| |
Main
Date: 09 Sep 2006 18:40:20
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Ain't it funny.... how time slips away...."
That was the song playing on the radio as I was driving home from
this morning's 5K race. There's a funky new AM radio station in
Atlanta that plays some of these really old golden oldies. Feeling
a little nostalgic, I took the opportunity to pause and reflect on
the year -- on the races I have run, on the mistakes I have made,
on the successes I have recorded. Yeah, I know, it's still early
in the year for such musings, but hey, the song came on and....
I had prepared for this race. It would be my 30th of the year and
a last shot at a decent 5K. And with a relatively friendly
course, it would be my last chance for a sub-19. I needed to
start focusing on a late-fall marathon.
My training has been suffering lately. The pace has been
unbelievable slow. In the last couple of weeks I had clocked a
few 5-milers at 13 mpm. Might as well be walking. And worst of
all, despite the slow pace, my legs feel like absolute crap, never
really recovering from run to run. Like concrete. What the hell
am I doing wrong? Maybe all those carbo-loading freaks are right
and I should start eating some malto-goo and drinking chocolate
milk after runs.
The morning did not start auspiciously. I had resolved to lose
five pounds for this race and it looked good during the week.
After hitting a low of 148 pounds, I seemed to have stabilized
around 152, fully fueled. So it was an unpleasant surprise this
morning when the scales tipped a solid 156. What the hell
happened? How did I manage to gain four pounds in a couple of
days? Didn't look too encouraging.
That theme carried over into the morning warm-up. I do three laps
on the track prior to the race, but only one of them at a
full-speed effort. Despite running well, I clocked a
disappointing 1:26. And I thought I was doing a 1:23. Once
again, it didn't look like the running gods would be with me and
I'd have to settle for a mid-19, if lucky.
The gun went off at 8 AM sharp, 71 F, humid, slightly overcast. A
big field of 500-plus runners. Immediately there was a nasty
downhill -- the kind you can't run well, regardless of your form.
You just have to brake all the way and pray you don't pull a hammy
or twist an ankle. So I braked, and prayed, and watched my
footing... and prayed.
After the initial slide, we rollercoastered for the remainder of
the mile. Some of the downhills were still too nasty to run
all-out. Despite that, I hit the first mile in 5:49. My goal was
to run the first and third miles in six flat and hope for the best
in mile two. That was the uphill mile.
Even though I was 10 seconds ahead, I didn't feel as if I had gone
out too fast. In fact, I was feeling pretty good. The field was
still fairly thick at this point, so there was a lot of passing
and jockeying for positions.
During mile two, I got passed by a few racers on the uphills, but
reeled some of them back in on the downhills. Early in the mile a
guy that looked like he'd be trouble blasted by me. He had some
gray in his hair, so I suspected he might be close to my age
group. But you never know about some of these runners -- they
often look older than they are because of the low BMI. This guy
was especially small with a figure even more girlishly svelte than
mine (later it turned out he actually was in my AG).
We passed each other a few times, but after the second mile
marker, he faded a bit. I clocked mile two at 12:24 -- based on
the time called out by the volunteer. I did hit my watch for the
split, but was running too hard to try to read the time. Even
though I can't do math when racing, the 12:24 sounded vaguely
within range.
I was beginning to flag a little at this point but still feeling
fairly decent. The danger now was in getting seduced into a
slower pace by some of the fading runners I was catching. When
fatigue starts to kick in, it's oh so tempting to fall-in behind
someone and just maintain the tempo. So I had to engage in a lot
of self-butt kicking (butt self-kicking?) to wring out every last
ounce of effort.
Didn't spot the third mile marker - it was either absent, or I was
in too deep of a funk to register it. However, sensing the
approaching finish line I put on my usual feeble kick -- and
promptly got passed by a couple of runners. A young guy and... a
woman! That pissed me off. I hate getting passed by women. It
happens more often than I like to admit. Entering the chute I
heard the announcer yell out "...and here we have the first
woman!". Well, at least she'd be the first.
My time? I didn't register the clock, but as I passed by I heard
the announcer yell out an 18:42. By the time I regained enough
composure to hit my own stopwatch it read 18:45, so I think the
18:42 is good.
It's a 5K PR for me, improving on the 19:19 from a few weeks ago.
The overall winner ran a 15:36. I was 16th overall, earning a
Grand Master trophy. My second this year. The other one was at
the Hilton Head half in February.
Lessons learned? The only thing I varied from the preparation for
the last few 5Ks has been my speedwork approach. I have been
making the assumption that 5&10K races are an adequate substitute
for actual speedwork. After a disappointing 5K a couple of weeks
ago, I began to suspect that this assumption may have some flaws.
So I skipped racing last weekend in favor of an absolute
gut-puking track work. I did 4x400 and 4x800 at full effort.
After a couple of the 400's I was actually observed bent over with
the dry heaves. That hasn't happened to me in a long time. But I
guess it does produce results. A little bit of pain here and
there seems to make a difference. As does a friendly course.
Some race pics: http://i2.tinypic.com/33ueq8p.jpg
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 15:07:38
From:
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson wrote:
> Despite that, I hit the first mile in 5:49
_
damn. if i ever talk junk to you, remind me of this 1st mile time to
put me in my place. but what i envy most is 30 races. as a self
confessed race rat, my tops of a single year is about 35 or so.
i would love to race every weekend truth be told. question though.
what do you to with the t-shirts? i give mine away to the prettiest
woman i see on the walk home from races.
and as an added bit of trivia?....how much $ have you spent on entry
fees across these 30 races?...approx?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:03:51
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
lanceandrew@aol.com said...
>damn. if i ever talk junk to you, remind me of this 1st mile
>time to put me in my place. but what i envy most is 30 races.
> as a self confessed race rat, my tops of a single year is about
>35 or so.
Thanks, man, that 35 gives me a nice target to shoot for. I think
I just might have a chance at it this year.
>i would love to race every weekend truth be told. question
>though. what do you to with the t-shirts?
Aah, a question for the thinking man. Being somewhat of a newbie
racer, I still attach some value to them. I'm clinging to this
illusion that someday when I get as old and feeble as Doug, I'll
be able to pull one out and say "...and I remember when I ran this
one. It was in the snow, uphill, both ways."
For the time being they are unceremoniously dumped in a corner of the
closet: http://i1.tinypic.com/2ziwpc1.jpg
>i give mine away to the prettiest woman i see on the walk home
>from races.
Yeah, I do that with the restaurant certificates I get as a part
of the AG awards. I'm too picky about restaurants to feel
compelled to go somewhere just because. But the shirt thing might
work too, I'll have to give it a try.
>and as an added bit of trivia?....how much $ have you spent on
>entry fees across these 30 races?...approx?
Another good question. In this part of the country, walk-up fees
for the shorter stuff are between $18 and $25, averages to about
$22. Halfs are $50 and the marathon was $100, so I guess I'm in
for about $750 so far. I'll do over a grand this year, just in
fees. Money well spent, but I'm wondering if any of it might be
tax deductible.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:00:42
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:Xns983A7A48B164Cmarkhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47...
> lanceandrew@aol.com said...
> Another good question. In this part of the country, walk-up fees
> for the shorter stuff are between $18 and $25, averages to about
> $22. Halfs are $50 and the marathon was $100, so I guess I'm in
> for about $750 so far. I'll do over a grand this year, just in
> fees.
Try the longer stuff and out of town and the grand will be chump change.
My last 100 alone cost me a grand but it did have some motel rooms for
three nights included and felt compelled to feed my wife and crew.
Ask for a raise or skip the long runs. ;)
As for shirts I can remember initially saving all my 10 Boston shirts.
They sit in a box but they don't mean much. My other shirts all
brandishing big numbers I seldom wear least someone think I'm a snob. I
have draws full of shirts and I wear them so seldom. I prefer races that
don't give out shirts.
-D
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:11:07
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Doug Freese said...
>"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com> wrote in message
>> Another good question. In this part of the country, walk-up
>> fees for the shorter stuff are between $18 and $25, averages
>> to about $22. Halfs are $50 and the marathon was $100, so I
>> guess I'm in for about $750 so far. I'll do over a grand this
>> year, just in fees.
>
>Try the longer stuff and out of town and the grand will be chump
>change. My last 100 alone cost me a grand but it did have some
>motel rooms for three nights included and felt compelled to feed
>my wife and crew.
>
>Ask for a raise or skip the long runs. ;)
You're babbling again, Doug. The subject being discussed was race
fees, not overall race expenses. My April marathon alone cost me
over $800, not including the stuff I bought at the Expo, the
photos and the DVD. And I felt no compulsion to feed your wife
and crew. :-)
>As for shirts I can remember initially saving all my 10 Boston
>shirts. They sit in a box but they don't mean much. My other
>shirts all brandishing big numbers I seldom wear least someone
>think I'm a snob.
That's very democratic of you.
>I have draws full of shirts and I wear them so seldom. I prefer
>races that don't give out shirts.
Go to http://www.runningintheusa.com/YouMightBeARunnerTop.asp
"You might be a runner if... you always check the no tee-shirt
option."
That's one of my entries.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 21:37:25
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98399EFEBAB73markhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47...
> "Ain't it funny.... how time slips away...."
You ain't seen nuttin' yet.
> I had prepared for this race. It would be my 30th of the year and
> a last shot at a decent 5K. And with a relatively friendly
> course, it would be my last chance for a sub-19. I needed to
> start focusing on a late-fall marathon.
When I did race some years ago, I finally hit 18:32 which was sub 6 per
mile. Never ran another 5k hard again.
> My training has been suffering lately. The pace has been
> unbelievable slow. In the last couple of weeks I had clocked a
> few 5-milers at 13 mpm. Might as well be walking. And worst of
> all, despite the slow pace, my legs feel like absolute crap, never
> really recovering from run to run.
Maybe too much such that zero would have been better than 5 at a crawl?
> Maybe all those carbo-loading freaks are right
> and I should start eating some malto-goo and drinking chocolate
> milk after runs.
Nah, for you a glass of olive oil is just fine. ;)
> The morning did not start auspiciously. I had resolved to lose
> five pounds for this race and it looked good during the week.
Was that 5 pounds to be lost in one week?
> He had some
> gray in his hair, so I suspected he might be close to my age
> group. But you never know about some of these runners -- they
> often look older than they are because of the low BMI. This guy
> was especially small with a figure even more girlishly svelte than
> mine (later it turned out he actually was in my AG).
Oh gee, now your gonna get Lance all cranked up with his BMI game. He
was thinnner.
> Didn't spot the third mile marker - it was either absent, or I was
> in too deep of a funk to register it. However, sensing the
> approaching finish line I put on my usual feeble kick -- and
> promptly got passed by a couple of runners. A young guy and... a
> woman! That pissed me off. I hate getting passed by women.
Been there, learn to live with it! ;)
> happens more often than I like to admit. Entering the chute I
> heard the announcer yell out "...and here we have the first
> woman!". Well, at least she'd be the first.
You sure they weren't thinking you were the woman?
> My time? I didn't register the clock, but as I passed by I heard
> the announcer yell out an 18:42. By the time I regained enough
> composure to hit my own stopwatch it read 18:45, so I think the
> 18:42 is good.
>
> It's a 5K PR for me, improving on the 19:19 from a few weeks ago.
Nice progress for a GRAND master - whatever the hell that is.
> Lessons learned? The only thing I varied from the preparation for
> the last few 5Ks has been my speedwork approach. I have been
> making the assumption that 5&10K races are an adequate substitute
> for actual speedwork. After a disappointing 5K a couple of weeks
> ago, I began to suspect that this assumption may have some flaws.
Well 5k races to train for 10k is works But using a 5k for another
5k??? This doesn't get you to run any miles faster than 5k race pace.
> So I skipped racing last weekend in favor of an absolute
> gut-puking track work. I did 4x400 and 4x800 at full effort.
And full effort means? Maybe faster than 5k pace? Maybe too fast
and/or too many if you feel like blowing chunks.
> Some race pics: http://i2.tinypic.com/33ueq8p.jpg
I can't seem to find your face unless that really is you in the 18:42
picture. A Boy George flair.
You be my idol.
-Doug
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:01:09
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Doug Freese said...
>Maybe too much such that zero would have been better than 5 at a
>crawl?
Who knows? That's the part that's so hard to judge. Maybe it
would be better to skip it, but I will admit to a certain amount
of compulsion to record that mileage number in the log.
>Nah, for you a glass of olive oil is just fine. ;)
As long as it's a quality EVOO like this:
http://i5.tinypic.com/2llikk0.jpg
>> The morning did not start auspiciously. I had resolved to lose
>> five pounds for this race and it looked good during the week.
>
>Was that 5 pounds to be lost in one week?
Two. Doable for me.
>You sure they weren't thinking you were the woman?
Yeah, that's part of the humiliation. Sets you up for some
jocular snickering later on. It's a cruel world out there.
>Nice progress for a GRAND master - whatever the hell that is.
Thanks. But you really don't race much, do you? GM is a special
category reserved for Racing Idols only. ;-)
I got another one of those at the Hilton Head half in February:
http://i3.tinypic.com/2h4dlqe.jpg That one came with a $100
prize, so I actually came out ahead. That's always good.
>Well 5k races to train for 10k is works But using a 5k for
>another 5k??? This doesn't get you to run any miles faster than
>5k race pace.
Yeah, that was exactly the kind of thinking that made me skip last
week's race and do the track work. The "going faster than
intended race speed" seems pretty crucial.
>> So I skipped racing last weekend in favor of an absolute
>> gut-puking track work. I did 4x400 and 4x800 at full effort.
>
>And full effort means? Maybe faster than 5k pace? Maybe too
>fast and/or too many if you feel like blowing chunks.
Oh, I was just being dramatic. Just another way to garner respect
on the track. ;-)
>> Some race pics: http://i2.tinypic.com/33ueq8p.jpg
>
>I can't seem to find your face unless that really is you in the
>18:42 picture. A Boy George flair.
You see, it had to with the title "Beaten by a woman...", and the
juxtaposition of the woman's head and my time... and her laughing at
the 18:42 and.... oh, never mind.
>You be my idol.
A grave burden that I shall endeavor to bear with honor and
dignity. Carry on.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 20:51:41
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com >
> My training has been suffering lately. The pace has been
> unbelievable slow. In the last couple of weeks I had clocked a
> few 5-milers at 13 mpm. Might as well be walking. And worst of
> all, despite the slow pace, my legs feel like absolute crap, never
> really recovering from run to run. Like concrete.
Um, would those runs be after your too-hard speedwork? If so, that's par
for the course.
> What the hell
> am I doing wrong? Maybe all those carbo-loading freaks are right
> and I should start eating some malto-goo and drinking chocolate
> milk after runs.
Having those dead-leg days on a recovery day after a hard day is not that
unusual when training hard. The recovery goal is to feel better on the day
of your next hard(er) run.
I found that eating 300 cals of carbs right after my runs seems to help my
legs recharge. I've read that there's a 20 minute window of opportunity
right after you run when carbs go straight back the muscles as glycogen. If
there isn't a bagel shop or Green Satan (Starbucks) nearby, I bring
something to nosh with me.
> The morning did not start auspiciously. I had resolved to lose
> five pounds for this race and it looked good during the week.
> After hitting a low of 148 pounds, I seemed to have stabilized
> around 152, fully fueled. So it was an unpleasant surprise this
> morning when the scales tipped a solid 156. What the hell
> happened? How did I manage to gain four pounds in a couple of
> days? Didn't look too encouraging.
Sounds like some carbo loading took place, not really a bad sign...did you
taper any for this one?
> That theme carried over into the morning warm-up. I do three laps
> on the track prior to the race, but only one of them at a
> full-speed effort. Despite running well, I clocked a
> disappointing 1:26. And I thought I was doing a 1:23. Once
> again, it didn't look like the running gods would be with me and
> I'd have to settle for a mid-19, if lucky.
Sounds like you need a warm-up for your warmup... :-)
> The gun went off at 8 AM sharp, 71 F, humid, slightly overcast. A
> big field of 500-plus runners. Immediately there was a nasty
> downhill -- the kind you can't run well, regardless of your form.
On a paved road? Got an idea of the % grade?
> Even though I was 10 seconds ahead, I didn't feel as if I had gone
> out too fast. In fact, I was feeling pretty good. The field was
> still fairly thick at this point, so there was a lot of passing
> and jockeying for positions.
In such situations, I use my riding crop on some of the runners blocking my
path.
> I was beginning to flag a little at this point but still feeling
> fairly decent.
Interesting, the perception of effort. I never come close to puke-pt doing
speedwork, yet I'm in pretty intense pain bordering on agony at mile 2+ in a
5k....
> The danger now was in getting seduced into a
> slower pace by some of the fading runners I was catching. When
> fatigue starts to kick in, it's oh so tempting to fall-in behind
> someone and just maintain the tempo.
My fanatic competitiveness propels me past them, and I get a little
adrenaline rush each time...
> So I had to engage in a lot
> of self-butt kicking (butt self-kicking?) to wring out every last
> ounce of effort.
I'll take door 3, self butt-kicking...
> A young guy and... a
> woman! That pissed me off. I hate getting passed by women. It
> happens more often than I like to admit.
That bugs me too (although I know I shouldn't feel that way...).
Fortunately, I've never been bested by a woman in the 5k, although the last
one I ran was about 16:04 umpteen years ago.
> My time? I didn't register the clock, but as I passed by I heard
> the announcer yell out an 18:42. By the time I regained enough
> composure to hit my own stopwatch it read 18:45, so I think the
> 18:42 is good.
My analog mental arithmetic race calculator comes up with a 5:40-ish split
on mile 2...
> It's a 5K PR for me, improving on the 19:19 from a few weeks ago.
> The overall winner ran a 15:36. I was 16th overall, earning a
> Grand Master trophy.
How grey of beard are you? And did you compete when you were wet behind
the ears?
A really good time, totally smashed your PR. I guess speedwork (despite the
inevitable crappy-tired next day) works after all ;-). Contratulations.
> So I skipped racing last weekend in favor of an absolute
> gut-puking track work. I did 4x400 and 4x800 at full effort.
> After a couple of the 400's I was actually observed bent over with
> the dry heaves. That hasn't happened to me in a long time. But I
> guess it does produce results.
It works even better if you back off a bit and do 4 weeks worth. When you
push too hard, you end up training the anerobic pathways, and the lactic
acid build-up inhibits the training of the aerobic pathways (which is what
speedwork is about for distance guys).
-- Dan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 14:57:45
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Dan Stumpus said...
>Sounds like some carbo loading took place
Not really, just the traditional, almost ritualistic, pre-race
snack -- two jars of salsa and some corn chips.
http://i7.tinypic.com/315hnap.jpg
>did you taper any for this one?
Yes -- mostly by reducing last week's mileage to 45 instead of 60.
Same this week. But the weight gain came the previous travel
week to Vancouver. Too much smoked salmon and creme brule.
>Sounds like you need a warm-up for your warmup... :-)
That's an inherent part of the warm-up. First lap is a leisurely
2:00, second lap is speed, third lap is cool-down at 2:00.
>On a paved road? Got an idea of the % grade?
Good question. I'll take my inclinometer next time I go there. It
was a paved road, but there were potholes, gutters and manhole
covers, so you had to watch your step. You have those same hazards
when running on a flat road, but a steep downhill is more of a
controlled free-fall, so a secure footplant is even more critical.
Much easier to get injured unless you are willing to slow down.
Think Lombard street in SF.
>I'll take door 3, self butt-kicking...
Thanks. Sounds like you've also had some direct experience. :-)
>Fortunately, I've never been bested by a woman in the 5k,
>although the last one I ran was about 16:04 umpteen years ago.
Well, try it today, gramps, I guarantee you'll get bested. ;-)
>How grey of beard are you?
It may not *all* still be there, but none of it is gray. :-)
>And did you compete when you were wet behind the ears?
Yup -- still am, just a newbie. This is my second year of
serious running, so I guess by that lore of running formula (8-10
years of improvements) I should have six to eight years of
improvement still ahead of me. Right? Somehow I doubt that.
>A really good time, totally smashed your PR. I guess speedwork
>(despite the inevitable crappy-tired next day) works after all
>;-). Contratulations.
Oh, thanks much, Dan.
>It works even better if you back off a bit and do 4 weeks worth.
>When you push too hard, you end up training the anerobic
>pathways, and the lactic acid build-up inhibits the training of
>the aerobic pathways (which is what speedwork is about for
>distance guys).
I don't quite follow you. I thought speedwork was pretty much all
about training your anaerobic pathways, even for distance guys.
And all the other mileage is for the aerobic portion of your
training. Do you see it differently?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:55:48
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote
> Not really, just the traditional, almost ritualistic, pre-race
> snack -- two jars of salsa and some corn chips.
> http://i7.tinypic.com/315hnap.jpg
Given your unorthodox non-warmup-warmup and speedwork, I would expect that
you eat precisely 2700 calories 13 minutes before the start...Ah, now the
chunks on the track makes sense...
>>Sounds like you need a warm-up for your warmup... :-)
>
> That's an inherent part of the warm-up. First lap is a leisurely
> 2:00, second lap is speed, third lap is cool-down at 2:00.
One of these days, when you figure it out, you'll smile at this ritual...
>>On a paved road? Got an idea of the % grade?
> Good question. I'll take my inclinometer next time I go there.
Polar has a great inclinometer/rain-gauge/seismometer watch, the GW-1000X.
And wouldn't you know it, the last earthquake we had (yesterday) was a 3.4
and the watch said 3.8. I'm sending the damn thing back...
> was a paved road, but there were potholes, gutters and manhole
> covers, so you had to watch your step. You have those same hazards
> when running on a flat road, but a steep downhill is more of a
> controlled free-fall, so a secure footplant is even more critical.
With this much trauma in a road race, I take it you aren't likely to sign up
for any mountain races for awhile...Just imagine the trauma with lizards and
squirrels darting in front of you...
>>Fortunately, I've never been bested by a woman in the 5k,
>>although the last one I ran was about 16:04 umpteen years ago.
>
> Well, try it today, gramps, I guarantee you'll get bested. ;-)
Hey, pops, you're the "Grand Master" here, not me. (My USCF rating peaked
at 1750)
Only about half the time, lately, in a couple of local races I cannot
discuss for reasons of national security. I think I'll update update that
requirement to "bested by a woman of within 10 years of my age".
> Yup -- still am, just a newbie. This is my second year of
> serious running, so I guess by that lore of running formula (8-10
> years of improvements) I should have six to eight years of
> improvement still ahead of me. Right? Somehow I doubt that.
Depends on your age, and DNA. I started out fast (first 10k 35:50, 5k
17:1x), peaked at 3 years, and gave up trying to improve after 5. My dad
started at age 55, peaked out at 60ish, then started slowing ~15sec/year in
the 10k. But he only ran 15-20 mpw.
>>It works even better if you back off a bit and do 4 weeks worth.
>>When you push too hard, you end up training the anerobic
>>pathways, and the lactic acid build-up inhibits the training of
>>the aerobic pathways (which is what speedwork is about for
>>distance guys).
>
> I don't quite follow you. I thought speedwork was pretty much all
> about training your anaerobic pathways, even for distance guys.
> And all the other mileage is for the aerobic portion of your
> training. Do you see it differently?
I found the attached extremely enlightening as an overview some years ago.
Ingrid Kristiansen held just about every distance WR over her career,
including the marathon for >10 years, I believe. She was laughed off the
track as a younger runner because she had no speed. Hubby is an exercise
physiologist and coach:
http://www.ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/physical.htm
Enjoy...
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:08:01
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Dan Stumpus said...
>Given your unorthodox non-warmup-warmup and speedwork,
I couldn't agree with you more. This running thing is clearly all
about maintaining orthodox approaches to warm-ups and speedwork
and has nothing to do with actual racing results. How
presumptuous of me to experiment.
>I would expect that you eat precisely 2700 calories 13 minutes
>before the start...
Don't be silly, I never count calories. And my last pre-race meal
is always at least six hours prior to the start of any race. That
goes for an 5 AM start (fairly common in Hawaii), an 8 AM start...
or a noon start -- if there just happens to be one. :-)
>Ah, now the chunks on the track makes sense...
Well, I suspect perhaps only to you. In my report I clearly said
"dry heaves". I have far too much class to engage in something as
philistine and pedestrian as actually depositing "chunks on the
track". But perhaps you read (imagined) that differently?
>> That's an inherent part of the warm-up. First lap is a
>> leisurely 2:00, second lap is speed, third lap is cool-down at
>> 2:00.
>
>One of these days, when you figure it out, you'll smile at this
>ritual...
I suspect you are right. I also think it's inevitable that one of
these days I'll reach a state of mediocrity ignominious enough to
compel me to seek the protection of the secluded world of trail
racing. ;-)
>Polar has a great inclinometer/rain-gauge/seismometer watch, the
>GW-1000X. And wouldn't you know it, the last earthquake we had
>(yesterday) was a 3.4 and the watch said 3.8. I'm sending the
>damn thing back...
I don't blame you. But then again, Home Depot has a great
inclinometer for 10 bucks. It doesn't measure rainfall, and only
trembles during an earthquake, but does a hell of a job of
measuring the grade of a slope.
>With this much trauma in a road race, I take it you aren't likely
>to sign up for any mountain races for awhile...Just imagine the
>trauma with lizards and squirrels darting in front of you...
Wow, I'm in true awe of your he-trailsmanship. I do 95% of my
weekly training mileage on very technical trails, but I'm sure
that doesn't compare in any way to your rugged experiences.
And you're right -- after today's cross-country race, I have
resolved to never again engage in any sort of trail racing. It
just seems to me that trails were designed for leisurely transport
and are not all that compatible with the concept of true racing.
But that's just me.
>Hey, pops, you're the "Grand Master" here, not me.
Well, that's true, but you are eligible too. Have been for a
while. You just have win one. :-)
>(My USCF rating peaked at 1750)
? I'm not familiar with the running references you are throwing
out here. I'm just a rookie, you know, not some king of running
jargon like you.
>Only about half the time, lately, in a couple of local races I
>cannot discuss for reasons of national security. I think I'll
>update update that requirement to "bested by a woman of within 10
>years of my age".
Sorry, not quite sure what that paragraph means either.
>> I don't quite follow you. I thought speedwork was pretty much
>> all about training your anaerobic pathways, even for distance
>> guys. And all the other mileage is for the aerobic portion of
>> your training. Do you see it differently?
>
>I found the attached extremely enlightening as an overview some
>years ago. Ingrid Kristiansen held just about every distance WR
>over her career, including the marathon for >10 years, I believe.
> She was laughed off the track as a younger runner because she
>had no speed. Hubby is an exercise physiologist and coach:
>
>http://www.ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/physical.htm
Much thanks. But before I click on that link, could you perhaps
help out with an executive summary? I mean does Ms. Kristiansen
(damn, that's a sexy name) agree or disagree with my assumption?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:10:40
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote
>>Given your unorthodox non-warmup-warmup and speedwork,
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. This running thing is clearly all
> about maintaining orthodox approaches to warm-ups and speedwork
> and has nothing to do with actual racing results. How
> presumptuous of me to experiment.
By all means, experiment. I change things around quite often. Sometimes
doing dumb things just to have it pounded in that it is really dumb (such as
not doing speedwork prior to a year's worth of races). Just trying to help
out here by advising that you properly warm up. Really none of my business,
I know...
> Don't be silly, I never count calories. And my last pre-race meal
> is always at least six hours prior to the start of any race. That
> goes for an 5 AM start (fairly common in Hawaii), an 8 AM start...
> or a noon start -- if there just happens to be one. :-)
Back in the day, I'd eat nothing after 6:00 pm the night before (now known
not to be a good plan). Your 6 hours splits the difference between a
smaller meal 2-3 hours prior (the current consensus), and fasting after
dinner.
>>Ah, now the chunks on the track makes sense...
> Well, I suspect perhaps only to you. In my report I clearly said
> "dry heaves". I have far too much class to engage in something as
> philistine and pedestrian as actually depositing "chunks on the
> track". But perhaps you read (imagined) that differently?
Please excuse me...
>>One of these days, when you figure it out, you'll smile at this
>>ritual...
>
> I suspect you are right. I also think it's inevitable that one of
> these days I'll reach a state of mediocrity ignominious enough to
> compel me to seek the protection of the secluded world of trail
> racing. ;-)
Not really protection, it's just a big bore for me to run in a crowd on
streets. Been there, done that, a couple hundred times. Now if I had a
shot at the top 4-5 again, that would be a different story ;-). Also,
around here the big guns (including national class guys) often show up for
the shorter trail races.
>>With this much trauma in a road race, I take it you aren't likely
>>to sign up for any mountain races for awhile...Just imagine the
>>trauma with lizards and squirrels darting in front of you...
> Wow, I'm in true awe of your he-trailsmanship.
Just today a squirrel darted in front of me, and I didn't miss a
stride...The two rattlers on the trail last Sunday did give me pause,
though...(got those in HI?)
> I do 95% of my
> weekly training mileage on very technical trails, but I'm sure
> that doesn't compare in any way to your rugged experiences.
Ooh, instant Trail Cred points have been awarded, brotha. I run 95% trails,
but 60% of that on graded fireroads and bridle trails, the single track
stuff is more remote and reserved for weekends -- as well as being slower
going. The trails make you tough, though, no?
> And you're right -- after today's cross-country race, I have
> resolved to never again engage in any sort of trail racing. It
> just seems to me that trails were designed for leisurely transport
> and are not all that compatible with the concept of true racing.
> But that's just me.
When I was an insane road racer (upwards of 11 marathons/year, and sundry
5k, 10k, and 1/2M too), it always amazed me how hard it was to average 6:00
on the trails when it was so easy on pavement.
>>Hey, pops, you're the "Grand Master" here, not me.
> Well, that's true, but you are eligible too. Have been for a
> while. You just have win one. :-)
Most recent trophies and plaques are in the front row :-)
>>(My USCF rating peaked at 1750)
> ? I'm not familiar with the running references you are throwing
> out here. I'm just a rookie, you know, not some king of running
> jargon like you.
Sorry, USCF is US Chess Federation (Grand master being someone with a
ranking of 2500 in the chess world). Just threw that one out there on the
(very) off chance you were a Chess competitor.
>>Only about half the time, lately, in a couple of local races I
>>cannot discuss for reasons of national security.
> Sorry, not quite sure what that paragraph means either.
Meaning that in the last few races (including road-type) I've been "chicked"
about half the time as a 50+. (that's what the guys call it here when a
woman bests you)
>>> I don't quite follow you. I thought speedwork was pretty much
>>> all about training your anaerobic pathways, even for distance
>>> guys. And all the other mileage is for the aerobic portion of
>>> your training. Do you see it differently?
>>
>>I found the attached extremely enlightening as an overview some
>>years ago. Ingrid Kristiansen held just about every distance WR
>>over her career, including the marathon for >10 years, I believe.
>> She was laughed off the track as a younger runner because she
>>had no speed. Hubby is an exercise physiologist and coach:
>>
>>http://www.ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/physical.htm
>
> Much thanks. But before I click on that link, could you perhaps
> help out with an executive summary? I mean does Ms. Kristiansen
> (damn, that's a sexy name) agree or disagree with my assumption?
Disagrees. Give it a read, it might provide grist for the mill.
-- Dan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:16:25
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Dan Stumpus said...
>"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com> wrote
>
>Just trying to help out here by advising that you properly warm
>up. Really none of my business, I know...
That's not the issue. Kibitzing is more than welcome, that's why
we post here. I only object when I hear terms like "weird" or
"unorthodox" used to disparagingly label ideas that challenge the
sacrosanct catechism of the accepted beliefs.
I found that any advice I get about running is something that has
to pass a sanity test and a rigorous field trial before becoming
eligible for inclusion in my own set of cherished beliefs. With
that approach I have found a surprisingly large number of the
commonly accepted beliefs to be less than effective for me. Thence
the source of my skepticism.
The other credential I like to see in any runner willing to
provide me with advice is a demonstrated ability to be faster than
me. I mean why should I be tempted to emulate someone else's
approach if it's likely to slow me down? Thence my sometimes rude
requests for verifiable racing results.
>Back in the day, I'd eat nothing after 6:00 pm the night before
>(now known not to be a good plan). Your 6 hours splits the
>difference between a smaller meal 2-3 hours prior (the current
>consensus), and fasting after dinner.
Perfectly acceptable to gently nosh up to 3 hours before a race,
if one is hungry. I prefer things like small fruit or mixed nut
servings. But eating too close to race time can be detrimental to
performance, as reported by Mlle. Veronique Billat and discussed
in another thread. It has to do with insulin swings caused by the
metabolization of carbohydrates (cue DR).
>Just today a squirrel darted in front of me, and I didn't miss a
>stride...
I live in the world capital of gray squirrels. Around these parts
we refer to them as rats with good PR.
>The two rattlers on the trail last Sunday did give me pause,
>though...(got those in HI?)
I've seen no snakes in Paradise, but I do run across a rattler or
a fat water moccasin fairly often during the summer here. Last
moccasin sighting was couple of weeks ago, no more than a few feet
from me -- a very unpleasant experience. They slither out of the
lake onto the trail to sun themselves and won't move until you are
almost on top of them.
>Ooh, instant Trail Cred points have been awarded, brotha. I run
>95% trails, but 60% of that on graded fireroads and bridle
>trails, the single track stuff is more remote and reserved for
>weekends -- as well as being slower going. The trails make you
>tough, though, no?
They make you very tough... and very careful. Especially after
you break a bone or two.
>When I was an insane road racer (upwards of 11 marathons/year,
>and sundry 5k, 10k, and 1/2M too), it always amazed me how hard
>it was to average 6:00 on the trails when it was so easy on
>pavement.
I have actually tested this. My particular training trail roughly
parallels a road, so I've been able to determine that the trail
overhead is about 20%. Another words, if my road race time is say
33:xx, the best I can do on the trail is 40:xx. Of course, my
best trail times were clocked in training and the best road
results came from actual races, so there are some intangible
factors in there that I haven't accounted for. But a 15% estimate
should be a very realistic number.
>> ? I'm not familiar with the running references you are throwing
>> out here. I'm just a rookie, you know, not some king of running
>> jargon like you.
>
>Sorry, USCF is US Chess Federation (Grand master being someone
>with a ranking of 2500 in the chess world). Just threw that one
>out there on the (very) off chance you were a Chess competitor.
These days I apply my chess expertise solely to the planning of my
moves in newsgroup postings. The goal is to be a couple of moves
ahead, as I tried to do above. If you carefully reread that you
might understand what I'm talking about, mate. ;-)
But maybe I was being too subtle. Sometimes it's hard to judge
these things.
As to your own chess expertise? Well now! It appears that you
are not only an accomplished and fiercely competitive runner, you
also have solid credentials in the more scholarly pursuits.
Perhaps we should refer to you as our own Roads Scholar?
>> Much thanks. But before I click on that link, could you
>> perhaps help out with an executive summary? I mean does Ms.
>> Kristiansen (damn, that's a sexy name) agree or disagree with
>> my assumption?
>
>Disagrees. Give it a read, it might provide grist for the mill.
Well, OK... I guess you aren't willing to highlight the more
provocative details so we could quickly launch into a passionate
argument.
Took a quick peak and it looked kind of eclectically funky. I
noticed that in the opening paragraph she mentions something about
"moderation". This may be a showstopper. I mean moderation? To
a runner? Kidding, right?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:15:02
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>I only object when I hear terms like "weird" or
>"unorthodox" used to disparagingly label ideas that challenge the
Fair enough
>sacrosanct catechism of the accepted beliefs.
The pot and the kettle are having a love-in :oP
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:49:36
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote
> Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>I only object when I hear terms like "weird" or
>>"unorthodox" used to disparagingly label ideas that challenge the
>
> Fair enough
>
>>sacrosanct catechism of the accepted beliefs.
>
> The pot and the kettle are having a love-in :oP
I'm sure you know what you meant, but it's not obvious to me. Care
to elaborate on that enigmatic shot?
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 20:29:38
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>I'm sure you know what you meant, but it's not obvious to me. Care
>to elaborate on that enigmatic shot?
Using "sacrosanct catechism" and "accepted beliefs" is no different to
using "wierd" and "unorthodox".
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:57:01
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common said...
>Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you know what you meant, but it's not obvious to me.
>>Care to elaborate on that enigmatic shot?
>
>Using "sacrosanct catechism" and "accepted beliefs" is no
>different to using "wierd" and "unorthodox".
It isn't? An interesting perspective. I'd think there's a world
of difference. Terms like "sacrosanct catechism" and "accepted
beliefs" immediately place the subscriber into the safe and
protected world of the majority (by definition), whereas "weird"
and "unorthodox" label the holder as an out-of-the-mainstream
heretic vulnerable to an easy attack. Or do you see it
differently?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:17:35
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>Or do you see it differently?
Both appear to be designed to distance the writer from the behaviour /
opinion / idea being described, perhaps conveying the further notion, with
more or less humour (or total lack of), that only a noob, idiot, poser,
troll (or mindless majority) could believe such nonsense.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:10:44
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common wrote
>Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>Or do you see it differently?
>
>Both appear to be designed to distance the writer from the
>behaviour >/opinion / idea being described, perhaps conveying the
>further notion, with more or less humour (or total lack of), that
>only a noob, idiot, poser, troll (or mindless majority) could
>believe such nonsense.
Wow! Now there's a unique spin on the unsaid, even the unimplied.
That's what I call reaching! You appear to be determined to find an
insult, or offense, where none intentionally exists. Those mental
gymnastic must be worth at least a five km run (note humour :-)).
To repeat, neither the term "sacrosanct catechism" nor "commonly
accepted beliefs" have any pejorative connotation whatsoever. To
the contrary, they constitute the very definition of the majority
and its values .
My invocation of those terms cannot be fairly interpreted as
characterizing the opposing view holder as a "noob, idiot, poser,
troll (or mindless majority)". That's pure fantasy. By that
insinuation no one could ever challenge the views of the majority
without appearing to be hurling those imagined insults.
I believe I have consistently stated that the views I hold work
for me, and only me. The implication that those views somehow
jeopardize the integrity, pride, and honor of the majority is
totally bogus and at worst, appears to be intentionally
misleading.
In contrast, "weird" and "unorthodox" are pejorative terms and
serve to pin a negative label on the proponent, sending a signal
to the group that it's acceptable, and even advisable, to attack
the target. Just look at the tenor this thread seems to be
taking.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:07:26
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>You appear to be determined to find an insult, or offense,
Not so. No more and no less than I found in Dan's text (jocular, not
biting, I thought)? My original post (including smiley, lest we forget)
was intended to show the humour I thought I had detected in the situation.
>To repeat, neither the term "sacrosanct catechism" nor "commonly
>accepted beliefs" have any pejorative connotation whatsoever.
In exactly the same way as "unorthodox". "Weird" could be more of a
problem except that it was used with "unorthodox". I felt that softened it
rather. I love being called unorthodox and always take it as a compliment.
"Weird" depends on context; it's fine for everything except sex :- >
>>Weird(adj)
>>1 : of, relating to, or caused by witchcraft or the supernatural : MAGICAL
Hardly to the point, though I think you felt it as this meaning, right?
>>2 : of strange or extraordinary character : ODD, FANTASTIC
Of strange or extraordinary character (ODD might be an insult maybe). So
something which isn't ordinary could be just that, weird, yes ?
>>Unorthodox
>>not orthodox
>>
>>Orthodox
>>1 a : conforming to established drine especially in religion
>> b : CONVENTIONAL
Unorthodox is "not conforming to established drine". Or "not
conventional". I've tried my damnest but I can't see an insult there,
except to someone who is trying _their_ damnest to be conventional. Not
you I think?
>>2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative
>> religious or political groups: as
>> a : EASTERN ORTHODOX
>> b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
Not applicable.
So if weren't for the "weird", would you have been unhappy with
"unorthodox" alone?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:37:46
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common said...
>Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>You appear to be determined to find an insult, or offense,
>
>Not so.
How "not so"? You explicitly accused me of portraying the typical
adherent of the commonly held views as "noob, idiot, poser, troll
(or mindless majority)". Or did I just imagine that?
>No more and no less than I found in Dan's text (jocular, not
>biting, I thought)
I believe you did. However, you chose to challenge my post, not
Dan's. Hmmmm. >:-[
>My original post (including smiley, lest we forget) was intended
>to show the humour I thought I had detected in the situation.
Yes, but humor at my expense, apparently? Signifying criticism
perhaps? Or were the smileys intended to imply otherwise?
>>To repeat, neither the term "sacrosanct catechism" nor "commonly
>>accepted beliefs" have any pejorative connotation whatsoever.
>
>In exactly the same way as "unorthodox".
How? How can you possibly equate "unorthodox" with "commonly
accepted beliefs"? Diametrically opposing concepts.
>"Weird" could be more of a problem except that it was used with
>"unorthodox". I felt that softened it rather. I love being called
>unorthodox and always take it as a compliment.
Ever work in a corporate environment? If so, I think you will
agree that being labeled "unorthodox" is tantamount to being
labeled "not a team player", "not predictable", "not manageable",
"to be avoided", etc. In all honesty, would you also feel
complimented if you found the label "unorthodox" all over your
personnel file? Somehow I doubt that. I trust you understand the
point I'm trying to make.
>"Weird" depends on context; it's fine for everything except sex
>:->
Actually, that may be the only time I would really feel
complimented. :-)
>So if weren't for the "weird", would you have been unhappy with
>"unorthodox" alone?
Just shades of gray.
This really has very little to do with dictionary definitions.
This is about the moral principles involved in the way you chose
respond to someone who routinely challenges commonly accepted
belief and views. In this long and interesting thread you had
nothing whatsoever to say until you spotted what you thought
would be worth challenging in one of my posts. Sort of hiding in
the bushes until the unwary prey sauntered by.
I am not complaining that you chose to react, but I am saying that
the manner of your comment does speak to your mindset. It's much
easier and safer to attack someone who has been labeled weird or
unorthodox than someone who has not. The added benefit is that
it's a bonding experience for you and the group. Enhances your status
as one the "good guys" who had the courage(!) to attack the uppity
interloper. And helped keep the world safer for yet another day.
See what I mean? Probably not, but that's OK. I've had my say.
Ain't Usenet wonderful?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:04:34
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>How "not so"? You explicitly accused me
No I did not. I think you read the text too quickly.
>I believe you did. However, you chose to challenge my post, not
>Dan's. Hmmmm. >:-[
Because your post made the pair. Either post alone wouldn't have had the
effect. If Dan's had been a reply to yours, he'd have got the comment
(which was not a challenge).
>Yes, but humor at my expense, apparently?
You and myself in fact, looking back.
> Signifying criticism perhaps?
No.
>How? How can you possibly equate "unorthodox" with "commonly
>accepted beliefs"? Diametrically opposing concepts.
That is exactly what I am saying. One is the opposite of the other,
neither are insults. Full stop.
>Ever work in a corporate environment? If so, I think you will
>agree that being labeled "unorthodox" is tantamount to being
>labeled "not a team player", "not predictable", "not manageable",
>"to be avoided", etc.
I've been working in a corporate environment ( >150 000 employees) for the
last 15 years. I'm pretty certain "not predictable" is in there and maybe
"not manageable". FWIW if the former is true, the latter is not. I will
follow the right manager into hell, but not the kind of clueless wanker
who would need to write "not manageable" in a personnel file.
> In all honesty, would you also feel
>complimented if you found the label "unorthodox" all over your
>personnel file? Somehow I doubt that.
Totally honestly, your doubt is unfounded. I don't work like that at all.
Furthermore, in the current work context, it can be a selling point to
"think different" and it's what I like best anyway, when I can manage it,
and always have.
>I trust you understand the point I'm trying to make.
I think so and I now think I understand your reaction a lot better. I
realize I was mistaken in thinking you would see (or had indeed
deliberately injected) the humour, rather than imagining you were being
targeted by a lynch mob.
This is the second time you've brought up this theme, so I will try my
best to avoid doing it again. Sorry for causing you any discomfort.
>This really has very little to do with dictionary definitions.
>This is about the moral principles involved in the way you chose
>respond to someone who routinely challenges commonly accepted
>belief and views.
You don't seem to have noticed that I made no comment on your warm-up
ritual. It's yours, it suits you, you win AG prizes. Fine by me. Nothing
I've written in this thread was intended to say otherwise.
This has nothing to do with you challenging beliefs/views. Please stop
wrongly accusing me of that.
>In this long and interesting thread you had
>nothing whatsoever to say until you spotted what you thought
>would be worth challenging in one of my posts. Sort of hiding in
>the bushes until the unwary prey sauntered by.
Is that your really your interpretation, or just a device?
>I am not complaining that you chose to react, but I am saying that
>the manner of your comment does speak to your mindset. It's much
>easier and safer to attack someone who has been labeled weird or
>unorthodox than someone who has not.
I do agree, but that was not my point. At first I felt your choice of
words rather aggressive, perhaps in much the same way as you found Dan's
words aggressive.
After thinking about it a bit, that lead me to believe that neither were
really an intended aggression, but had been perceived as such because of
my (and your) own sensitivities.
>The added benefit is that it's a
>bonding experience for you and the group.
Now you're just being plain silly.
>Enhances your status
>as one the "good guys" who had the courage(!) to attack the uppity
>interloper. And helped keep the world safer for yet another day.
I did not attack you and I don't see what I wrote anywhere which makes you
think I consider you as uppity. Is that how you believe you come across?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:47:45
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote
> I did not attack you
OK, 'nuff said. I could do another turn but I think we're losing
some of the entertainment value.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:56:52
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>OK, 'nuff said. I could do another turn but I think we're losing
>some of the entertainment value.
Agreed.
PS I think you argue better than me :-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:12:03
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote
> Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, 'nuff said. I could do another turn but I think we're losing
>>some of the entertainment value.
>
> Agreed.
> PS I think you argue better than me :-)
Just wait until I pull out the race card.
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 18:29:16
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
On 2006-09-13, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
> steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr> wrote
>
>> Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, 'nuff said. I could do another turn but I think we're losing
>>>some of the entertainment value.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> PS I think you argue better than me :-)
>
> Just wait until I pull out the race card.
I'd like to see that. I suggest you play it during a debate with Lance (-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 00:09:04
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrneggjfs.mes.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>> Just wait until I pull out the race card.
>
> I'd like to see that. I suggest you play it during a debate with Lance
> (-;
Zing!!!!
-DF
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:06:02
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:Xns983CD158F52F8markhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47...
> Ever work in a corporate environment? If so, I think you will
> agree that being labeled "unorthodox" is tantamount to being
> labeled "not a team player", "not predictable", "not manageable",
> "to be avoided", etc. In all honesty, would you also feel
> complimented if you found the label "unorthodox" all over your
> personnel file? Somehow I doubt that. I trust you understand the
> point I'm trying to make.
Sorry to poke my nose in but I disagree. In the world of programming at
least, and yes corporate(31 years of it), unorthodox is not black mark.
It's often the unorthodox that look, to borrow a hackned phrase I hate,
box and often find inovative solutions. Now weird tends to be
pejoritive unless further qualified
I think you've been a little thin skinned as of late and reading way
more into peoples posts then intended. Deep a deep breath.
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:37:29
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote
> Sorry to poke my nose in but I disagree.
No need to apologize, we're just kibitzing. :-)
> In the world of programming at least, and yes corporate(31 years
> of it), unorthodox is not black mark.
If we are willing to restrict the discussion to just the world of
programming, that's somewhat true. That world is indeed full of
the unorthodox and the weird, and I personally would look for some
of those types of traits in job candidates.
But outside of the highly technical (or creative) disciplines, let
me assure you that the label "unorthodox" can be very pejorative.
While times are good, you can kid yourself otherwise, but as soon
as companies hit tougher patches and HR is making layoff lists,
people with those kinds of classifications in their personnel file
are usually the first to go.
In a typical corporate organization, you want to stand out as a
high achiever who nevertheless knows how to play the team game,
not as the unorthodox heretic who, while good, makes everyone else
feel uneasy.
> I think you've been a little thin skinned as of late and reading
> way more into peoples posts then intended. Deep a deep breath.
That's probably true, but I'm enjoying my soapbox for now. Don't
begrudge me my moments of righteous indigantion. ;-)
Fear not though -- I have the attention span of a six-year old and
will soon tire of this.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:20:29
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
>If we are willing to restrict the discussion to just the world of
>programming, that's somewhat true. That world is indeed full of
>the unorthodox and the weird, and I personally would look for some
>of those types of traits in job candidates.
I've been in IT for 27 years, 3/4 of it corporate. Maybe I still have a
chance of turning my career around :-)
>not as the unorthodox heretic
Unorthodox yes, heretic not if I can help it. The ideal being to change
the establishment's perception of where unorthodox becomes heresy, without
actually going over the line. I'm not suicidal any more :oP
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:25:12
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
steve common <stevenZ.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote
> Unorthodox yes, heretic not if I can help it. The ideal being to
> change the establishment's perception of where unorthodox
> becomes heresy, without actually going over the line.
Best luck with that. That is a true art if you know how to do it.
Especially in a large, inertial organization, which tends to
subscribe to a sacrosanct catechism of accepted values. :-)
> I'm not suicidal any more :oP
You're gettin' old then. Which would make sense, since the key to
growing old is not to die youg. ;-)
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:16:49
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
On 2006-09-13, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
[snip]
> In a typical corporate organization, you want to stand out as a
> high achiever who nevertheless knows how to play the team game,
> not as the unorthodox heretic who, while good, makes everyone else
> feel uneasy.
Knowing how to "play the team game" is valuable in any environment. There
is a time to be heretical and unorthodox, and there's a time to shut up and
toe the party line. Knowing the difference is useful, it also helps one avoid
making "everyone else feel uneasy".
Even in environments that are traditionally tolerant of "heresy", there is
still politics. Plenty of it!
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:16:48
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote
> On 2006-09-13, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote: [snip]
>> In a typical corporate organization, you want to stand out as a
>> high achiever who nevertheless knows how to play the team game,
>> not as the unorthodox heretic who, while good, makes everyone
>> else feel uneasy.
>
> Knowing how to "play the team game" is valuable in any
> environment. There is a time to be heretical and unorthodox, and
> there's a time to shut up and toe the party line. Knowing the
> difference is useful, it also helps one avoid making "everyone
> else feel uneasy".
>
> Even in environments that are traditionally tolerant of
> "heresy", there is still politics. Plenty of it!
So does that mean you are agreeing with me or challenging me? Or
just pontificating? ;-)
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 14:39:58
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
On 2006-09-13, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote
>
>> On 2006-09-13, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote: [snip]
>>> In a typical corporate organization, you want to stand out as a
>>> high achiever who nevertheless knows how to play the team game,
>>> not as the unorthodox heretic who, while good, makes everyone
>>> else feel uneasy.
>>
>> Knowing how to "play the team game" is valuable in any
>> environment. There is a time to be heretical and unorthodox, and
>> there's a time to shut up and toe the party line. Knowing the
>> difference is useful, it also helps one avoid making "everyone
>> else feel uneasy".
>>
>> Even in environments that are traditionally tolerant of
>> "heresy", there is still politics. Plenty of it!
>
> So does that mean you are agreeing with me or challenging me? Or
> just pontificating? ;-)
I don't know. My point is that playing the team game and being unorthodox
needn't be mutually exclusive. In fact learning the team game is a critical
survival skill if you're the unorthodox type.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:55:51
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
>My point is that playing the team game and being unorthodox needn't be
>mutually exclusive. In fact learning the team game is a critical
>survival skill if you're the unorthodox type.
This is what you learn if you are one of those who the "team" tries to
catch, with the intention of stuffing your head down the nearest school
toilets.
Thirty-six years on and I still have a vague suspicion that someone might
still want to do that to me :- >
Then again, I also suspect that my endurance was born of the same
experience - the dull bastards only caught me once in a whole year of
breaks/playtimes/recesses and that was only because they got a girl I
fancied to help them (note to self).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:56:24
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Quoth "Mark Hutchinson":
> In contrast, "weird" and "unorthodox" are pejorative terms and
> serve to pin a negative label on the proponent, sending a signal
> to the group that it's acceptable, and even advisable, to attack
> the target.
Hey, I'm the one who wrote "unorthodox", and I meant it literally, not
pejoratively at all. I would not use "weird" (which is pejorative in this
context) unless I was trying to get your goat. I guess someone else did,
though...
Besides, unorthodox is a cool word.
> Just look at the tenor this thread seems to be taking.
That is beyond my control, of course...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:12:50
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote:
> I would not use "weird" (which is pejorative in this
>context) unless I was trying to get your goat. I guess someone else did,
>though...
Shoot. I hadn't checked and didn't notice that the term "wierd" came from
an earlier thread (re breathing rates) and not your original. Sorry for
propagating the error.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:10:44
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:Xns983C4986642DDmarkhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47...
> Dan Stumpus said...
> >"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com> wrote
> >
> >Just trying to help out here by advising that you properly warm
> >up. Really none of my business, I know...
>
> That's not the issue. Kibitzing is more than welcome, that's why
> we post here. I only object when I hear terms like "weird" or
> "unorthodox" used to disparagingly label ideas that challenge the
> sacrosanct catechism of the accepted beliefs.
>
> I found that any advice I get about running is something that has
> to pass a sanity test and a rigorous field trial before becoming
> eligible for inclusion in my own set of cherished beliefs. With
> that approach I have found a surprisingly large number of the
> commonly accepted beliefs to be less than effective for me. Thence
> the source of my skepticism.
I've found than many of the regular posters in here give far better advice
than what may be more commonly accepted wisdom. The thing about warming up
for shorter explosive efforts is well documented in wide variety of sports.
You've got to run for at *least* 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways
before you can do an optimal performance. The clearest example of this comes
from another sport - bike racing time trials. They will spin on the bike
trainer for as long as an hour, doing pickups to full effort before starting
the time trial, which usually lasts from 45 mins to 1.5 hours.
> The other credential I like to see in any runner willing to
> provide me with advice is a demonstrated ability to be faster than
> me. I mean why should I be tempted to emulate someone else's
> approach if it's likely to slow me down? Thence my sometimes rude
> requests for verifiable racing results.
I think you're not unique in that view, though most people don't come right
out and say it. It's interesting to notice who comments on who's race
reports, for example. I'd like to think I look for the experience a runner
has, and their ability to improve as much as their raw performance numbers.
[snip]
> Well, OK... I guess you aren't willing to highlight the more
> provocative details so we could quickly launch into a passionate
> argument.
>
> Took a quick peak and it looked kind of eclectically funky. I
> noticed that in the opening paragraph she mentions something about
> "moderation". This may be a showstopper. I mean moderation? To
> a runner? Kidding, right?
Basically Kristiansen points to research that suggests that what are
considered short race distances 400 meters, 1500, etc., have a far greater
aerobic component than was previously thought, and as such, benefit far more
from aerobic training than from anaerobic training. That also suggests that
intervals for such distances, though run faster than race pace, also have a
far larger aerobic component than previously thought. That's how I read it
anyway. The website is interesting; I liked the section on marathoning.
-Tony
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:00:38
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote
> The thing about warming up for shorter explosive efforts is well
> documented in wide variety of sports. You've got to run for at
> *least* 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways before you can
> do an optimal performance.
That's exactly my point. *You've* got to run for at *least*
30-40mins to open up the energy pathways, not me. I've tried that
and ended up underperforming in races. So I don't do it anymore. I
do something else. And it seems to work.
> Basically Kristiansen points to research that suggests that what
> are considered short race distances 400 meters, 1500, etc., have
> a far greater aerobic component than was previously thought, and
> as such, benefit far more from aerobic training than from
> anaerobic training. That also suggests that intervals for such
> distances, though run faster than race pace, also have a far
> larger aerobic component than previously thought.
OK, thanks for the recap. I have certainly seen that thesis
before and am in general agreement. Not sure how exactly it
conflicts with my approach to the little bit of speedwork I do,
but OK, whatever.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 20:55:15
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
On 2006-09-12, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
> "Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> The thing about warming up for shorter explosive efforts is well
>> documented in wide variety of sports. You've got to run for at
>> *least* 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways before you can
>> do an optimal performance.
>
> That's exactly my point. *You've* got to run for at *least*
> 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways, not me. I've tried that
> and ended up underperforming in races. So I don't do it anymore. I
> do something else. And it seems to work.
I don't know of any hard evidence that demonstrates that this much warmup
is necessary (or even that any warmup is)
>> Basically Kristiansen points to research that suggests that what
>> are considered short race distances 400 meters, 1500, etc., have
>> a far greater aerobic component than was previously thought, and
>> as such, benefit far more from aerobic training than from
>> anaerobic training. That also suggests that intervals for such
>> distances, though run faster than race pace, also have a far
>> larger aerobic component than previously thought.
>
> OK, thanks for the recap. I have certainly seen that thesis
> before and am in general agreement. Not sure how exactly it
> conflicts with my approach to the little bit of speedwork I do,
> but OK, whatever.
It's very confusing, because in one needs to train above anaerobic threshold to
max out the aerobic system. AT is about 90% VO2 max, but to optimally train
the aerobic system, one wants to get up to around 100% VO2 max (about 3k race
pace).
So VO2 max intervals really do partly use the anaerobic system, but the goal
isn't to train the energy pathways, it's just a necessary by-product of maxing
out the aerobic system.
Dan's argument which is a popular point of view (though I don't completely buy
it) is that if you push beyond this point (VO2 max pace), the anaerobic system
picks up the slack, so you're just spinning your wheels and tiring yourself out
(because the system you are trying to train is not getting any more benefit
than it was at the slower pace). Jack Daniels adopts a similar point of view.
However, if one subscribes to the "central governor theory" espoused by Noakes,
it would seem plausible that pushing through the pain (without increasing intensity
too much, so that you're hurting, but still largely aerobic!) raises ones central
governor-imposed limits.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:08:33
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrnege7lj.b8n.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-09-12, Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
> > "Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >> The thing about warming up for shorter explosive efforts is well
> >> documented in wide variety of sports. You've got to run for at
> >> *least* 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways before you can
> >> do an optimal performance.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. *You've* got to run for at *least*
> > 30-40mins to open up the energy pathways, not me. I've tried that
> > and ended up underperforming in races. So I don't do it anymore. I
> > do something else. And it seems to work.
>
> I don't know of any hard evidence that demonstrates that this much warmup
> is necessary (or even that any warmup is)
Ok you got me! I went back to the book I thought I had summarized from and
didn't find it there. I must have gotten this from a kludge of personal
experience, and hearing the same thing from others. I also assumed the pro
cyclists did extended warm ups for a reason, but that discipline is
different.
The little I found from a quick google yielded:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/active-warm-ups.htm, which only suggests a
15 min warmup for 3k bike time trails...
and http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0154.htm, which is more about the
benefits of running negative split races, a subject of interest to this
group.
> >> Basically Kristiansen points to research that suggests that what
> >> are considered short race distances 400 meters, 1500, etc., have
> >> a far greater aerobic component than was previously thought, and
> >> as such, benefit far more from aerobic training than from
> >> anaerobic training. That also suggests that intervals for such
> >> distances, though run faster than race pace, also have a far
> >> larger aerobic component than previously thought.
> >
> > OK, thanks for the recap. I have certainly seen that thesis
> > before and am in general agreement. Not sure how exactly it
> > conflicts with my approach to the little bit of speedwork I do,
> > but OK, whatever.
>
> It's very confusing, because in one needs to train above anaerobic
threshold to
> max out the aerobic system. AT is about 90% VO2 max, but to optimally
train
> the aerobic system, one wants to get up to around 100% VO2 max (about 3k
race
> pace).
>
> So VO2 max intervals really do partly use the anaerobic system, but the
goal
> isn't to train the energy pathways, it's just a necessary by-product of
maxing
> out the aerobic system.
I admittedly know nothing about this high-intensity stuff, but I'm aware
that there seems to be a risk that doing this kind of training too hard or
too frequently can begin to undo the physiological adaptations one has
gained from other types of aerobic distance training.
> Dan's argument which is a popular point of view (though I don't completely
buy
> it) is that if you push beyond this point (VO2 max pace), the anaerobic
system
> picks up the slack, so you're just spinning your wheels and tiring
yourself out
> (because the system you are trying to train is not getting any more
benefit
> than it was at the slower pace). Jack Daniels adopts a similar point of
view.
>
> However, if one subscribes to the "central governor theory" espoused by
Noakes,
> it would seem plausible that pushing through the pain (without increasing
intensity
> too much, so that you're hurting, but still largely aerobic!) raises ones
central
> governor-imposed limits.
I read an article (where not sure, maybe Doug sent it to me) about how the
kenyans seem to have their central governor's set higher for some reason,
and the article also suggested it's trainable, though gave scant specifics
on how to do so, and conceded there's been almost no research done in this
area.
-Tony, who needs to take better note of sources when filing away 'knowledge'
in his brain
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:28:57
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
Tony S. said...
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> I don't know of any hard evidence that demonstrates that this
>> much warmup is necessary (or even that any warmup is)
>
>Ok you got me! I went back to the book I thought I had summarized
>from and didn't find it there. I must have gotten this from a
>kludge of personal experience, and hearing the same thing from
>others. I also assumed the pro cyclists did extended warm ups for
>a reason, but that discipline is different.
Tony, Tony... and you were *so* sure of all this when you were
lecturing me just a few moments before. ;-) See what happens
when you start poking away at some of the foundations? This is
exactly what I've been talking about. Thanks for illustrating my
point so vividly. :-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 14:36:25
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:Xns983D4B97C2638markhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47...
> Tony S. said...
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I don't know of any hard evidence that demonstrates that this
> >> much warmup is necessary (or even that any warmup is)
> >
> >Ok you got me! I went back to the book I thought I had summarized
> >from and didn't find it there. I must have gotten this from a
> >kludge of personal experience, and hearing the same thing from
> >others. I also assumed the pro cyclists did extended warm ups for
> >a reason, but that discipline is different.
>
> Tony, Tony... and you were *so* sure of all this when you were
> lecturing me just a few moments before. ;-) See what happens
> when you start poking away at some of the foundations? This is
> exactly what I've been talking about. Thanks for illustrating my
> point so vividly. :-)
Hey it's good to poke at the foundations! When I do so I either learn
something different, or learn more. In this case there doesn't appear to be
a foundation, at least a scientific one. This article, though not
scientific, points to what appears to be an adaptable but well-accepted
warm-up protocol for pro cyclists, since you see all of the top riders doing
some kind of extended warm-up.
http://www.trainright.com/info.asp?action=display&UID=3162&record=875
I figure the pro cyclists must do it for a reason. Since the body uses
several different energy supply systems for exercise, and some of them don't
kick in immediately when you start, some kind of warm-up makes sense -- and
you do a warm-up that you've found to work for you. There does appear to be
no consensus among runners though.
I suppose if scientists have just confirmed recently that lactic acid can be
burned as fuel (http://www.physorg.com/news64680736.html), and they haven't
even nailed down the science of how to train that particular energy system
feature for enhanced performance, then they're a longer way from suggesting
what may be optimal warm-up procedures.
-Tony
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:30:28
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Central governor Re: Beaten again!... by a woman! (5K race report)
|
In article <5_HNg.11754$OI1.2585@trnddc05 >,
Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnege7lj.b8n.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
[snip to get to new subject line]
>> However, if one subscribes to the "central governor theory" espoused by
>Noakes,
>> it would seem plausible that pushing through the pain (without increasing
>intensity
>> too much, so that you're hurting, but still largely aerobic!) raises ones
>central
>> governor-imposed limits.
>
>I read an article (where not sure, maybe Doug sent it to me) about how the
>kenyans seem to have their central governor's set higher for some reason,
>and the article also suggested it's trainable, though gave scant specifics
>on how to do so, and conceded there's been almost no research done in this
>area.
I find the central governor theory very aesthetically pleasing, not
least because I had the idea myself.
To the extent that it works, and that my independant notion
corresponds to the real theory (reasonably well from my look at
_Lore of Running_ 4th edition), then the training for it is, in
a sense, too obvious.
Central governor (my version at least) figures that your
notion of what is fast, or sustainable, or too fast, etc., are
set as much by your brain's choices of how to interpret signals
from the body as they are from the body itself. The first time,
then, that you hit a fast quarter mile, your body reacts with
surprise and the brain tells you to back off before you get
injured. Go out the next day, and the same speed feels comfortable.
(Always assuming, of course, that you didn't overdo your first
day.) The thing is, there are some mind-body feedbacks, on top
of training adaptations (next day is too soon for training to
have taken place), and the mind can relax such that the stress
(etc.) hormones/enzymes/... don't get poured into the system
as e |
|
