progress

Doug Freese said:

My only suggestion to get through race day with the least discomfort is
do the race with run/walk strategy from the start. It's a conservation
strategy that will increase your odds of getting to the finish line and
in the best clock time. If you try running till need to walk, you will
likely use up all your glycogen and the last N miles will be agony. It's
called hitting the wall and is best avoided. Ignore those macho folks
that bad mouth the walking aspects. You know you are going to be out
there for a long time so run/walk.

I agree with this strategy too - even if you can complete the 10 mile
run in training without walk breaks.

IME, there's a big difference between being able to run the distance
in training, versus being able to run the distance during a race. Even
if you plan only to complete the race and not actually race it, most
people (particularly beginnners) tend to get swept up in the moment
and run harder and faster than they do in training. This greatly
increases the chance of injury.

Your injury risk is most likely going to be due to your ligaments and
joints. Walking for a minute at every mile will spare your ligaments
and joints somewhat. You don't need to walk in training - but I would
walk during the race itself.

Also the course is not in your local area, right? It's somewhere you
need to fly to. I understand that you train on flat surfaces with no
hills. Will there be hills at this race? If so, that complicates the
picture further. You might be able to complete 13 flat miles - but
have you trained and adapted your body to run 13 hilly miles? That may
be the question.... and another compelling reason to incorporate walks
into your race.

My 10-miler (the crowing achievement of my running career to date ;-),
was all downhill. Philly Broad Street Run. 10 miles in one direction -
down. I had trained on hills - some major hills at that. But my
hamstrings were not fully trained to handle 10 miles of downhill
pounding. While I didn't end up injured, I ran a disappointing pace
(compared to my training runs) and took weeks to recover.

jen

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

The fact that a training plan says that you "should" run 6 miles a
day does not mean that you can't run 7, and it doesn't guarantee that
you're not better off with 5.

Everyone is different, and no training program, not even one written
by a knowledgeable coach who is familiar with your training, can be a
gold standard for exactly how much you "should" do on a given day.

OK, then you don't know how much I "should" do on any given day. In the

Of course I don't. But that's neither here nore there.

Quoted message said:

meantime, the training plan is a good guide as to what I should do--a
guide, not a gold standard.

That's only true given the constraint that you must run a half marathon on that
given date.

What the program does is prescribe a gradual rampup from almost nothing to a half
marathon in 12 weeks. But the program can't make any promises about whether or not
its in your individual limits, and it is a rampup that would generally be considered
substantial.

Quoted message said:

I started this plan with something comfortable, and increased gradually

In what sense is it a "gradual" increase ? How is it different from the "gradual"
increase in speed that follows stomping on the gas in a Ferrari ?

Tripling the long run in a 12 week period is not something that I've *ever* seen
characterised as *gradual*. Everyone, including your friend, seems to think that
this training program in't terribly gradual at all (in that it tries to do a lot
in a short time frame).

Cheers,
--
Elflord

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

meantime, the training plan is a good guide as to what I should
do--a guide, not a gold standard.

That's only true given the constraint that you must run a half
marathon on that given date.

There is no "must" about it. I want to run a half marathon on that
given date, but I am willing to forego it if I need to. It is that as
of right now, I do not see the need to forego that marathon.

Quoted message said:

Everyone, including your friend, seems to think that this training
program in't terribly gradual at all (in that it tries to do a lot in
a short time frame).

She said it would have been "better" to have had a longer training plan.
I think that you're reading into it what you want to read into it.

Anyway, it's light out now, so I'm going to go out and do my 4 1/2 mile
run. Bye for a while.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

meantime, the training plan is a good guide as to what I should
do--a guide, not a gold standard.

That's only true given the constraint that you must run a half
marathon on that given date.

There is no "must" about it. I want to run a half marathon on that
given date, but I am willing to forego it if I need to. It is that as

If your event horizon expanded beyond 12 weeks, you wouldn't view it as a
"foregoing" anything, because in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter a
whole lot whether you do your half marathon now, or a few months later.

Quoted message said:

of right now, I do not see the need to forego that marathon.

Quoted message said:

Everyone, including your friend, seems to think that this training
program in't terribly gradual at all (in that it tries to do a lot in
a short time frame).

She said it would have been "better" to have had a longer training plan.
I think that you're reading into it what you want to read into it.

I think that quite unambiguously suggests that she believes a longer program
to be optimal.

But in my mind, this is not really about fine tuning some parameters. Melinda
Shore said it well -- it's about adopting a long term mindset. Which you
haven't done yet.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Slow and steady wins the race.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Up and down the pillowcase?
--
_________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Determination would involve choosing a realistic progression in
training, and making a long term commitment instead of taking risky
shortcuts for a fast payoff.

This is a long-term commitment, and there are no risky shortcuts.

Not to pile on but your plan is risky and is a shortcut. And from the way
you parse advice, throw out the naysayers and accept the "well maybe,"
shows some commitment but I would call it compulsive. So unless one of
your legs fall off your going to do the race.

Damn Doug, I haven't seen this much drama for a single runner in a single
race in a while in rr. I have known legions of runners who ramped up in a
BIG hurry (I being one of them!!!) and bit it hard in an early race. She
will run the race (I give her better than even odds of fininshing) and
probably hurt for a while. There is a strong risk of injury but halfs are
relatively forgiving. I would worry for her sake if she tried a marathon
anytime soon as they can really bite you in the rear. More than half the
people I know that ramped up this quick, quit within a year. It certainly
isn't optimal.

I'm not sure of all the hubbub as this is the most common thing I see in
running. Maybe its Michelle's style but people do this all the time. A new
book "Run a Marathon on Four Months of Training: No Experience" should be
out shortly.

In article <[email hidden]>, <TenKMan>

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure of all the hubbub as this is the most common thing I see
in running.

Actually no one said anything about it until I reported having a problem
about two or three weeks ago. Before that, either they were not
concerned or were just not saying anything.

Well, except for Hurley; she/he started in earlier with that by saying
that if all I can do is a 13 minute mile, I shouldn't be running at all.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

TenKMan said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> Determination would involve choosing a realistic progression in
> training, and making a long term commitment instead of taking risky
> shortcuts for a fast payoff.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a long-term commitment, and there are no risky shortcuts.

Quoted message said:

Not to pile on but your plan is risky and is a shortcut. And from the way
you parse advice, throw out the naysayers and accept the "well maybe,"
shows some commitment but I would call it compulsive. So unless one of
your legs fall off your going to do the race.

Damn Doug, I haven't seen this much drama for a single runner in a single
race in a while in rr. I have known legions of runners who ramped up in a
BIG hurry (I being one of them!!!) and bit it hard in an early race. She
will run the race (I give her better than even odds of fininshing) and
probably hurt for a while. There is a strong risk of injury but halfs are
relatively forgiving. I would worry for her sake if she tried a marathon
anytime soon as they can really bite you in the rear. More than half the
people I know that ramped up this quick, quit within a year. It certainly
isn't optimal.

I'm not sure of all the hubbub as this is the most common thing I see in
running. Maybe its Michelle's style but people do this all the time. A new
book "Run a Marathon on Four Months of Training: No Experience" should be
out shortly.

Right. I think many, many people do this sort of training. This is
why a guy as slow as I am can finish middle of the pack in a marathon,
and above middle in a half. I have known several people who suddenly
became aware that they were couch potaotes, or that they were about to
turn 35 or 40 or whatever, and decided to buy a training book and run
a marathon. Now if you are in the market for one of those books, and
you have spent the first half of you life not running, is not the book
with the easiest program going to be the one that appeals to you?

Quoted message said:

From my perspective this is far from ideal, but I really believe it

happens a lot. I don't think Michelle's plan is a very good one, but
whe will probably survive. My guess is that she will not ever become
adopt the lifestyle of a runner.

brianj

TenKMan said:

Quoted message said:

Damn Doug, I haven't seen this much drama for a single runner in a single
race in a while in rr.

There's not much else going on here (excluding the trolls)

Quoted message said:

I have known legions of runners who ramped up in a
BIG hurry (I being one of them!!!) and bit it hard in an early race. She
will run the race (I give her better than even odds of fininshing) and
probably hurt for a while. There is a strong risk of injury but halfs are
relatively forgiving.

She's going to be out there for nearly 3hrs.

--
Elflord

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fine for the context of soliciting advice, but you can't claim
that everyone except me agrees with your approach.

I never claimed that.

OK, my bad. You did say something to the effect that I was the only
"rational" poster who didn't agree with your plan or something like
that.

At the time I wrote that, that was correct.

Quoted message said:

Recently, Doug, Shinypenny, and JP have jumped in to clarify.

Right; they have expressed concern, but they haven't been totally
negative.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The tone of the message tells me whether the person is interested
in helping me; if the tone says that the person isn't interested in
helping, I don't pay attention to his "advice", because it really
isn't advice.

If it is really an argument, then you could pay attention to that.

When his motive is suspect, his argument is suspect; therefore, I don't
pay attention to it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Someone like Hurley, for instance, presents the attitude that he is
better than I am because he can run faster than I can.

The correct grounds for dismissing Hurley's comments are the lack of
logical coherence, not the tone.

The tone gives me no incentive to try to determine whether there is a
logical coherence in the first place.

Quoted message said:

He appears to believe that there are a certain set of "proper" goals
that one should have, but it's not clear what makes these particular
goals "better" than any other goals.

It's all tied in with his tone.

Quoted message said:

See my response to Kaz's comments elsewhere.

I recall your response to him. BTW, my friend pretty much believes the
same as Kaz in that regard, but she also says that those are her own
goals (she was strongly influenced by Steve Prefontaine when she was in
her 20s), and says that those are not proper goals for me, especially at
my stage now, and they probably never will be. She believes it is
better to lose a race in which you have run at your fullest capability
the entire distance than to win a race with a mediocre running effort
but better running strategy. She believes that one should not walk
during a running race, but even so she encourages me to walk during the
Nike. She says that a person running any given distance for the first
time should be concerned only with finishing it, and not concerned with
time or pace at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

interested only in putting me down; he told me that I shouldn't be
running at all because I don't run fast enough to suit him. So why
should I believe anything he says?

Any given argument exists independently of the person making the
argument. A well presented argument does not require one to blindly
accept the authority of the person presenting it.

I disagree; the argument cannot be separated from the motivation behind
the argument. No one is objective enough to separate his argument from
his motivation.

Quoted message said:

The problem is that your training load is increasing too quickly for
you to make adjustments in a timely manner.

That's the reason I'll not run in the race if I can't make the
adjustments in a timely manner, assuming that I will have to make any
more adjustments. The options, as I see it, are
1. I complete the training program and run in the race.
2. I have minor adjustments to make, and am able to make them and still
complete the program, and run in the race.
3. I have major adjustments to make, and am not able to make them, and
therefore do not finish the program, and so I don't run in the race.

It appears to me that you believe that if I encounter the third option
that I'll still try to run in the race.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What you don't appear to be getting is that the potential down
side is not just failure to complete the race, it's also injury.

Oh, I understand that alright. I also believe that I'll know to
quit before that happens.

If it worked like that, there would be much less injuries.

Just because other people ignore the signals doesn't mean that I will.
I've been there, and I do learn from my mistakes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a long-term commitment, and there are no risky shortcuts.

What *do* you call it when someone takes the risky approach in return
for faster payoff then ?

I do not believe that I am taking a risky approach. Lots of other
people have completed this training plan and run half marathons without
injury.

Quoted message said:

A long term commitment would mean that you look at a time horizon
that is longer than 12 weeks. It would mean that you set up training
programs that produce the best possible outcome over say a 1 or 2
year or longer period, instead of trying to cram as much as possible
in 12 weeks.

I spent a lot of time working up to the point where I could even begin
this twelve-week plan. I couldn't have done a longer plan because I
wasn't ready to start any of them in time to finish them before this
marathon.

Quoted message said:

As for risky shortcuts, one metric of risk is the rate at which
training load increases. The program you are using is, in the grand
spectrum of things, a program that results in increases that would be
characterised as rapid. So it is one of the more risky programs. What
you get for this increased risk, is a fast payoff.

If one follows it blindly, ignoring all warnings that her body gives her.

What you seem to be ignoring is that I have given myself permission to
fail.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Melinda Shore) said:

Quoted message said:

I think the only contention you have with what I'm doing is that you
think I'm not doing it gradually enough.

I don't think that's it, specifically. I've been reading the back
and forth and what's popping out is that you seem to be prioritizing
this one race over base-building and a program focused on staying
healthy.

I spent a long time base building to the point where I could even start
this program.

I could have said that I'll run a half marathon some day and then a
marathon some other day, but such nebulous goals do not work for me.
And yes, I did pick this particular race as a goal. I picked it for a
number of reasons; the primary three, in decreasing order of importance,
are that it is a charity for leukemia (my dad died from leukemia); it is
a woman's race; and it is in San Francisco.

Even so, if I decide that I'm not ready for it, I'll forfeit my
registration money and airline fare, and try for a race on December 2nd.
If I'm not ready for that one I'll either not go to MacWorld Expo in
January and run in a half marathon here, or wait until mid February and
run then.

This marathon, as much as I want to run in it, is not a do-or-die thing;
if I honestly feel that I won't be able to do it, I won't do it.

And frankly, right now I give myself only a 50% chance of being able to
finish the training plan. Day after tomorrow may tell me, but I'll
definitely know for sure either way two weeks after that.

Thanks for your comments.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Quoted message said:

My only suggestion to get through race day with the least
discomfort is do the race with run/walk strategy from the start.
It's a conservation strategy that will increase your odds of
getting to the finish line and in the best clock time. If you try
running till need to walk, you will likely use up all your glycogen
and the last N miles will be agony. It's called hitting the wall
and is best avoided. Ignore those macho folks that bad mouth the
walking aspects. You know you are going to be out there for a long
time so run/walk.

I agree with this strategy too - even if you can complete the 10 mile
run in training without walk breaks.

That's been my plan from the beginning. I have been planning to walk
through the water stations and up the hills.

Quoted message said:

Also the course is not in your local area, right? It's somewhere you
need to fly to. I understand that you train on flat surfaces with no
hills. Will there be hills at this race?

There are some; it's San Francisco after all. <g> As I said, I have
been planning from the outset to walk the hills.

The course map is at
<http://www.nike.com/nikemarathon/media/pdf/nike_marathon.pdf>; the
steepest hill is from about ten feet to 295 feet over about a mile and a
quarter starting at about the six mile point.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

Even so, if I decide that I'm not ready for it, I'll forfeit my
registration money and airline fare, and try for a race on December 2nd.

I don't think the question is really whether or not you'll
do this race, but rather whether or not you'll keep running,
To the extent that you're setting goals that undermine your
ability to do that, it's a bad thing. I tend to think
that's what's actually on the line here.

In my 40s I had to take 6-8 months off because I injured
myself overdoing it. Getting back to it after such a long
layoff didn't just suck - it was like starting from scratch
and it was incredibly demoralizing.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - [email hidden]

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Melinda Shore) said:

Quoted message said:

I think the only contention you have with what I'm doing is that you
think I'm not doing it gradually enough.

I don't think that's it, specifically. I've been reading the back
and forth and what's popping out is that you seem to be prioritizing
this one race over base-building and a program focused on staying
healthy.

I spent a long time base building to the point where I could even start
this program.

so why abandon that approach ? why set racing goals that force you to
abandon a training approach that appears to be working ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Melinda Shore) said:

I don't think the question is really whether or not you'll do this
race, but rather whether or not you'll keep running, To the extent
that you're setting goals that undermine your ability to do that,
it's a bad thing. I tend to think that's what's actually on the line
here.

I disagree.

Quoted message said:

In my 40s I had to take 6-8 months off because I injured myself
overdoing it. Getting back to it after such a long layoff didn't
just suck - it was like starting from scratch and it was incredibly
demoralizing.

I injured myself in January, and had to take more than a month off, and
I literally started over from scratch. I looked at it as a renewed
opportunity.

As I wrote a few days ago, I have a history of getting enthused in an
activity, sometimes to the point that it consumed all my non-obligated
time, and after a while (which had ranged from a few months to more than
a decade), just giving up on it completely. I promised myself when I
started running that I was not going to let that happen to me with this
activity.

There have been days when I just didn't feel like running at all, but I
ran anyway. I ran in the rain in 44 degree weather in December. When
I went to MacWorld in January, I ran. When I went to Walt Disney World
in May, I ran.

I realize that you're referring to ability, not motivation; however, I
think I've built in enough safeguards to keep me from hurting myself.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

She's going to be out there for nearly 3hrs.

I hope you're right, because if I'm not out there for nearly three
hours, I'll be out there for longer than that.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

I spent a long time base building to the point where I could even
start this program.

so why abandon that approach ? why set racing goals that force you to
abandon a training approach that appears to be working ?

I was trying to build the base so I could start the program. I had two
programs picked out early this year; one was a sixteen week program, and
the other was a twelve week program. Both wanted me to be able to run
three to four miles comfortably at the start of the program. Sixteen
weeks out, I wasn't ready. In the two weeks before I started this
program, I had run 3 3/4 miles seven times and four miles once. The
first two weeks of the program called for three mile runs twice a week,
a two-mile run once a week, and a long run of four miles each week.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.

TenKMan said:

Damn Doug, I haven't seen this much drama for a single runner in
a single race in a while in rr.

Funny, ain't it.

While there is undoubtedly some basis in well-founded concern, mostly
it's Michelle's style - people want her to acknowledge "you're the
expert, I'm the beginner, you're right I'm wrong." And she shows no
signs of yielding. She's a bad-ass.

Quoted message said:

I have known legions of runners who ramped up in a BIG hurry
(I being one of them!!!)

You and me both, and somehow I doubt we're the only ones or even in
the minority.

Offhand it seems to me quite a large percentage of long-term runners
started out with aspirations right at the edge of, if not beyond, our
realistic abilities to progress. I continue to believe that very
drive is often the biggest part of what will keep someone in the game
over the long haul.

Of course when not brought into balance, that drive results in
constant injury and frustration and dropping out. But also of course,
difficult experiences provide the feedback which informs future
approach, for anyone with the capacity to learn.

I'm thinking of Dan Stumpus, whose first race was an ill-prepared
marathon, qualifies as another someone who stuck with it a while,
learned to adjust his mindset, and became a decent (!!) runner. How
about Ozzie Gontang? I seem to recall a story about his difficult
first marathon following something less than a five year cautiously
considered buildup.

Stripping away style, I do agree with the content of e.g. Doug's post
from 7:10 AM today where he says, among other things, "Assuming you
get through this 1/2 alive and well, I hope your next effort is
another half with a more reasonable plan or better yet, some shorter
races and concentrate on building a base that will keep you at the
game." It seems not unlikely Michelle will reach similar conclusions
after her race. But for now of course she'll be focused on that race,
not the months and goals which come after.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. - William Blake

"Melinda Shore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michelle said:

Even so, if I decide that I'm not ready for it, I'll forfeit my
registration money and airline fare, and try for a race on December 2nd.

I don't think the question is really whether or not you'll
do this race, but rather whether or not you'll keep running,
To the extent that you're setting goals that undermine your
ability to do that, it's a bad thing. I tend to think
that's what's actually on the line here.

In my 40s I had to take 6-8 months off because I injured
myself overdoing it. Getting back to it after such a long
layoff didn't just suck - it was like starting from scratch
and it was incredibly demoralizing.
--

And the older you get, the harder it is to come back -- and after any given
layoff you may never come back to where you were. It's worth being a little
conservative (careful) to reduce the risks & enhance your chances of being
able to do *something* long term.
bj

In article <[email hidden]>,

Elflord said:

Quoted message said:

What you seem to be ignoring is that I have given myself permission
to fail.

My argument isn't that you won't be able to complete the race, it's
that the training rampup required to accomplish that is ill-advised.

With the exception of the set backs two and three weeks ago, I have been
able to keep up with it. As Charlie observed, I have shown the
adaptiveness to modify a program when needed. However, since this
program does have a date as a goal, modifying the plan will entail
changing that goal, which I am willing to do.

When I did the C to 5K plan the first time around, when I couldn't meet
the goals for the stage I was at, I set new attainable intermediate
goals and worked up to to the original goal. I'll do the same for this
plan, and when I'm able to, I'll run a half marathon. It might not be
the Nike on October 21st, but as of right now, it still appears that
that race is doable without injuring myself or causing long-term adverse
affects.

--
Crossing the starting line is 90%.
Crossing the finish line is the other 90%.