Training Week Ending March 12, 2006



Doug Freese wrote:
> "Parker Race" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Just a few lbs around the middle to go, the guy with head band is the
>>one I held off:
>
>
> He sure looks a lot older than you. You're not picking on old people?
He's 50 I'll be 48 by the end of the month. I'm keeping that picture on
my desktop to remind me that I need to lose the gut and so that I won't
have to be racing guys like him at the finish. No respect for age when
you cut 20 or 30 yards of the course!

> I'll bet you were really worried about the two women that were stalking
> you! Next thing you'll want extra time for BMI and shoe size. :)
One is a new team mate, I had to show teach her a lesson, don't know the
youngster. I think we have an idea here, there was age graded results
for the top 100 which I barely made. But how would I have scored on
BMI/shoe size grading? Yes there 13s but just so I can fit orthotics :)

>
> -Doug
>
>
 
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Parker Race" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Just a few lbs around the middle to go, the guy with head band is the
>>one I held off:
>
>
> He sure looks a lot older than you. You're not picking on old people?
He's 50 I'll be 48 by the end of the month. I'm keeping that picture on
my desktop to remind me that I need to lose the gut and so that I won't
have to be racing guys like him at the finish. No respect for age when
you cut 20 or 30 yards of the course!

> I'll bet you were really worried about the two women that were stalking
> you! Next thing you'll want extra time for BMI and shoe size. :)
One is a new team mate, I had to show teach her a lesson, don't know the
youngster. I think we have an idea here, there was age graded results
for the top 100 which I barely made. But how would I have scored on
BMI/shoe size grading? Yes there 13s but just so I can fit orthotics :)

>
> -Doug
>
>
 
"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SwStudio wrote:
>
> > Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> > week and goals.
>
> Day Mi Type
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Mon 0.00 rest (abs)
> Tue 6.06 easy (weights)
> Wed 13.20 medium long
> Thu 6.15 easy (abs)
> Fri 11.39 aerobic
> Sat 5.00 easy (abs, weights)
> Sun 16.04 Appalachian Trail run/hike
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Week 58
> Year 606
>
> Training:
> Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg

Did you do an out-and-back?

> Events:
> 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> http://tinyurl.com/avp9c

Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and out
of ravines. Ravine country can be a *****. Your only mistake is to enter an
event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's anything
like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
seed for future madness and familial tension.

-Tony

> Have a great week rec.runners.
>
> --
> Phil M.
>
> "things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse" - lily tomlin
 
Mon 0 miles Rest - planned
Tue 3.5 miles 09:40/mile Includes 3X800M at 85% Max HR
Wed 0 miles xtrain -- mini trampoline 30 minutes
Thu 5.0 miles 10:52/mile 78% Max HR cold rain
Fri 0 miles Rest - nasty weather
Sat 10.4 miles 11:11/mile 77% Max HR hills (*)
Sun 2.7 miles 11:39/mile 70% MHR

21.6 miles this week. Nasty weather for this pampered Californian --
temperatures in the 40F's at usual run times with wind and often rain.

(*) Developed a blister about 6 miles into this run. Since I started
running in 2004, this is the very first foot blister I've had. Thought
I had something in my shoe, but no! It was a small painful blister
just behind the ball of my right foot. Very frustrating, since while
these were a new pair of shoes (had about 20 miles on them), they were
pair number 3 of the exact same same size, make & model that has never
given me problems.
--
Daniel
[email protected]
 
PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYCHO!

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:00:42 -0500, [email protected] (Spring
Fever) wrote:

>View from Moon: 399821 km above 11°8'N 154°51'E
>Click in image to pan or here to zoom in or out .
>Satellite data provided by The Living Earth® Inc./Earth Imaging
>© 1996, All Rights Reserved.
>
>Display:  Map,  From Sun,  From Moon,  Night side
>Lat: Long: Alt:  km
>Choose satellite
>Image:  Living Earth®  NASA Visible Earth  Topo map
> Clouds  IR clouds  Colour weather
> Water vapour  Water vapour raw
>Time: Now UTC: Julian:
>Image size: pixels No night
>
>Back to Earth and Moon Viewer    Details    Credits  
> Customise
>by John Walker
>
>
>
>Re: Training Week Ending March 12, 2006
>
>Group: rec.running Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2006, 9:31am From:
>[email protected] (Spring Fever)
>feb/17/06 moon cover star spica, from the northeast quadtant of the
>country, for point west, spica well stand above the moon as they rise.
>lat=11)55' south, long=7)4' west, alt 147824121 km 12:42:19 now or
>7:42:19 a.m. est 2/17/06
>point west=n.e of u.s.a......
>saturday march 11 06.
>6.p.m. goes west.
>11+11=22 days.
>24×22=528 hours-2=526 hrs.
>7;42;19 from 6;00p.m.=(8/6)=10 hours (11 hours) 11/11/11.............
>a winner..........
>oct/19= hunter moon,full moon,harvest moon. jerusalem to bethleham, 0007
>saturn jupiter old orion.
>m-5015 south of sirus,
>Stargazing Tips
>The sky is full of wonders every night of the week. Use our viewing
>guide for the week ahead to plan your backyard outings. March 12, 2006
>Regulus, the "heart" of Leo, the lion, stands just a whisker to the
>upper right of the Moon as night falls this evening. It remains close to
>the Moon as they arc high across the south in late evening, and sets in
>the west before dawn.
>March 13, 2006
>The Moon is almost full this evening. On the northern half of the Moon's
>lighted surface, look for several dark blue-grey blotches. Early
>skywatchers called them "seas" because they thought the blotches were
>bodies of water.
>March 14, 2006
>The Moon is full at 5:35 p.m. CST. It's known as the Crow Moon, Lenten
>Moon, or Sap Moon. A slight lunar eclipse takes place, but it's visible
>mainly from Europe and Africa. From the United States, we'll see a
>bright, beautiful Moon unaffected by Earth's shadow. March 15, 2006
>Leo, the lion, stands proudly atop the firmament around midnight
>tonight. Its brightest star is Regulus, which marks the lion's heart. A
>pattern of fairly bright stars in the shape of a backward question mark
>outlines Leo's head and mane.
>March 16, 2006
>The Moon passes one of the sky's most important landmarks tonight:
>Spica, the brightest star of the constellation Virgo. Its appearance in
>the evening means that winter is on the way out in the northern
>hemisphere and spring is on the way in.
>March 17, 2006
>The Moon follows a bright star across the sky tonight: Spica, in the
>constellation Virgo. They rise in late evening and cruise across the
>south after midnight.
>March 18, 2006
>The planet Jupiter lines up with the Moon tonight. The planet is to the
>left of the Moon as they rise around 10 or 11 p.m. It looks like a
>brilliant star, although it outshines all the true stars in the night
>sky.
>Unless otherwise specified, viewing times are local time regardless of
>time zone, and are good for the entire Lower 48 states (and, generally,
>for Alaska and Hawaii).
>copy right..stardate.texas.blaw blaw ..
 
SwStudio wrote:

> Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> week and goals.
> cheers,

Goals: Local Grand Prix, keep up the speedwork and don't get
injured. Next for sure race isn't until April.

Mon: ~7.5 miles in Ca. Rainy, cold. But nice to get out in it.
Tue: travelling, no running. No speedwork today.
Wed: 5.52 mi @ 9:21 pace. 60F, strong wind. Both of us needed
a "work-destress" run, and it worked.
Thur: 6.3 mi @ 8:28 pace. 60F, windy. Felt really stong today,
yet smooth and relaxed.
Fri: Rest Day
Sat: 12.04 mi @ 9:16 pace, cool, overcast, windy. Rain maybe??
Ran decently, though just a smidge underdressed.
Sun: Real Rain last night. But DNR today due to other time
constraints.

Total: 31.36 miles

Teresa in AZ
 
Tony S. wrote:

> > Training:
> > Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> > terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> > little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> > run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> > impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> > certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> > any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> > http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg
>
> Did you do an out-and-back?

Yes. I wanted to do a point-to-point, by my wife did not feel like
driving to the next trailhead to pick me up.

Another thing that may have caused the "run" to be a little more
difficult than planned was that the temps got up to 79°F during the
time I was there. Being the first warm run of the year, I am in no way
acclimated. It seems like every year I do this. I forget that I'm
impacted by the heat and try to blame it on other things, then later I
realize that it was relatively warm. Another thing is that I still have
this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't run 100% of the
time, then it's not a run. When talking with other ultra runners when
they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

By the way, while I was there I encountered a few hikers on the trail.
One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.

> > Events:
> > 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> > http://tinyurl.com/avp9c
>
> Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
> overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and out
> of ravines. Ravine country can be a *****. Your only mistake is to enter an
> event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's anything
> like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
> tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
> seed for future madness and familial tension.

In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
strong. Waddaya think?

--
Phil M.
 
Phil M. wrote:

> In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?

Phil,
You WILL slow down at some point. The only question is when, how much
and for how long. If you start off conservative, you will minimize the
slow down to hopefully something insignificant and perhaps have a little
left to pick it up the last few miles. But if you start out with 2 hour
loops, you most likely won't be able to make up the difference late to
break 10 hours. You're fast enough that you should be able to run the
first 3 loops enough under 2 hours (1:50? without knowing the course) to
still stay comfortable and build a little cushion. If I were you, I
would certainly run that first loop comfortably slow, but then check my
time and adjust my pace depending on how I feel and that also means
faster. By that point, you will have seen the course and know where to
push and where to back off as well as knowing if it's your day or not.

--
- The Trailrunner

Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*

Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/
 
joe positive wrote:
> SwStudio wrote:
>
> > Greetings, rec.runners! Please tell us about your training
> > week and goals.
>
> goals: get through the next 6 days, not screw up on the 7th day. Upcoming
> races: marathon March 19; possible 5-miler April 8; 10k (triathlon relay)
> April 30.

Karen - Good luck for Sunday! Hope that you get good racing conditions
- your
training has been consistent and solid.

Anthony.
 
Goals: Run lots of miles without getting injured.

Mon: off 1 day after bike crash.
Tue: 9km at track. Mostly easy on grass.
3 moderate 600's and 1 800 in 3:05 at 80%.
Overall not too sore.
Wed: 3km was enough
Thu: off
Fri: Great cool weather with a light mist.
16km on grass from 5:30/k (8:45/mile)
to 5:00 (8:00).
Sat: 7.5km easy
Sun: 9.5 km easy on grass. Back on bike 30'

Total: 45km (28 miles).

Off to Australia for 2.5 weeks in a couple of days.
Have tickets to see Craig (Buster) Mottram try and win the 5000m in
front of his home crowd and both 100m finals at
the Commonwealth Games.
Also plan to jog around Melborne on Sunday
and catch the marathon.

Anthony. Jerusalem, Israel.
 
"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Tony S. wrote:

> > Training:
> > Week 15 of 20-week training plan. Trying to get a little specificity of
> > terrain, so Sunday's long run was on the Appalachian trail. Maybe a
> > little too specific. ;-) Actually, I'd call it more of a hike than a
> > run. Lots of steep climbs (2800' of climb) and rocky footing made it
> > impossible or dangerous to run.If time on my feet means anything, then
> > certainly the 3' 19" it took to cover the 16 miles accomplished that. At
> > any rate, I had a good time. Here's a photo at the trailhead:
> > http://i2.tinypic.com/radohk.jpg
>
> Did you do an out-and-back?

>Yes. I wanted to do a point-to-point, by my wife did not feel like
driving to the next trailhead to pick me up.<

>Another thing that may have caused the "run" to be a little more
difficult than planned was that the temps got up to 79°F during the
time I was there. Being the first warm run of the year, I am in no way
acclimated. It seems like every year I do this. I forget that I'm
impacted by the heat and try to blame it on other things, then later I
realize that it was relatively warm. Another thing is that I still have
this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't run 100% of the
time, then it's not a run. When talking with other ultra runners when
they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?<

My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills, it
becomes hiking, not running. On long runs, I normally run everything but
hills that get my HR over 80%. Once it goes over 80%, I hike until it drops
to the low 70%'s or the grade levels off, whichever comes first, then
repeat.

>By the way, while I was there I encountered a few hikers on the trail.
One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.<

No kidding. They say it takes ~2 weeks for the body to adjust to hiking
every day. I'd imagine the first 2-3 days are exciting, then the next week
is painful.

> > Events:
> > 4/15/06 McNaughton Park Trail Runs, Pekin IL
> > http://tinyurl.com/avp9c
>
> Looks like a bit like the ohio country I orienteered in back in 2000 -
> overall flattish terrain with relatively short, very steep hills in and
out
> of ravines. Ravine country can be a *****. Your only mistake is to enter
an
> event where there's a 30 and 100 going on at the same time. If it's
anything
> like dual events I've been to, the larger 30 pack will be all around you,
> tempting you to go faster, and later the few doing the 100 will plant the
> seed for future madness and familial tension.

>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
strong. Waddaya think?<

Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd be
thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to shoot
for a 1:50ish first loop and then see. You'll just have to take it easy and
go by feel, but just take those ravines really easy from the very beginning
since steep stuff saps your legs. Trailrunner may be correct that you will
slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and everyone
else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's definitly
possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least (who knows about a 100).
Relaxing on the first loop will be important, especially with a pack of 30
mile runners around you.

-Tony
 
Still nursing and icing my left patella, which is getting better. Sunday's
run was the first time I was able to hit 7:00/mile on downhill without any
pain. Can't wait to race again and run some 20+ milers.

Mon: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy (8:50 pace)
Tue: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Wed: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy
Thu: 14 mi, 2300' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Fri: 8 mi, 800' gain, easy, felt tired.
Sat: 14 mi, 2150' gain in Griffith park, medium climbs, very easy downs.
Sun: 13 mi, 2450' climb to 4700' elevation, 6" snow above 3800'. Charged up
pretty strong, ran first 3 miles down at 7:00 pace without any pain, then
jogged the steeper final miles back in (at 105 pulse).

Total: 79 miles, 11,600' of climbing.
 
"Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
> My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
> it
> becomes hiking, not running.

I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
not hiking you're in deep ****.

>>In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out
> with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?<

Too loaded a question without having some idea of the loop.

> Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd
> be
> thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you. I agree with trailrunner to
> shoot
> for a 1:50ish first loop and then see.

And see what? If it hurts or feels shitty you have taken more out of the
tank then you ever wanted. Even if it feels good it does not mean you
have not gone too fast. If you come to the race tapered and rested the
first loop should feel like a piece of cake unless you sprint it. I'll
repeat and maybe some day this will make sense, find a pace that feels
good and then run SLOWER. Think on it!

> Trailrunner may be correct that you will
> slow down, but remember, I watched Doug take off and leave me (and
> everyone
> else) in the dust at Vermont with about 10 miles to go, so it's
> definitly
> possible to run negative splits, in a 50 at least

It sure is and I do it in almost every 50k or 50 mile race I do. My
100's only differ by an hour or so and that hour can be caught up in
elevation and not dieing. In the race(VT50) your referencing, I
started running almost all but the steepest hills at 30 miles. At 35
miles I also picked up the downs. At 40 when I left you I really pushed
the pace. I was running 7:30's on the levels and downs from the last aid
station. John and Jacque also finished with equal strength maybe too
much.) John is running the VT100 and Jacque is doing Bull Run and is
sooo strong this year, she will dust me.

All this said, I like the idea of aiming at 10 hours. Shoot for 2 hour
laps and then see how you feel after 3. Finish feeling strong by going a
little slower. Being wasted before the end is not fun!!!! Been there,
done that!!! :)

-DougF
 
Phil M. wrote:

> When talking with other ultra runners when
> they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
> they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
> hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

Not sure of your question - or if it was intended to be rhetorical, but
I see others answered it.;)

Depends on the context. Did you "run" or "not run" your 50k? ;)

Up here it's usually obvious from the person or context whether "run"
means run all the way or run/hike. If not - *AND* it makes a difference
in the conversation - I ask. For the most part, nobody really cares what
you call it, although sometimes it's nice to know that someone actually
did run a particular mountain or a rough section of trail.

Races are about getting from one point to another. I could care less how
much the runners ran and the bikers rode the 350 mi from Knik to McGrath
- other than it was amusing (in a very sick way, but they brought it up)
to see how many miles they pushed their bikes. They're tough competitors
that did the 350 mi, and even tougher ones that are progressing through
a good old fashioned Alaska winter to Nome.
(read March 12 http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/LATEST NEWS..html)

For logging purposes for *me*, I changed from run, run/walk, and walk
categories to "locomotion mode" (run, snowshoe, ski, bike, walk, etc)
and workouts within those categories (lsd, rolling hills, big hills,
recovery, easy, etc). LSD accommodates whatever is likely to happen in a
race situation - hiking up hills, looking for trail, eating, climbing
over obstacles, taking pictures, etc. And I don't sweat the percentage
like I used to. This allows me to account for snowshoe running better.

My "run" volume includes run, snowshoe, and power hike categories -
anything that's directly relevant to training for races. My "total"
volume includes those plus xc ski, bike, cross-training (plyometrics,
machine usage, etc), and maybe some other things. It's the same aerobic
system, but different uses of muscles. I generally don't include "hike"
(with a recreational group that makes frequent stops and long lunches)
and "walk" (low heart rate) in my volume, but I like to keep track of
them and sometimes do include them, depending upon what numbers I'm
looking at.

My logging has 2 primary uses for me - progression toward training /
race goals ("run") and injury prevention ("total").

That's how I deal with what I call running or not - with great ambiguity. :)


If you haven't already, you might want to read some of Sue Norwood's
journal describing her AT adventure last year. She frequently comments
on how runnable the trail is - or not.

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
 
Doug Freese wrote:

> "Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:XHlRf.1371$%b.911@trndny09...
>
>>My rule of thumb is that when you start walking flats and downhills,
>>it
>>becomes hiking, not running.
>
>
> I'll take it a bit further, if you walking flats and downhills you're
> not hiking you're in deep ****.
>
>
Hey, I resemble that ;)
(Can I help it if I had planned on one duration run, missed a turn, and
had a little extra adventure on a flat trail - flat even by NYC
standards. Not stiff the day after, waiting for day 2 to arrive. ;) )

Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk breaks
in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
relatively flat?

Dot

--
Instead of blindly accepting standard approaches to workouts, study
yourself carefully, noting how you respond to various kinds of work.
Patterns of training which produce your strongest running and create
your greatest excitement for the sport will be the ones which help you
achieve your goals, even though they may be far different from
conventional training practices. - Owen Anderson
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil M. wrote:
>
>> When talking with other ultra runners when
>> they say they ran 25 miles on the Appalachian trail, they really mean
>> they ran when they could, but actually ran less than half of it and
>> hiked the rest. At what point do you stop calling this running?

Only the top 10 at best try to run every foot of every trail ultra.
Usually the elevation is so demanding for most that one must power hike
to conserve. With this in mind I train the same way, some running and
some hiking. As long as my hiking is not flat and as I said in a
previous post, if your walking the flats you are probably toasted.

So bottom line, While I tend to think in hours I mentally know the
mileage and that is what recorded. A mile is a mile is a mile be it 5
mpm speed on a track or 14 mpm power humping up a hill with 20+ grade.
To me there is no difference and borders on extension of running vs.
jogging discussion.

OTOH, I choose my routes knowing full well if I plan to stress running
vs. hiking. It goes back to terrain of the pending race. I would not
train on difficult sections of the AT or Escarpment to do say the HAT,
VT50 or Bull Run which is mostly smooth trail. This all goes back to
specificity.

-DougF
 
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seriously, though, haven't you suggested taking non-terrain walk
> breaks in something like Bull Run (or was it HAT), where the course is
> relatively flat?

In a race like JFK which is miles and miles of flat toe path a walk
break on the flats may be necessary for the undertrained or first timer.
To take this to an extreme, 24-72 hour races on a track everyone must
develop a run walk strategy. For races like BR or the HAT there are
always some hills which one can opt to run or walk. Since some of them
are rather gentle ups the over zealous get carried away early and run
every step. These are the people that end up walking every inch of the
last 6-8 miles of a 50k or 10-15 of a 50.

I just love a race like BR. The first 16 miles is a rather easy out and
back. I get some perverse pleasure looking at the faces of people in
front me cruising along like a 10k. At 30-35 miles they are sitting in
chairs at the aid station or walking. Their zeal costs them literally
hours if not a DNF.

-DF
 
Phil wrote:
> I still have this "road-runner" mind set. In my mind, if I can't
> run 100% of the time, then it's not a run.

I've recently found this on the other end of the distance scale: doing 200m
reps on the track, yesterday morning I finally talked myself into walking
some of the recovery. Found that it had me fully (subjectively) recovered
faster, and also very conveniently a couple minutes' worth of slow walking
then very slow jogging covered the 200m to get me back to the start of the
next rep.


> One couple was through-hiking to Maine. At the point I saw them they
> were only on mile 40 of 2,147. Now *that* is some serious hiking.

What if they ran the first and last mile of the AT? Is it not then a
long-ass run? What more do they need to do, carry a pizza? ;-)
 
anthony wrote:
> Off to Australia for 2.5 weeks in a couple of days.
> Have tickets to see Craig (Buster) Mottram try and win the 5000m in
> front of his home crowd and both 100m finals at the Commonwealth Games.

Wow, that sounds great. Have a blast, anthony!!
 
Tony S. wrote:

> >In looking at last year's results. I couldn't find anyone with even or
> negative splits. Looking at the 10 hour finishers everyone slowed down
> for the fifth 10-mile loop. If I could somehow manage to start out with
> two or three 2-hour loops, then maybe I have a good shot at finishing
> strong. Waddaya think?<
>
> Why are you looking at 10 hour finishers? Based on your 50k times, I'd be
> thinking (at least) 9ish if I were you.

Since this is my first 50-miler (and some would say first "real"
ultra), I'm more interested in finishing strong than in shooting for my
potential best time, and possible "sh*%tting the bed.

> Relaxing on the first loop will be important, especially with a pack of 30
> mile runners around you.

That makes sense. Let those 30-mile sprinters take off ahead of me. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back