Race Report

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

--
13.1 Because I can

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

--
13.1 Because I can

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

--
13.1 Because I can

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

I've tested mine out on the track, a few times, and it's been dead-
on.

Quoted message said:

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Yeah, maybe that's the deal. Except there weren't really that many
turns - it was mostly an out-and-back sort of race. And they kept
everyone within a narrow area of the road, which was quite annoying.
It meant we were all running in the gutter, which had a significant
slant (more than the gutter I typically run in). And at one point, a
couple running with their baby stroller clogged the chute - that's how
small the area was that they kept us confined to, with cones! Two
people abreast, one with bay stroller, took up the entire area. I ran
around them by going outside the cones, and a policeman yelled at me
to get back within the cones. I guess they were trying to keep car
traffic flowing during the race.

Quoted message said:

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace, which is 50 seconds faster pace than in March,
and 2:10 faster pace than October.

For comparison, my best 5K ever was 25:17; that was approx a decade
ago and after running consistently for a few years and at higher
mileage. At that time, I could maintain a 10:00 pace for 10 miles or
longer. Given that I'm getting older, i may never see that again, but
I still have a hunch there is a lot of room for improvement.

jen

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

I've tested mine out on the track, a few times, and it's been dead-
on.

Quoted message said:

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Yeah, maybe that's the deal. Except there weren't really that many
turns - it was mostly an out-and-back sort of race. And they kept
everyone within a narrow area of the road, which was quite annoying.
It meant we were all running in the gutter, which had a significant
slant (more than the gutter I typically run in). And at one point, a
couple running with their baby stroller clogged the chute - that's how
small the area was that they kept us confined to, with cones! Two
people abreast, one with bay stroller, took up the entire area. I ran
around them by going outside the cones, and a policeman yelled at me
to get back within the cones. I guess they were trying to keep car
traffic flowing during the race.

Quoted message said:

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace, which is 50 seconds faster pace than in March,
and 2:10 faster pace than October.

For comparison, my best 5K ever was 25:17; that was approx a decade
ago and after running consistently for a few years and at higher
mileage. At that time, I could maintain a 10:00 pace for 10 miles or
longer. Given that I'm getting older, i may never see that again, but
I still have a hunch there is a lot of room for improvement.

jen

Michelle said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

While I sure would've liked to break 30 minutes, I am happy to say I
ran the very best possible race I could today!

Congratulations.

I've found the Nike+iPod device to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine, and in my next run after calibrating it, it was .04 miles off on a
three mile run.

I've tested mine out on the track, a few times, and it's been dead-
on.

Quoted message said:

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Yeah, maybe that's the deal. Except there weren't really that many
turns - it was mostly an out-and-back sort of race. And they kept
everyone within a narrow area of the road, which was quite annoying.
It meant we were all running in the gutter, which had a significant
slant (more than the gutter I typically run in). And at one point, a
couple running with their baby stroller clogged the chute - that's how
small the area was that they kept us confined to, with cones! Two
people abreast, one with bay stroller, took up the entire area. I ran
around them by going outside the cones, and a policeman yelled at me
to get back within the cones. I guess they were trying to keep car
traffic flowing during the race.

Quoted message said:

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace, which is 50 seconds faster pace than in March,
and 2:10 faster pace than October.

For comparison, my best 5K ever was 25:17; that was approx a decade
ago and after running consistently for a few years and at higher
mileage. At that time, I could maintain a 10:00 pace for 10 miles or
longer. Given that I'm getting older, i may never see that again, but
I still have a hunch there is a lot of room for improvement.

jen

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

jen

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

jen

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

jen

shinypenny said:

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

Quoted message said:

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

Hah!

Quoted message said:

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

Great race jen, whatever the exact pace. You're making improvements
while staying healthy and that's awesome. Congrats!

shinypenny said:

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

Quoted message said:

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

Hah!

Quoted message said:

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

Great race jen, whatever the exact pace. You're making improvements
while staying healthy and that's awesome. Congrats!

shinypenny said:

shinypenny said:

I'm not going to quibble over it. Either way - whether you go with the
31:17 at 3.1 miles, or the 32:23 at 3.2 miles, it works out to approx
the same 10:05 pace,

Oh wait, duh, if it was 32:23 at 3.1 miles that is 10:26 pace, which
would only be 30 seconds faster pace compared to March.

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

Quoted message said:

Somehow, I think I was more like 50 seconds faster.... maybe I'm just
fooling myself, but I wasn't running all that much back in March. I
was only running about 3x's per week. And my training pace was in the
14-15 minute range, whereas in recent months it's been consistently
more like 11-12 minute range (since the weather has cooled down here,
11 minute pace has felt easy to me). Not to mention I was 10 lbs
heavier.

I might believe I was only 30 seconds faster if I'd felt like it was a
sucky run today... but it didn't. It felt like the best performance I
could do. I was well-hydrated, I'd even carb-loaded yesterday (not
intentionally - I wasn't even sure I was going to run this - but we
have a lot of halloween candy that needed to disappear).

Hah!

Quoted message said:

So either the course was measured correctly (it was not a certified
course) and somehow I ran it 0.1 mile longer, in which case the pace
was still 10:05. Or it was mismeasured to begin with, in which case
the pace was still 10:05.

Great race jen, whatever the exact pace. You're making improvements
while staying healthy and that's awesome. Congrats!

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:12:34 -0700, Michelle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Congratulations.

I've found the my new penis to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine,

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:12:34 -0700, Michelle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Congratulations.

I've found the my new penis to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine,

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:12:34 -0700, Michelle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Congratulations.

I've found the my new penis to be quite inaccurate. I calibrated
mine,

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

On Nov 4, 5:28 pm, Christos Dimitrakakis <oleth...@olethros-

desktop.info said:

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once
calibrated, is supposed to be 98% accurate. When I calibrated it
recently, I went at around a 10:00 pace for 0.5 miles. And I have
since tested it several times on the track up to 2.5 miles distance,
and each time it was dead-on accurate.

Still, I suppose if it's only 98% accurate that could be the
difference between 3.1 and 3.2?

jen