race report: Scotland Run 10 km

running-forum.com
Promoting running discussion.

Main

Date: 02 Apr 2006 21:50:41
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
in training than I thought..."

McMillan's calculator says 40:42 and 40:51 based on my last two races, but I
have been training pretty well and hope to better that by a little.

So it's an absolutely beautiful morning. 57F and sunny according to
nyrrc.org. Spring's really here, suddently, these last several days.

At 9:56 I'm slowly jogging from the baggage drop (where I had stripped down
to shorts & singlet and changed to racing shoes) to the starting line,
congratulating myself on executing my morning plan well for once and getting
properly warmed up, everything else taken care of and to the line on time,
when I am shocked to hear the starting gun four minutes earlier than my
watch thought proper.

Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR start
times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few more
minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.

Ah well, no time to stop and catch my breath. I hurriedly duck under the
rope and into the river of flesh, coolmax, and eva. Find myself starting in
a mostly slower crowd once again and it takes 26 seconds to reach the
starting line.

I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a few
weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I pass
quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow, I'm
already 24" off 40' pace.

OK, so keep cool, let's just speed up a notch to 40' pace (6:24/mi) and if
I'm to win any of those seconds back it can be in the second half, *after*
the biggest longest hill at the north end of the park.

That was the intent, but my pace judgement hasn't caught up with my
improving abilities. I instead ran a 6:15 (OK, I think second mile is more
down than up) and a 6:17 (oops, even though that mile nets to around zero
elevation, it's got the biggest down then up).

The whole time I'm passing, passing, passing. Even on the ups, which is
fairly novel for me - historically I've always passed many on the downs but
most of 'em have caught me on the ups.

I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing. Nobody
else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most worse. I'm
starting to take more strength from this observation recently in races.
Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude. (after all,
vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)

Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I try
to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and attempt
to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to snatch 40:00,
or at least get as close as possible in the process. I succeed, clocking a
6:18.

Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble over
that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.

I think Daniels mentions that an emphasis on short fast reps, per the phase
I've been in these last 4 weeks (2 more before emphasis moves to long
intervals), might leave you a bit dead-legged and without much of a kick in
the short term. But I think I just paced a little unevenly and shot my wad
a bit prematurely by running the first 9 km at, on average, my 9 km race
pace. And of course blowing the start didn't help.

But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039

Like the last race, those round number like 90 and 40 and even 70% (Robert,
I take your point, yet my parade will be warm and dry - it's just a nice
round number to me, which I've been stalking for some time) are getting
tantalizingly close. That's OK, soon enough those numbers will be behind me
and I'll be setting my sights on the next round of more ambitious goals.

Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've already
PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork sure ought
to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is what I mean by
"low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make that a cutback
week) and probably just take one easy day before.

Date: 03 Apr 2006 10:23:59
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

good job charlie. when i ascend a hill without getting passed (the
norm), that's usually a personal victory within the race itself.

you'll be cracking 70% going forward on your next outing for sure. but
why aren't you entering the premiere 4 mile event of the year? the
Thomas G. Labrecque Classic?

That is a great race stock piled with a very strong field. sometimes
when you try and fly with eagles, you can get a little lift. it's
much better race than that 4 miler your looking at. you should
consider it.

Date: 03 Apr 2006 17:07:03
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1144029070.845253@nntp.acecape.com...
> ...
> But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas
my
> third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
> place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more
about
> a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039

Congratulations! After your marathon meltdown and all the banter about that
last Fall, it's good to see you building on last year's training,
continuing, and now picking some fruit from it all.

I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37? I wish I
could remember what my 10k PR was exactly - I think it's 41:xx, when I was
in my late 20's on <20mpw. If I had the legs to run roads I might go for it
again. I never took road running seriously (in that I didn't target my
training) and did every road race as a flat out fun run, usually with
positive splits.

In my recent spring cleaning I came across an old file with a few race
results. Since in the 80's I was only into orienteering -- un-measurable
results at best, but mid to top 1/3 in most elite blue courses. In those
days I trained 5-6 days a week from 1-2 hours per day, no logs, just
fartleks in the woods and on trails. From that time, my trail PR for the
hook mountain trail (the trail I grew up on) was 25:45 in 1986, over a 3+
mile course with about 1000' climb on rocky single track. I never came very
close to that again, and when in my very best shape in recent years could
only manage a 33:xx over the same course. I think with the right training I
might be able to crack 30 mins. You're lucky in that you're on your
glidepath upward still -- I know with certainty I'll never run over trails
as fast as I could back then. My goal now is longer races of course.

Some other random results I found were a 2.5 mile race from 8/1990 in 15:32,
and more recently, from 1999, a 5k run / 20k bike / 5k run in 1:18:28 with
5k splits of 22:32 and 22:06, which I thought was rather good since that
year I only biked until I ran about 15 times in the 2 months before the
race.

-Tony

Date: 03 Apr 2006 08:53:34
From: Ed Prochak
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
> mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
> in training than I thought..."
>
[]
>
> But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
> third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
> place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
> a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039

Cool report and congratulations on the PR!!!!

>
> Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've already
> PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork sure ought
> to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is what I mean by
> "low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make that a cutback
> week) and probably just take one easy day before.

Good luck. Your consistant training sure is paying off.
ed

Date: 03 Apr 2006 15:21:00
From: Dot
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
> mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
> in training than I thought..."
...
>
> But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas my
> third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
> place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more about
> a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135 M3039
>

Wow - good job, Charlie! Congratulations - PR for time and WAVA! Nice
report. Training looks like it's coming together nicely.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Date: 03 Apr 2006 13:58:01
From: Tim Downie
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
>
> But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19!

Well done Charlie! I like to think that I could run that fast (and
certainly my 5K times would indicate that I can) but the fact of the matter
is that I haven't so until then, you got me beat. ;-)

Tim

Date: 03 Apr 2006 10:36:14
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1144029070.845253@nntp.acecape.com...
> Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of
> my mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further
> along in training than I thought..."
>
> McMillan's calculator says 40:42 and 40:51 based on my last two races, but
> I have been training pretty well and hope to better that by a little.
>
> So it's an absolutely beautiful morning. 57F and sunny according to
> nyrrc.org. Spring's really here, suddently, these last several days.
>
> At 9:56 I'm slowly jogging from the baggage drop (where I had stripped
> down to shorts & singlet and changed to racing shoes) to the starting
> line, congratulating myself on executing my morning plan well for once and
> getting properly warmed up, everything else taken care of and to the line
> on time, when I am shocked to hear the starting gun four minutes earlier
> than my watch thought proper.
>
> Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR
> start times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me
> taking their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a
> few more minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.
>
> Ah well, no time to stop and catch my breath. I hurriedly duck under the
> rope and into the river of flesh, coolmax, and eva. Find myself starting
> in a mostly slower crowd once again and it takes 26 seconds to reach the
> starting line.
>
> I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a
> few weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I
> pass quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow,
> I'm already 24" off 40' pace.

I had the same experience yesterday, flet very comfortable in the first mile
and barely broke 7:00 in the first mile. I over reacted a little and tried
to make it up in mile 2 but paid for it some later.

>
> OK, so keep cool, let's just speed up a notch to 40' pace (6:24/mi) and if
> I'm to win any of those seconds back it can be in the second half, *after*
> the biggest longest hill at the north end of the park.
>
> That was the intent, but my pace judgement hasn't caught up with my
> improving abilities. I instead ran a 6:15 (OK, I think second mile is
> more down than up) and a 6:17 (oops, even though that mile nets to around
> zero elevation, it's got the biggest down then up).
>
> The whole time I'm passing, passing, passing. Even on the ups, which is
> fairly novel for me - historically I've always passed many on the downs
> but most of 'em have caught me on the ups.
>
> I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
> fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
> agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing.
> Nobody else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most
> worse. I'm starting to take more strength from this observation recently
> in races. Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude.
> (after all, vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)
>
> Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I
> try to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and
> attempt to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to
> snatch 40:00, or at least get as close as possible in the process. I
> succeed, clocking a 6:18.
>
> Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
> maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble
> over that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.
>

This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
"brutual". I was surprised by her description, maybe it was because she ran
1:29 about 5 minutes off her best 1/2 time. Wait till she turns 40 and gets
to run our local Masters 10k!

> I think Daniels mentions that an emphasis on short fast reps, per the
> phase I've been in these last 4 weeks (2 more before emphasis moves to
> long intervals), might leave you a bit dead-legged and without much of a
> kick in the short term. But I think I just paced a little unevenly and
> shot my wad a bit prematurely by running the first 9 km at, on average, my
> 9 km race pace. And of course blowing the start didn't help.

Funny I think I'm dead legged from all the long trail runs!
When I saw "blowing" I expected to see a wind comment was it a factor? It
was for me yesterday it really wore me down in mile 4 of the race I ran. I
guess I could have pushed my self a little harder, our coach had his college
kids there. I finished between two of them, 18 yr old women the one who beat
me was being assisted up the stairs into the school where the race was held
after. Obviously she gave it all and wasn't going to be embarrassed byt an
old fart like me!
>
> But overall I'm quite pleased with my 40:14. It's a PR - by 7:19! ('twas
> my third ever road race in Feb 2004) - as is the 69.5% WAVA. My finishing
> place also looks more impressive than usual but I think that says more
> about a weaker field than typical: 151/5126 overall, 138/2789 men, 64/1135
> M3039
>
Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't know
it's going to be tough on the course.

> Like the last race, those round number like 90 and 40 and even 70%
> (Robert, I take your point, yet my parade will be warm and dry - it's just
> a nice round number to me, which I've been stalking for some time) are
> getting tantalizingly close. That's OK, soon enough those numbers will be
> behind me and I'll be setting my sights on the next round of more
> ambitious goals.
>
> Next race is 23 April, a reunion with the 4 mile distance which I've
> already PR'd twice in 2006. I hope to make it a trifecta - the speedwork
> sure ought to help, even as I plan to train through that race (which is
> what I mean by "low priority" in Training Week; "med" means I plan to make
> that a cutback week) and probably just take one easy day before.
>
I've got a 4 miler on the 17th, doubt it will be a PR but hopefully some
improvement over my March 4 miler.

Good Luck,

PR (intials only right now)

Date: 03 Apr 2006 09:02:54
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Parker Race wrote:
> This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
> A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
> "brutual".

It was a lap of the outer loop, which is presumably what they run for the
More Marathon and Half.

It's certainly got its share of rolling hills which slow you down and
extract their toll. It's a lot harder (and/or slower) than pancake flat.
But "brutal" is overstating it IMO. Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a
second opinion: she ran 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a new
age group record. http://tinyurl.com/o2n9q

> Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't
> know it's going to be tough on the course.

Thanks Parker and best of luck. What's with the course?

Date: 03 Apr 2006 15:05:46
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1144069402.220417@nntp.acecape.com...
>> Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't
>> know it's going to be tough on the course.
>
> Thanks Parker and best of luck. What's with the course?
>
Here it is in graphic detail:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=29485

Date: 03 Apr 2006 13:11:06
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1144069402.220417@nntp.acecape.com...
> Parker Race wrote:
>> This was the standard Central Park 10k route I presume?
>> A friend or ours who ran the More Half last weekend called the course
>> "brutual".
>
> It was a lap of the outer loop, which is presumably what they run for the
> More Marathon and Half.
>
> It's certainly got its share of rolling hills which slow you down and
> extract their toll. It's a lot harder (and/or slower) than pancake flat.
> But "brutal" is overstating it IMO. Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a
> second opinion: she ran 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a
> new age group record. http://tinyurl.com/o2n9q

I think this person's just frustrated as she should be able to run a better
time than she did, sometimes I found rolling to be good as long as the hills
aren't too big.

>
>
>> Congratulations again, I'm hoping for a 10k PR on the 22nd but I don't
>> know it's going to be tough on the course.
>
> Thanks Parker and best of luck. What's with the course?

It's in the foothills of the Helderberg Mountains
It 's an out and back course with a major downhill from mile 2 to the 5k
turnaround
What goes down must come back up in this case.
I ran a 1 a second PR on this course in 2003. I'd be happy with sub 44
minutes this year.

>
>

Date: 03 Apr 2006 18:41:30
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Date: 03 Apr 2006 12:25:42
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Scotland 10 km?

I can picture the starting divisions perfectly:

7:45 "Here f' th' free water" division.
8:00 bagpipers
8:25 sheep
8:30 drunken Scotsmen in kilts
8:45 joggers
9:00 Roger Hunter

:)

Date: 03 Apr 2006 12:09:27
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Parker Race wrote:
>> Ask 72 year old Ginette Bedard for a second opinion: she ran
>> 3:46:02 in the More Marathon, which AFAICT is a new age group record.
>
> You think maybe her 1/2 Marathon time somehow got recorded as a
> Marathon time?

No, I googled her after noticing this result and it appears that she's
a serious talent and a fierce racer.

Date: 03 Apr 2006 10:38:00
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Tony S. wrote:
> Congratulations! After your marathon meltdown and all the banter about
> that last Fall, it's good to see you building on last year's training,
> continuing, and now picking some fruit from it all.

Thanks Tony, that's how I see it too.

> I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?

Will be 39 in September.

> You're lucky in that you're on your glidepath upward still

The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential might
have been.

But even with an optimistic faith that I've got plenty of potential
worth working hard to tap, it's also abundantly clear that my talent
level is very modest, so it's not like it's terribly poignant that
starting in my mid 30's robbed me of a shot at Olympic glory.

(I should more likely feel I've done myself an injustice by not having
spent a moment on math beyond age 18, than having quit the 7th grade
cross country team or failing to follow up on my AG blue ribbons in
every 2 mile race I entered the summer I was 9 or 10. But I'm pretty
well reconciled with that as well: in the long view it was probably
better if not absolutely necessary to, at that age, reject anything and
everything my parents, teachers, and society had ever pushed me
toward...)

> My goal now is longer races of course.

And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)

Date: 03 Apr 2006 20:58:48
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1144085880.333159.303630@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?
>
> Will be 39 in September.

I didn't run a step until age 39 and did all my 5k(18:30)/10k(38:30) etc
PR's about age 44 and was running sub 40 at age 51. Hell I just had a PR
at a 50K(that race that course) this year at age 61. Soooooo, as far as
I'm concerned you have many PR's in your future.

> The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
> guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential
> might
> have been.

Live for today and tomorrow! Anything else is not worth the synapses.

> And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
> turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
> Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)

Lance with all his superfluous hot air will be the next Karnazes
although I will get to see K at the Vermont 100 as we are both running.
My money says he will finish in front of me. :)

-Doug

Date: 03 Apr 2006 22:50:25
From: Parker Race
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:c0gYf.11144$x97.6400@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144085880.333159.303630@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> I forgot how old you are Charlie, but based on your WAVA about 37?
>>
>> Will be 39 in September.
>
> I didn't run a step until age 39 and did all my 5k(18:30)/10k(38:30) etc
> PR's about age 44 and was running sub 40 at age 51. Hell I just had a PR
> at a 50K(that race that course) this year at age 61. Soooooo, as far as
> I'm concerned you have many PR's in your future.
>
>> The flipside of being on the ascent approaching 40 is an ironclad
>> guarantee I'll never get very close to what my ultimate potential might
>> have been.
>
> Live for today and tomorrow! Anything else is not worth the synapses.
>
>
>> And apparently the most challenging terrain anyone's crazy enough to
>> turn into a race! I figure if Doug, Dan, and TR are our resident
>> Karnazeses, Steidls and Jureks, you must be rr's Cave Dog. ;-)
>
> Lance with all his superfluous hot air will be the next Karnazes although
> I will get to see K at the Vermont 100 as we are both running. My money
> says he will finish in front of me. :)
>
> -Doug
>

Are you doing the 100? A couple of my team mates are. One did it last year
and broke 24 hrs in his first attempt. The other did the Comrades last year
and is really coming on. She ran a 5 minutes faster than last year in
Sunday's race. .

Date: 04 Apr 2006 00:59:05
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Parker Race" <notachance@home.net > wrote in message
news:REhYf.39552$jf2.31875@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Are you doing the 100?

I'm all signed up. The HAT run march 25th, Bull run 50 miles April 8th
and a 32-40 mile relay piece of Laurel Higlands in June are simply
building blocks for the Vermont 100.

< A couple of my team mates are. One did it last year
> and broke 24 hrs in his first attempt. The other did the Comrades
> last year and is really coming on. She ran a 5 minutes faster than
> last year in Sunday's race. .

From my excell 'feat' spread sheet.

Vermont 100 1995 21:01
Vermont 100 2000 20:53
Vermont 100 2001 21:49
Vermont 100 2002 20:57
Vermont 100 2003 21:24

I'm not sure how many more 100's I will do. This will be my first as a
60 yo. Ask me a week after this year race is over if I plan to do
another.

-Doug

Date: 04 Apr 2006 04:17:52
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

German expression, dies, laughs, execution, etc. Anders aka Franz
Liebkind

Date: 04 Apr 2006 00:31:19
From: anders
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:

> Goal: 40-something-lowish. Of course that also means that in the back of my
> mind, I'm thinking "if all goes perfectly, and I'm just a hair further along
> in training than I thought..."

.. and rhe scene is perfectly set for doing something stupid in the
race. It will be the back of your mind getting into a frenzy or a
premature resignation and making desperate and misguided decisions for
you.

OTOH the only cure to this is experience - and we all know what
experience costs. But never mind, *some* day you'll both have the
necessary experience and your goal and your back-of-the-mind goal will
match nicely,

(FWIW I'm still waiting for that day.)

> Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR start
> times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
> their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few more
> minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.

Did the starter's gun really go off at five to? Or do you mean that
this time it went off without the customary delay at a NYRR race?

> I hope the slow crowd is a disguised blessing after my too-fast start a few
> weeks ago. It's fairly crowded for the first mile, give or take, as I pass
> quite a few slowpokes. First mile comes in 6:48. Damn - too slow, I'm
> already 24" off 40' pace.

More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).

> (...)
> I think especially this third mile, especially the uphill, was a bit too
> fast. I felt pretty worn out for some uphill in mile 4, and the clock
> agreed - 6:40. Ouch. However I was still passing passing passing. Nobody
> else around me was moving, looking, or sounding any better; most worse. I'm
> starting to take more strength from this observation recently in races.
> Hey, whatever works, I'm not above a little schadenfreude. (after all,
> vahingonilo on aidointa iloa)

That is certainly true. But there's also another German expression,
"der lachende Dritte", which could be made to fit here: when one runner
starts too fast and dies and the other doesn't but still panics and
fades, it is the third who starts slow and accelerates slowly who
passes them both and laughs all the way to the finish.

> Last couple miles in the south end of the park are somewhat flatter. I try
> to take heart in this fact rather than focus on how beat I feel, and attempt
> to rally for mile 5, still hoping there's an outside chance to snatch 40:00,
> or at least get as close as possible in the process. I succeed, clocking a
> 6:18.

A 10K consists of about 10% keeping cool during the first couple miles
and 90% maintaining the best possible pace left in you in the last
couple miles. As you noted, you kind of blew the former but did alright
in the latter.

> Sixth mile in 6:28 but fading fast in the last few tenths and unable to
> maintain any kind of pace let alone kick to the finish line. I stumble over
> that last .2 in 1:28, finally getting passed by about four runners.

Well, that's OK if none of them were female and/or over sixty. All in
all, on a scale of 4-10 I'd rate your race execution 6 and performance
8. The congrats can and have to wait until the next 10K.

Anders

Date: 04 Apr 2006 10:00:16
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

anders wrote:
> Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:
>> Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR
>> start
>> times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
>> their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few
>> more
>> minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.
>
> Did the starter's gun really go off at five to? Or do you mean that
> this time it went off without the customary delay at a NYRR race?

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

> More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
> talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
> was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
> than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
> certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
> maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
> the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).

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

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

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

> there's also another German expression, "der lachende Dritte", which
> could be made to fit here: when one runner starts too fast and dies
> and the other doesn't but still panics and fades, it is the third who
> starts slow and accelerates slowly who passes them both and laughs
> all the way to the finish.

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

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

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

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

Aw, did you peek?

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

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

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

Date: 04 Apr 2006 17:55:41
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote

>> there's also another German expression, "der lachende Dritte", which
>> could be made to fit here: when one runner starts too fast and dies
>> and the other doesn't but still panics and fades, it is the third who
>> starts slow and accelerates slowly who passes them both and laughs
>> all the way to the finish.
>
> Guilty as charged! I was indeed passed by a grand total of around four
> runners, which is vier lechende Dritten too many.

I hate those (laughing?) Dritters, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Dan

Date: 04 Apr 2006 15:35:24
From: marko
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

anders a �crit :
> More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
> talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
> was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
> than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
> certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
> maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
> the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).

this is very true, all the more as you did probably lose those 24" in
the first half of that first mile which was evidently more crowded than
the second half, when the compactness tends to expand, which means that
you were probably on pace when you read that 6:48.
i never accelerate at this point, waiting to see what the next split
will be.

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

m

Date: 04 Apr 2006 10:06:42
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

marko wrote:
> this is very true, all the more as you did probably lose those 24" in the
> first half of that first mile which was evidently more crowded than the
> second half, when the compactness tends to expand, which means that you
> were probably on pace when you read that 6:48.

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

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

That's starting to sound like a wise policy.

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

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

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

Date: 04 Apr 2006 21:59:18
From: marko
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

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

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

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

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

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

m

Date: 04 Apr 2006 14:58:57
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

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

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

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

Date: 04 Apr 2006 23:15:26
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote

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

Just a thought -- 2 factoids:

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

[Rod Serling voice-over]

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

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

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

[Repeating electric guitar figure, with atonal orchestral coda]

The reason muscle weighs more than fat per calorie is that there's a lot of
water in muscle, and very little in fat. Water has zero calories, last time
I checked. (just a note for those worried about the conservation of mass).

Date: 05 Apr 2006 00:13:01
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

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

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

Date: 05 Apr 2006 01:50:39
From: anders
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:

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

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

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

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

Date: 05 Apr 2006 08:05:57
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

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

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

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

Date: 05 Apr 2006 01:39:50
From: anders
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

marko kirjoitti:

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

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

> The only thing is that there is way too much wind for my liking
> (20km/h), otherwise temps are perfect (8=B0C)

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

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

Anders

Date: 05 Apr 2006 11:06:00
From: marko
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

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

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

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

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

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

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

m

Date: 05 Apr 2006 13:15:08
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Are you also pumping iron

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

> and eating protein?

Sure, along with fat and carbohydrates.

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

It's assuredly water, not fat gain.

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

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

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

Yours,
Buddy Love

Date: 05 Apr 2006 12:47:45
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > Muscle = 600 kCal/lb
> > Fat = 3500 kCal/lb
> >
> > A Terrifying place where, as one became more fit, and ate moderately,
> > one pound of fat could become 3-5 lbs of muscle.
>
> Well right - and thanks for those numbers, I didn't realize the discrepancy
> was this wide - but four pounds of muscle in three weeks? From adding a few
> fast miles and a few slow miles to my distance running regimen?

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

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

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

Date: 05 Apr 2006 22:10:00
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com > wrote

>> Well right - and thanks for those numbers, I didn't realize the
>> discrepancy
>> was this wide - but four pounds of muscle in three weeks? From adding a
>> few
>> fast miles and a few slow miles to my distance running regimen?
>
> No. Long-distance running wastes muscle mass, if anything. Are you also
> pumping iron, (high weight, low reps) and eating protein?

No. Energy output exceeding input wastes muscle mass.

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

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

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

-- Dan

Date: 06 Apr 2006 08:13:51
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

wow, had no idea of that robust race activity over there in NJ. neat
site but found it very odd/strange that they don't list the NJ Marathon
at the end of this month. Very odd to omit that race of all races.
http://www.njmarathon.org/

on the slide show on the home page is one of your GNY teammates.

Date: 06 Apr 2006 16:06:00
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-06, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote:
> wow, had no idea of that robust race activity over there in NJ. neat
> site but found it very odd/strange that they don't list the NJ Marathon
> at the end of this month. Very odd to omit that race of all races.
> http://www.njmarathon.org/
>
> on the slide show on the home page is one of your GNY teammates.

I'd hope so -- he won it

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

Date: 06 Apr 2006 07:05:36
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

>Can you swallow your ego enough to listen a coach? If he/she is worth
their salt
----

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

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

i learned coaches and trainers are in strong demand too. you contact
the best ones and you can easily be placed on their waiting list. i
wonder if the summer running camps around the country are experiencing
the boom in running as are all the marathons.

Date: 06 Apr 2006 16:35:26
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1144332336.379956.172240@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >Can you swallow your ego enough to listen a coach? If he/she is
> >worth
> their salt
> ----
>
> well uncle he's better than Glover.

> i learned coaches and trainers are in strong demand too. you contact
> the best ones and you can easily be placed on their waiting list.

So if you got in does that mean he is bad and has slots open? ;) Doesn't
say much for Glover whose book I still think has great basic knowledge.

Date: 06 Apr 2006 04:49:26
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

note charles was non-responsive when i asked him about why he would
miss out on running in our club's premeire 4 mile race, i am sure
you're not making that choice are you donnie? planning on pr'ing?

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

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

Date: 06 Apr 2006 11:57:19
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1144324166.017850.322790@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> i did though just get a personal
> trainer/coach so we're going to start from the benchmark to see where
> things are at.

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

Your old Uncle Doug

Date: 06 Apr 2006 11:13:00
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-03, Charlie Pendejo <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
[report snipped]

Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?

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

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

Date: 06 Apr 2006 08:32:26
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?

Yes, Healthy Kidney.

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

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

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

Thanks! Yeah in fact I've thought of this, I wouldn't mind trying a flat
race for once. I have two and a half weeks before my next race, a low key 4
miler. When are these races? Do you know of a worthwhile NJ (or NY metro
area) race calendar which has this sort of thing?

Date: 06 Apr 2006 14:56:14
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-06, Charlie Pendejo <charlie.pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Any more plans for a sub 40 attempt ?
>
> Yes, Healthy Kidney.
>
> I shouldn't get too far ahead of myself, but I'm feeling pretty good about
> my chances for sub-40 there. I'm doing Daniels' 5 to 15k training plan -
> and not too heavily modified even, I started with pretty low volume on reps
> etc. but working my way up and finding I can indeed do up to three workouts
> a week and not snap my leg in half - and am on phase 2, week 5. So far four
> races in 2005, four PRs, each race better than the last.
>
> If I'm not under 40 by Healthy Kidney then something will have gone very
> wrong.
>
>
>> There's the healthy kidney race coming up, but there are also
>> a couple of good races in NJ with flat courses: the Newport 10,000
>> (near the PATH train) and the Ridgewood 5k/10k.
>
> Thanks! Yeah in fact I've thought of this, I wouldn't mind trying a flat
> race for once. I have two and a half weeks before my next race, a low key 4
> miler. When are these races?

Newport is May 13, Ridgewood is May 29.

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

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

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

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

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

others are somewhat hit and miss.

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

Date: 06 Apr 2006 15:11:38
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

>Why do you always bring up this BMI crap? f you're overweight, that's
your choice. But don't wear it as a badge of honor.

i'll answer you. charles in this thread said he's back down to 145
.lb. i've met him in real life and as i recall he's about 5' 8" which
would mean his bmi is 22. if i had a bmi of 22 i would be kicking
donovan's ass on a regular basis despite being 11 year older than
me...hahahahaha.

but tkb, why do you care? can you answer that...why does it bother
you? in this thread dan stumpus made note and in doing so highlighted
& pointed it out as an honor that a 5'9" 220 .lb runner finished
badwater. that's a bmi of 32.5 when obese is a bmi of 30 and above.
dan stumpus made note of this as an achievement, or as a "badge of
honor" for that runner.

note you tkb did not admonish dan stumpus as you have me. why is
that? is that he's wwwwwwwhite? i am serious. what is it in you
tkb that takes time out to say to me what you have.....yet you don't
say to dan stumpus who's essentially done exactly what you're
admonishing me for? care to answer that question? i answered
yours....can you demonstrate some consistency here? i'm not suggesting
you're a racist, i though know you don't like it when a NEGRO rips on a
WHITE man. LOL.

> being overweight is simply a lack of willpower.

this statement of yours illustrates profound ignorance. does your
house have wheels? He's a quote from the CDC (center of disease
control) "Science shows that genetics plays a role in obesity. Genes
can directly cause obesity in disorders such as Bardet-Biedl syndrome
and Prader-Willi syndrome." I could go one and further illustrate how
profoundly wrong you are in your statement but imo it's common
knowledge that the genetic pool is not an even playing field.

In sum, life, genetics, & racing is not fare. What's your BMI TKB?
size and weight? Can you answer that question? You sound like a very
ignorant person imo that's never had a challenge and assume everyone is
equally able. I suspect you fall within perferred parameters and not
challenged. I know runners that have asthma and every race of any
distance is a battle. genetics and disease create uneven playing
fields.....we just deal with it as runners. but that does not mean we
can't take time out to note the "scale of measure" is not just, valid,
and fair. that's all i've done tkb, take time out to note the scale.

you seem disturbed that i frame content into perspective.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 01:25:05
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message

> but tkb, why do you care? can you answer that...why does it bother
> you? in this thread dan stumpus made note and in doing so highlighted
> & pointed it out as an honor that a 5'9" 220 .lb runner finished
> badwater. that's a bmi of 32.5 when obese is a bmi of 30 and above.
> dan stumpus made note of this as an achievement, or as a "badge of
> honor" for that runner.

> note you tkb did not admonish dan stumpus as you have me.

My point was that running doesn't cause weight loss -- no matter how much
you run, if you eat more calories than you need, you'll gain weight, and
vice versa...

Although, for the record, I do respect that heavier runners are doing it the
hard way -- like my talented friend who wears a 30 lb weight vest when he
hikes the 10,000' peaks with his less fit daughters.

If you want a data point from a guy who knows how to run, I ran with an
acquaintance the other day who could run 2:18 and 29:11 when he weighed 115
(he's about 5'3"), and now at 140# his best is "only" 2:32 and 32:xx. It
does make a difference. (I could stay with his easy pace on flats & downs,
but no way on the climbs -- he was kind enough to slow down).

-- Dan

Date: 07 Apr 2006 13:39:15
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:RbjZf.1153$Fy2.390@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ...
> Although, for the record, I do respect that heavier runners are doing it
the
> hard way -- like my talented friend who wears a 30 lb weight vest when he
> hikes the 10,000' peaks with his less fit daughters.

Though it's coming off slowly, I've still got a 15+ pound natural weight
belt ;) Good for training purposes I figure -- if I get it off in time for
my target race. If my body doesn't break down from the extra weight, it
will make my legs support muscles/tendons/ligaments stronger.

-Tony

Date: 07 Apr 2006 18:11:09
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Tony S." <email_tonys@NOSPAMyahoo.com > wrote

> Though it's coming off slowly, I've still got a 15+ pound natural weight
> belt ;) Good for training purposes I figure -- if I get it off in time for
> my target race. If my body doesn't break down from the extra weight, it
> will make my legs support muscles/tendons/ligaments stronger.

Well, that's looking on the bright side, isn't it? :-)

Hang tough. Maybe you'll be flying over those trails yet!

Date: 06 Apr 2006 17:54:43
From: Robert
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1144361498.448464.268290@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Why do you always bring up this BMI crap? f you're overweight, that's
> your choice. But don't wear it as a badge of honor.
>
> i'll answer you. charles in this thread said he's back down to 145
> .lb. i've met him in real life and as i recall he's about 5' 8" which
> would mean his bmi is 22. if i had a bmi of 22 i would be kicking
> donovan's ass on a regular basis despite being 11 year older than
> me...hahahahaha.
>

You are one of a very few that has ever in my thirteen years here ever
brought up BMI even though many have limitations. Lose the weight and get
your fat ass moving.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 11:56:43
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-06, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote:
>>Why do you always bring up this BMI crap? f you're overweight, that's
> your choice. But don't wear it as a badge of honor.
>
> i'll answer you. charles in this thread said he's back down to 145
> .lb. i've met him in real life and as i recall he's about 5' 8" which
> would mean his bmi is 22. if i had a bmi of 22 i would be kicking
> donovan's ass on a regular basis despite being 11 year older than
> me...hahahahaha.

Right now, I can't say I'm too worried (about you losing the weight or beating me)

> but tkb, why do you care? can you answer that...why does it bother
> you? in this thread dan stumpus made note and in doing so highlighted
> & pointed it out as an honor that a 5'9" 220 .lb runner finished
> badwater. that's a bmi of 32.5 when obese is a bmi of 30 and above.
> dan stumpus made note of this as an achievement, or as a "badge of
> honor" for that runner.

So what ? Finishing badwater is an achievement in itself *regardless* of weight.

Anyway, you sound like a crybaby when you keep bringing up BMI. Lose it and get
faster, or keep it and run slowly. But either way, it's your choice, so stop whining
about it.

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

Date: 07 Apr 2006 09:39:14
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

<lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1144361498.448464.268290@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> but tkb, why do you care? can you answer that...why does it bother
> you? in this thread dan stumpus made note and in doing so highlighted
> & pointed it out as an honor that a 5'9" 220 .lb runner finished
> badwater. that's a bmi of 32.5 when obese is a bmi of 30 and above.
> dan stumpus made note of this as an achievement, or as a "badge of
> honor" for that runner.

Yawn. Anyone that finishes Badwater regardless of their weight deserves
a badge of honor. That's one MF of a feat. Maybe, just maybe, one day
your over-simplified ego will consider BMI like shoe size or color of
your hair. You're always trying attempting to justify why you under
achieve with WAVA or BMI or some other superficial parameter. Isn't it
time you strop beating this dead horse.

> i'm not suggesting
> you're a racist, i though know you don't like it when a NEGRO rips on
> a
> WHITE man. LOL.

There is nothing more undignified than a person of color always playing
the color card be it real or jest. It makes you look racist and very
short on self esteem. Feel the need to prove yourself at every bend in
the road.

>
>> being overweight is simply a lack of willpower.
>
> this statement of yours illustrates profound ignorance. does your
> house have wheels? He's a quote from the CDC (center of disease
> control) "Science shows that genetics plays a role in obesity. Genes
> can directly cause obesity in disorders such as Bardet-Biedl syndrome
> and Prader-Willi syndrome." I could go one and further illustrate
> how
> profoundly wrong you are in your statement but imo it's common
> knowledge that the genetic pool is not an even playing field.

And we could on to show that your cherry picked rare syndromes do exist
but the VAST majority of the world eats more calories then the expend.
So how many fat people were there in the German prison camps? I think
it's safe to say that everyone was rather thin. While this is an example
in the extreme, it does show that limiting calories will make you
thinner genetics be damed. Maybe you need to visit a fat farm where they
control your eating and at least remove the adipose. If you still lack
self control you have your stomach stapled.

I'll be gone for two weeks so I probably won't be able to continue
discussing your chubbiness. I have a feat to perform on Saturday and
then to bask on the beach so we at least look like brothers when I
retrurn. Here I am trying to get darker and you call me a racist. :)

-DougF

Date: 06 Apr 2006 13:28:24
From: TenKBabe
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:

> charles asked me 3 or 4 times when i would race again, challenged me to
> race, mocked and joked on me in racing....well he can bring his 22 BMI
> frame against my 5 year older and 26 BMI frame and line up on sunday
> with the very strong field that will be there.

Why do you always bring up this BMI crap? f you're overweight, that's
your choice. But don't wear it as a badge of honor. Your race results
are just that *your* results. A result of your training, including your
exessive caloric intake. A runner will have a difficult time overcoming
a genetic flaw, but being overweight is simply a lack of willpower.
Unless, of course, you're solid muscle. I've seen your pix, so this is
not the case.

tkb

Date: 07 Apr 2006 07:13:07
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

>Right now, I can't say I'm too worried (about you losing the weight or beating me)
_

well i am 11 yrs older than you so no, i don't expect i will be beating
you on time. WAVA tables? Yes, that will happen again as it did last
year when i was 42. hahahahahahaha. haven't raced in 6 months, got
plenty of rust to shed and need to get back in shape. give me to
June...and if i join Westchester, oh shit, the rich get richer
hahahahaha.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 06:34:01
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Doug Freese wrote:

> I'll be gone for two weeks so I probably won't be able to continue
> discussing your chubbiness. I have a feat to perform on Saturday

Doug, good luck at Bull Run! I assume you're in max taper mode right
now? I'm a week behind you. Doing a 50-miler on the 15th. ;-)

--
Phil M.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 18:14:36
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote

>> I'll be gone for two weeks so I probably won't be able to continue
>> discussing your chubbiness. I have a feat to perform on Saturday
>
> Doug, good luck at Bull Run! I assume you're in max taper mode right
> now? I'm a week behind you. Doing a 50-miler on the 15th. ;-)

Good luck to you both. We expect full reports.

Date: 08 Apr 2006 15:48:29
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Dan Stumpus wrote:

>
> "Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net> wrote
>
>>> I'll be gone for two weeks so I probably won't be able to continue
>>> discussing your chubbiness. I have a feat to perform on Saturday
>>
>> Doug, good luck at Bull Run! I assume you're in max taper mode right
>> now? I'm a week behind you. Doing a 50-miler on the 15th. ;-)
>
> Good luck to you both. We expect full reports.

You can count on it from me. Doug, on the other hand, may require coaxing.
;-)

--
Phil M.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 04:05:13
From:
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

not the point doug. TKB is 100% wrong when she says people either
choose to be overweight or don't have will power. can you speak to
that doug ? or will doing so support my characterization of TKB being
very ignorant? oh yes, white privilege.. support the white person
whether they are right or wroing.

there is a myriad of well documented evidence out their illustrating
TKB is 100% wrong, so much so it's silly to suggest otherwise....and
you know that doug. but you can't tell TKB her statement is
appreciably off base...can you? why?

According to TKB, Dan Stumpus' friend with a BMI of 32.5 either is
choosing to be well into the obese scale or does not have enough will
power to lose weight. okay, he finished badwater so we know "will
power" is not the issue. so according to TKB mentaility, he's
choosiing to be Obese (and in the process risk all the issues that come
with that). I highly doubt that's the case. There is a myriad of
factors that give rise to people being overweight, TKB is simply,
profoundly uninformed.

Kind of reminds me of James Frey, author of "A Million Little Pieces".
In his book he said recovery was simply a matter of "will power".
Of course professionals in the field disputed this from day one....and
in time the public learned he was a crock of shit. Perhaps TKB, in
time, will learn she too is wrong.

Date: 07 Apr 2006 11:58:09
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-07, lanceandrew@aol.com <lanceandrew@aol.com > wrote:
> not the point doug. TKB is 100% wrong when she says people either
> choose to be overweight or don't have will power. can you speak to
> that doug ? or will doing so support my characterization of TKB being
> very ignorant? oh yes, white privilege.. support the white person
> whether they are right or wroing.

Wah wah wah. First it's BMI, and now we're opressing you. Cry me a river, you
big pussy.

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

Date: 10 Apr 2006 16:27:55
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

Dan Stumpus wrote:
> <lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > but tkb, why do you care? can you answer that...why does it bother
> > you? in this thread dan stumpus made note and in doing so highlighted
> > & pointed it out as an honor that a 5'9" 220 .lb runner finished
> > badwater. that's a bmi of 32.5 when obese is a bmi of 30 and above.
> > dan stumpus made note of this as an achievement, or as a "badge of
> > honor" for that runner.
>
> > note you tkb did not admonish dan stumpus as you have me.
>
> My point was that running doesn't cause weight loss -- no matter how much
> you run, if you eat more calories than you need, you'll gain weight, and
> vice versa...

Running, in particular serious training, can hinder weight loss,
because it encourages the individual to take in carbohydrate calories.
It's easy to err on the side of excess, because when you don't take in
enough, it detrimentally affects your training. The extra carbohydrates
you take in can keep your fat level high enough so that you are not
able to get properly shredded.

That's what I struggle with: going from great definition to that
razor-sharp rip. I've never been able to get down to less than 7 mm of
skinfold in the central abdomen. When I did that, my running suffered.

What you can do is cycle the carb intake so you have it available for
the key workouts of the week. For me, that would be the 20 miler, and
the track workout. If the running is going to suck from dieting, let it
be the base miles.

Date: 11 Apr 2006 00:48:11
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

On 2006-04-10, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com > wrote:

> Running, in particular serious training, can hinder weight loss,
> because it encourages the individual to take in carbohydrate calories.

How so ?

> It's easy to err on the side of excess, because when you don't take in
> enough, it detrimentally affects your training.

But it's easy to err on the side of excess anyway.

> The extra carbohydrates
> you take in can keep your fat level high enough so that you are not
> able to get properly shredded.
>
> That's what I struggle with: going from great definition to that
> razor-sharp rip. I've never been able to get down to less than 7 mm of
> skinfold in the central abdomen. When I did that, my running suffered.

Hasn't been a problem for me.
http://www.pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/weights/abs.jpg

But seriously, 7mm isn't exactly bad anyway. Unless you're entering a
bodybuilding contest, why would you need it lower than that ?

> What you can do is cycle the carb intake so you have it available for
> the key workouts of the week.

Well OK, but if you're running substantial mileage, say 50 or more, you
really do need quite a lot of calories anyway, and you probably don't
need the Atkins diet or similar.

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

Date: 11 Apr 2006 22:33:55
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: race report: Scotland Run 10 km

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrne3lv6c.np4.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2006-04-10, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Running, in particular serious training, can hinder weight loss,
>> because it encourages the individual to take in carbohydrate calories.
>
> How so ?

I find that if I run more (at easy pace) and pig out, I can *gain* weight.

On the other hand, if I train hard (3 hard days/week, for instance), that
seems to suppress my appetite on the hard days, and can lose weight fairly
easily. I usually try to eat more the day before my next hard day.

>> That's what I struggle with: going from great definition to that
>> razor-sharp rip. I've never been able to get down to less than 7 mm of
>> skinfold in the central abdomen. When I did that, my running suffered.

I'm about 5.6% body fat according to some on-line calculator, with about
12mm skinfold there (28.5 waist), and no washboard abs, just a hint if the
light is right and I cough. I've never felt that my non-washboard abs
hindered my running...when I was younger and 12 lbs lighter, I didn't have
them either.

-- Dan