The sweet spot in biking

[amh]

Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:03 -0600, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > amh wrote:
> >> Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>> A few folks here have mentioned getting into cycling directly or
> >>> incidently
> >>> after having problems with jogging, a great activity, but problematic
> >>> for
> >>> quite a few after years or even sooner.
> >>
> >>
> >> How so? I've been running since 1979. No major problems that prevent
> >> me from anything. Running does no damage if done properly (warm up,
> >> down, stretch) with good shoes.
> >>
> >>
> > Gee, is this a silly and annoying type of post. I know of someone who
> > drinks a quart of whiskey a day, eats nothing but fat and is in great
> > health at 90 years old. Why not then say that if you drink whiskey and
> > eat fat right, you'll be a healthy 90 year old? Makes as much sense.
> >
> > -paul
>
> I have to agree that the sweet spot is just getting on the bike
> and doing it. Jim Fixx found the sweet spot, permanently, some years
> back. So much for that line of thinking.

Jim Fixx found the sweet spot permanently because he refused to visit
a doctor for something as simple as a checkup. This despite his
history of obesity in his own life and heart disease his family's
life. He would have been dead many years earlier from heart disease
had he not taken up running. He would have lived many years longer had
he seen a doctor.

But that is the way I'd like to go, hopefully many years after now.
Doing something I love, whether it be cycling, running, hiking......

Andy

 

[Badger_South]

On 22 Oct 2004 08:45:18 -0700, [email protected] (SlowRider) wrote:

>Cycling has been a wonderful alternative. I don't feel the same
>"high", but I do so love doing long climbs, so I suspect it's a
>similar experience to a runner's high.

There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes in, and
suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run forever...er, jog
that is (6-7 min/mile pace)

The other high is the neat 'it's always autumn in my mind and I want to
quit working and run ultramarathons' feeling.

I'm finding this second kind now, on the bike, and just a little of the
other kind. I suspect it occurs at the 60-100 mile ride range, or 4-6 hours
into the ride, as opposed to 1-2 hours running.

What's so surprising about riding little hills is that I have absolutely no
butt numbness, or hand numbness that occurs at about the 60-70 min mark
riding the flats at tempo. OK, maybe not surprising, b/c I'm shifting
position so much. But what I'm saying is that I'm working much harder on
the rolling hills and feeling it like, not at all.

>The mental distractions
>(gears, traffic, etc.) aren't so bad once you get a lot of miles in
>your legs and it becomes second nature, but it still probably detracts
>from exercise-induced nirvana.
>
>I'm now doing some swimming for my off-season training and it seems to
>have similar characteristics (once you get your body past the "oh
>s--t, I have to BREATHE!" sensation). No traffic to worry about, and
>once you get into a rhythm, the laps just keep going by.

Was an avid swimmer and worked as a pool lifeguard/WSI for several seasons,
so I know of which you speak. (The things to learn are breathing to either
side and flip turning). I don't swim much anymore b/c of the overcrowding
at the local pools, but I defiinitely recall the golden sparklies at 20 min
into the 2 miler where the sun and water and stuff come together.
Unfortunately I developed a small bone spur on my left clavicle due to
rather poorly planned intensity/over use syndrome that caused me to stop.

>Still, I can't wait to get back on my bike...

If I'm not riding, I'm watching TdF vids and/or dreaming about it or
looking at bike magazines. <sigh> It's all good, particularly since I can
immerse myself in it, being retired now. ;-D

-B
Though I'm thinking about getting a part-time job to support my growing
addiction, lol.

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Badger_South wrote:

> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)

I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
"jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon,
easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)

Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.

 

[Badger_South]

On 22 Oct 2004 09:05:35 -0700, [email protected] (amh) wrote:

>Running is different in that it doesn't react with the body. If you
>take measures to reduce injury (stretch, wear proper shoes, don't over
>do it, eat properly, etc) the body will adapt to the running just
>fine.

I'd submit that stretching never prevented any injury, ever, but probably
caused a few, certainly if done cold before running.

How do you know what proper shoes are? In truth, maybe 2 out of 10 runners
or more, really need orthotics, b/c their supination/pronation problem is
sufficiently severe to cause problems. Problem is, how many joggers can
afford to go that route. If I had done this, d'oh, I'd probably still be
running, but as a 20y.o., I had no idea and few MDs did either. (back in
the 70s). I only learned that I need shoes with stiff outer support like
two years ago -still can't remember if I'm pronating or supinating - I have
noticeable bow-leggedness. Many foot strike problems originate in the lower
spine, knee, and hip. It's quite often very difficult to find the root
cause.

Eat properly? Who the hell eats properly? What is eating properly? There
are as many ideas about this as there are people who eat, lol. It can take
a lifetime of following others' advice, only to learn that it's your body,
your science experiment.

Huge room for error with the above.

Upshot: if you're still running after all these years (40s, 50s) you're
very lucky, freakishly gifted with correct anatomic posture, or doing 8.5
min per mile, @3 miles, three times a week jogging.

-B

 

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>
>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
>> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
>> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
>> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>
>I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
>"jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour marathon,
>easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>
>Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.

This is the pace I ran, but to qualify my statement, it was 8:00 for the 10
mile, 7:10 for the 10K, 6:30 for the 5K (at 180lbs definitely a
clydesdale). This is clearly middle to back-of-the pack pace. All jogging -
though it felt like running to me, lol. Among runners, that pace is
jogging.

9 min per mile for marathon distances is good, but for me, I needed the
intensity _and_ the duration to find the endorphin rush. So 90 min at 7:20
pace, then, is jogging. Under 7 min is running. OK?

Basically I'm saying I was never a good runner, not that I'm super. Decent
jogger, b/c I was dedicated and ran hill repeats and stuff.

-B

 

[DRS]

"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 22 Oct 2004 09:05:35 -0700, [email protected] (amh) wrote:
>
>> Running is different in that it doesn't react with the body. If you
>> take measures to reduce injury (stretch, wear proper shoes, don't
>> over do it, eat properly, etc) the body will adapt to the running
>> just fine.
>
> I'd submit that stretching never prevented any injury, ever, but
> probably caused a few, certainly if done cold before running.

Static stretching before exercise is worthless for reducing or preventing
injury, dynamic stretching is not.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Bill Baka]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Badger_South wrote:
>
>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
>> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
>> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
>> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>
> I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
> "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour
> marathon,
> easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>
> Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.
>
>
I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile
is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the
things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It
was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat
as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under
9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have
noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't
want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably
bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Bill Baka wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Badger_South wrote:
>>
>>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
>>> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
>>> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
>>> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>>
>> I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
>> "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour
>> marathon,
>> easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>>
>> Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.
>>
>>
> I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile
> is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the
> things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It
> was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat
> as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under
> 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have
> noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't
> want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably
> bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches.

For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute
miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging" even
*9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles at
all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I
ran! )

Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S.

 

[Bill Baka]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill Baka wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Badger_South wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
>>>> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
>>>> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
>>>> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>>>
>>> I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
>>> "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour
>>> marathon,
>>> easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>>>
>>> Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.
>>>
>>>
>> I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile
>> is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the
>> things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It
>> was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat
>> as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under
>> 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have
>> noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't
>> want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably
>> bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches.
>
> For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute
> miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging"
> even
> *9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles
> at
> all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I
> ran! )
>
> Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S.
>
>
I repent. Sometimes I get in a hurry to go through all the posts.
There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information
and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined.
This thread (slightly unraveled.) has gotten me to wondering how
fast I actually could do a mile. I do know that all the biking
has helped but I wonder how much. Any biker/runners out there other
than the OP?
Bill Baka

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Bill Baka wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Badger_South wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and
>>>>> wonderful sensation where you go from being just about blown up
>>>>> at 90 minutes in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like
>>>>> you could run forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>>>>
>>>> I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
>>>> "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour
>>>> marathon,
>>>> easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>>>>
>>>> Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile
>>> is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the
>>> things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It
>>> was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat
>>> as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under
>>> 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have
>>> noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I
>>> wouldn't want to be there anyway since if I got there I would
>>> probably
>>> bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches.
>>
>> For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7
>> minute miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly
>> "jogging" even
>> *9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute
>> miles at
>> all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW
>> long I ran! )
>>
>> Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S.
>>
>>
> I repent. Sometimes I get in a hurry to go through all the posts.
> There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information
> and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined.
> This thread (slightly unraveled.) has gotten me to wondering how
> fast I actually could do a mile. I do know that all the biking
> has helped but I wonder how much. Any biker/runners out there other
> than the OP?

That's fine, but just remember that running ONE mile is very different from
running 5, 10, 15 or more miles. Kind of like the difference between a 5 km
time trial and a 165 km road race?

Bill "or something like that" S.

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:25:36 +1000, "DRS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On 22 Oct 2004 09:05:35 -0700, [email protected] (amh) wrote:
>>
>>> Running is different in that it doesn't react with the body. If you
>>> take measures to reduce injury (stretch, wear proper shoes, don't
>>> over do it, eat properly, etc) the body will adapt to the running
>>> just fine.
>>
>> I'd submit that stretching never prevented any injury, ever, but
>> probably caused a few, certainly if done cold before running.
>
>Static stretching before exercise is worthless for reducing or preventing
>injury, dynamic stretching is not.

What dynamic stretches do you do before biking? If you walked up to most
ppl and said 'go ahead and dynamic stretch out before your ride', they'd
bob down and touch their toes, and the advanced ones would cross their feet
and do it stiff legged, lol. But I agree; may be that the best 'dynamic'
stretches occur -on- the bike, and use the spinal twist - besides that some
kind of quad stretch, shoulder wiggle and wrist flap and shake is what I
do. I don't even quad stretch anymore. Obviously as a stretching -program-
to suppliment the bike would include hip flexors and neck and back
hamstring work, ilio-tibial stretch work if susceptible to that...

Other than that I probably tilt my giant Jimmy Neutron helmet head from
side to side..<grin> andjust cowboy mount my aluminium steed, and take off.
Oddly, I'm never sore from biking...now, -during- biking, I get transitory
numbness, hands, butt, etc.

Now some might say 'if you're not sore, you haven't ridden hard or long
enough', and no argument from that. I really expected to be a little sore
from my epic ride up Monticello, but, nope. Nada. (BTW I recorded that as
7-9 minutes. It was closer to 11-12 minutes - chronometer malfx)

Good point, though. I've touted Bryce's routine here before, I think.

-B

 

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:43:21 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Baka wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:39:08 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Badger_South wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are two highs (ime) in running. One is the weird and wonderful
>>>> sensation where you go from being just about blown up at 90 minutes
>>>> in, and suddenly you are kicking ass and feel like you could run
>>>> forever...er, jog that is (6-7 min/mile pace)
>>>
>>> I gotta call ******** here, Badg. 6-7 minute/mile pace is hardly
>>> "jogging" -- 9 minutes in much less 90! (Works out to a ~3-hour
>>> marathon,
>>> easily good enough to qualify for Boston if I'm not mistaken.)
>>>
>>> Bill "you're not THAT super, man" S.
>>>
>>>
>> I was going to just watch all the flaming here but a 9 minute mile
>> is easy. I was in the Boy Scouts around 1960 (61?) and one of the
>> things we were taught was how to do a 9 minute mile as a group. It
>> was run slowly for xx seconds then walk for xx seconds and repeat
>> as needed, all day even. My group came in just 4 seconds under
>> 9 minutes and nobody was even breathing that hard. What I have
>> noticed is that all the biking never gets me to a high and I wouldn't
>> want to be there anyway since if I got there I would probably
>> bliss out and crash. Different activities need different approaches.
>
>For God's sake Bill learn to read. Badger was talking about 6-7 minute
>miles *90 minutes* into a run. I said that pace was hardly "jogging" even
>*9* minutes into a run, much less 90. I never mentioned 9-minute miles at
>all. (It's just a coincidence that that was my pace no matter HOW long I
>ran! )
>
>Bill "slow and steady (may not win the race, but gets there)" S.

OK, that 90 was a misprint. Make that 60. My 10mile pace is well under 90
minutes and I got 8min/mile-ish times in the Lynchburg Marathon (which is
actually 10 miles).

Not to drag this on, but one of my talented running friends came by one day
when I went on my neighborhood route, which involves some decent little
hills, and which I was running at 7:30 pace, which felt fast to me. After
we got back to my house (8 miles), he says 'let's do it again!'. And the
guy ran it with me in his street clothes, fercryinoutloud. I'm standing
there steaming, and flushed, though not out of breath, and he looks like he
just walked back from the fridge after getting a beer.

I'm just saying, in my life, I've never 'run', I've only jogged. Those tall
lean skinny guys who come in 1st-10th in the regional 10Ks...now those guys
run. OK, I ran for the bus, once. ;-D

-B

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:30:17 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's fine, but just remember that running ONE mile is very different from
>running 5, 10, 15 or more miles. Kind of like the difference between a 5 km
>time trial and a 165 km road race?
>
>Bill "or something like that" S.

In the very beginning stages of training, at first, this seems true. But in
reality, most recreational joggers get warmed up at 3-4 miles and most
intermediate joggers do 6-10 miles per workout, and average 30-40 miles per
week. It took me about 3 years of more-or-less steady training to get to
this point. There's a pretty good break out at the end of year one-middle
of year two where your jogging transforms, iow, but most folks running in
their late 20s-30s are still feeling plenty slow at that 3 year point. I
never got to 'advanced', or tried any of the advanced workouts, and the
best I did was an informal 108-110 minute half-marathon time, and that felt
like slogging, lol.

Most intermediate 10K-ers will tell you that they don't even remember
running their first mile in a fun-run, and I've had many sub-seven minute
first miles in my 10Ks, and at my lightest (170) show 6:20 type times in
the first mile. We were in the back of the middle pack, typically,
intermittently chatting back and forth.

If I ever got to the marathon level, it would probably at the 4 hour mark,
b/c ppl fade pretty significantly at that distance, or, (better planning)
will start out at well below their 10K race pace (I'd do the first 5 miles
at 9-10 min per mile pace, for sure!) IOW, most 4 hour marathoners run
seven minute or better/mile times in 10Ks, for example.

-B

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:30:17 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's fine, but just remember that running ONE mile is very
>> different from running 5, 10, 15 or more miles. Kind of like the
>> difference between a 5 km time trial and a 165 km road race?
>>
>> Bill "or something like that" S.
>
> In the very beginning stages of
> training,atfirst,thisseemstrue.Butin reality, most recreational
> joggers get warmed up at 3-4 miles and most intermediate joggers do
> 6-10 miles per workout, and average 30-40 miles per week. It took me
> about 3 years of more-or-less steady training to get to this point.
> There's a pretty good break out at the end of year one-middle of year
> two where your jogging transforms, iow, but most folks running in
> their late 20s-30s are still feeling plenty slow at that 3 year
> point. I never got to 'advanced', or tried any of the advanced
> workouts, and the best I did was an informal 108-110 minute
> half-marathon time, and that felt like slogging, lol.
>
> Most intermediate 10K-ers will tell you that they don't even remember
> running their first mile in a fun-run, and I've had many sub-seven
> minute first miles in my 10Ks, and at my lightest (170) show 6:20
> type times in the first mile. We were in the back of the middle pack,
> typically, intermittently chatting back and forth.
>
> If I ever got to the marathon level, it would probably at the 4 hour
> mark, b/c ppl fade pretty significantly at that distance, or, (better
> planning) will start out at well below their 10K race pace (I'd do
> the first 5 miles at 9-10 min per mile pace, for sure!) IOW, most 4
> hour marathoners run seven minute or better/mile times in 10Ks, for
> example.

Sigh. My POINT to Bill Baka was that seeing how fast one can run ONE MILE
is totally different from one's minutes-per-mile pace on long (or even
long-ish) runs.

Bill "La Jolla Half Marathon in 2:02, IIRC" S.

 

[Badger_South]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:20:34 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Sigh. My POINT to Bill Baka was that seeing how fast one can run ONE MILE
>is totally different from one's minutes-per-mile pace on long (or even
>long-ish) runs.
>
>Bill "La Jolla Half Marathon in 2:02, IIRC" S.
>

Got that point right away. Not too shabby, 2:02. Probably some hills.

At an average 9.25mi/hr pace, you probably ran several 8 min miles
somewhere in there. If you're not feeling well by mile 12, one can easily
end up doing the survivor shuffle and dropping a min/mile. I'd predict at
least a 48 min 10K time off of this. Years of regular training? (just
curious).

-B

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Badger_South wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:20:34 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sigh. My POINT to Bill Baka was that seeing how fast one can run
>> ONE MILE is totally different from one's minutes-per-mile pace on
>> long (or even long-ish) runs.
>>
>> Bill "La Jolla Half Marathon in 2:02, IIRC" S.
>>
>
> Got that point right away. Not too shabby, 2:02. Probably some hills.

LJ Half is known as one of the toughest around. Includes a fun little jaunt
up the Torrey Pines Grade (note to self: measure distance next time I ride
it). Prolly only 1-1/2 to 2 miles, but quite steep.

> At an average 9.25mi/hr pace, you probably ran several 8 min miles
> somewhere in there. If you're not feeling well by mile 12, one can
> easily end up doing the survivor shuffle and dropping a min/mile. I'd
> predict at least a 48 min 10K time off of this. Years of regular
> training? (just curious).

I had LOTS of problems that day (including gastro-in-the-bushes-testinal).
It was a cold, wet, windy, miserable morning (I remember my buddy calling at
like 4 am and saying he wanted to bail; told him I was doing it no matter
what). Still, 8.5 to 9-minute miles is pretty much my pace, race or no...
(I think I did a 10K in :47-something, but it was VERY flat! )

I'm no natural runner, by any means. 5-10, stocky frame (170 to 190
extremes). I began running with some friends, entered a 5K here and 10K
there, and then trained for a half. (Former heavy smoker, too.)

Began training for the St. George Marathon -- got up to 22 miles -- but
totally broke down before I could do it. Had stress fractures all over the
place -- ran America's Finest City (Half) with a bunch of 'em (very
painful), then pretty much gave it up. Turns out I have (had?) a condition
with calcium not being absorbed by my body -- it collected in my kidneys
instead of reaching blood -- so I got stones and broken bones! Nasty
combo...(since treated with meds; seems to be working.)

Bill "what was the question?" S.

 

[the black rose]

Bill Baka wrote:
> There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information
> and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined.

*perk* Linux?

Seriously, do you get anything out of the Linux newsgroups?
I've gotten as many smarmy answers as informative ones.
On a couple of groups, if you don't ask a question the
"right" way, you will be subjected to insult (as if they
were born with a thorough knowledge of Linux...).

I was heavily into Linux 10 years ago, when it was brand new
and you had to do EVERYTHING the hard way -- none of these
handy X-based config tools, no no no -- and when I got back
into it recently after forgetting just about everything I
ever knew about it, it really made me wonder when the Linux
community turned into such a bunch of tight-@sses. Sheesh.

My husband says I get this peculiar half-scowl now when I
have to boot XP for something, hehe.

Now if they'd only make Snoods for Linux...

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie

 

[Bill Baka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:18:12 GMT, the black rose
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill Baka wrote:
>> There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information
>> and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined.
>
> *perk* Linux?
>
> Seriously, do you get anything out of the Linux newsgroups? I've
> gotten as many smarmy answers as informative ones. On a couple of
> groups, if you don't ask a question the "right" way, you will be
> subjected to insult (as if they were born with a thorough knowledge of
> Linux...).
>
> I was heavily into Linux 10 years ago, when it was brand new and you had
> to do EVERYTHING the hard way -- none of these handy X-based config
> tools, no no no -- and when I got back into it recently after forgetting
> just about everything I ever knew about it, it really made me wonder
> when the Linux community turned into such a bunch of tight-@sses.
> Sheesh.
>
> My husband says I get this peculiar half-scowl now when I have to boot
> XP for something, hehe.
>
> Now if they'd only make Snoods for Linux...
>
> -km
>
I know this is not the correct group but the 4 LINUX groups have more
people asking then answering. I am tryin to install Red Hat version 7
and have the first disk (1 of 2) installed and it now boots into the
Linux. The problem is the rpm files and other stuff that need to be
uncompressed and installed properly. FWIW the Linux boots with a screen
allowing me to go to DOS mode which then brings up my boot.ini that windows
2000 put there. At this point I have my choice of using Linux (if I ever
figure it out) Or windows 2000 (2 installations on different physical
hard drives, DOS (IBM DOS 2000, the last I know of) and I can go into
windows 3.1. I have 11 GB waiting for the Linux if I can get it to install.
I know, why not buy the latest? Money shortage until the high tech
recession
corrects itself and I get back into a nice high paying engineering job.

On topic, just to make this legal, I got a new Mongoose for my birthday
from
one of the neighbors whose kids I take riding, so I am not complaining.
More on that later.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[Bill Baka]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:41:04 GMT, B i l l S o r n s o n
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Badger_South wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:20:34 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sigh. My POINT to Bill Baka was that seeing how fast one can run
>>> ONE MILE is totally different from one's minutes-per-mile pace on
>>> long (or even long-ish) runs.
>>>
>>> Bill "La Jolla Half Marathon in 2:02, IIRC" S.
>>>
>>
>> Got that point right away. Not too shabby, 2:02. Probably some hills.
>
> LJ Half is known as one of the toughest around. Includes a fun little
> jaunt
> up the Torrey Pines Grade (note to self: measure distance next time I
> ride
> it). Prolly only 1-1/2 to 2 miles, but quite steep.
>
>> At an average 9.25mi/hr pace, you probably ran several 8 min miles
>> somewhere in there. If you're not feeling well by mile 12, one can
>> easily end up doing the survivor shuffle and dropping a min/mile. I'd
>> predict at least a 48 min 10K time off of this. Years of regular
>> training? (just curious).
>
> I had LOTS of problems that day (including
> gastro-in-the-bushes-testinal).
> It was a cold, wet, windy, miserable morning (I remember my buddy
> calling at
> like 4 am and saying he wanted to bail; told him I was doing it no matter
> what). Still, 8.5 to 9-minute miles is pretty much my pace, race or
> no...
> (I think I did a 10K in :47-something, but it was VERY flat! )
>
> I'm no natural runner, by any means. 5-10, stocky frame (170 to 190
> extremes). I began running with some friends, entered a 5K here and 10K
> there, and then trained for a half. (Former heavy smoker, too.)
>
> Began training for the St. George Marathon -- got up to 22 miles -- but
> totally broke down before I could do it. Had stress fractures all over
> the
> place -- ran America's Finest City (Half) with a bunch of 'em (very
> painful), then pretty much gave it up. Turns out I have (had?) a
> condition
> with calcium not being absorbed by my body -- it collected in my kidneys
> instead of reaching blood -- so I got stones and broken bones! Nasty
> combo...(since treated with meds; seems to be working.)
>
> Bill "what was the question?" S.
>
>
OK, you guys have me, but I was wondering what these runners do for
hydration and food energy. It seems like it would be a lot harder
to drink or eat while running. I have a hard time just getting my
water bottles out and back in again while trying not to run off the
road. Maybe I'm a klutz (not likely) or there is a better way to
hold water bottles. I can only run for about 2 miles anyway since
I do not have a pair of dedicated running shoes, 5 pair of sneakers
and 2 leather 'job interview' pair, but no running gear. I have only
had one painful injury and that was jogging on top of a levee here
in California when I stepped into a pothole running at dusk. Pulled
hamstring, limped for a week. I have never injured myself on a bike.
Crashes excepted, but if you can get up with no breaks it is good for
a survivors laugh.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[David Reuteler]

the black rose <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> There are 4 LINUX groups that I am looking at for information
>> and this group has outposted all 4 of the LINUX combined.
>
> *perk* Linux?
>
> Seriously, do you get anything out of the Linux newsgroups?
> I've gotten as many smarmy answers as informative ones.
> On a couple of groups, if you don't ask a question the
> "right" way, you will be subjected to insult (as if they
> were born with a thorough knowledge of Linux...).

just call it a johnny come lately OS, smirk a bit, cop a little attitude
and hail the virtues of SunOS 4 on the intel platform. maybe talk about
how great sunview was and ask 'em again if they had a point.

works like a charm.

> ever knew about it, it really made me wonder when the Linux
> community turned into such a bunch of tight-@sses. Sheesh.

that all started with the "linux on the desktop" deal.

> Now if they'd only make Snoods for Linux...

stuff linux. boot BSD. you'll get gobs of attitude on the newsgroups
but at least they'll be factually correct.

and nobody will care about the bloody desktop.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]