running for the ages

Doug Freese said:

And counts his walking miles in a separate non running
column even if it's a 45 degree incline.

Oh, oh. I hope you're being facetious about this, since
that's the way I record mine. I thought most people recorded
their workout durations this way.

Hiking up a 30% slope (or 45 degree slope, in your example)
*is* different from running up said slope. But those hikes
are hard workouts if you push the hike, as you know. I do
look at aggregate volume - sliced and diced any way I want
depending on what I want the numbers for
- aerobic fitness, leg pounding, weight bearing, injury
warning, race prep, etc.

Dot

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

TenKMan said:

Sometimes I get the feeling Matt Mahoney and Indy used
to bug you

this is why I was so careful about explaining Matt's
cross-training. I *know* Doug's still current feelings
on that issue 😉

Dot

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

TenKMan said:

Sometimes I get the feeling Matt Mahoney and Indy used to
bug you and Jenn i fer gave you the hots though I could be
way off base.

I found Matt too slick with his misleading "I run ultras on
15 miles a week" and Indy was just plain scary if not weird.
Both dangerous if taken at face value - in the same vein as
Macelfraud.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Dot said:

Doug Freese said:

And counts his walking miles in a separate non running
column even if it's a 45 degree incline.

Oh, oh. I hope you're being facetious about this, since
that's the way I record mine. I thought most people
recorded their workout durations this way.

Not facetious at all. If he went out and did a 30 mile
training "run" and power hiked 20 with his pulse at 190
and ran 10 he would write 10 into is run column and 20
into his walk column. That's fine, I don't care if further
breaks down his log to how many times each foot touches
the ground and whether the heel or toe hits first and if
he was sockless.

What boiled my barnacles was when a new person would ask how
how many miles per week is necessary to run a ultra(an
almost unanswerable question in general) and he would simply
say I do it on 15 miles a week and list his races. Not until
backed into a corner would he confess to his cross training
and deceptive accounting. He is better about it on the ultra
list since he gets spanked quickly when he tries it. All he
needs to do is bottle his newbie knee jerk complete answer,
rather then always forcing the details in a second post.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

In article said:

Doug Freese said:

And counts his walking miles in a separate non running
column even if it's a 45 degree incline.

Oh, oh. I hope you're being facetious about this, since
that's the way I record mine. I thought most people
recorded their workout durations this way.

Hiking up a 30% slope (or 45 degree slope, in your
example) *is* different from running up said slope. But
those hikes are hard workouts if you push the hike, as you
know. I do look at aggregate volume - sliced and diced any
way I want depending on what I want the numbers for
- aerobic fitness, leg pounding, weight bearing, injury
warning, race prep, etc.

Now I see what you were getting at in that other post --
depending on training (for example if training involves
climbing steep inclines) milage might not even be a very
good way to measure training volume. I tend to get them
confused because for me (and most short distance runners),
they're much the same thing.

If ones training consists of running over "flat" (e.g.
less than 10% grade) terrain, on good surfaces, in
"normal" weather, then it is a pretty good metric. If and
only if, it seems.

But I think it's extremely misleading for someone who does
several hours of specific training each week to say that
they're only "doing 15mpw"

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Doug Freese said:

What boiled my barnacles was when a new person would ask
how how many miles per week is necessary to run a ultra(an
almost unanswerable question in general) and he would
simply say I do it on 15 miles a week and list his races.
Not until backed into a corner would he confess to his
cross training and deceptive accounting.

ok. got it.

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

In article said:

Dotend

Quoted message said:

to have that much for an 8-mi race 😉. Heck some people
run 100s on 20 mpw (+ lots of cross-training). One of the
top Anchorage mountain runners does about 300-400 miles /
year and races 14 mile /9k ft mountain runs - but his
training involves about 300,000 ft elevation gain / year.
It's all in your goals and doing the appropriate training
- which will probably vary by individual - and miles run
may not the critical element.

Dot

there is a guy that used to post on this list that
routinely runs 100 milers such as hardrock and leadville
on 15 mile per week running. the catch is, he cross trains
tons of miles on a bike, lifts weights, does virtually all
of his weekly milage at a fast pace, and runs at least one
ultra per month.

Running an ultra a month would amount to average of 12mpw or
so, hence I don't see how he could really only be doing
15mpw, he probably would be doing at least 27. But he
already blew his credibility on accounting in misreporting
milage, so I wouldn't trust that number either.

As for cross training:
(1) Weight training is orthogonal to endurance training
volume. You can't substitute one for the other.
(2) With aerobic cross training, it's less clear. Some of
the benefits can be obtained from cross training,
some can't.
(3) Doing all your weekly milage at a fast pace might work
for *some* gifted runners, it's a terrible idea for
nearly everyone else.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Now I see what you were getting at in that other post --
depending on training (for example if training involves
climbing steep inclines) milage might not even be a very
good way to measure training volume. I tend to get them
confused because for me (and most short distance runners),
they're much the same thing.

Right. Trail runners usually use time (duration). I'm not
even sure hours is a good metric, but it certainly works
better than distance. For instance, 30 min on dry, dirt
trail is not the same as 30 min on somewhat frozen field
with 6-8 inches of wet grass resisting every foot step.

In my case, I log workouts by exercise subtype (e.g. run
"type" has "subtypes" of easy, lsd, steady, hill, run/walk)
(walk/run with more walking than running gets put with
walking), duration, and effort level as indicated by avg hr.
With some of my more recent ones, in my comments field, I've
been including the breakdown by time in easy running zone or
harder; aerobic speed zone (below LT) or harder. I haven't
created fields in database for it yet. I need to do some
other mods in my database to accomodate some of the more
diversified trail activities I do now. My db fields
definitely show their origin in simple road running and need
a little more information. But I don't want to get hung up
too much detail and haven't decided on a compromise yet
other than notations.

FWIW, I started using the traditional books by Benson (guide
book came with hrm), Galloway, Daniels, Glover, etc.
Glover's beginning one was the only one that made sense, and
I suddenly realized he was the only one with a cover picture
of someone running in snow. Actually, the others made sense,
it was just difficult to apply them in snow and ice.

What I use for training now are things like Running Research
News, Peak Performance, Sports Injury Bulletin. While I'm no
where near the level that these pubs are intended for, they
emphasize the physiology and training effects based on
duration and effort (relative to lactate threshold or
similar parameter usually). I can also use primary
literature since that's the way a lot of the research is
done - relative to LT or vVO2max or something. This type
approach I can apply to running, snowshoeing, skiing, mt
biking, etc in any kind of weather or trail conditions in a
meaningful way. Not all workouts come out as planned because
of snow or trail conditions or 50-mph winds or whatever, but
I can log them appropriately. If an easy run becomes hard
because of 50mph winds or whatever, I just switch it with
the next run.

Quoted message said:

If ones training consists of running over "flat" (e.g.
less than 10% grade) terrain, on good surfaces, in
"normal" weather, then it is a pretty good metric. If and
only if, it seems.

I'll have to take your word for it 😉 I only did substantial
(for me) road running before I started structured running
and that first spring and following winter after I started
logging things. I did a little early this winter when we had
snow on the roads, but my feet do not seem to like the
repetitiveness of normal road running. Sooo, I guess I'm
condemned to trails for life.

Quoted message said:

But I think it's extremely misleading for someone who does
several hours of specific training each week to say that
they're only "doing 15mpw"

But that's why we keep hounding that miles are not a good
measure overall. I don't know if the Anchorage mtn runner
cross-trains at all, but the important metric there is the
300,000 ft elevation up - not the 300+ miles/ year (not sure
how much in winter, which is likely flatter)

In the interest of full disclosure, I guess I should confess
that my response to Rick++ about speedwork and fartlekking
in meadow in a thread last week was based on my knowledge
that Rick's in Colorado, so I assumed he was talking about
subalpine or alpine meadow - at 9000ft or above, although
closer to 11- or 12,000 ft were the ones I had in mind (my
master's study area was at 10,500ft in RMNP and the ridge
was above that). Hence, being aerobically capable of doing
speedwork at those altitudes would be a "thrill" for me - in
the same sense as some people here striving for sub-20 5k.
It would be a tough workout. My workout the day of the post
happened to be running back and forth (tried to maintain
constant effort) in a hay field (imitation meadow) with
about 6+ inches of wet grass and some patches of slush -
slow, but about 5-10 bpm below
VT/LT - but very satisfying feeling afterward. I just felt
that "amen" was a simpler response than all that. See
what happens when I make the posts short 🙂

I will have to admit though that some of my posts may sound
like I'm having entirely too much fun (I am 😉, I do have a
perverted sense of fun by most people's standards.
Struggling up muddy slopes on my mtn bike *is* tough (well
above LT), but it's also a blast. Beginning to understand
the training benefits of different types of workouts (RRN,
PP, ultra books) has allowed me to structure workouts that
maximize benefits toward *my* long-term goals (running
through the woods or above treeline for multiple hours) and
shorter-term races (*not* things like the Berlin Marathon
😉. There's other more traditional workouts I could do, but
I don't think the benefits are there for *my* goals. I
respect people who like to pound tracks or treadmills or
roads, but there's too many other types of training that
will be more physically and physiologically challenging for
me and my long-term goals.

Dot

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

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

Quoted message said:

TenKMan said:

Sometimes I get the feeling Matt Mahoney and Indy used
to bug you and Jenn i fer gave you the hots though I
could be way off base.

I found Matt too slick with his misleading "I run ultras
on 15 miles a week" and Indy was just plain scary if not
weird. Both dangerous if taken at face value - in the same
vein as Macelfraud.

At least indyrunnr was the real deal. I enjoyed his run
'till you puke philosophy. However, macelboy is
trolling. He says he's 55, but his writing style is more
like high school.

tkb

Donovan Rebbechi said:

(2) With aerobic cross training, it's less clear. Some of
the benefits can be obtained from cross training, some
can't.

This is why it's important to log exactly what the workout
is and understand the physiology and biomechanics, etc of
different workouts. See my long post in other thread
(running for the ages) for explanation of how I deal with it
- at least in generic sense. As far as aerobic conditioning
is concerned, it's still using the same heart and blood
system as running, but the effects on mitochondria and other
muscle-specific development might be different. At least
that's my interpretation. Neuromuscular development probably
differs more the farther you get from running- or race-
related (hiking steep incines is more energy efficient than
running them) movements.

Quoted message said:

(3) Doing all your weekly milage at a fast pace might work
for *some* gifted runners, it's a terrible idea for
nearly everyone else.

I don't think the guy is doing fast runs.

Dot

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

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

Quoted message said:

Dot said:

Doug Freese said:

And counts his walking miles in a separate non running
column even if it's a 45 degree incline.

Oh, oh. I hope you're being facetious about this, since
that's the way I record mine. I thought most people
recorded their workout durations this way.

Not facetious at all. If he went out and did a 30 mile
training "run" and power hiked 20 with his pulse at 190
and ran 10 he would write 10 into is run column and 20
into his walk column. That's fine, I don't care if further
breaks down his log to how many times each foot touches
the ground and whether the heel or toe hits first and if
he was sockless.

What boiled my barnacles was when a new person would ask
how how many miles per week is necessary to run a ultra(an
almost unanswerable question in general) and he would
simply say I do it on 15 miles a week and list his races.
Not until backed into a corner would he confess to his
cross training and deceptive accounting. He is better
about it on the ultra list since he gets spanked quickly
when he tries it. All he needs to do is bottle his newbie
knee jerk complete answer, rather then always forcing the
details in a second post.

i agree, it does come off sometimes as a macho thing. the
thing though is he always includes his website address,
and one look at his site will tell you that the guy is
pretty hardcore, basically using his "15 mi/w" base as a
recovery period in between events like barkley and
hardrock, 100 milers in which one would probably keep the
training benefits for weeks at a time. speaking of which,
barkley is this weekend, i always love the "race" reports
from there. ever thought of attempting it, doug??

crafty counterpuncher said:

i agree, it does come off sometimes as a macho thing.

I'm note sure if macho or merely seeing some attention.

Quoted message said:

speaking of which, barkley is this weekend, i always love
the "race" reports from there. ever thought of attempting
it, doug??

I love hill trainin in general but I don't find those far
out events like Barkley, Badwater or Sri Shinmoy 3,100 mile
race my cup of tea but highly respect those that try it.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

tenkbabe said:

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

Quoted message said:

TenKMan said:

Sometimes I get the feeling Matt Mahoney and Indy used to
bug you and Jenn i fer gave you the hots though I could
be way off base.

I found Matt too slick with his misleading "I run ultras
on 15 miles a week" and Indy was just plain scary if not
weird. Both dangerous if taken at face value - in the same
vein as Macelfraud.

At least indyrunnr was the real deal. I enjoyed his run
'till you puke philosophy. However, macelboy is
trolling. He says he's 55, but his writing style is more
like high school.

tkb

And he cannot even keep his story straight. In one
post he claimed to be single, then another he's
listing wife and kids.

Indy was, if nothing else, fairly consistent in his beliefs.
Mac-L-boy is only a troll.

--
Ed Prochak running faqs.orgrunning faqOpen ↗
netiquette psg.comemily.htmlOpen ↗
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost

Quoted message said:

🙂 I think he and Cave Dog (the example for Barkley) take the concept
of weekly mileage being a useless metric to an extreme.

Dot

there was a great profile on cave dog in ultrarunning
magazine a few months back that talked about his training. i
recall he said he basically takes off large chunks of the
year completely from running, then jumps back in with 4 hour
runs up and down stadium steps with some insane elevation
gains. this is followed with some pretty serious run/hikes,
12 hours or so. i remember him also talking about the
importance of training on terrain you plan to race. we're
talking about a man here who has to be one of the world's
best speed climbers, he has some serious genetic gifts. he
absoultely destroyed the barkley course last year, and in
some incredibly difficult conditions. so far as i know, he
also still has the speed record for the 54 colorado 14'ers.

crafty counterpuncher said:

Quoted message said:

🙂 I think he and Cave Dog (the example for Barkley) take
:the concept
of weekly mileage being a useless metric to an extreme.

Dot

there was a great profile on cave dog in ultrarunning
magazine a few months back that talked about his training.
i recall he said he basically takes off large chunks of
the year completely from running,

Like Doug says, it's in the recovery 🙂

Quoted message said:

then jumps back in with 4 hour runs up and down stadium
steps with some insane elevation gains. this is followed
with some pretty serious run/hikes, 12 hours or so.

Hmmm, if I knew UR had those kinds of articles, I might have
to reconsider and subscribe. I think TrailRunner did a
little piece on him also - but not that kind of information
🙁 They did have an article on Barkley with some interesting
background information. TrailRunner has a lot of good info
(except their gear guide issues aren't worth much) including
ultras, but many of the training articles read like
abstracts compared to RRN, PP, and the like. But it's got
some awesome pictures to drool over 😉

When I was first deciding what magazines to subscribe to, I
had seen some back issues of UR in running store, and they
looked like they were mostly race results - just like one
can get on the internet now - and didn't have many articles.
I've since seen some comments about a couple good articles
(but only a couple) in there where I wished I had
subscribed. I'm not sure if they're getting more
informational and training type articles in there or whether
I just didn't see them before.

Quoted message said:

i remember him also talking about the importance of
training on terrain you plan to race.

That was one of the big things I remember from last year's
reports. He showed up a couple weeks early and ran the trail
in both directions - a piece at a time. He definitely did
his homework.

we're talking

Quoted message said:

about a man here who has to be one of the world's best
speed climbers, he has some serious genetic gifts. he
absoultely destroyed the barkley course last year, and in
some incredibly difficult conditions.

I remember reading the race (er, spectator) reports last
year. It sounded like people just watched, almost awestruck
to watch the performance unfolding before their eyes (ok,
I'm an impressionable kid and maybe it wasn't quite that
dramatic, esp. since most people were probably at the start
line). From early in the race, it just looked like he would
most likely finish.

Quoted message said:

so far as i know, he also still has the speed record for
the 54 colorado 14'ers.

wow. I know he's got one of the Adirondack records, and
some of those peaks are hell to get up - at least they
were 30 yrs ago with blowdown from hurricane a couple
decades before.

Thanks for the tip.

For anyone that's followed this subthread this far and is
wondering what the heck we're talking about, here's a couple
links to a Barkley description as well as Cave Dog's web
page. If you click on the Hardrock button on Matt's page,
that will take you to some pictures of that race. There's a
lot of others out there also, but I think these show some of
the terrain fairly well. Hopefully, when you see some of the
terrain from these 2 races, you will get a better perception
of why we go by duration rather than distance or pace.

mattmahoney.netindex.htmlOpen ↗
thedogteam.comthedogteam.comOpen ↗

Dot

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

Dot <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message news:<T4qbc.24416$He5.462762@bgtnsc04-news>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then jumps back in with 4 hour runs up and down stadium
steps with some insane elevation gains. this is followed
with some pretty serious run/hikes, 12 hours or so.

Hmmm, if I knew UR had those kinds of articles, I might
have to reconsider and subscribe. I think TrailRunner did
a little piece on him also - but not that kind of
information 🙁 They did have an article on Barkley with
some interesting background information. TrailRunner has a
lot of good info (except their gear guide issues aren't
worth much) including ultras, but many of the training
articles read like abstracts compared to RRN, PP, and the
like. But it's got some awesome pictures to drool over 😉

When I was first deciding what magazines to subscribe to,
I had seen some back issues of UR in running store, and
they looked like they were mostly race results - just like
one can get on the internet now - and didn't have many
articles. I've since seen some comments about a couple
good articles (but only a couple) in there where I wished
I had subscribed. I'm not sure if they're getting more
informational and training type articles in there or
whether I just didn't see them before.

wow, you're really missing out! in my opinion "u.r."
blows "trail runner" out of the water. there is a monthly
training article that is almost always informative,
runner profiles, a "how the middle of the pack trains"
monthly feature, medical/injury column, historical
features several times a year, race results and reports
(only about 5-10% of which are duplicated from the ultra
list), and more misc. stuff. the net is great, but
there's so much in the mag that you can't get from the
ultra list or websites. i used to subscribe to "marathon
and beyond" which was also good, but i've since let it
lapse, something i will absolutely NOT do to "u.r."

crafty counterpuncher said:

wow, you're really missing out! in my opinion "u.r."
blows "trail runner" out of the water. there is a
monthly training article that is almost always
informative, runner profiles, a "how the middle of the
pack trains" monthly feature, medical/injury column,
historical features several times a year, race results
and reports (only about 5-10% of which are duplicated
from the ultra list), and more misc. stuff.

Thanks. I'll probably subscribe soon although the current
issue looks very thin on training articles. I'm just trying
to judge how much is in there (recognizing that quality is
more important than quantity, but it's difficult to condense
some stuff into 1 paragraph). For instance, is the
Experiment of One 7 pages (4-11) or is it just a column,
which is the way I had interpreted things before. It looks
like at least some issues have a lot more training articles
in them. The issues I saw were older (maybe 5+), and the
thought just hit me is that maybe the store had left the
issues with less information on the bookshelf.

I do find that TrailRunner gives me a glimpse of the full
world of trail running - cross-country, mountain, snowshoe,
etc, that probably aren't in UR. So from a beginning runner
in Alaska perspective, it's made me aware of a lot of things
that I don't get anywhere else includingonline, so I think
it's filling a very useful niche for me. But something
somewhere between TR (with training columns that resemble
abstracts for RRN) and RRN or PP would be nice. Sounds like
UR may fill that niche. Thanks for your comments.

Dot finished reading first Barkley report 🙂

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

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

Quoted message said:

crafty counterpuncher said:

wow, you're really missing out! in my opinion "u.r."
blows "trail runner" out of the water. there is a
monthly training article that is almost always
informative, runner profiles, a "how the middle of
the pack trains" monthly feature, medical/injury
column, historical features several times a year,
race results and reports (only about 5-10% of which
are duplicated from the ultra list), and more misc.
stuff.

Thanks. I'll probably subscribe soon although the current
issue looks very thin on training articles. I'm just
trying to judge how much is in there (recognizing that
quality is more important than quantity, but it's
difficult to condense some stuff into 1 paragraph). For
instance, is the Experiment of One 7 pages (4-11) or is it
just a column, which is the way I had interpreted things
before. It looks like at least some issues have a lot more
training articles in them. The issues I saw were older
(maybe 5+), and the thought just hit me is that maybe the
store had left the issues with less information on the
bookshelf.

I do find that TrailRunner gives me a glimpse of the full
world of trail running - cross-country, mountain,
snowshoe, etc, that probably aren't in UR. So from a
beginning runner in Alaska perspective, it's made me aware
of a lot of things that I don't get anywhere else
includingonline, so I think it's filling a very useful
niche for me. But something somewhere between TR (with
training columns that resemble abstracts for RRN) and RRN
or PP would be nice. Sounds like UR may fill that niche.
Thanks for your comments.

Dot finished reading first Barkley report 🙂

just got my april issue of "u.r." excellent article on race
planning for a 100 miler by shawn mcdonald, great a regular
columns, a nice race report on the susitna (since you're in
alaska), and 16 page special section on ultrarunning in the
u.k., which is really quite interesting. my latest "t.r." is
chock full of a bunch of [censored] disguised as a "gear issue"
that i would probably never buy, and not ONE good article on
anything substantive. i rest my case! if you're looking for
longer, more technically slanted articles, rrn might not be
bad, i've never read it, but i would also recomment
"marathon and beyond," a bimontlhy journal that has some
pretty detailed stuff and excellent writing. i really
enjoyed it but let my sub lag recently due to too much
reading material and not enough time, you have to run
SOMETIME...

crafty counterpuncher said:

just got my april issue of "u.r." excellent article on
race planning for a 100 miler by shawn mcdonald, great a
regular columns, a nice race report on the susitna (since
you're in alaska),

Yep, watched the beginnings of both the Susitna 100 and
Little Su 50k - poked around looking at gear. That's
actually the closest ultra to me - about 45 min drive, but
my winter travel/survival skills aren't that great or I'd
try the 50k.

Sounds like maybe I should give UR a try for a year.

Quoted message said:

my latest "t.r." is chock full of a bunch of [censored]
disguised as a "gear issue" that i would probably never
buy, and not ONE good article on anything substantive.

Yep, their "gear issues" leave a lot to be desired, although
I did get some tips about max weight that an empty pack
should be, but the whole issue is so sketchy I'm not sure I
believe their comments. Their monthly reviews are at least a
little bit useful. The gear issue I think is considered a
supplementary issue and never has articles in it. The issue
has gotten really bad comments on the RW trail/ultra forum
where the common bond is probably trail running and TR as a
publication. Almost no one subscribes to RW there since
there's so little relevant information in it.

Quoted message said:

if you're looking for longer, more technically slanted
articles, rrn might not be bad, i've never read it,

I've had RRN for almost 2 years and PP and SIB (Sports
Injury Bulletin) for a little over a year. SIB is pricey
(but cheaper than doctor's visit) and will probably be
dropped, but for the time being it's providing some good
info. All are excellent, with some issues being better or
less informative than others. Most of them aren't bed-time
reading material, however. SIB, particularly, has been good
for me to get some muscle stuff straightened out. I've also
found because of my slightly different training conditions
up here compared with what most text books expect, I've had
to understand the basic principles a little more and then
apply them. That's why I've liked the technical articles -
my key to freedom of the trails 🙂 They're also thin
newsletters without advertising so they're easy to file (23+
years of professional journals are pushing me out of house).

...

Quoted message said:

due to too much reading material and not enough time, you
have to run SOMETIME...

Yep, and this is my dilemma at the moment 🙂, esp. since I
have a book on ultrarunning (A Step Beyond) put out by same
publishers that I'm only a fraction of the way through.

Thanks for your comments.

Dot

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

Dot said:

crafty counterpuncher wrote:

Yo crafty counterpuncher, we seem to play in the same long
distance world, You have a real name that you like to admit
to publicly or privately. Do you also subscribe to the
ultra forum?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just got my april issue of "u.r." excellent article on
race planning for a 100 miler by shawn mcdonald, great a
regular columns, a nice race report on the susitna (since
you're in alaska),

Sean used to live on the right coast and moved to the left.
I think we used to run some races together but never knew
him until he moved out west and had an interest in one of my
relatives out there. 😉 Anywho, if you like Sean's stuff
check out movinshoes.comshawn.htmlOpen ↗ It's
good stuff.

Quoted message said:

Sounds like maybe I should give UR a try for a year.

I would. UR coves gear also and quite well. I never took a
subscription to TR and the few that I did read, including
the one on massage that I was interviewed and quoted, I
found too superficial almost like Runner's world. I have not
looked in over a year so maybe it has moved from the 098 to
the 099 level. 😉

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]