| |
Main
Date: 10 Oct 2006 00:07:31
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Biz Johnson Trail Marathon, Susanville CA.
I had hopes that this would be a fairly quick (no more than a couple of
minutes slow) course. The good: a 1200' decline, on a rails-to-trails
trail, just a 200' climb in miles 2-6 and a 70' climb at mile 20, and all on
dirt, which means less pounding and muscle damage. On the downside, the
average elevation is about 5000'. And a slightly rocky and gravely trail
surface slows you down a bit with the slipping and sliding as you push off.
On paper, the theoretical elevation cost (about 6 minutes) seems to be
mitigated by the downhill gain (about 5 minutes). So I was optimistic that
I could run within a few minutes of my estimated shape of about 3:08 (based
on my 880 workout).
The #### runners took buses up a pleasant mountain road to the start at
5600' in pine forest. The temperature was about 35F at the start, and there
was no snow. We were given plastic bags to put our warmups in which would
be shuttled back to the start, but most of us were still cold, and we
congregated in chatty little groups wherever there was a patch of bright
sunlight in the forest. The race director, Eric, took pity on us and moved
the start time up by 15 minutes.
At the start, Eric asked if anyone wanted to sing the national anthem, so
what the heck, about 6 of us in the front rose to the challenge with an
enthusiastic rendition, hitting all the notes in fine style. Unlike Lance's
surprise mile start, we all shouted a countdown from 10 using the digital
race timer Eric brought to the start. A very friendly ultra-like vibe
emanated.
At the start, I started out at a typical mild marathon effort, but
immediately noticed that my turnover was slower than usual. I attributed
this to the altitude, and just ran by feel. By the time I hit the slightly
downhill mile 1 in 7:35, I was behind about 40 runners. I was already
getting worried -- first that I was behind so many so soon, and second that
this mile was so slow. Maybe the altitude rules-of-thumb assume training at
elevation?
Running up a slight upgrade for 4 miles up to 5600' elevation, I averaged
7:45 per mile, but what the heck, the downhill started at mile 6, and I had
lots of time to make up these few minutes. I kept the effort a tad below
discomfort, but probably pushed just a bit too hard, in retrospect--but not
as hard as the folks I was near, who were breathing a bit harder than I was.
My heartrate was only 145, which is low, but typical for effort at altitude.
If the blood can't get oxygenated, the heart doesn't bother beating any
faster. Normally I would want my pulse in the low 150's at this point.
Unfortunately, there was a mild headwind, 4-5 knots, I estimate, which would
remain the entire day. It was noticable when I tucked behind someone, about
a 10-15 sec/mile slowdown. The guys I tried this with didn't like it, and
would take off, so I decided not to bug them. I figured I'd wait until the
10 mile split, which would include a few miles of downgrade before assessing
the day.
As the downgrade started at 5600' elevation, my pace was still 7:45. At the
10 mile split, after a few miles of downgrade, my pace was still exactly
7:45. My effort feels just about right, just the time sucks -- and no
increase in speed on the downgrade. The headwind, the altitude, a bad day?
Oh well, I decided to just run by feel, and not even look at the watch from
now on. Time to play the passing game.
The first to go were the few guys who would stop at each aid staion (spaced
2 miles apart, this being a very pampered trail run), then dash to catch up
and pass me. Being a True Ultra Runner, I filled my 24oz bottle quickly
every 3rd aid station and drank on the run. By 16 miles, they were both
worn out from their fartleck workout.
The weather was cool, the sky clear, and the scenery beautiful. I ended up
keeping my throw-away long sleeved t-shirt and cotton gloves on the whole
race. A rare flat trail run for me. Everything around LA is quite hilly.
I'd passed 7 runners by 17 miles, and now more were coming into focus. I
knew by this point that I'd get everyone I could see. By 24 miles I'd
bagged 16. I passed a skinny 64 year old and a 32 year old just after 24.
At 24.5 I heard footsteps -- I guessed one of them had caught up to me.
Dammit, this was going to be a race to the finish -- I can't stand being
passed at the end of a race. So I went faster. The guy stuck. At 25, I
notched it up again, maybe 20 sec/mile. Still there. At 25.5, I ratcheted
faster, now getting into the pain zone. Now I'm running well into the 6's
for the only time in the race. He was breathing harder, but still hanging
tough.
At 26 (where was the finish?) we made a right turn onto a 4 foot wide
downhill trail with rocks and railroad tie steps. I lost focus for a second
trying to figure where we were going, and he put 3 or four quick steps and
passed me. He was the young guy. Since I'm not comfortable blasting down
unfamiliar rocky downhills with steps after 26 miles, I couldn't respond,
but managed to pass one last runner about 50 yards from the end.
The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest marathon ever.
(and unlike a certain lister, no prize money to ease the pain). Got 24th
place out of 352. I passed about 17 runners after 10 miles, got passed only
by 1, and if I had a couple more miles I would have caught many more,
judging from several tales of collapse by those ahead of me.
The high point was the duel in the final two miles to the finish -- that
made it worthwhile.
In the aftermath, trying to rationalize such a slow time, I talked with a
few runners who finished near me. This being in Northern California, there
was a lot of depth. The winner in 2:49 has a 2:26 marathon. The 64 year
old (a former 2:19 marathoner!) I'd passed at 24 had run a 3:02 recently.
I got "chicked" by a couple of very notable women:
Nancy Fiddler (national 50-54 10k champ with a 94.8% wava!) ran a 3:10 and
won the women's division. Her Wava predicts a 2:58 road marathon. (She
held a dozen national records in cross-country skiing in her prime).
Paula Newby-Fraser (9 time Hawaii Ironman champion) finished 30 seconds
ahead of me. She has run 3:0x as the last leg of an Ironman, and was going
for sub 3:10, but had to settle for a 3:22.
So, no, this is not a fast course (although a few people ran good times
here) and should be marketed as a scenic and easy trail marathon.
Lessons learned:
Altitude sucks.
Headwinds slow you down.
Trail running is slower than street running.
.
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 05:50:25
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> Biz Johnson Trail Marathon, Susanville CA.
>
> I had hopes that this would be a fairly quick (no more than a couple of
> minutes slow) course.
Hmmm, that doesn't sound like a good intro. . .
The good: a 1200' decline, on a rails-to-trails
> trail, just a 200' climb in miles 2-6 and a 70' climb at mile 20, and all on
> dirt, which means less pounding and muscle damage. On the downside, the
> average elevation is about 5000'. And a slightly rocky and gravely trail
> surface slows you down a bit with the slipping and sliding as you push off.
>
> On paper, the theoretical elevation cost (about 6 minutes) seems to be
> mitigated by the downhill gain (about 5 minutes). So I was optimistic that
> I could run within a few minutes of my estimated shape of about 3:08 (based
> on my 880 workout).
I'm sure you recognize this, but everyone responds differently to
altitude.;) Some people can't tell the difference between 5k and sea
level while others are substantially affected, and that's "average"
stuff, not running. When I started casual jogging I lived at about
5000ft then probably had several (many?) months break when I moved
north. I was also in early 30s when I moved. But I suspect the more O2
you need (like going hard vs casual jogging), the more impact it may
have - unless you're Matt Carpenter.;)
>
> The #### runners took buses up a pleasant mountain road to the start at
> 5600' in pine forest. The temperature was about 35F at the start, and there
> was no snow. We were given plastic bags to put our warmups in which would
> be shuttled back to the start, but most of us were still cold, and we
> congregated in chatty little groups wherever there was a patch of bright
> sunlight in the forest. The race director, Eric, took pity on us and moved
> the start time up by 15 minutes.
Geez - you warm climate folks ;) (that's ok, I've been wearing by
sporthill xc's although a tropical storm brought warm weather today)
> At the start, I started out at a typical mild marathon effort, but
> immediately noticed that my turnover was slower than usual. I attributed
> this to the altitude, and just ran by feel. By the time I hit the slightly
> downhill mile 1 in 7:35, I was behind about 40 runners. I was already
> getting worried -- first that I was behind so many so soon, and second that
> this mile was so slow. Maybe the altitude rules-of-thumb assume training at
> elevation?
How fuzzy are those thumbs?;) (how much expected error is there in the
prediction from averages to individuals)
>
> Running up a slight upgrade for 4 miles up to 5600' elevation, I averaged
> 7:45 per mile, but what the heck, the downhill started at mile 6, and I had
> lots of time to make up these few minutes. I kept the effort a tad below
> discomfort, but probably pushed just a bit too hard, in retrospect--but not
> as hard as the folks I was near, who were breathing a bit harder than I was.
> My heartrate was only 145, which is low, but typical for effort at altitude.
> If the blood can't get oxygenated, the heart doesn't bother beating any
> faster. Normally I would want my pulse in the low 150's at this point.
Just curious, did you warm up as normal? or were you huddled from the
cold and didn't do a warmup routine?
>
> As the downgrade started at 5600' elevation, my pace was still 7:45. At the
> 10 mile split, after a few miles of downgrade, my pace was still exactly
> 7:45. My effort feels just about right, just the time sucks -- and no
> increase in speed on the downgrade. The headwind, the altitude, a bad day?
> Oh well, I decided to just run by feel, and not even look at the watch from
> now on.
Yea, that's the way to run - just go by feel. :)
>Time to play the passing game.
>
> The first to go were the few guys who would stop at each aid staion (spaced
> 2 miles apart, this being a very pampered trail run), then dash to catch up
> and pass me. Being a True Ultra Runner, I filled my 24oz bottle quickly
> every 3rd aid station and drank on the run. By 16 miles, they were both
> worn out from their fartleck workout.
Chuckle.
...
>
> At 26 (where was the finish?) we made a right turn onto a 4 foot wide
> downhill trail with rocks and railroad tie steps.
Bummer. Don't like steps like that on downhill, esp. since ours tend to
get covered with mud and are tilted down.
> I lost focus for a second
> trying to figure where we were going, and he put 3 or four quick steps and
> passed me. He was the young guy. Since I'm not comfortable blasting down
> unfamiliar rocky downhills with steps after 26 miles, I couldn't respond,
> but managed to pass one last runner about 50 yards from the end.
>
> The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest marathon ever.
This had less drop than St. George didn't it? plus being trail and some
wind should account for a slower run?
...
> The high point was the duel in the final two miles to the finish -- that
> made it worthwhile.
Sounds like you had fun for a bit, anyway.
>
> In the aftermath, trying to rationalize such a slow time, I talked with a
> few runners who finished near me. This being in Northern California, there
> was a lot of depth. The winner in 2:49 has a 2:26 marathon. The 64 year
> old (a former 2:19 marathoner!) I'd passed at 24 had run a 3:02 recently.
>
> I got "chicked" by a couple of very notable women:
>
> Nancy Fiddler (national 50-54 10k champ with a 94.8% wava!) ran a 3:10 and
> won the women's division. Her Wava predicts a 2:58 road marathon. (She
> held a dozen national records in cross-country skiing in her prime).
Thanks. I was wondering who she was to take 50-54 ag outright.
>
> Paula Newby-Fraser (9 time Hawaii Ironman champion) finished 30 seconds
> ahead of me. She has run 3:0x as the last leg of an Ironman, and was going
> for sub 3:10, but had to settle for a 3:22.
>
> So, no, this is not a fast course (although a few people ran good times
> here) and should be marketed as a scenic and easy trail marathon.
I noticed they had finally posted the times shortly before you posted
your race report. Not too many folks breaking 3 this year or last.
That's actually interesting since Equinox usually has a couple guys
below 3, but has 3000+ ft (maybe close to 4000ft) of climbing, but near
sea level. Some trail, some dirt road, some paved road. Maybe altitude
and trail surface made the difference at Bizz Johnson.
>
> Lessons learned:
>
> Altitude sucks.
> Headwinds slow you down.
> Trail running is slower than street running.
Always nice to have verification of "conventional wisdom" ;)
Thanks for the report. Sounds like the scenery was pretty.
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:33:16
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote
> I'm sure you recognize this, but everyone responds differently to
> altitude.;) Some people can't tell the difference between 5k and sea level
> while others are substantially affected, and that's "average" stuff, not
> running.
Before this race, I never bothered comparing times at elevation to flat,
because mtn runs are usually different distances and much hillier than road
events. Usually, I don't even bother thinking about it, 'cause we're all
disadvantaged equally. It was quite a shock to find 7:45 to be a moderate
pace (same effort as 7:15 - 7:20 at sea level).
> How fuzzy are those thumbs?;) (how much expected error is there in the
> prediction from averages to individuals)
I'd say it's close to 30"/mile for me...
>> My heartrate was only 145, which is low, but typical for effort at
>> altitude. If the blood can't get oxygenated, the heart doesn't bother
>> beating any faster. Normally I would want my pulse in the low 150's at
>> this point.
> Just curious, did you warm up as normal? or were you huddled from the cold
> and didn't do a warmup routine?
Just 10 minutes of jogging and one stride. Enough to take the chill off.
>> My effort feels just about right, just the time sucks -- and no increase
>> in speed on the downgrade. The headwind, the altitude, a bad day? Oh
>> well, I decided to just run by feel, and not even look at the watch from
>> now on.
>
> Yea, that's the way to run - just go by feel. :)
I did zero in on that marathon effort, I left maybe just a little too much
in the tank at the end, but I wasn't shooting for a time, so cruised most of
the middle miles.
>> At 26 (where was the finish?) we made a right turn onto a 4 foot wide
>> downhill trail with rocks and railroad tie steps.
>
> Bummer. Don't like steps like that on downhill, esp. since ours tend to
> get covered with mud and are tilted down.
This was nothing like that, just unfamiliar and tricky enough to make me not
want to go all out.
>> Nancy Fiddler (national 50-54 10k champ with a 94.8% wava!) ran a 3:10
>> and won the women's division. Her Wava predicts a 2:58 road marathon.
>> (She held a dozen national records in cross-country skiing in her prime).
>
> Thanks. I was wondering who she was to take 50-54 ag outright.
First time I've been chicked by someone my age since '80 Boston...Benoit was
about 14 minutes faster at her best than me back then, and Fiddler was 13
faster here, so it's a similar difference.
> That's actually interesting since Equinox usually has a couple guys
> below 3, but has 3000+ ft (maybe close to 4000ft) of climbing, but near
> sea level. Some trail, some dirt road, some paved road. Maybe altitude and
> trail surface made the difference at Bizz Johnson.
I'd bet that I could run the same time (3:23) at sea level on a course with
2500-3000' of climb.
Have fun preparing for the winter (grease up those showshoes...:-),
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:47:42
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> "Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote
>
>>That's actually interesting since Equinox usually has a couple guys
>>below 3, but has 3000+ ft (maybe close to 4000ft) of climbing, but near
>>sea level. Some trail, some dirt road, some paved road. Maybe altitude and
>>trail surface made the difference at Bizz Johnson.
>
>
> I'd bet that I could run the same time (3:23) at sea level on a course with
> 2500-3000' of climb.
FWIW, the guy that has won frequently (2:45-2:55 range, iirc - some
years has snow) did a 2:32:xx at Chicago a few years ago.
>
> Have fun preparing for the winter (grease up those showshoes...:-),
>
Thanks. My car is getting its snowshoes on Friday, and I need to sharpen
my ss cleats. ;) We can always hope for some real snow - that doesn't
get rained on or blown away. Mtn bikers are getting their fat tires
ready for the winter riding season. We may not have a fall, but nobody
really seems to like the transitions anyway. Although I wouldn't mind a
little more of this snow-free easy running to pad the mileage.;)
Dot
--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 17:39:09
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest marathon ever.
> Got 24th place out of 352.
i feel your pain. perhaps you should see a therapist to recover and
rebound from the trauma of it all.
> Lessons learned:
>
> Altitude sucks.
> Headwinds slow you down.
> Trail running is slower than street running.
You're 55 years old and it took you till now to learn this? You're
also the runner that need to wear gloves in August in California when
the weather dips into the 60's....correct Dan?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 01:07:29
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote
> Dan Stumpus wrote:
>
>> The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest marathon
>> ever.
>> Got 24th place out of 352.
>
> i feel your pain. perhaps you should see a therapist to recover and
> rebound from the trauma of it all.
I think I'll be as good as new after a few weeks of therapy and a handful of
Prozacs :-).
>> Lessons learned:
>>
>> Altitude sucks.
>> Headwinds slow you down.
>> Trail running is slower than street running.
>
>
> You're 55 years old and it took you till now to learn this?
Ya know, I've never coorelated this stuff to a road race, because most trail
races are quite hilly for one. Now I've got one good data point.
> You're
> also the runner that need to wear gloves in August in California when
> the weather dips into the 60's....correct Dan?
That would be me. Actually, I can tolerate 60's when warmed up, but 35-55
(temps during the race) is strictly glove time. On the other hand (so to
speak), a couple of guys went shirtless. (Alas, the women remained modest).
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 03:33:29
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Doug Freese wrote:
> When will you get some data points? ;)
>
> -Doug
_
Trails? Too low of a bar to appeal to me. Physically I am far more
advantaged for the rigors of trails as opposed to roads. I have
tremendous leg power, etc. Road running is for the svelt, the minimal
BMI, guys with a low % body fat, etc. (the opposite of me).
Though I would be a more distinguished runner on the trails and in the
shallow pools of suburbia, I like the pursuit of being a big fish in a
big pond, despite being configured all wrong for the endeavor.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:16:52
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160476409.682212.171870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
> > When will you get some data points? ;)
> >
> > -Doug
>
> Trails? Too low of a bar to appeal to me. Physically I am far more
> advantaged for the rigors of trails as opposed to roads. I have
> tremendous leg power, etc. Road running is for the svelt, the minimal
> BMI, guys with a low % body fat, etc. (the opposite of me).
On rolling hills, yes, *some* leg power will help. This might be akin to
surge power in races, a touch of anaerobic power on top of sustainable
aerobic speed. However on long climbs bulky legs will only slow you down, as
they will even more on the downhills. Yes, some good trail runners have very
bulky legs, and most have a bit more bulk than what might be called the
svelt road-runners body type, but you're dreaming. You're the one who was
just complaining about your high BMI slowing you down on the rolling hills
in central park in your 18 miler! -- and those are just the type of hills a
very little bit of extra power might help with!
> Though I would be a more distinguished runner on the trails and in the
> shallow pools of suburbia, I like the pursuit of being a big fish in a
> big pond, despite being configured all wrong for the endeavor.
I think it's obvious that you're the rec.runner most concerned with
distinguishing yourself ;)
-Tony
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 10:56:43
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160476409.682212.171870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Trails? Too low of a bar to appeal to me. Physically I am far more
> advantaged for the rigors of trails as opposed to roads.
Really? Big BMI means better on trails? I learn something every day. I'm
off to have a second breakfast to keep my strength up.
> I have tremendous leg power, etc.
How do you ascertain this? I have a hill in my back yard for you to
display your leg prowess. ;) On a slightly more serious note, you do
appear spliced together as a sprinter. Anything over the 5k and you're
trying to make a silk purse out of sows udder.
> Road running is for the svelt, the minimal
> BMI, guys with a low % body fat, etc. (the opposite of me).
Then when will you stop eating. I think you are using this BMI crutch as
your 'out.' This cudda, wudda if I didn't haul all this extra is growing
tedious. :)
> Though I would be a more distinguished runner on the trails and in the
> shallow pools of suburbia, I like the pursuit of being a big fish in a
> big pond, despite being configured all wrong for the endeavor.
By big are you referring toBMI, surely it's not time. Put on a few more
and race as a Clydesdale.
-Doug
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:13:21
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote
> Trails? Too low of a bar to appeal to me. Physically I am far more
> advantaged for the rigors of trails as opposed to roads. I have
> tremendous leg power, etc.
Thanks for sparing us the rest of your attainments... :-)
> Road running is for the svelt, the minimal
> BMI, guys with a low % body fat, etc. (the opposite of me).
Tell that to the 5'3" 125lb guy who's setting course records on the trail
runs out here...
> Though I would be a more distinguished runner on the trails and in the
> shallow pools of suburbia, I like the pursuit of being a big fish in a
> big pond, despite being configured all wrong for the endeavor.
Really? I find that I tend to finish in about the the same percentile
(usually 92-94%) in both road and trail runs. Run one, and let's see how
distinguished you get ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:40:25
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
On 2006-10-10, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Doug Freese wrote:
>> When will you get some data points? ;)
>>
>> -Doug
> _
>
> Trails? Too low of a bar to appeal to me. Physically I am far more
> advantaged for the rigors of trails as opposed to roads. I have
> tremendous leg power, etc. Road running is for the svelt, the minimal
> BMI, guys with a low % body fat, etc. (the opposite of me).
Paul Tergat didn't seem to have much trouble with cross country. He *owned*
cross for several years, and he's about as "low BMI" as they come.
But as Dougie correctly points out, being overweight will hurt you at any
distance from 5k and up (even in the short stuff, the fast guys are all pretty
ripped)
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 01:20:47
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> Ya know, I've never coorelated this stuff to a road race, because most trail
> races are quite hilly for one. Now I've got one good data point.
and what is that correlation and data point?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 10:16:47
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160468445.324576.252080@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Stumpus wrote:
>> Ya know, I've never coorelated this stuff to a road race, because
>> most trail
>> races are quite hilly for one. Now I've got one good data point.
>
> and what is that correlation and data point?
He verified that trails are slower! Actually his tongue is so far in his
cheek it hurts to laugh. :)
When will you get some data points? ;)
-Doug
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 04:29:02
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote
> The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest
> marathon ever.
I'm also a bit surprised by your time. I had expected you'd match
your St. George run. Were you wearing your new Vaporflies?
BTW, that last section on the goat path goes about 20 feet uphill,
before descending to the finish line.
And how did you like that fandango at the burned-out bridge just
before mile 20? I'm guessing that alone had to cost you about a
minute.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:46:16
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote
Ah, you have emerged from your secure, undisclosed location. How's the
hamstring?
> I'm also a bit surprised by your time. I had expected you'd match
> your St. George run. Were you wearing your new Vaporflies?
That first mile at 7:35 was a real wake-up call. The post-game analysis
puts it in perspective, though, lots of runners ran 10-15 minutes slower
than their road best. I consider it a success in that I think I've
calibrated the mythical marathon-feel. I left a bit too much in the tank
at the end -- had no problem running 6:xx pace the last mile.
Wore the vaporflys, and zero blisters (also tried out double layer Wright
socks). Couldn't detect any wear on the shoes afterward. Turnover was slow
from the get-go, it was like running in my 17 oz Behemoths again, very
unlike the feel running on flat at sea level.
> BTW, that last section on the goat path goes about 20 feet uphill,
> before descending to the finish line.
If so, didn't notice it. Adrenaline erases pitch.
> And how did you like that fandango at the burned-out bridge just
> before mile 20? I'm guessing that alone had to cost you about a
> minute.
A nice change of pace. I'd closed within 5 yards on a guy going down --
just about the only noticable downhill in the whole race, and he charged up
that little hill. I just shook my head and sprung up at an easy effort. He
started walking near the top. I zoomed by and put another notch in my
flats...
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:27:26
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote
> "Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com> wrote
>
> Ah, you have emerged from your secure, undisclosed location.
Just temporarily, I suspect.
> How's the hamstring?
Much better, thanks. Instead of going to the doc, I had decided to
self-diagnose the injury as a strain and prescribed a "run-through-
it" treatment. It was agonizing for the first few days, but by day
five I was able to run a slow 10K training run (although hurting all
the way). It's been getting better ever since. This experience has
reinforced my sincere belief that I am basically indestructible. :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 01:02:26
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <markh@goamil.com > wrote
> Much better, thanks. Instead of going to the doc, I had decided to
> self-diagnose the injury as a strain and prescribed a "run-through-
> it" treatment. It was agonizing for the first few days, but by day
> five I was able to run a slow 10K training run (although hurting all
> the way). It's been getting better ever since. This experience has
> reinforced my sincere belief that I am basically indestructible. :-)
Well, that's one way of looking at it...My unsolicited advice is not to race
on it if it hurts, a tough prescription for a race and award junkie, I know.
Fortunately in the super master or ultra veteran group I will soon join you
in (55 on the 22nd), all out is generally not required to win first. Good
luck, and have you tried the 'ol heating pad? That's the poor man's
ultrasound.
I tweaked my bad hamstring (probably blasting the last mile at 5-10k pace),
but it'll be fine by the time I feel like running strong again next week
sometime.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:24:34
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote
> Well, that's one way of looking at it...My unsolicited advice is
> not to race on it if it hurts,
Nah, it doesn't hurt in a race, just afterwards. At least it didn't
in the race I ran in Northern California last Saturday. :-)
>a tough prescription for a race
> and award junkie, I know. Fortunately in the super master or
> ultra veteran group I will soon join you in (55 on the 22nd),
What are you talking about, you have been in the Grand Master
category for the last five years. It's anyone over 50.
> all out is generally not required to win first.
Are you kidding? Where do you race? In my area you better puke out
your guts every time -- if you intend to compete for first. The over
50 categories are generally some of the most competitive. Lots of
overachieving baby boomers with time & money to devote to the hobby.
I am generally competitive in any AG over 40. Maybe not as a winner,
but I would place a good portion of the time.
>Good luck, and
> have you tried the 'ol heating pad? That's the poor man's
> ultrasound.
I just aimed a hot shower on it couple of times a day. I really
think it was just a strain.
> I tweaked my bad hamstring (probably blasting the last mile at
> 5-10k pace)
I'm telling you, it was that goat path to Hobo Camp.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:44:08
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> Really? I find that I tend to finish in about the the same percentile
> (usually 92-94%) in both road and trail runs.
_
oh...."stat inflation". I know how that works.....A big So. Cal race?
2500+ runners, 18 miles. well hell if i raced in California, I could
say a very similar thing.
http://www.runnersimage.com/showresults.php?race_id=435
i race in new york dan, and if you can make it here, you can make it
anywhere. tell me, have you ever tinkered w/this calculator below
(incorporates wind/elevation changes, etc.)
http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 01:46:28
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160520248.351108.130240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Stumpus wrote:
>> Really? I find that I tend to finish in about the the same percentile
>> (usually 92-94%) in both road and trail runs.
> _
>
> oh...."stat inflation". I know how that works.....A big So. Cal race?
> 2500+ runners, 18 miles. well hell if i raced in California, I could
> say a very similar thing.
Wow, your new york fields are stronger than in LA now, but they don't
compare to what I ran against in the 80's. I ran a *very* hilly 20 miler @
6:03/mile, and came in 9th out of 150. Or 14/400 (top 3.6%) running a half
in 1:15:03. What would 1:15 flat give you overall in a local (non WC
invitational) half in NYC?
Back to the main point, it was that the percentile in trail races for me is
about the same as for road races. In NYC, it would be a lower percentile,
but probably still comparable.
> i race in new york dan, and if you can make it here, you can make it
> anywhere.
3:00 is 3:00, no matter where you are...The national champ W50-54 lives in a
small mountain town in No. Cal, and can kick every W50-54's butt in the
country....
> tell me, have you ever tinkered w/this calculator below
> (incorporates wind/elevation changes, etc.)
> http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html
Yes, I used the climb/descent part in my guesstimations.
I think altitude was the main problem (and 4-5 minutes because of the
headwind)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:00:08
From: The Trailrunner
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
LSmith wrote:
> Dan Stumpus wrote:
>
>>Really? I find that I tend to finish in about the the same percentile
>>(usually 92-94%) in both road and trail runs.
> oh...."stat inflation". I know how that works.....A big So. Cal race?
> 2500+ runners, 18 miles. well hell if i raced in California, I could
> say a very similar thing.
Lance,
As usual you cherry picked something to make you look good. While I
agree, SoCal is pretty lame :-), if you came to NorCal, you'd be just a
teenie fish in the pond. You did what, a 6:59 pace for the 18M? At the
Clarksburg 30k http://tinyurl.com/n264s that pace would have got you
46th out of 233 and you were 119 out of 3711 in NYC. As far as "depth of
field," NYC had 9 runners under 6 min pace (again out of 3711) while
Clarksburg had 12 out of 233. Sounds to me like NYC is pretty weak :-)
--
- 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/
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:07:51
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"The Trailrunner" <thetrailhead*BS*@yahoo.com > wrote
> Lance,
> As usual you cherry picked something to make you look good. While I agree,
> SoCal is pretty lame :-), if you came to NorCal, you'd be just a teenie
> fish in the pond. You did what, a 6:59 pace for the 18M? At the Clarksburg
> 30k http://tinyurl.com/n264s that pace would have got you 46th out of 233
> and you were 119 out of 3711 in NYC. As far as "depth of field," NYC had 9
> runners under 6 min pace (again out of 3711) while Clarksburg had 12 out
> of 233. Sounds to me like NYC is pretty weak :-)
Yeah, NorCal has great competition -- and is beautiful, to boot. I always
enjoy racing up there.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 14:49:36
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan wrote:
> First time I've been chicked by someone my age since '80 Boston.
Ooh, I'm sorry to hear that Dan, and more than a little surprised by
your candor here on a public newsgroup and all. But don't worry, I
shan't mention any of this to L.
. . . . .
Hey, sounds like you put in a good effort, and I'm sorry to hear the
numbers you were looking for didn't ring up at the end. Obviously
you've identified the reason, and I'm not sure there's much more
someone like me - with an order of magnitude less experience - can add,
except maybe that I'd love to be doing anywhere near as well as you're
doing when I'm sixty-eight or whatever you are these days.
I'm curious whether your legs feel substantially less beat up than
after the (more downhill and more paved) race at St. George.
And what's next for you?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:30:41
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote
>> First time I've been chicked by someone my age since '80 Boston.
> Ooh, I'm sorry to hear that Dan, and more than a little surprised by
> your candor here on a public newsgroup and all. But don't worry, I
> shan't mention any of this to L.
Thanks, Charlie, you got my back...
> Obviously
> you've identified the reason, and I'm not sure there's much more
> someone like me - with an order of magnitude less experience - can add,
> except maybe that I'd love to be doing anywhere near as well as you're
> doing when I'm sixty-eight or whatever you are these days.
If you're talkin' al, you're getting warm...big 55 on the 22nd. I guess
that will make me a "Super Veteran" or "Mega Master" or some such.
Speaking of which, wonder where Hutch went. Hiding out while he heals his
hamstring, no doubt.
> I'm curious whether your legs feel substantially less beat up than
> after the (more downhill and more paved) race at St. George.
Big time. I can jog down stairs today, but I'll wait 'till tomorrow (M + 3)
before a trial run.
We jogged down Echo Mountain in Pasadena the morning after I did a trail
50k, remember?
> And what's next for you?
Some mountain race in the 30 mile range, maybe hit the Avalon 50 in January.
Next time I shoot for a decent marathon time, I'll hit the pavement...I'm
also going to pace a friend for the last 30 of a 100 miler in San Diego, my
first ever all night run...
-- Dan
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 08:57:10
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote
> > Some people will never learn that hydration for an event
> > as long as a marathon (even in cold weather) requires more than a cup or 2
> > of fluids! A bottle is the only way to go.
>
> It's much faster to fill a bottle every few aid stations and sip on the run.
> Charlie, are you listening? You unscrew it in advance, and either have the
> helpers dump cups in, or put it on the table and pour with both hands. Very
> quick.
_
what do you mean "it's much faster to fill a bottle every few....."?
faster than what?
a bottle? there are no bottles in running. that's only 1 rung above
the ipod runner ya know. however i do recall that pix of you dan and
you had on a waistpack bottle device. which one do you use Amphipod 20
oz?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:36:15
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"LSmith" <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote
>> It's much faster to fill a bottle every few aid stations and sip on the
>> run.
>> Charlie, are you listening? You unscrew it in advance, and either have
>> the
>> helpers dump cups in, or put it on the table and pour with both hands.
>> Very
>> quick.
> what do you mean "it's much faster to fill a bottle every few....."?
> faster than what?
Faster then the runners I'm with. They always get left behind, or have to
fartleck to catch back up, which is a no-no in a marathon.
Back in the day, I ran tons of marathons just stopping and gulping from
cups. I was always in such a hurry that I never drank enough, and would
sometimes lose 10 lbs (out of 140) which probably hurt my times.
In the last year, I've run two marathons, and used a bottle (24oz) in each.
I can tell you that it is definitely much faster to refill the bottle every
6 - 8 miles or so, and sip on the run. And you end up drinking more, too.
In larger races, the elites get squeeze bottles at their aid stations, so
they're on to it, too.
I'm surprised that it hasn't caught on big time.
Although this discussion is irrelevant for someone like you who uses
Homeopathic doses of water, just swish it around and spit it out, right?
Anyway good luck on the NYCM. I agree that starting out at 7:15's is a good
goal. Beware of dehydration, the cause of your cramps the last time. It
sneaks up on you. You don't need to replace all that you lose, just half or
so in a 3 hour race. And salt will settle your stomach if you get
sloshy/queasy.
> a bottle? there are no bottles in running. that's only 1 rung above
> the ipod runner ya know. however i do recall that pix of you dan and
> you had on a waistpack bottle device. which one do you use Amphipod 20
> oz?
No, just a cheapo private label (from REI) one bottle holder. just weighs a
few oz empty.
-- Dan
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 13:49:26
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:7vBWg.7244$Y24.3271@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Biz Johnson Trail Marathon, Susanville CA.
....
> The time was a truly abysmal and embarassing 3:23, my slowest marathon
ever.
> (and unlike a certain lister, no prize money to ease the pain). Got 24th
> place out of 352. I passed about 17 runners after 10 miles, got passed
only
> by 1, and if I had a couple more miles I would have caught many more,
> judging from several tales of collapse by those ahead of me.
Passed 17? They were dying or you paced improperly early on? Isn't using
time alone to judge your performance on a trail race a bit harsh on
yourself, though of course it's very tempting to compare to a road event
because it's a "marathon".
...
> In the aftermath, trying to rationalize such a slow time, I talked with a
> few runners who finished near me. This being in Northern California,
there
> was a lot of depth. The winner in 2:49 has a 2:26 marathon. The 64 year
> old (a former 2:19 marathoner!) I'd passed at 24 had run a 3:02 recently.
There's some tough old guys in every race it seems. Given the relative
performances of the winner and the 64yo, you did rather well!
...
> So, no, this is not a fast course (although a few people ran good times
> here) and should be marketed as a scenic and easy trail marathon.
>
> Lessons learned:
>
> Altitude sucks.
Sucks why? Were you short of breath? or just slowed down your "time" ;)
> Headwinds slow you down.
> Trail running is slower than street running.
Come on Dan, you shouldn't be surprised to find out that a trail marathon is
hard to compare based on time. It's funny about those guys who stopped at
the aid stations. Some people will never learn that hydration for an event
as long as a marathon (even in cold weather) requires more than a cup or 2
of fluids! A bottle is the only way to go.
-Tony
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:12:38
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
"Tony S." <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote
> Passed 17? They were dying or you paced improperly early on?
I let you in on a little secret: My goal is to pass about 1/2 of the people
who are ahead of me 1/4 of the way through a race. Over a jillion races,
I've learned that if I don't pass that many, I've gone out too hard. Most
people go out too fast. Only one of the people I passed was walking.
> Isn't using
> time alone to judge your performance on a trail race a bit harsh on
> yourself, though of course it's very tempting to compare to a road event
> because it's a "marathon".
Yes, lesson learned.
Next time I try for a "fast" marathon, I'll keep to the roads.
>> Altitude sucks.
>
> Sucks why? Were you short of breath? or just slowed down your "time" ;)
The latter...I've run up Mt. Whitney and lived to tell the tale (now that
gives a new meaning to short of breath!)
> Come on Dan, you shouldn't be surprised to find out that a trail marathon
> is
> hard to compare based on time.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Just my mindless optimism overcoming rationality.
> It's funny about those guys who stopped at
> the aid stations.
Fartleks are not a good idea in a long race.
> Some people will never learn that hydration for an event
> as long as a marathon (even in cold weather) requires more than a cup or 2
> of fluids! A bottle is the only way to go.
It's much faster to fill a bottle every few aid stations and sip on the run.
Charlie, are you listening? You unscrew it in advance, and either have the
helpers dump cups in, or put it on the table and pour with both hands. Very
quick.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:28:02
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus wrote:
> Biz Johnson Trail Marathon, Susanville CA.
>
> Lessons learned:
>
> Altitude sucks.
> Headwinds slow you down.
> Trail running is slower than street running.
> .
I read about this race and had the same thoughts as you about the upside
, glad I read your report before booking a flight!
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 01:00:50
From: anders
Subject: Re: Biz Johnson trail marathon race report
|
Dan Stumpus kirjoitti:
> In the last year, I've run two marathons, and used a bottle (24oz) in each.
> I can tell you that it is definitely much faster to refill the bottle every
> 6 - 8 miles or so, and sip on the run. And you end up drinking more, too.
That would work out to about 24oz of fluid during 45-50min of running -
not all that different from what the elites appear to consume: 6-8oz
every 5km.
> In larger races, the elites get squeeze bottles at their aid stations, so
> they're on to it, too.
> I'm surprised that it hasn't caught on big time.
I'd guess that the cost of bottled water and sports drink is so much
higher that we won't be seeing it at too many marathons, unless a
manufacturer happens to be a main sponsor.
OTOH a large percentage of non-elite competitive and/or ambitious
marathoners use the option (when available) of bringing their own
bottles for the aid stations and I think that they do it as much
because they find it faster and more efficient as because they believe
their own concion suits their stomach better.
BTW the Hanson boys' special mix consists of Gatorade and Red Bull!
(Well, whatever - but I I'd try chamomile tea with maltodextrin and
salt before that kind of stuff.)
> No, just a cheapo private label (from REI) one bottle holder. just weighs a
> few oz empty.
I'm quite comfortable doing a long run holding a 24oz bottle in my
hand. This must cause me a certain amount of energy compared to bearing
the same weight in a bottle holder; it obviously doesn't really matter
during a training run, but - here I am 100% with Lance - I'd still
rather take the penalty in a (road) marathon rather than be seen
running with gear that simply doesn't become a real runner:-)
Anders
|
|
