NYC Marathon Course Strategy

LSmith said:

Hey everyone - don't know who here is running in the NYCM this year -
yes, I know Doug F's Falling of the Leaves Race is the big event that
day - but in case NYC runners are here - you might want to check out
my blog today - had a guy Doug F may in fact know - contact me - turns
our he's a neighbor & very experienced distance runner from Maine - I
asked him for some NYC Course strategy pointers - and boy did he come
through - some of the best NYC Course strategy I've ever seen, broken
down.

http://harlemrunner.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-york-city-marathon-course-strategy.html

All it says is "bendover and grab your ankles"...

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

Quoted message said:

Hey everyone - don't know who here is running in the NYCM this year -
yes, I know Doug F's Falling of the Leaves Race is the big event that
day - but in case NYC runners are here - you might want to check out
my blog today - had a guy Doug F may in fact know - contact me - turns
our he's a neighbor & very experienced distance runner from Maine - I
asked him for some NYC Course strategy pointers - and boy did he come
through - some of the best NYC Course strategy I've ever seen, broken
down.

Am I supposed to look through your self-aggrandized blog to find the
name of the person Maine? Wait, am I to read your blog at all?

Quoted message said:

http://harlemrunner.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-york-city-marathon-course-strategy.html

I can see why you like Karnazes, similar "how great am I" attitude. I
liked you dialog on your reason for 100+ miles a week - your thinking
like an a elite runner. Should we be looking for you in the 2:20 -2:40
time at NY?

I enjoy your big cajones regardless of a questionable sense of reality.
Even being a few crayons short of a full box, I still love your
gumption and I do wish you the best. Speaking of best, what is your time
goal?

-Doug - Who's your daddy?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:08:10 -0400, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

-Doug - Who's your daddy?

Hey! I thought I was your daddy?

CP

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I can see why you like Karnazes, similar "how great am I" attitude. I
liked you dialog on your reason for 100+ miles a week - your thinking like
an a elite runner. Should we be looking for you in the 2:20 -2:40 time at
NY?

For what it's worth, my experiment in big miles (95/week up from a
well-trained 72), gave me just 7 minutes off my 2:44, or about 4%. I'd
probably done about 20 marathons by that time. It's possible for a less
experienced marathoner to get a bigger bang for the buck, on the assumption
that he didn't reach his potential at the lower mileage plateau.

On the other hand, I know of one guy who went from 120/week and 2:50 to
95/week and 2:29 by training smarter (hard/easy days and speedwork).

I don't know what Lance's PR is, 3:10-3:15? If that's the case the big
mileage could give him 10 or more minutes, especially if he had some
speedwork in there.

-- Dan

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

Quoted message said:

For what it's worth, my experiment in big miles (95/week up from a
well-trained 72), gave me just 7 minutes off my 2:44, or about 4%.
I'd probably done about 20 marathons by that time. It's possible for
a less experienced marathoner to get a bigger bang for the buck, on
the assumption that he didn't reach his potential at the lower mileage
plateau.

And Lance has neither the experience nor an injury free background. He
has no idea where his plateus is and is thinking like he is elite and
more is better. Lance has yet demonstrate reasonableness in the last few
years.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, I know of one guy who went from 120/week and 2:50
to 95/week and 2:29 by training smarter (hard/easy days and
speedwork).

I don't know what Lance's PR is, 3:10-3:15? If that's the case the
big mileage could give him 10 or more minutes, especially if he had
some speedwork in there.

I think it was 3:07 and that was a few years ago and a single race. I
wish him luck but between his new found desire for big miles and recent
thoughts on little or no taper with no experience at either, I don't
see him playing the best or even reasonable odds. He has guts but......

I'm also busting his chops cuz we like to jab each other but I still
think his approach is questionable at best. I'm predicting he will go
out at a 2:59 or 2:58 pace thinking to equal or better Donovan's time,
and the anchor will go out at 15-18 miles and STB. 😉 As we get closer
to the race and we hear how he is doing with his training we can
predict.

-Doug

Doug said:

[lance] has no idea where his plateus is

I don't either. I don't even know where my own is, or if I have one.
Maybe I lent it out and it was never returned?

Can you supply a hint?

Quoted message said:

and is thinking like he is elite and more is better

Whereas the cognoscenti all know, when it comes to marathon training,
less is better. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I think [his PR] was 3:07 and that was a few years ago

I think more like 3:12.

Quoted message said:

and a single race

And lance himself has mentioned his multiracial heritage on more than
one occasion, though I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Methinks you sighed with relief when my own marathon aspirations this
fall fell by the wayside, and now lance is the only new threat to your
PR in the group. Go get 'em, lance! And let's not forget he's
running a legendarily tough course.

P.S. Have you ever published your formula for optimal weekly mileage
vs. whatever (current PR? goal time?) You often refer to this but the
rest of us are at an unfair disadvantage without your cheat sheet.

Quoted message said:

I can see why you like Karnazes, similar "how great am I" attitude. I
liked you dialog on your reason for 100+ miles a week - your thinking
like an a elite runner.

_

Doug, just to remind you, at age 42, after running 26.2 miles daily
for the previous 49 consecutive days, DK went 3:00:30 on a tough NYC
Course with a negative split in a 13 oz North Face trail shoe. That
is nothing short of awesome. No, that's freaking unbelievable.

Why so much mileage? There's a great read titled, How Much Mileage
Is Enough? By Jason R. Karp, M.S . That was in Running Times in the
Spring - it touches on what I'm amidst of - running very high weekly
mileage. In the article according to David Costill, Ph.D., conducted a
study on the training characteristics of the U.S. Olympic Marathon
Trials qualifiers revealed that the men averaged 90 miles per week
with a peak mileage of 120, while the women averaged 72 miles per week
with a peak mileage of 95 for the year of training leading up to the
Trials. However, the elite male marathoners (sub commonly taken from
muscle biopsies increase, but as you move up to about 60 miles per
week, things start to plateau," he says. "The exact mileage at which
this plateau occurs depends on the individual, but beyond about 60 to
70 miles per week, there's not much change taking place." So, if VO2
max and muscle cellular adaptations plateau at about 70 miles per
week, why do people run much more than that? "I really have no idea,"
says Costill. "People who run 5Ks and 10Ks still need a lot of speed,
and when you run 120 or 130 miles per week, you can't do much
quality." I would disagree with him here - too many most pro runners
marathoners are clocking 120 - 150 miles / week. Costill ->The elite
men averaged 97 miles per week with a peak mileage of 126, while their
national-class counterparts averaged 90 miles per week with a peak
mileage of 119. There was, however, a statistical difference in
mileage between women's performance levels, likely due to their
greater range in performance. The elite women (sub 2:40) averaged 84
miles per week with a peak mileage of 112, while their national-class
counterparts (2:40-2:48) averaged 69 miles per week with a peak
mileage of 91. While the faster female marathoners ran more, only a
quarter of the difference in marathon performance between women could
be explained by the amount of mileage they ran. Mileage accounted for
even less of the difference among the men. If there is little or no
improvement in VO2 max and the metabolic profile of muscles as one
runs more than 70 miles per week, is there any benefit at all to
running more? Maybe. Research has shown that runners who run high
mileage tend to be more economical, which has led to the suggestion
among scientists that running more than 70 miles per week improves
running economy (the amount of oxygen used to maintain a given pace).
It is possible that, just as repetition of the walking movement
decreases the "jerkiness" of a toddler's walk to the point that it
becomes smooth, repetition of the running movement has an under-
recognized neural component. With countless repetitions, muscle fiber
recruitment patterns and possibly even the relationship between
breathing and stride rhythms are optimized to minimize the oxygen
cost. In other words, practice makes perfect. That's the best
explanation I've heard to communicate why a weekend warrior (non elite
runner like myself) is motivated to run 100 miles/week - - trying to
feel that zone where I am not conscious of fatigue over distance and
have not marginalized or compromised my stride, gait, footstrike, all
of it.... all the mechanics including breathing, etc. Just as through
repitition a toddler perfects walking, I am trying to perfect and
smooth out racing - when fatigued over distance and approx 3 hours.
Costill -> Additionally, high mileage reduces body weight, which
further reduces the oxygen cost. Because it is hard to prove cause and
effect, it is not clear whether high mileage runners become more
economical by running more miles or are innately more economical and
can therefore handle higher mileage without getting injured.

LSmith said:

Quoted message said:

I can see why you like Karnazes, similar "how great am I" attitude. I
liked you dialog on your reason for 100+ miles a week - your thinking
like an a elite runner.

_

Doug, just to remind you, at age 42, after running 26.2 miles daily
for the previous 49 consecutive days, DK went 3:00:30 on a tough NYC
Course with a negative split in a 13 oz North Face trail shoe. That
is nothing short of awesome. No, that's freaking unbelievable.

It's impressive, but it's not a whole lot different to what every elite
marathoner accomplishes in the daily grind of their training.

Quoted message said:

says Costill. "People who run 5Ks and 10Ks still need a lot of speed,
and when you run 120 or 130 miles per week, you can't do much
quality." I would disagree with him here - too many most pro runners

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him -- but I think it's really important
to be clear what you mean by "plateau". A 2 minute improvement in marathon
time for a 20mpw increase in volume might appear insignificant to a weekend
warrior, but to an elite it is a substantial improvement.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

mileage of 91. While the faster female marathoners ran more, only a
quarter of the difference in marathon performance between women could
be explained by the amount of mileage they ran. Mileage accounted for
even less of the difference among the men. If there is little or no

What researchers miss when they pull out numbers like this, is that *talent*
is the biggest variable in the mix. With a correlation study as opposed to
a controlled intervention, there is always a large variation in innate ability
of the subjects, which produces a lot of variance (whereas with a controlled
intervention, you can compare the same runner before/after) . Sure, mileage
explains "only" 25% of the variance, but out of the variability that you
*actually have some control over*, make no mistake, training volume is the big
one.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

lance said:

what I'm amidst of - running very high weekly mileage

If you're running a hundred a week, you're running "solid" or
"moderately high" mileage by competitive male marathon standards.
"*Very* high" would be more like 140+. And surely you'd prefer to be
measured by competitive male marathon standards, not against the TNT
types, right?

Of course you're spending more time running than the 2:22 guys, and
that's what's most important; but it'd be misleading to call time
"mileage". Time is *money*, after all, not distance.

Quoted message said:

In the article according to David Costill, Ph.D.

Yawn. Best I can tell Costill contributed big-time to scientific
understanding of aerobic exercise; but he's worthless or worse when it
comes to prescriptions for training to run competitively. Which is no
big surprise - the best coaches like Lydiard who know about the best
training often stumble badly when they try to talk about the science,
while the labcoats tend to pooh-pooh anything which doesn't show up on
one of their blood or breath meters despite its perfect correlation
with actual success in actual racing.

Quoted message said:

"I really have no idea," says Costill.

At least he's being honest.

Quoted message said:

Because it is hard to prove cause and effect, it is not clear
whether high mileage runners become more economical by running
more miles or are innately more economical and can therefore
handle higher mileage without getting injured.

What we do know:

- Zillions of highly driven marathoners continue to improve, year
after year for quite some time, on diets of relatively high mileage.
I bet most of 'em don't obsess too much whether it's that they're
getting "more economical", "stronger", "more experienced", or just
better.

- This constant perpetuation over the years and decades of the
unquestioned assumption that most injuries are generally caused by
exceeding one's mileage limit is awfully wrong-headed. Sure, no doubt
certain varieties of injury are linked to mileage. But so so so many
injuries are also linked to speedwork (broad, common definition which
includes things like VO2 intervals).

Mileage gets disproportional blame, IMO, because [a] it's the ultimate
quantifiable variable, expressed as a nice easy to deal with weekly
number, and so amenable to the simplistic rules we crave: just keep it
under 40 (,70, 100) miles and you'll be fine; [b] we'd like to believe
you can always get more returns on less work, hey let's work smarter
not harder, so let's demonize high mileage and pretend a few compact
sessions of intervals can make up for slashing forty-five minutes of
running each day from serious marathon training. (And then when all
those intervals injure us, proclaim: "see, even sixty miles a week is
dangerous to us non-elites. Ninety or a hundred is outright lunacy!"😉

When mileage injures, N-1 times out of N it's because of, yeah, too
much too soon, not just plain ol' too much. If you're ready for the
mileage, you'll probably get exhausted from the nonstop slogging long
before you get injured.

And of course lance's typical fall style seems to be "too much too
soon", plunging headlong into hundred mile weeks rather than ramping
up smoothly, best I recall; but I'm hoping that's worked out OK for
him this time. lance, if you're still healthy at this point, don't do
anything stoopid between now and the race! No last-minute extra hard
workouts to try and squeeze out that last second per mile. The hay,
as they say, is pretty much already in the barn. And no listening to
exercise physiologists. If they say you've got to do such-and-such to
optimize your VZmax3 Threshold or whatever the hell, pause to ask
yourself why they're writing for active.com and not coaching our best
to Olympic glory.

lance quoting some source or other:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mileage accounted for even less of the difference among the men.

Donovan said:

What researchers miss when they pull out numbers like this, is that *talent*
is the biggest variable in the mix. With a correlation study as opposed to
a controlled intervention, there is always a large variation in innate ability
of the subjects, which produces a lot of variance (whereas with a controlled
intervention, you can compare the same runner before/after) . Sure, mileage
explains "only" 25% of the variance, but out of the variability that you
*actually have some control over*, make no mistake, training volume is the
big one.

Right, and my other thought is that there's almost surely less of a
difference in mileage among the top men to begin with. We don't have
all the number that get condensed into the words quoted above, but
just the numbers that are listed for the guys shows a mere 6-8%
difference in mileage.

Basically any dude aspiring to the Olympic Marathon Trials is running
somewhere around a hundred miles a week, a bit more during peak
mileage; most running doubles most days.

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

Quoted message said:

Doug, just to remind you, at age 42, after running 26.2 miles daily
for the previous 49 consecutive days, DK went 3:00:30 on a tough NYC
Course with a negative split in a 13 oz North Face trail shoe. That
is nothing short of awesome. No, that's freaking unbelievable.

But understand Lance he is the only one you know and why you are so
impressed. If you got near the ultra world, that is like breaking 38
minites for a 10k. At best he falls in the top 25%. From you minimal
ultra experience in general, I can see why you are in awe when your
world in so narrow.

Quoted message said:

Why so much mileage? There's a great read titled, How Much Mileage
Is Enough? By Jason R. Karp, M.S . That was in Running Times in the
Spring - it touches on what I'm amidst of - running very high weekly
mileage. In the article according to David Costill, Ph.D., conducted a
study on the training characteristics of the U.S. Olympic Marathon
Trials qualifiers revealed that the men averaged 90 miles per week
with a peak mileage of 120, while the women averaged 72 miles per week
with a peak mileage of 95 for the year of training leading up to the
Trials.

As I said, you are reading about elite marathon runners and somehow
relating to them. Sorry dude, they have years at the elite level.
Compared to them you are a beginner, novice, tyro and have yet to buy
your first pair of running shoes. Do you really think you fit into this
equation?

-Doug

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doug, just to remind you, at age 42, after running 26.2 miles daily
for the previous 49 consecutive days, DK went 3:00:30 on a tough NYC
Course with a negative split in a 13 oz North Face trail shoe. That
is nothing short of awesome. No, that's freaking unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

But understand Lance he is the only one you know and why you are so
impressed. If you got near the ultra world, that is like breaking 38
minites for a 10k. At best he falls in the top 25%.

C'mon, Doug, you're understating it a bit. I almost always finish in the
top 10% at ultras hereabouts, and I couldn't do that. DK is in the top 2-3%
of ultrarunners, in my estimation. If I get close to 3 at my next
marathon -- without running 26.2 miles a day leading up to it, and wearing
my lighter-than-air shoes -- I'll consider myself extrodinarily blessed.

Quoted message said:

As I said, you are reading about elite marathon runners and somehow
relating to them. Sorry dude, they have years at the elite level.
Compared to them you are a beginner, novice, tyro and have yet to buy
your first pair of running shoes. Do you really think you fit into this
equation?

I always looked at how the big boys trained, and scaled it down to my talent
level. They do 10x 400@66, I did them at 72. They go hard/easy, I go
hard/easy (just slower in each case). They ran 11-13 hours a week, I did
the same (just covered fewer miles). It worked for me, and I am definitely
not in their league.

The fact that they stay in one piece at such high volume made me think that
they knew something I didn't about training, so I paid attention not to how
my local friends did things, but how the 120 mile/week world class guys
trained.

I don't think they are a different species, just lighter-better-faster.
They burn fat, use glycogen, hurt when they go hard, and get dog-tired when
they overdo it. They just cover more ground. They don't necessarily work
harder or hurt more in races than their less talented, but just as
determined mortal counterparts.

-- Dan

Quoted message said:

But understand Lance he is the only one you know

You're wrong (something I know well, others will see that too).

I've become friends with the person credited with creating Ultra
Running, okay? Ted Corbitt, the first president of the NYRR, the man
that won the '54 Philadelphia marathon, the Olympian marathoner, the
man who created the Road Runner's Club of America. That man who
reinvented mapping courses, setting the standard and yes, laid out the
NYC Marathon course.

In other words Doug, you could not be more wrong in saying "DK is the
only one I know" Do you clearly understand that? I know the founder
of the damn sport so STFU. If anyone wants to doubt Ted is credited
with being the founder, just google it.

Quoted message said:

I can see why you are in awe when your
world in so narrow.

What type of a "put down" are you attempting to put here Doug?

Quoted message said:

As I said, you are reading about elite marathon runners and somehow
relating to them.

Your ignorance shines bright Doug. There are lots of runners who
started running in their late 30's, and early 40's - and become US and
World Record holders at all sorts of short, middle, and long
distances. One is a friend of mine who I saw a couple of weeks ago
rip a 7 Min Mile, she's 70's old Doug, a record holder. You can read
about her here.

http://harlemrunner.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-into-eve-pell.html

I'm relating to being a competitive athlete Doug and nothing more. I
have deep, solid NCAA cred in that department. Just because I am 44
does not mean I don't conjure competitive juices, and aspire to
realize new plateaus. You're a nice guy Doug, you've just never done
anything distinguishing.....and you resent people like me who don't
live in "boxes" and see walls. You put me down - probably to feel
better about yourself, and what you never did. It's not my fault you
were not athletic in your young buck days, and I don't fault you for
that. (For the record, Doug resents competitive achievers). Your
Boston Marathons? I can run Boston if I want, I'm qualified - not
interested - I race the "the" marathon, the one you never have, New
York.

I give you some credit Doug - but I have direct access and line with
the definitive source on Ultras. That's real pal - deal with it.

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

Quoted message said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doug, just to remind you, at age 42, after running 26.2 miles daily
for the previous 49 consecutive days, DK went 3:00:30 on a tough NYC
Course with a negative split in a 13 oz North Face trail shoe. That
is nothing short of awesome. No, that's freaking unbelievable.

Quoted message said:

But understand Lance he is the only one you know and why you are so
impressed. If you got near the ultra world, that is like breaking 38
minites for a 10k. At best he falls in the top 25%.

C'mon, Doug, you're understating it a bit. I almost always finish in
the top 10% at ultras hereabouts, and I couldn't do that. DK is in
the top 2-3% of ultrarunners, in my estimation.

Unless you're nomail on the big list there are people continuously
passing him by doing more and harder but they don't shout it from the
roof tops. When they did ultrarunner of the whatever, he got one vote
from his fellow runners. He can slide into a race like the Vermont 100
and win but throw him in WS(15th in 2006 and Jurek wasn't here) with
the heavy hitters or Badwater and he is down the list. Yes, compared to
you and I he has done a lot, compared to the sport overall he is along
way from 2-3%. His signal to noise ratio is higher not his finishes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I said, you are reading about elite marathon runners and somehow
relating to them. Sorry dude, they have years at the elite level.
Compared to them you are a beginner, novice, tyro and have yet to
buy your first pair of running shoes. Do you really think you fit
into this equation?

I always looked at how the big boys trained, and scaled it down to my
talent level. They do 10x 400@66, I did them at 72. They go
hard/easy, I go hard/easy (just slower in each case). They ran 11-13
hours a week, I did the same (just covered fewer miles). It worked
for me, and I am definitely not in their league.

And I'll bet you were doing marathons for years and knew your abilities.
Sorry Dan but Lance has a chart on the wall written by the Hanson's and
is blindly following it. We see on race day assuming he makes it to the
starting line.

-Doug

Doug Freese said:

He can slide into a race like the Vermont 100
and win but throw him in WS(15th in 2006 and Jurek wasn't here) with
the heavy hitters or Badwater and he is down the list.

Hmmm, while I think he DNF'd (or at least did very poorly) his first
time at BW, I believe he won it 2-3 yrs ago (too lazy to check on date).
Note that his successes are NOT in his book.

But I know where you're coming from. That Times Square stunt was a
little much.

Dot

--
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I
have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

He can slide into a race like the Vermont 100
and win but throw him in WS(15th in 2006 and Jurek wasn't here) with
the heavy hitters or Badwater and he is down the list.

Hmmm, while I think he DNF'd (or at least did very poorly) his first
time at BW, I believe he won it 2-3 yrs ago (too lazy to check on
date). Note that his successes are NOT in his book.

But I know where you're coming from. That Times Square stunt was a
little much.

I surprised that the doesn't enter a hot dog eating contest. 😉

On a more serious note, Dan felt he was in the top 2-3% and I feel that
is way too much credit and in fact why he go one vote as ultra dude of
the year. I admit in any given race that he can and does finish in the
top ten but when we factor in Scott Jurek's, Karl Meltzer, Jasper
Kalekas and even Niki Kimbal and the band plays on. My point there are
dozens of runners doing more faster but choose a low profile. As for
long events, those that run the length of Appalachian trail such as
David Horton or the Peter Palmer that 40+ miles a day over the 2160
miles are the real deal.

Records like this have been going on for years and years but it's low
profile sport with 99% setting those records for themselves. If it
wasn't for the ultra forum or Ultrarunning magazine only a handful of
people would know about these efforts, DK came alone and hyped the
sport. I will admit his ego for the limelight and $$$ has shed some
positive light on the sport in general. People like Lance are in awe
because they don't follow the sport and get sucked in by hype.

What has DK done for us lately? Has he completed the metaphorical
course, extracted all $$$ he could and now fade off? Rhetorical.

-Doug

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But understand Lance he is the only one you know

You're wrong (something I know well, others will see that too).

I've become friends with the person credited with creating Ultra
Running, okay?

Wrong he is credited and rightfully so, with reviving the sport.
Creating is a exaggeration to bolster you and really being disrespectful
to Ted and the sport. Nokes has a section on the history and I'm sad to
say he did not include Ted and probably a slight in my opinion.

Quoted message said:

In other words Doug, you could not be more wrong in saying "DK is the
only one I know" Do you clearly understand that? I know the founder
of the damn sport so STFU. If anyone wants to doubt Ted is credited
with being the founder, just google it.

The press dubbed him the "father" and "pioneer" of ultra running in
the US all respectful terms. The sport was always more popluar on
Europe. He was not the founder

Quoted message said:

There are lots of runners who
started running in their late 30's, and early 40's - and become US and
World Record holders at all sorts of short, middle, and long
distances.

And your point? You read abut Handson, mega miles and trivialize the
taper and wrap yourself in an elite blanket and now you
"is" one? I ran with Billy R one day I guess that makes me elite.
Osmosis must be strong.

Quoted message said:

I'm relating to being a competitive athlete Doug and nothing more. I
have deep, solid NCAA cred in that department. Just because I am 44
does not mean I don't conjure competitive juices, and aspire to
realize new plateaus.

You have lots of improving if you quit thinking your elite and dropping
names as if it will launch you into the stratosphere. I had some of my
best Marathons in my 40's so I know it can be done. Rather then jumping
on some fad training program you might want to try smaller increments of
improvement. In a hurry?

Quoted message said:

You're a nice guy Doug, you've just never done anything
distinguishing.....

This isn't about me but since you brought it up, the only one I ever
planned to please was me. I guess we differ in that you are seeking some
form of world recognition. feeling a little underappreciated? You have a
little in common with DK.

Quoted message said:

Your Boston Marathons? I can run Boston if I want, I'm qualified -
not
interested

Your choice but if Boston had not reduced the qualifying times you would
still be on the outside looking in. 😉 You get 3:20 and then 3:30 at 45.
If you can't qualify with that softness you had best rethink your
endurance running or bump into more elites for more osmosis. I had to
crank 3:10 and 3:15 on 45-55 miles a week working 50 hours a weeks with
two kids. And I kept on requalifying each year.

Quoted message said:

- I race the "the" marathon, the one you never have, New
York.

It's a zoo race and never ever excited me. They both have their appeal.

Quoted message said:

I give you some credit Doug - but I have direct access and line with
the definitive source on Ultras. That's real pal - deal with it.

Ted is probably a great man and was a phenomenal runner but knowing an
ultra runner and understanding ultrarunning are light years apart. I
guess I could drop some names of some world class runners that I have
run with but way behind, but that would prove nothing. Call us not after
tea and crumpets with Ted but after you have toed the line at a race. We
couldn't even get you to a dinky 30k Escarpment race. A lotta talk but
not much walk.

Now back to NYC marathon. Your goal for this race is??????

-Doug

Doug Freese said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

He can slide into a race like the Vermont 100
and win but throw him in WS(15th in 2006 and Jurek wasn't here) with
the heavy hitters or Badwater and he is down the list.

Hmmm, while I think he DNF'd (or at least did very poorly) his first
time at BW, I believe he won it 2-3 yrs ago (too lazy to check on
date). Note that his successes are NOT in his book.

But I know where you're coming from. That Times Square stunt was a
little much.

I surprised that the doesn't enter a hot dog eating contest. 😉

While running on the tm.😉

Quoted message said:

On a more serious note, Dan felt he was in the top 2-3% and I feel that
is way too much credit and in fact why he go one vote as ultra dude of
the year. I admit in any given race that he can and does finish in the
top ten but when we factor in Scott Jurek's, Karl Meltzer, Jasper
Kalekas and even Niki Kimbal and the band plays on. My point there are
dozens of runners doing more faster but choose a low profile.

Definitely. It's a matter of who shows up at the starting line, but
that's true all the time. But I know some top elites have suggested it
would be good to get some money in some of the races so the top runners
wouldn't have to depend on sponsors. Sponsors will be more likely to
provide prize money if there's more publicity, most likely.

I might also add: I wonder how often DK has truly trained, peaked, and
taperd for a race vs just "done" it amidst everything else. I know Matt
Carpenter, Scott Jurek, and Karl Meltzer have all observed that they
aren't always rested from the previous race before they did the next
one, resulting in DNF or lots of walking. But, yes, I'm inclined to
think that DK, even when peaked and tapered for, say, Hardrock, wouldn't
be near Meltzer or Jurek.

But going back to Dan's statement. How many folks finish ultras in one
year? thousands? And there's probably a couple dozen on top that DK
would not likely beat even if peaked. Where's that put him percentage
wise? And iirc, last year, he did that 24-hr (iirc) national
championship race shortly after finishing his 50-50-50, and just missed
making the natl team (granted pace is similar to what he'd been
running). Of course, not everybody likes doing races like that.

Quoted message said:

As for
long events, those that run the length of Appalachian trail such as
David Horton or the Peter Palmer that 40+ miles a day over the 2160
miles are the real deal.

And don't forget Roberto Ghidoni. He didn't have a crew and pacer,
although only going 1100 mi in Alaska winter, but he has done it several
times.😉

....

Quoted message said:

What has DK done for us lately? Has he completed the metaphorical
course, extracted all $$$ he could and now fade off? Rhetorical.

Running 10k's and talking in stores as well as blogging, occasionally
http://www.ultramarathonman.com/flash/
(not sure if that takes you directly to schedules or not)

Ya know, without the ultralist, I wouldn't know what he's up to most of
the time. I do have his blog bookmarked, but he doesn't post enough for
me to bother checking. He's rarely mentioned on other ng - and even last
year when he was doing so much, he got far more press from the ul than
any source that I normally read.

Dot

--
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I
have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States

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

Quoted message said:

On a more serious note, Dan felt he was in the top 2-3% and I feel that is
way too much credit and in fact why he go one vote as ultra dude of the
year. I admit in any given race that he can and does finish in the top ten
but when we factor in Scott Jurek's, Karl Meltzer, Jasper Kalekas and even
Niki Kimbal and the band plays on. My point there are dozens of runners
doing more faster but choose a low profile. As for long events, those
that run the length of Appalachian trail such as David Horton or the Peter
Palmer that 40+ miles a day over the 2160 miles are the real deal.

Also 40 AT miles can't be compared to normal miles, not when they're taking
so long to complete compared to road miles -- I think Horton's 4.3 mph is
still the time-on-trail AT speed record (though not the fastest overall
time). Many parts of the AT are just as rough as the escarpment trail, if
not moreso. Still, the one time I heard Horton speak, he said his toughest
run was the run across America, on roads. Pavement really does punish, and
is boring as hell. So while running on rough eastern hiking trails may be
very physically punishing, super-distance road (and I would think track)
ultra running is a torture technique that would make [censored] Cheney smile 😉

-Tony