taper works

Charlie Pendejo said:

Wow, if a week of even lower mileage has me just about jumping out of
my skin and running faster easier, it's going to take a lot of
discipline to hold back those first couple miles and even the first
half of the course! Anyone find this difficult?

A bit.

Quoted message said:

What has helped?

Discipline. Stick to your plan. The first few miles will feel too slow. Stick
to the plan anyway.

Have fun -- wave at the Brooklyn crowds. They will make one hell of a racket
for you. Just soak up the positive vibes and enjoy before the pain kicks in.

Quoted message said:

I'm flirting with the idea of running with the 3:15 pace group, at

I saw a guy with a 3:15 pace sign in front of me about 3 or 4 miles in (I was
doing 6:40 miles)

So I wouldn't bank on the pace groups. I generally didn't hear great things
about them last year.

Quoted message said:

OTOH my 21k PB is 1:32 (same in 2004 & 05), and the rule of thumb
"double 21k + 10:00" = 3:14,

That's a good rule if you're experienced, and very talented.

Quoted message said:

and NYCM *is* a somewhat slower course
than some... all of which argues against 3:10. But neither can I
believe I'll need 3:24 (2 x 21k + 20:00). No way, barring horrible
weather, excessive stoopidity, or something unforseen.

(-; What is often "unforseen" is your actual level of ability in the marathon
(as opposed to how fast you *think* you can run it) Unless you've run some
marathons before and have a really good reason to know that you are much
faster than 3:24, it's dangerous to just *assume* that you are. There's just
no way to know until you've finished the race.

Quoted message said:

So my thinking
is, maybe I stick to 3:15 pace for say 16-18 miles, then decide whether
to accelerate, hold steady, slow up, or DNF.

I think it's a bit optimistic to suppose that *you* will decide. Your legs
will make the choice for you.

A 3:15 pace is a tad optimistic. Starting on a 3:20 pace is probably more
realistic.

Think about what you want from this race. If you ran a 3:19 1:40/1:39 splits,
surging past the other runners on fifth to a cheering crowd, would you be
happy ? Or are you willing go for a 3:15, but risk bonking and coming home in
10 minute miles to the cries of "don't stop! keep going! you can make it! hang
in there!" for a 3:50 ?

Speaking for myself, I have never regretted running an even or negative splits
race. There are on the other hand many times where I went out too fast and
regretted it.

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

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Charlie Pendejo said:

Wow, if a week of even lower mileage has me just about jumping out of
my skin and running faster easier, it's going to take a lot of
discipline to hold back those first couple miles and even the first
half of the course! Anyone find this difficult?

A bit.

Just think of it as every little muscle, tendon replenishing every
little nook and cranny with energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What has helped?

Discipline. Stick to your plan. The first few miles will feel too
slow. Stick
to the plan anyway.

Have fun -- wave at the Brooklyn crowds. They will make one hell of a
racket
for you. Just soak up the positive vibes and enjoy before the pain
kicks in.

Won't first N miles will be slow because of the shear numbers? If so
don't go nuts trying to make up for what you lose. They are gone and if
there is any make up it's done at the ass end it at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm flirting with the idea of running with the 3:15 pace group, at

I saw a guy with a 3:15 pace sign in front of me about 3 or 4 miles in
(I was
doing 6:40 miles)

Amen about assuming pace by others. I agree with D that 3:20 is smarter
and even if you run with this alleged group, verify the pace yourself
with your own sundial.

Quoted message said:

Think about what you want from this race. If you ran a 3:19 1:40/1:39
splits,
surging past the other runners on fifth to a cheering crowd, would you
be
happy ? Or are you willing go for a 3:15, but risk bonking and coming
home in
10 minute miles to the cries of "don't stop! keep going! you can make
it! hang
in there!" for a 3:50 ?

Put your ears on Charles!!! Don't let the rejuvenation effect of the
taper set you into aggressive speed mode race day.

Quoted message said:

Speaking for myself, I have never regretted running an even or
negative splits
race. There are on the other hand many times where I went out too fast
and
regretted it.

Ain't that the truth. The real question will Charlie listen or wait
until his second or third to smell the roses. 🙂

-DF

[quote="'Charlie Pendejo'"][b] I also seem to maybe be getting faster with the decreased workload.[/quote]

Any other changes? Sleeping more/better, eating different?

Quoted message said:

Wow, if a week of even lower mileage has me just about jumping out of
my skin and running faster easier, it's going to take a lot of
discipline to hold back those first couple miles and even the first
half of the course! Anyone find this difficult? What has helped?

Quoted message said:

I'm flirting with the idea of running with the 3:15 pace group, at
least for 13 or 16 or 18 miles.

Quoted message said:

Some weeks/months ago I thought I
might aim for more like 3:10 - and in fact ran the last 11 miles of
Staten Island 21k two weeks ago at that pace, around 7:15.

Donovan said:

What is often "unforseen" is your actual level of ability in the
marathon (as opposed to how fast you *think* you can run it)

OK, fair enough. I'm choosing to discard the evidence of the one I
have run, given that I've got another year of running, an uninterrupted
season at ~50% higher mpw, am going into this one uninjured and
properly tapered, and believe that at this stage my "wiser" is
outpacing my "older". And - heresy! - I think NYC is going to be a
slightly easier course for me than Mystic Places.

But it's not a complete and total mystery. I've run half marathons
more weekends this summer than my suburban brother mowed the lawn, I'd
wager - those must be worth *at least* their weight in Yasso 800's as
predictors. At least coupled with the fact that my training truly has
been geared toward the marathon distance (if not almost more toward a
road ultra at times).

And can I take out a loan against my soon-to-be-substantiated
conviction that my aptitude + training puts me in better stead for 42k
than for shorter races? And also that I really had a faster 21k in my
legs this year but just didn't manage to uncork it during a race? I
guess this appealing line of thinking is the sort of bait which lures
many to a nasty marathon trap, eh? Even as I see that angle, I also
must believe in the above to some degree, for a number of reasons,
until proven otherwise.

Quoted message said:

I saw a guy with a 3:15 pace sign in front of me about 3 or 4 miles
in (I was doing 6:40 miles)

So I wouldn't bank on the pace groups. I generally didn't hear great
things about them last year.

Thanks for the heads up! Believe me, one stoopid human trick I am
*not* very susceptible to is drinking the kool-aid just because the
nice reverend says so and everyone else is doing it. But it's still
very good to get a little advance warning, so I know to keep my eyes
open and don't have to stop to process any shock if the pace setter
hands me a drink. :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"double 21k + 10:00"

That's a good rule if you're experienced, and very talented.

I understand those qualifiers thusly:

experienced => won't do anything self-defeating in the 42k
talented => 10:00 should really be a %

Do you have another spin for those adjectives? I *think* I can avoid
the self-defeating. And Greg McMillan, per his online calculator,
feels that a 1:32 21k is pretty much *exactly* the point on the curve
corresponding to +10:00. Just FWIW. :-)

I know it's a simple rule and that additional "significant digits"
aren't warranted. But if they were, it should recognize that some
runners are faster at shorter distances, have a strong 21k PR, and
don't really engage in very good marathon training... and others of us
are the opposite.

Quoted message said:

I think it's a bit optimistic to suppose that *you* will decide.
Your legs will make the choice for you.

Understood. But clearly *I* have to make the choice for *them* in the
earlier miles.

Quoted message said:

Think about what you want from this race. If you ran a 3:19 1:40/1:39
splits, surging past the other runners on fifth to a cheering crowd,
would you be happy ? Or are you willing go for a 3:15, but risk bonking
and coming home in 10 minute miles to the cries of "don't stop! keep
going! you can make it! hang in there!" for a 3:50 ?

This is precisely what I've been and am still trying to weigh. Except
I keep wanting to believe that it's 3:10 which (in good weather) I
stand a fair chance of meeting but with some risk of blowing up and
hobbling in a half hour later, and that 3:15 *is* my conservative pace.
A few months ago I was hoping it'd be more like 3:12 conservatively,
3:07 all-out and everything perfect... I don't intend to let those
lines in the sand drift so far back that I later regret selling myself
short.

Doug Freese said:

I agree with D that 3:20 is smarter

OK, there's two votes from the "D" section. 3:20 based on _____?

Quoted message said:

Put your ears on Charles!!! Don't let the rejuvenation effect of the
taper set you into aggressive speed mode race day. [...]
The real question will Charlie listen or wait until his second or
third to smell the roses. 🙂

Well, my name ain't lance (even if I did have dinner on 125th Street
last night) so that's gotta help. ;-)

Charlie Pendejo said:

But it's not a complete and total mystery. I've run half marathons
more weekends this summer than my suburban brother mowed the lawn, I'd

Doesn't count. I've known people to run a fast half then DNF the full.

Quoted message said:

wager - those must be worth *at least* their weight in Yasso 800's as
predictors.

The half is better than Yasso's but not by a whole lot. 5k through half
marathon times predict each other pretty well. HM to marathon is where it
falls apart.

Quoted message said:

At least coupled with the fact that my training truly has
been geared toward the marathon distance (if not almost more toward a
road ultra at times).

I had a consistent 70mpw and several long runs going into my first marathon.

Quoted message said:

And can I take out a loan against my soon-to-be-substantiated
conviction that my aptitude + training puts me in better stead for 42k
than for shorter races?

No. Everyone runs the marathon in peak condition, almost no-one gets to taper
for the half marathon "predictor race".

Quoted message said:

And also that I really had a faster 21k in my
legs this year but just didn't manage to uncork it during a race? I
guess this appealing line of thinking is the sort of bait which lures
many to a nasty marathon trap, eh?

Possibly. The same would apply to nearly anyone (as above)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's a good rule if you're experienced, and very talented.

I understand those qualifiers thusly:

experienced => won't do anything self-defeating in the 42k
talented => 10:00 should really be a %

Do you have another spin for those adjectives?

When I say "talented", I mean, specifically good at the marathon distance
compared to shorter distances.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Think about what you want from this race. If you ran a 3:19 1:40/1:39
splits, surging past the other runners on fifth to a cheering crowd,
would you be happy ? Or are you willing go for a 3:15, but risk bonking
and coming home in 10 minute miles to the cries of "don't stop! keep
going! you can make it! hang in there!" for a 3:50 ?

This is precisely what I've been and am still trying to weigh. Except
I keep wanting to believe that it's 3:10 which (in good weather) I

Let me be quite blunt about it. Off a 1:32 half-marathon, in Manhattan ? No
f*ing way.

But don't believe me. Go look up some of the race archives if you like. You're
not going to run a 3:10 off a 1:32. Forget it. That's better than world class
marathon specialists do. You are *not* a better marathoner than Paul Tergat,
Katherine Nderaba or Paula Radcliffe. Please do yourself a favor and put this
delusion to rest.

The male runners who run times like 3:10 are usually running around 1:22-1:25
in the half.

Quoted message said:

stand a fair chance of meeting but with some risk of blowing up and
hobbling in a half hour later, and that 3:15 *is* my conservative pace.

No. 3:15 is an ambitious pace. 3:15 is double your half marathon plus 11
minutes. And that is an ambitious goal.

Quoted message said:

A few months ago I was hoping it'd be more like 3:12 conservatively,
3:07 all-out and everything perfect... I don't intend to let those
lines in the sand drift so far back that I later regret selling myself
short.

Doug Freese said:

I agree with D that 3:20 is smarter

OK, there's two votes from the "D" section. 3:20 based on _____?

Based on times people actually run in real life, as opposed to times they talk
about running on usenet.

To turn this question on its head -- 3:10 based on ... ? Even your most
optimistic bogo-predictor of choice will not suggest a 3:10.

You don't have much appreciation for just how hard it is to run a sub 3:10,
because you don't know half a dozen runners who are way under 1:25 (1:22-3)
and yet don't break 3:10 after two or three tries. I do. And you're not even
under 1:30.

There is plenty of data in the NYRR results archives. I'd suggest that you
take a look at some of the team results around the 3:10-3:20 bracker, e.g.
CPTC, GNY (to filter out the out-of-towners) and compare with results for
Grete's half.

You will not find a male runner who is unable to break 1:30, yet able to run a
sub 3:10.

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

donnie, i like pendejo a lot thus i am electing to not shatter his
fiction in detail. in general he doesn't know what he's talking about,
he clocked 4:03 in his 1 marathon a year ago, and avoided "racing" all
summer. he trained, he ran, but he never "raced" and is not race
hardened.

early weather report for saturday is 60's and sun. no idea what
Sunday's project to be. If it's like the last two years?...65F-66F at
the start of the race and sun all day?..Pendejo's looking at 3:30+
(maybe). sweet guy, i just can't see him doing any better than 2 X
1/2M + 25mins tops, max, with the best of all cool weather.

it's a cruel slow torture to see your projected/anticipated time slip
away as you're struggling against "the wall". don't torture yourself
Pendejo. Have a 3:40 goal, enjoy the sites, it's an amazing
experience.

here's a tip....as you run and make eye contact with the fans....with
the women....wink at them! that's what i do....boyfriend/husband right
next to them or not! you'll get a lot of smiles 🙂 heck i even blew
a few kisses to some women as we made eye contact and i sped by...

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Sure there are a lot of variables, but if you look at prior data on half
marathon versus marathon times on the courses in question, well that prior
data is also subject to the same sources of variation.

OK point taken. I'll have a look see.

steve common said:

Quoted message said:

Sure there are a lot of variables, but if you look at prior data on half
marathon versus marathon times on the courses in question, well that prior
data is also subject to the same sources of variation.

OK point taken. I'll have a look see.

So I took the list of 2004 NY Marathon finishers in the 3:10:00 to 3:15:59
gun time range and then found matches in the 2004 Bronx HM (maybe this isn't
a good HM to use?). A ** indicates a marathon net time of less than 2 x HM +
10'.

Given the wild variability (at least apparently) of the ratios, I don't
think any useful conclusion is forthcoming unless we know how hard these
people ran both races.

For example, I reckon Gaspar Muhlbauer was either deliberately running his
HM at marathon effort, or he was on a really bad day in the Bronx.

William Abrams on the other hand must have had a thoroughly lousy day in
Manhattan, unless he was running with someone else?

Either way, I don't see many 1:32 HMers in the 3:10 zone and with similar
perf %, excepting Mr Heaphy. However 3:15 off a 1:32 looks OK if perf % is
close.

Date/Time: July 11, 2004, 8:00 am
Weather: 76 deg, 84% humidity, clear skies.
NYC Marathon Bronx HM
net perf % net perf %
** Kevin Donnelly (33) NY 3:09:23 66.9 % 1:29:59 66.2 %
** Gaspar Muhlbauer (45) NY 3:09:57 70.3 % 1:35:41 65.8 %
Francis Nzeutem (32) WS, NY 3:10:07 66.7 % 1:25:49 69.5 %
Benjamin Maniatis (24) NY 3:10:55 66.4 % 1:17:00 77.4 %
** Charles Heaphy (41) NYH, NY 3:10:54 68.0 % 1:31:51 66.5 %
Julian Alvarez (51) PICA, NJ 3:11:32 73.1 % 1:29:18 74.4 %
** Mike Dunne (45) NJM, NJ 3:11:26 69.8 % 1:36:46 65.5 %
Bernardo Hernandez (43) WSX, NY 3:11:46 68.7 % 1:30:42 68.4 %
Brendan O'Regan (37) NY 3:12:41 65.8 % 1:30:56 65.5 %
Oliver Moffat (34) NY 3:12:38 65.8 % 1:28:00 67.7 %
Zolzislav Kloc (48) NY 3:13:03 70.8 % 1:30:36 71.6 %
Victor Osayi (47) CPTC, NY 3:14:02 69.9 % 1:28:31 72.7 %
** Dana Lukin (27) NY 3:14:15 65.2 % 1:32:38 64.3 %
** Heather Montgomery (29) GNY, NY F 3:14:44 71.3 % 1:32:27 71.1 %
** Byron Dailey (33) NY 3:14:44 65.1 % 1:33:15 63.4 %
Merritt Knox (33) NY 3:14:05 65.3 % 1:24:51 70.3 %
Steen Hasselbalch (34) NJ 3:15:17 64.9 % 1:27:47 67.9 %
** Frutoso Hernandez (40) PICA, NJ 3:15:46 65.8 % 1:39:32 61.4 %
Evaristo Roldan (43) WSX, NY 3:15:46 67.3 % 1:29:33 69.2 %
William Abrams (47) PPTC, NY 3:15:46 69.3 % 1:20:57 79.5 %

Then again, here is what the NYCM site says

One Tough Course
No marathon is easy, but the ING New York City Marathon can be even tougher
than most because of the course. It's not fast—don't let anyone tell you
otherwise. You need to be realistic with your time goals or you will be
setting yourself up for disappointment. To predict your marathon time, you
would generally take your half-marathon time, multiply by two, and add 10
minutes—assuming comparable courses, weather, and training. For the ING New
York City Marathon, add another five to 10 minutes to your range. For
example, if you ran Grete's Great Gallop Half-Marathon in 1:30, your range
for the ING New York City Marathon would be 3:10 to 3:20.

steve common said:

steve common said:

Quoted message said:

Sure there are a lot of variables, but if you look at prior data on half
marathon versus marathon times on the courses in question, well that prior
data is also subject to the same sources of variation.

OK point taken. I'll have a look see.

So I took the list of 2004 NY Marathon finishers in the 3:10:00 to 3:15:59
gun time range and then found matches in the 2004 Bronx HM (maybe this isn't
a good HM to use?).

Bronx is a mid summer half marathon. Times are slow (especially in 2004).

Many people don't even *try* to run it as a race, they just do it as a training
run.

As you'll see, a bunch of these guys are much faster than their Bronx times
indicate.

Everyone uses Gretes and staten as their tuneup races, though I've done a
complete search for these people.

BTW, if you want to use this as a guide, it's only fair to use Charlie's Bronx
time as well, which is 1:34:36 (btw, this year Bronx was relatively mild)

Quoted message said:

Given the wild variability (at least apparently) of the ratios, I don't
think any useful conclusion is forthcoming unless we know how hard these
people ran both races.

Once you look at the Grete's and Staten results, Gaspar is the only guy who
beats double plus 10. His results are unusual to say the least -- his half
marathon split in 2004 was 92 seconds off his fastest half marathon time. Byron
Dailey comes close, but his half marathon time was in a very tough race (>80
degrees, humid).

Quoted message said:

** Kevin Donnelly (33) NY 3:09:23 66.9 % 1:29:59 66.2 %

Staten Island half-marathon: 1:25:47

Quoted message said:

** Gaspar Muhlbauer (45) NY 3:09:57 70.3 % 1:35:41 65.8 %

Grete's Gallop: 1:30:59

Quoted message said:

** Charles Heaphy (41) NYH, NY 3:10:54 68.0 % 1:31:51 66.5 %

Staten Island half-marathon: 1:24:50

Quoted message said:

** Mike Dunne (45) NJM, NJ 3:11:26 69.8 % 1:36:46 65.5 %

Grete's: 1:28:08

Quoted message said:

** Dana Lukin (27) NY 3:14:15 65.2 % 1:32:38 64.3 %

Gretes: 1:26:39

Quoted message said:

** Heather Montgomery (29) GNY, NY F 3:14:44 71.3 % 1:32:27 71.1 %

Staten: 1:28:32

Quoted message said:

** Byron Dailey (33) NY 3:14:44 65.1 % 1:33:15 63.4 %

1:32:20 Manhattan half (hot and humid)

Quoted message said:

** Frutoso Hernandez (40) PICA, NJ 3:15:46 65.8 % 1:39:32 61.4 %

1:29 staten island half

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

steve common said:

For
example, if you ran Grete's Great Gallop Half-Marathon in 1:30, your range
for the ING New York City Marathon would be 3:10 to 3:20.

For Grete's Gallop NYC Marathon Grete's HM
Net Perf % Net Perf %
Kevin Donnelly (33) NY 3:09:23 66.9 % 1:28:50 67.1 %
Chris Solarz (26) CPTC, NY 3:09:32 66.9 % 1:29:03 66.9 %
F**Lauren Wallack Antonucci (30) NY 3:09:52 73.1 % 1:30:10 72.9 %
Marcel Kasumovich (34) NY 3:09:52 66.8 % 1:28:47 67.1 %
**Gaspar Muhlbauer (45) NY 3:09:57 70.3 % 1:30:59 69.7 %
Mark Ferullo (21) PA 3:10:33 66.5 % 1:28:14 67.6 %
Mike Dunne (45) NJM, NJ 3:11:26 69.8 % 1:28:08 71.9 %
F Anne Britt (40) SF, NJ 3:11:27 74.4 % 1:26:19 78.2 %
F**Susan Strazza (37) CPTC, NY 3:11:41 72.5 % 1:31:48 72.4 %

I just did runners from 3:10:00-3:12:00 gun or thereabouts.

Notice that Gaspar's marathon time is still much better than HM x 2 + 10'.
For the older (more experienced? or just more plodding?) runners, an
equivalent pref % gets you around HM x 2 + 9 or better.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Everyone uses Gretes and staten as their tuneup races, though I've done a
complete search for these people.

Ya beat me to it :-)

Quoted message said:

BTW, if you want to use this as a guide, it's only fair to use Charlie's Bronx
time as well, which is 1:34:36 (btw, this year Bronx was relatively mild)

Yup. Comparing to a 1:32 at Grete's, 3:10 looks risky but 3:15 isn't crazy.
For example a 65.1% performance for a 28 yo male in 2004 gave 3:14:42.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Everyone uses Gretes and staten as their tuneup races, though I've done a
complete search for these people.

Ya beat me to it :-)

Quoted message said:

BTW, if you want to use this as a guide, it's only fair to use Charlie's Bronx
time as well, which is 1:34:36 (btw, this year Bronx was relatively mild)

Yup. Comparing to a 1:32 at Grete's, 3:10 looks risky but 3:15 isn't crazy.
For example a 65.1% performance for a 38 yo male in 2004 gave 3:15:07

steve common said:

I just did runners from 3:10:00-3:12:00 gun or thereabouts.

Notice that Gaspar's marathon time is still much better than HM x 2 + 10'.

Yeah, I suppose he's just a true marathoner. I looked at his other results and
they indicate that his half marathon times are more or less in the same ballpark
as his other races. FWIW, I know one guy on my team who has run a 2:46 NY
marathon coming off a 1:20 half (which was a genuine all out effort). Suffice it
to say that I didn't even try to follow him last year. He took off after the
first mile and I let him go. I think my second half would have been very hard
if I followed him.

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

Donovan Rebbechi said:

When I say "talented", I mean, specifically good at the marathon
distance compared to shorter distances.

OK, though I'm not crazy about your use of "talented" to mean something
like "slow twitch all the way, and sufficiently disciplined". I have
no data but imagine there are 6:00:00 Gallowalkers who do their halves
in 3 hours on the dot, and indeed their 10k a few minutes inside 90
minutes - and I'll applaud them at the finish line but not marvel at
their _talent_ in always acheiving the same pace.

Quoted message said:

Let me be quite blunt about it. [3:10] Off a 1:32 half-marathon, in
Manhattan? No f*ing way.

Well I'm mighty unlikely to make up 5:00 in 8 or 10 miles after
sticking with the 3:15 pace group for 16 or 18, I'll grant you that.
:-)

Quoted message said:

That's better than world class marathon specialists do. You are *not* a
better marathoner than Paul Tergat, Katherine Nderaba or Paula Radcliffe.

Girls? You compare me to girls? Those are my windbriefs not
bunhuggers!

Tergat, allright, he's not bad.

Seriously: Tergat and Radcliffe, maybe Catherine the Great too I'm not
sure, have world-caliber track backgrounds. They're the world's best
at 42k, but also among the world's fastest at an eighth or quarter or
half the distance.

I basically suck at shorter distances, due to whatever combination of
age, inherent talent, training. This year especially all my training
has been just grossly biased toward endurance, no speed. I don't mean
just a little; I mean virtually nothing faster than LT - and almost
nothing even approaching LT until these last couple months. I'll do it
differently next year even if a marathon is my only race (which it
won't be).

So, yeah, I am not certain - we actually run these things for a reason
- but I truly believe that I'm relatively decent at running reasonably
quick for a fairly long time, enough to give me a better MP:HMP ratio
than some much more talented folks who don't totally suck at the
shorter distance. To twist that into "Pendejo thinks he's more
talented than Tergat, Geb, and Bekele combined" is, well, pretty
amusing - I'd use similar on lance - but I believe false. (And if they
*were* combined, in a four-legged race with their legs tied together
and all, I wonder just how fast they could run a mile? Tell ya what,
you can tie me to M. Noguchi and oh maybe Susan Chepkemei, and I'll be
happy enough.)

Quoted message said:

To turn this question on its head -- 3:10 based on ... ?

Per above, my conviction that perhaps like our buddy Gaspar, my calling
is the longer stuff.

And strong suspicion that the *vast* majority of these club runners
coming in at 3:1x off a 1:2x 21k are "more faster" than I at the
shorter distance and "less faster" at the longer, in part because
they're not running exclusively LSD before Grete's or SI.

And the 11 miles of 3:10 pace I found not too hard at SI, untapered,
finishing with a 6:41 mile after averaging 7:06 over the preceding 4.

And the belief that I've been operating in "overreaching" territory
most of this season with lots more mileage than before. I think these
last few weeks much of the training affect was finally catching up with
me; and of course that's radically aided and abetted by this
taper/sharpening. Along with consistent tempo runs which I only
started a few weeks before Grete's, which I also feel are finally
catching up to me.

And, oh, I am in fact a couple pounds down from Grete's.

And the cooler weather - hoping we can break with tradition and get a
better day for running than for spectating for once. The "ten day
wild-ass guess" has already been ridiculously up and down at least 10
degrees on Herr Fahrenheit's scale. If we get decent weather for once,
everyone's MP:HMP looks a little better (though I'd prefer heat if we
were running for place...)

Quoted message said:

3:15 is double your half marathon plus 11 minutes. And that is an
ambitious goal.

Well, that's what I'll run for at least 16 miles, legs permitting.
Seems to me as good a guess as any for a breakeven between "selling
myself short" and "too ambitious - risking total meltdown". And it's
convenient that a pace group's available for that time, though I shan't
rely on them if they prove flaky.

If it's really warm I'll adjust.

I thank everyone for your input - and correlating local runners' Gretes
and SIs with their NYCMs, wow! It's all helpful even if I argue with
some of it and choose to ignore other bits.

And feel free to continue trying to mess with my head, lance, it's all
good infotainment.

Pendejo, who's not certain when he'll finish, but would bet mucho
dinero that, as always, he'll pass many more GNY runners than pass him

Light your candle ....

Charlie Pendejo said:

And the belief that I've been operating in "overreaching" territory
most of this season with lots more mileage than before.

Which, despite a high weekly standard deviation, has somehow tallied to
remarkably consistent monthly totals of late.

Jan 48.75
Feb 70.75
Mar 95.85
Apr 131.10
May 160.60
Jun 181.50
Jul 217.40
Aug 216.80
Sep 220.50
Oct 219.65

"First Fig ~

My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends ~
It gives a lovely light!"
~ Edna St. Vincent Millay

burn1
verb burned, burnt, burning

tr & intr
1. To be on fire or set something on fire.
Thesaurus: blaze, flame, oxidize, consume, incinerate, flash,
flare, cremate, conflagrate, sear, brand, char, cauterize, fire;
Antonym: extinguish, put out, quench.tr & intr
2. To damage or injure, or be damaged or injured, by fire or
heat.
Thesaurus: scorch, char, sear, roast, toast, parch, singe, scald,
wither.3. To use something as fuel.
tr & intr
4. To char or scorch, or become charred or scorched.
5. To make (a hole, etc) by or as if by fire or heat, etc.
Example: Acid can burn holes in materialintr
6. To be or feel hot.
tr & intr
7. To feel or make something feel a hot or stinging pain.
Example: Vodka burns my throatintr
8. colloq
To want to do it very much.
Example: is burning to get his revenge
Form: be burning to do something (usually)intr
9. To feel strong emotion.
Example: was burning with shame
Form: be burning with something (especially)10. To use (coal,
oil, etc) as fuel.
tr & intr
11. To kill or die by fire.
Form: burn to death (now usually)
Form: burn alive

noun

1. An injury or mark caused by fire, heat, acid, friction, etc.
2. Pain felt in a muscle, experienced as a result of the build-up
of lactic acid during demanding exercise.
3. An act of firing the engines of a space rocket so as to
produce thrust.
4. A very fast ride eg on a motorcycle or speedboat.
Example: went for a burn on the bike
Form: burn-up (also)

Idiom: burn one's boats (burn one's bridges)

colloq
To do something which makes it impossible for one to return to one's
former situation or way of life, etc; to destroy all chance of escape
or retreat.

Idiom: burn the candle at both ends

To exhaust oneself by trying to do too much, usually by starting work
very early in the morning and staying up late at night.

Idiom: burn one's fingers (get one's fingers burnt)

colloq
To suffer, often financially, as a result of getting involved in or
interfering with something foolish, dangerous, risky, etc.

Idiom: burn a hole in one's pocket

Said of money that one is very eager to spend: to be extremely
difficult or tempting not to spend. See also money to burn under money.

Idiom: burn the midnight oil

To work late into the night.

Etymology: Anglo-Saxon biernan to be on fire, and bærnan to cause to
burn.

Phrasal Verb: burn down

Said of a large structure such as a building: to be destroyed by fire
or burnt to the ground.

Phrasal Verb: burn something down

To destroy (a building, etc) by fire.

Phrasal Verb: burn out

To burn up completely and be reduced to nothing.Said of a rocket
engine: to stop working when the fuel is used up.

Phrasal Verb: burn someone or oneself out

To exhaust them or oneself by too much work or exercise.

Phrasal Verb: burn something out

To make it stop working from overuse or overheating.

Phrasal Verb: burn up

To be destroyed by fire, heat or acid, etc.To become very angry.Said of
a fire, etc: to increase in activity; to blaze or flare up. See also
burn-up.

Phrasal Verb: burn someone up

To make them very angry.
Example: Her letter really burned me up

Phrasal Verb: burn something up

To destroy it by fire, heat or acid, etc.Said of an engine: to use up
fuel in large quantities.

candle
noun

1. A piece of wax or (especially formerly) tallow, usually
cylindrical and formed around a wick, which is burnt to provide light.

verb

candled, candling
1. To test (eggs, etc) by examining against a bright light.

Idiom: burn the candle at both ends

To exhaust oneself with work or activity from early morning till late
in the night; to try to do too many things.

Idiom: not fit to hold a candle to something or someone (not able to
hold a candle to something or someone)

To be noticeably inferior to them.

Idiom: not worth the candle

Said of a task, etc: not worth the trouble and effort it would take.

Etymology: Anglo-Saxon candel.

"Taper works ..."
~ CP

"Light your candle ...
Or serpentine recoil, unleashed from handle
Firmly held,

If by sandalwood's light, larks spur feldspar ~ ?

Or by lost wax
You cast, your original, your Opera Cast."
~ Twittering

On 2005-10-31, Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote:

You seem pretty confident, almost cocky. But the marathon may teach you a
humility lesson. You would hardly be the first. Let's see how you're doing
this time next week. Until then, it's all hot air.

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