T March 23, 2006
Time 5:00 Temperature: 61° - 57° Precipitation: None but we had a cloudy overcast sky. do you know what that looks like? The entire sky was a cold gray so the mountains looked all misty, and then we had these darker gray fluffy clouds lower in the sky, almost like rain clouds but no rain.
Distance 4.5 miles
Route:
Home to MP1: Walk
MP 1 to MP 2: 10:26
MP 2 to MP 3: 10:49
MP 3 to MP 3: 10:45
MP 3 to MP 2: 11:22
MP 2 to MP 1.5: 5:45
Total time: 49 minutes.
Thoughts: almost none. My iPod went from China to Alaska yesterday. Andrea is having it tracked:
11:18 AM Left origin SHENZHEN CN
11:17 AM Arrived at FedEx location ANCHORAGE, AK
I only include this because it makes my prediction of running an instantaneous race more possible. my iPod already knows how to go back in time. Alas, it traveled from Alaska to Indianapolis.
Here is the info for the race I was talking about:
RHODY RUN 12K
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Ft Worden State Park, Port Townsend, WA
www.rhodyrun.com
I did spend some time on my run today thinking that I can't believe that I am actually doing the running. I could just be sitting on my butt drinking beer and making stuff up about the run. I started to think about what would be different if it was fiction. First, I would run more. It is much easier to get up the energy to pretend to run and blog about it than it is to actually run. Second, my times would be much more regular. I would invent a more consistent pace, and it would be right around 10 minutes per mile because it is easier to calculate miles and total. However, now that I have this body of actual data, I am much more fully prepared to make stuff up if future need arises.
posted by Tam at 6:22 PM
1 Comments:
I am responding to this posting because when I tried to respond to your most recent one, Safari couldn't find it. So...I hav perused your times and mileage and would like to propose that you do a mileage based program for at least one of your runs a week.
In looking at your times for your runs I have noticed this: You normally run your first mile the fastest, sometimes you run the last mile almost that fast, but invariably, your middle miles are generally your slowest. In order to the get the most bang fro your buck, I propose this. At your next four-mile run, I want you to run your first mile the slowest, and then each subsequent mile slightly faster. In order to do this, you might need to HOLD BACK on your first mile (I know you're going to have some smart-ass comment about holding back when you're running 11-minute miles, but bear with me).
There are a host of reasons why "negative splits" as they call them are a good thing. One, they normally result in the fastest possible net time (maybe you don't care but it's a reason). Second, they make sense given the bodies phsyiological response to exercise. Simply put, your body is ready to run faster once it's warmed up. This will also help you to focus on your effort which is very important in completing the race. It teaches you not to go out too fast (again, the sarcastic remark) and will put you in touch with your pace.
So, that is your homework. Please report your mile split times next time you do your run and tell me how it goes. It will mean that you might have to start out slightly slower but I'll be interested to hear what happens AND...what your net time is compared to previous runs.
By for now...
2:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home