Got Your Mojo WORKIN'! group - CLOSED (Page 165)

GEORGE -

When you say your arch, try to be specific. That is, is what you're feeeling more at the inside of the arch, or in the middle, or even on the outside. And if it's the inside, is it close to where your heel is, and maybe even seeming to be at the front edge of the heel?

I have thoughts for the inside and the outside....and maybe the middle, too. Let me know, okay?

It sounds from what you were told that you perhaps overpronate. Do you know if you have flatt feet, or a low arch? Also -- what model of Brooks do you run in? Let me know that, too!

JEFF -

For some reason, the 70.3 scores have been coming in later than others this season. Timberman, from Aug 22 or so, was just added a couple of weeks ago.

It is all working much better this year than any previous year, and I think USAT is putting pressure on RDs to submit their results within 2-3 weeks. I think all six of mine so far have been posted within three weeks, and most around two weeks.

Your ranking should be up, though; I will see if I can ferret it out later. (Are you a card-carrying USAT member?)

JOHANNE -

The way I read those numbers, you are NOT going backwards.

--Is the 57.98 from last year the gender-graded number?
--As for where you are in the pack, 1620/2441 is a better percentage than 843/970, yes?
--By the time it all shakes down and the women with less than 3 races are removed from the rankings, it might end up with, say, about 1220 total. If your current percent placement remains about the same, that would put you at about 810. So --
--Last year it was 843/970, this year maybe 810/1220. Big % jump!!

Makes sense, or am I misreading your numbers?

JOHANNE -

If you found only one number for last year, it is probably the gender-graded one. I will try to check a couple of other people I know and see what it is for them.

Right up until things are finalized in March or so, all USAT members will be included in the rankings. Then, one day, it will all be so much shorter, as everyone who raced just once or twice are bumped. Poof!

Right now, for M60-64, there are 1365 guys listed. I think at its peak last year it was something like 1150 -- and ended up at 640! (It may not have been as high as 1150).

For me, right now, I am at 65, and All-American with three other A-A guys right below me. BUT, as A-A is based on the top 5% of the age group, that will change radically once a few hundred guys get bumped. I still have Bassman to be tabulated, but let's say that changes nothing. Then I will climb no higher in points.....but well might in rankings position becasue there are about 20 guys still above who have less than three races. Realistically, though, I expect to end no higher than 50th, and that would require 1000 total in order to be in that top 5%........and I think more than 365 guys will be eliminated for not having enough races. So, once again, I will be A-A Honorable Mention, which is for the next 5% -- those between top 5 and 10 percent. That's good and all, but I keep aiming for straight A-A!!

Last year I was 37th, with the last A-A guy at 32nd. My score was 78.42225, and his was 78.9053. I used to think that was excruciatingly close, like maybe just an extra fews seconds walking through an aid station, but am coming around to thinking that it's more than that. I'm still ruminating on this, but to jump up 0.5, as I would've needed to, might require a 2-3 minute "improvement" in one of those ranking races (that is, the three best of one's season).

And with that final comment, remember that your final ranking is based ONLY on your best three races of the season. If Soma ends up being in your three best, it will change your curent points; if not, they will still the same. (That said, between now and March numbers wil continue to be crunched and adjusted and muddled around.)

Uh, do you think I like this stuff?

JEFF -

That's odd, and I can't explain it. I found your scores for the five races (K.C. and Cowtown are among your races, yes?), and your overall score ( now at .69816 instead of .688), but no listing for you where it should be amongst the 60+ pages for 45-49.

As a check, I did the same sequence for me, and it all works -- my scores on the me-only page come up with the same average as is on the "master" pages for M60-64. I think it's worth writing an email to USAT and ask why you aren't included in the full list.

FWIW, I also saw that my doppleganger is still active. This is a guy from VA who is also Steve Bradley, and who is now 59; next year we weill be in the same a.g. again! I have never met him, although we have orbited closely a few times. (And I see that he did just sprints this year, which is a small change for him. I suspect that an injury has changed his training and raceability.)

And then there are two newer "impostors" -- two Steven Bradley types, one 33 and the other 20. But until they drop the "n" from Steven, they aren't part of the true namesake lineage! (Actually, I am a Stephen -- also FWIW, which is very, very, very little!)








Edited by stevebradley 2011-10-20 10:23 AM

email sent

A quick reply from USAT-I am 532 of 2652 AG with 5 of 6 races listed

JEFF -

Jeez, I feel like I'm in some time/place warp. First, i couldn't find you in the big a.g. list, and now the number USAT sent doesn't make sense, as I saw 7332 in your a.g. So, I'm obviously being dense about something or other, and I suppose if I just sit down, clear my mind entirely, and start from scratch, it'll all make sense......eventually?

Good for USAT in responding to you so quickly, anyhow. I had a ratings kerfuffle last season, and not only did I receive an email within an hour or two, but within a few hours of that it had been all straightened away in the rankings. And I think as i said earlier, to Johanne maybe it was, they really seem to be on top of the rankings this year. Halleloo!

I was impressed by the speedy reply. Anyway, I'm not sure how to feel about the ranking, I guess it is good, really just "interesting" to me.

Come to think of it, being in the top 20% doesn't seem likely to me. Oh well, just a curiosity to me

Hey Steve, Im running in Brooks Adrenaline GTS 11.  The paid is kinda on the arch part and not the bottom of the foot.  Im not flat footed.  See the attachment below on where the pain is. The red part is the pain.  Well the attachment was to large. Sorry. Since the arch is on the inside middle of the foot then that is where the pain is.

 

Hope this helps

Edited by gdsemiller 2011-10-20 5:03 PM

No 6mm mile for me. I ran a 7mm back when I was 21, but now its 10-18mm depending on what the body is doing.

***** Johanne - Good luck on Sunday at your HIM. Have fun and make sure you give us a post once you recover.

Edited by gdsemiller 2011-10-21 5:31 PM

GEORGE -

The Adrenaline is designed to keep your feet from rolling inwards too much (over-pronation), so that is a good shoe for what the fitters saw when you tried on shoes.

As for the pain areas, here's what I was getting at:
--if on the outside of the foot, but adjacent to the arch, it could be a subluxed cuboid bone (this can be uncomfortable, but not a serious problem)
--if on the inside, and especially if affecting the front edge of the heel, that's a good indicator of plantar fasciitis
--that said, P.F. can affect a fairly large area around the arch, even going back to the middle of the heel

Odd as it might sound, plantar fasciitis can be triggered by tight claves -- as was the scene for me it late '07 and well, well into '08. So.....how are the calves feeling? Any soreness during or after runs?

BIG INDICATOR FOR P.F. --- Is it especially noticeable first thing in the morning, as in upon getting out of bed???


Let me know if any of the above resonates with you, okay?

GEORGE again -

Hey! You deleted a big part of the post I was going to respond to next!

I don't clearly remember all of it, but some things that stuck with me: half-marathon postponed until '12; you're taking the running inside; and....??

As for the inside part, I remember you thinking about pounding, and a treadmill will be better in that regard for you. I remember you mentioning the elliptical, and I have to say I have never tried that, so can't comment.

And as for the half-marathon later rather than sooner.......
You have to know by now that I am a big proponent of people taking their time (relatively speaking) to build up throught he distances rather than jump in and try to knock off the bigger stuff early in their careers. So, whatever you can get under your belt before the mhalf-marathon -- the more, the better!!

However, I can fully understand your disappointment. Not only do I remember how Beginner's Mind needs to be satisfied, but I also have a lonnnnnnggg history of having to delay gratification with this race, that race, and many, many, many races. I maybe haven't faced that a whole lot with climbing the distance ladders, but I have had lots of injury-induced setbacks, the most notable being having to postpone my Boston marathon for an entire year. (ARGGGHHHH!!!!)

For the record:
Biggest dumb mistake was jumping into my first half-marathon AND my first marathon too early (as in my first year of serious running).
Biggest smart move was delaying my first Ironman until (a) my 5th tri season, (b) after I had done 9 half-irons, and (c) I had done 27 triathlons, total.

Hang in there, and remember -- illegitimum non carborundum!!

JEFF -

Whoa! Lots of stuff floating around in the 6mm post! Let me think about it some, and also have time to dig out those articles you cited. I'll be back about that soon.

JEFF again -

The thing that really flummoxed me in the USAT rsponse to you is that I don't know where the 2652 comes from. Even up through 55-59, there are more guys than 2652, so I'm just stuck on what pool your USAT respondent was looking at. I'm STILL thinking about it, but not getting anywhere too far, too fast!

Here is a copy/paste of the email from them, maybe there were 2652 athletes in my age group from Texas?:

Hi Jeff,

 

There are so many in your age group it makes it hard to find. I narrowed the search this way. On the race results sub-tab in the Athlete box I entered your age group 45-49, Male, Texas, and searched. Today there are 27 pages of results and you are on page 15, number 532 of 2652 athletes.

Good luck!

 

JEFF -

Hmmm. That's an interesting idea. I maybe ought to try it for myself, and see what comes up for Ontario. To the best of my knowledge, there are two of us M60-64 from here.

When I went to the entire M45-49 yesterday, it came up with more than 60 pages -- but I don't know how many more than 60 there are. It starts with up to 30...., then clicking on the ellipses got me to up to 60...., but I didn't click to get any further.

I'm still waiting for the coin to drop, at which point it will all become perfectly obvious!



But, but, BUT! It still doesn't explain why you don't appear on the full list. Grmph!










Edited by stevebradley 2011-10-21 8:38 PM

JEFF -

I have just spent quite some time looking over the BT thread and the article by Dan Empfield at Slowtwitch. I won't try to organize my thoughts into hopefully-chesive paragraphs, but rather just chuckem out here based on notes I scribbled and just my own random notions:
-- As for the BT thread, I found the posts by mflournoy and rayd the most helpful and/or realistic. After that, there were good ones from bgraboski, Baowolf, and oldtown.
-- Beyond those, I agree that weight loss should be paramount for the OP. At what he is running now, and at 5'11" and 180, he needs to lose some of that weight to go with whatever gains he can make through deep training.
-- I will have to go back to Empfield's piece and see if what you say is what he siad. I took it to mean that at 48, you can do a 10km in 46 minutes, as I thought his idea was that, beyond 45 years old, a male can add 20 seconds to the 45 minutes for every year beyond 45 they are.
-- If it's a 46' 10k you are realistically capable of, that would by 7:24/mile
-- Empfield's training "guidelines" are exhaustive, and probably accurate -- and therefore are killers!
-- Just his base number of "....:30 to 1:30 per mile faster than you can hold, for, say, a 10k...." is pretty brutal, and dovetails nicely with the point that a couple of BT posters made about mental toughness!!!

Beyond the stuff from BT and ST, I gotta say that you should NOT be at all disappointed by the 6:57 mile you did. That is a fast mile for most people, let alone a 48-year-old. Were you able to hold that for 10km, that would put you right around 42 minutes, which is way more than decent.

As for me and speed work, I have never been able to sustain it like I might've. I'm sure I said this before, but I didn't start running seriously until I was about 49, and by that point I had already gotten to the point where --as Empfiled says -- cartilage can be a limiter. I have had some speed-related problems in my knees, but nowadays speed sessions (such as I do them....) cause problems in my Achilles.

(Computer hiccups, so I'm posting this now and will return once it is safely posted.)








Edited by stevebradley 2011-10-21 9:31 PM

Thank you for the thoughts. I had already built some "speed work" into my week, I just didn't have a specific pace in mind until recently. I will tweak my repeats to match the ST article closer and see how my 1mile repeat comes-holding that pace still seems improbable but a year ago holding a pace in the middle 7's did to, and I can do that for 5 kilometers now. In december more structures bike/swim workouts return, I will respect his assertion that the speed seasons cannot hold for long and back off-adding it back later in the spring perhaps.

JEFF -- onwards!

I now am back to having your post to refer to, which means I don't remember exactly what I just wrote to you in the post above. Ack!

So, what else, what else......

My best stand-alone 10k was 42:16, done when I was late 54, and I followed it on the same course the following year in 42:20. That is about 6:48 or 6:49 miles, and both efforts really hurt. (That's not injury, but just suffer-hurt.) I haven't done a stand-alone 5k in a very long time, but I doubt I could manage it in under 20.

My best marathon was a 3:29, which is 7:58 miles; that was plenty tough. That was when I was 54, a couple of months from 55. Fall '03 was a prety good running period for me!

For you and your 5k/marathon goals, I don't think both are attainable at the same time, or, rather, resulting from the same "block" of training. I know that my experience from running pretty fast 10kms, and a strong marathon, shows big differences in how they feel. As I said, those 42' 10kms hurt to do, whereas that 3:29 marathon was grueling, but not necessarily a sufferfest. What I'm trying to say with that is that how I attack a 10km -- and how I train for it -- requires a lot of to-the-wall effort, while the marathon came from a Big Base and lots of steady, strong mileage. Think apples and oranges!

Just about exactly a year ago I did a half-marathon in 1:37, and that was quite similar to how I felt doing that 3:29 marathon. It was a big, solid concerted effort, but one tnat had me somewhat short of my red-zone, which is where I am at 42' 10kms as stand-alones, or 43'-45' 10kms in oly tris.

Blah, blah, blah!

What I think is that you should keep your focus on the marathon, just because that plan has been with you longer than blistering fast short-course paces. As for aiming for 26.2 miles at an 8-minute pace, that's tough. I had several marathons at around 3:50/3:55, and I have to tell you two things about the one I did in 3:29 -- it was a crisp and cool fall day, and the course was very flat, or at least with a gradual ascent going out, and a gradual descent coming back, which is just about as ideal as conditions could be! At this point I would allow your body to dictate your pace, as opposed to your watch or heart rate monitor.

If you want to play around with fast stand-alone miles and see where you can get to, then do those -- but only a few, just to have something to tuck away in your head for sometime post-marathon when you want to concentrate on speedwork. I say that from the perspective of one who feels that speedwork really only benefits marathoners if they are in a position to employ it on race day. For almost all of us, a marathon is all about steady effort, and past a certain point any bursts of speed carry huge risks. Sure, one can turn it on in the final mile, maybe, but "turn it on" has absolutely nothing to do with running fast miles. Rather, it's more about picking up the pace as much as your battered and depleted body can manage, and just trying to finish looking half-decent for a nice finish-line photo.

In the 3:29 mar and last year's 1:37 half-mar, the most I did was a subtle surge every so often, and that was more just a way to alter my cadence and try to enlist slightly different muscle angles. It doesn't even come close to what I might attempt as speedwork, whcih I guess is why I suffer in fast 10kms and fast 5kms in triathlons, but don't suffer doing those long distances.

I think it was Empfield who said that most serious runners do not do much cross-training, so as you add back in cycling and running, some of the speed gains will be lost. For me, I manage to keep my running speed in pretty good shape, but remember that part of that is that I do NOT do straight speedwork --- so I don't have those really big gains to worry about losing!

My speed comes from lots of tempo efforts, just doing 10km runs at race-pace or slightly faster when an oly is coming up. I am SURE I could do them faster if my body could handle dedicated speedwork, but I am just too afraid of shelf-time if I push the envelope too much. I have some latitude by running faster than most guys in my a.g. as it is, and so I don't feel too much of a need to go beyond my perceived safety zone. (And I would probably still be conservative if I had less speed.)

For you, in your a.g., there are some guys who do 10km in sud-40 ---- but keep in mind that they are rarities, and almost certainly ones who are genetically-gifted. Remember Empfield's numbers, and that would carry the expectation that sub-40 10kms past 45 are far and away the exception rather than the rule.

I digressed there a bit from the idea that once swim and bike are added back in, some of the run chops will be lost. Of course, that is one of the sweet little aspects of triathlon, wherein one works over time to strike a balance between the three disciplines that allows for less loss of skill/ability/speed as training in all three areas increases. Much of that will improve with experience, but also years of Base help, too.

So, FINALLY, I say to focus on the marathon(s?) for now, and letting your body determine your pace, as opposed to shooting for, say, eight-minute miles. It may turn out that that is what you can do, but you likely won't know that until you get to your 3rd or 4th training run beyond 20 miles. I mean, I managed to do that H-M last year in 1:37, but not in my wildest dreams could I simply double that and produce a 3:14 marathon. That is, holding that H-M pace was one thing, whereas doing it for the "next" 13.1 miles would be something 287% different - and entirely unattainable. So, if you could manage 15 miles at amn 8-minute pace, it doesn't hold that you can automatically sustain that pace for the next 11.2 miles at White Rock. But if you can do it for a 22-mile training run...........

Off to bed with me!