >> 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?


    It really went off at four to, by my watch. Perhaps there *is* a customary
    four minute delay and I had never realized my watch was that same four
    minutes slow; but nearly all my NYRR races have started very close to the
    time this same watch thought they ought to.


    > 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).


    Nah, I truly wasn't the panicked newbie whose portrait you paint here. One
    of my thoughts was that I'd be reasonably satisfied to run the remaining 5.2
    miles at 40' pace and finish in 40:2x. And also that I had some hills
    coming up in the next few miles so if I had any chance at that 40' it would
    have to come from a negative split.

    So as you say I needed to accelerate by 27"/mi. That's roughly what I
    intended and was quite surprised to end up with faster splits than that over
    the next couple miles.

    Upon reflection (thanks for holding up the mirror!), I suspect my primary
    mistake was in taking 6:48 as my *current pace*. In fact I had surely
    started slower in the thickest crowds right at the start, and after working
    my way past several hundred would-be skirt-wearing sheep-buggering miserly
    haggis eaters I had accelerated to perhaps 6:30-6:35 pace. And consequently
    required only the slightest boost (and you can call a delta of 27"/mi or
    16"/km or 7"/lap "pretty close", but that's a significant difference to me)
    to get back on pace.


    > 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.


    Guilty as charged! I was indeed passed by a grand total of around four
    runners, which is vier lechende Dritten too many.

    I'll get back to negative/even splitting soon enough. I have long believed,
    and continue to, that this is the best pacing strategy for races of any
    distance.

    OTOH these last couple races, though they've featured some early pacing
    errors, have been intentional experiments in more aggressive pacing. For
    one thing I've needed to explore the question, "Pendejo, are your evenly
    split races the result of absorbing the wisdom of your more experienced
    elders on rr and elsewhere, along with just enough patience to execute them;
    or do they indicate that you're too chickenshit to really lay it all out
    there, to hurt long before the finish but to keep pushing."


    > Well, that's OK if none of them were female and/or over sixty.


    Aw, did you peek?

    Yeah, one was a woman five years my senior. The over-sixty dude didn't
    catch me at the end: he had started 23" and finished 19" and ten places
    ahead of me but I never caught him in the interim.


    > The congrats can and have to wait until the next 10K.


    I'll be eager to collect, at long last. There's no chance you'll give it up
    for a well-run 4 or 10 mile race before then?
     


  2. marko wrote:
    > 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.


    Ha, you apparently wrote this as I was speculating the same.


    > i never accelerate at this point, waiting to see what the next split will
    > be.


    That's starting to sound like a wise policy.


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


    Thanks Marko. Now if I can just figure out (I have a theory which should be
    demonstrable one way or the other in short order...) how I've managed to
    pack on about 4 pounds in the last 3 weeks despite higher mileage, lower
    sweets, and very reasonable food choices and quantities, I'll be in
    excellent shape to keep up the steady progress with each race.

    Hey, your own big day is coming very soon. Best of luck! How are you
    feeling?
     
  3. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    "Charlie Pendejo" <[email protected]> wrote

    >> 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.

    >
    > Guilty as charged! I was indeed passed by a grand total of around four
    > runners, which is vier lechende Dritten too many.


    I hate those (laughing?) Dritters, too.

    Should it be "vier lechenden Dritten?" (took a year of Deutsch 30 yrs ago,
    so I'm quite the authority...)

    Interesting exhaustive discussion on pacing minutia in 10k. Part of me
    rolls my eyes (or maybe all of me rolls one eye). My strategy:

    1. Start in the first row (back then) or a few of feet back (now).
    2. Run comfortably hard for 1.5 to 2.5 miles.
    3. Notch it up a bit and play the passing game from there to the finish.
    There are plenty of targets. If you aren't continuously gaining ground on
    folks after the midpoint, you went out too fast.

    The time always took care of itself. Passing people gives me a burst of
    energy -- it's lots more fun for me than running in a pack. For me, this
    strategy gave me just about even splits (or just a few seconds lost in the
    last mile).

    I used to run maybe 25-30 10k's a year, as my tempo run, untapered. I
    rarely looked at the watch after the first mile. (Nowadays I look in
    astonishment at how slow I'm running). The neat thing about them is that I
    could run them once a week without messing up my training.

    Anyway, congratulations on a strong race. The only error was not being
    where you shoulda been when you shoulda been. At least you didn't have to
    tie your shoe this time!

    I'm going to see if I can crack 40 at age 54 or 55 this year. (per WAVA,
    that's supposedly an age-adjusted 34:30). It's going to be a challenge.

    -- Dan
     
  4. marko

    marko Guest

    Charlie Pendejo a écrit :
    > That's starting to sound like a wise policy.


    actually, I wonder if J.Daniels doesn't write about just that somewhere
    in his book, in the chapter about pacing IIRC?

    > Thanks Marko. Now if I can just figure out (I have a theory which should be
    > demonstrable one way or the other in short order...) how I've managed to
    > pack on about 4 pounds in the last 3 weeks despite higher mileage, lower
    > sweets, and very reasonable food choices and quantities, I'll be in
    > excellent shape to keep up the steady progress with each race.


    may I tell you that the sub-40' would have already been yours without
    this probably unnecessary weight?
    now, one explanation might be the fact that you do a better job of
    storing glycogene with your good training, and with it comes water,
    hence more weight?

    >
    > Hey, your own big day is coming very soon. Best of luck! How are you
    > feeling?


    thanks Charlie, I'm just coming back from an 11k easy run with 3k @ MP,
    and I seem to be in really good shape...
    The only thing is that there is way too much wind for my liking
    (20km/h), otherwise temps are perfect (8°C)

    m
     
  5. marko wrote:
    > now, one explanation might be the fact that you do a better job of
    > storing glycogene with your good training, and with it comes water,
    > hence more weight?


    I'm sure it's water weight. I absolutely have not eaten over 15,000
    more kCals than usual these last three weeks, to fuel a few extra miles
    with four pounds of fat left over.

    If I thought I had increased glycogen storage this much in three weeks,
    I'd be trying to sell my secret! ;-)

    I suspect it's related to a dietary change; if that weight comes off
    over this next week, I'll let you know what it was. Otherwise maybe
    I'll start counting every calorie, milligram of sodium, and who knows
    what else... uggh, I'm not eager to get into that.
     
  6. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote

    > I'm sure it's water weight. I absolutely have not eaten over 15,000
    > more kCals than usual these last three weeks, to fuel a few extra miles
    > with four pounds of fat left over.
    >
    > If I thought I had increased glycogen storage this much in three weeks,
    > I'd be trying to sell my secret! ;-)


    Just a thought -- 2 factoids:

    Muscle = 600 kCal/lb
    Fat = 3500 kCal/lb

    [Rod Serling voice-over]

    Consider a world where the calories in a pound of fat could be converted
    several times its weight in muscle.

    A Terrifying place where, as one became more fit, and ate moderately, one
    pound of fat could become 3-5 lbs of muscle.

    Charlie thought he would get lighter as he got into shape, but instead, he
    was about to enter ... the Twilight Zone ....

    [Repeating electric guitar figure, with atonal orchestral coda]

    The reason muscle weighs more than fat per calorie is that there's a lot of
    water in muscle, and very little in fat. Water has zero calories, last time
    I checked. (just a note for those worried about the conservation of mass).
     
  7. Dan wrote:
    > Muscle = 600 kCal/lb
    > Fat = 3500 kCal/lb
    >
    > A Terrifying place where, as one became more fit, and ate moderately,
    > one pound of fat could become 3-5 lbs of muscle.


    Well right - and thanks for those numbers, I didn't realize the discrepancy
    was this wide - but four pounds of muscle in three weeks? From adding a few
    fast miles and a few slow miles to my distance running regimen?

    I'm not sure exactly what's typical in terms of muscle gains from training
    increases, but if I'm adding 4 lbs of muscle that quickly and easily, maybe
    I'm in the wrong racket and ought to be training for Mr. Universe instead!
     
  8. anders

    anders Guest

    marko kirjoitti:

    > thanks Charlie, I'm just coming back from an 11k easy run with 3k @ MP,
    > and I seem to be in really good shape...


    No, you are not! You're in about 85% of really good shape now and you
    will be in 95% when the gun goes off and in 100% when you cross the 30
    km mark!


    > The only thing is that there is way too much wind for my liking
    > (20km/h), otherwise temps are perfect (8°C)


    The good thing about those really big marathons is that you won't have
    to fight the wind alone if you're in the sub-3 zone. Let some poor
    bugger do the work for you, he can call you a little piece of
    chickenshit or whatever as loud as he wants!

    BTW I hope and believe that there aren't any anti-CPE protests planned
    for Sunday...


    Anders
     
  9. anders

    anders Guest

    Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:


    > I'll be eager to collect, at long last. There's no chance you'll give it up
    > for a well-run 4 or 10 mile race before then?


    I'm afraid not: there's no way I can *really* rate your performance on
    those kind of distances (and I probably cannot view them as anything
    but dress rehearsals or time trieal for the *real* events, but that's
    my problem).

    (FWIW there *is* a 10-mile race in the calendar here, a "Karelian
    Marathon". It's Karelian because it carries on the tradition of a race
    originally held in Viipuri, i.e. in the area ceded to the Soviet Union
    in 1940, but it beats me why it is called a marathon.)


    Anders (who finds the metric system far superior to the imperial one
    for pacing purposes, too)
     
  10. marko

    marko Guest

    anders a écrit :
    > No, you are not! You're in about 85% of really good shape now and you
    > will be in 95% when the gun goes off and in 100% when you cross the 30
    > km mark!


    hope you're right!
    I'm just realizing that I won't have any excuses for failure to reach my
    goal, as I feel quite good now : even my weight seem to be perfect!

    > The good thing about those really big marathons is that you won't have
    > to fight the wind alone if you're in the sub-3 zone. Let some poor
    > bugger do the work for you, he can call you a little piece of
    > chickenshit or whatever as loud as he wants!


    that's right, there are quite a lot of people running for sub-3,
    particuarly in the first 30k...
    FWIW, I don't really like to run in packs, but if it's really windy, I
    might change my mind...
    I just checked weather forcast, and it looks like the wind should abate
    by sunday (a north wind BTW)

    >
    > BTW I hope and believe that there aren't any anti-CPE protests planned
    > for Sunday...


    I'm quite sure we'll see some anti-CPE banners before the start in such
    a crowd...

    m
     
  11. anders wrote:
    > (FWIW there *is* a 10-mile race in the calendar here


    And, lest we forget, a cozy little 16 km:

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/msg/3af0001a427537d5

    I'm hoping to finish considerably sooner in Philadelphia next month, despite
    the extra tenth of a kilometer and twelve thousand runners there.
     
  12. Kaz Kylheku

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    Charlie Pendejo wrote:
    > Dan wrote:
    > > Muscle = 600 kCal/lb
    > > Fat = 3500 kCal/lb
    > >
    > > A Terrifying place where, as one became more fit, and ate moderately,
    > > one pound of fat could become 3-5 lbs of muscle.

    >
    > Well right - and thanks for those numbers, I didn't realize the discrepancy
    > was this wide - but four pounds of muscle in three weeks? From adding a few
    > fast miles and a few slow miles to my distance running regimen?


    No. Long-distance running wastes muscle mass, if anything. Are you also
    pumping iron, (high weight, low reps) and eating protein?

    If not, this is probably just water flucutations or fat gain, or a
    little of both.

    In addition to your basic hydration level, there is the consideration
    that a full glycogen tank supposedly gains you 3 pounds due to the
    water needed to store the starch.
    ..
     
  13. Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > Are you also pumping iron


    Of course not. Do I sound like some inarticulate Cro-Magnon
    musclehead?


    > and eating protein?


    Sure, along with fat and carbohydrates.


    > If not, this is probably just water flucutations or fat gain, or a
    > little of both.


    It's assuredly water, not fat gain.


    > In addition to your basic hydration level, there is the consideration
    > that a full glycogen tank supposedly gains you 3 pounds due to the
    > water needed to store the starch.


    Yeah, but I don't expect my tank's capacity nor fullness has varied
    much over the last few weeks. And I always always always drink enough
    water to remain very well hydrated.

    The good news: my weight this morning is down 4 or 5 pounds vs. Monday
    morning. I think I was correct about my dietary suspicion but will
    continue to watch the scale. If I stay around 145 for the rest of the
    week, maybe I'll try ingesting some of the evil thing again and see if
    I shoot back up to 150.

    Yours,
    Buddy Love
     
  14. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    "Kaz Kylheku" <[email protected]> wrote

    >> Well right - and thanks for those numbers, I didn't realize the
    >> discrepancy
    >> was this wide - but four pounds of muscle in three weeks? From adding a
    >> few
    >> fast miles and a few slow miles to my distance running regimen?

    >
    > No. Long-distance running wastes muscle mass, if anything. Are you also
    > pumping iron, (high weight, low reps) and eating protein?


    No. Energy output exceeding input wastes muscle mass.

    For example, my friend Kathy (smoker, sedentary) stopped smoking and started
    a marathon program. 6 mos later she weighed several pounds more (yet
    clothes still fit her fine). This is consistent with fat to muscle
    conversion.

    I've known some very heavy and muscular individuals who run 50-70 mpw, but
    eat alot, including a 220 lb 5-9 guy who has finished badwater. And a 160
    lb 5'5" woman who ran 70+ mpw. No muscle wasting there...

    On the other hand, I lost 20 lbs (mostly muscle) when I resumed running
    after a layoff. But I reduced my intake in addition to increasing my
    mileage.

    -- Dan
     
  15. On 2006-04-03, Charlie Pendejo <[email protected]> wrote:
    [report snipped]

    Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?

    There's the healthy kidney race coming up, but there are also a couple of good races
    in NJ with flat courses: the Newport 10,000 (near the PATH train) and the Ridgewood
    5k/10k. I've been meaning to run Ridgewood for a while now, this year I think I really
    will run it.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  16. note charles was non-responsive when i asked him about why he would
    miss out on running in our club's premeire 4 mile race, i am sure
    you're not making that choice are you donnie? planning on pr'ing?

    charles asked me 3 or 4 times when i would race again, challenged me to
    race, mocked and joked on me in racing....well he can bring his 22 BMI
    frame against my 5 year older and 26 BMI frame and line up on sunday
    with the very strong field that will be there. runners don't miss this
    race and i don't know why he's choosing to. strange.

    i raced the course last year 3 times and averaged about 6:14 or 6:15 /
    mile. i think charles can hit that or better and certainly smoke me on
    sunday. i doubt i'm good for much better than a 6:45/mile. i am
    racing simply to get a benchmark to see how far i've fallen and to
    secure my qualification for the '07 NYC marathon by getting in 9 races
    clocked in '06. i'm at the point of having to select the 9 shortest
    races left in '06 to get my qualification secured. i doubt i will race
    anything beyond 4 miles in '06. i did though just get a personal
    trainer/coach so we're going to start from the benchmark to see where
    things are at.
     
  17. Doug Freese

    Doug Freese Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > i did though just get a personal
    > trainer/coach so we're going to start from the benchmark to see where
    > things are at.


    Can you swallow your ego enough to listen a coach? If he/she is worth
    their salt they will consider your blunderbuss training and injury
    history and try to slow you down with smaller, slower building blocks.
    Will your macho tude be able to tolerate this? Rhetorical but fun to
    postulate.

    Your old Uncle Doug
     
  18. Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
    > Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?


    Yes, Healthy Kidney.

    I shouldn't get too far ahead of myself, but I'm feeling pretty good about
    my chances for sub-40 there. I'm doing Daniels' 5 to 15k training plan -
    and not too heavily modified even, I started with pretty low volume on reps
    etc. but working my way up and finding I can indeed do up to three workouts
    a week and not snap my leg in half - and am on phase 2, week 5. So far four
    races in 2005, four PRs, each race better than the last.

    If I'm not under 40 by Healthy Kidney then something will have gone very
    wrong.


    > There's the healthy kidney race coming up, but there are also
    > a couple of good races in NJ with flat courses: the Newport 10,000
    > (near the PATH train) and the Ridgewood 5k/10k.


    Thanks! Yeah in fact I've thought of this, I wouldn't mind trying a flat
    race for once. I have two and a half weeks before my next race, a low key 4
    miler. When are these races? Do you know of a worthwhile NJ (or NY metro
    area) race calendar which has this sort of thing?
     
  19. >Can you swallow your ego enough to listen a coach? If he/she is worth
    their salt
    ----

    well uncle he's better than Glover. lol. or at least he producers
    faster runners than Glover... lol. (just busting donnie's chops a
    bit). seriously, i had my first 1 on 1 wednesday morning. i got to
    our meeting location in central park 10 minutes early and he was
    finishing up with his earlier client Paul Mwangi (the local & probably
    regional #1 SuperStar middle distance runner...sans maybe fami and
    perhaps downin). i thought, "wow". i think i'm in good hands. it's
    just going to be a long process.

    in new york city running is going bananas in popularity. on any given
    week day night in central park you might see 6 - 8 clusters of 50 to 80
    runners (classes taking place). on a weekend mid-morning i might see
    700 - 800 or so runners. as the weather is turning the people are
    coming out. and every year it seems to be more and more people.

    i learned coaches and trainers are in strong demand too. you contact
    the best ones and you can easily be placed on their waiting list. i
    wonder if the summer running camps around the country are experiencing
    the boom in running as are all the marathons.
     
  20. On 2006-04-06, Charlie Pendejo <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
    >> Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?

    >
    > Yes, Healthy Kidney.
    >
    > I shouldn't get too far ahead of myself, but I'm feeling pretty good about
    > my chances for sub-40 there. I'm doing Daniels' 5 to 15k training plan -
    > and not too heavily modified even, I started with pretty low volume on reps
    > etc. but working my way up and finding I can indeed do up to three workouts
    > a week and not snap my leg in half - and am on phase 2, week 5. So far four
    > races in 2005, four PRs, each race better than the last.
    >
    > If I'm not under 40 by Healthy Kidney then something will have gone very
    > wrong.
    >
    >
    >> There's the healthy kidney race coming up, but there are also
    >> a couple of good races in NJ with flat courses: the Newport 10,000
    >> (near the PATH train) and the Ridgewood 5k/10k.

    >
    > Thanks! Yeah in fact I've thought of this, I wouldn't mind trying a flat
    > race for once. I have two and a half weeks before my next race, a low key 4
    > miler. When are these races?


    Newport is May 13, Ridgewood is May 29.

    > Do you know of a worthwhile NJ (or NY metro
    > area) race calendar which has this sort of thing?


    My favourite calendar for Jersey races is http://www.compuscore.com

    It also includes results from the previous year, so it gives you some idea as
    to who ran what times there, and how deep a field you should expect.

    One general observation about these races -- there are two types of races that
    you can expect to be well organised and have fairly deep fields:

    (1) prize money races and
    (2) 700 point races (these are high stakes races in the USATF grand prix)

    others are somewhat hit and miss.

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