Archive for February, 2009

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

Running is funny. What is the one bit of advice I hear over and over again about long runs?

Don’t go out too fast.

What is the one thing I tell myself over and over again after I’ve made that mistake?

Don’t go out too fast.

What did I tell myself right before I started my 12-mile group long run this morning?

Don’t go out too fast.

So what did I do?

I WENT OUT TOO %&#$@* FAST!

I was fat, dumb and happy approaching the first mile marker. You would think the fact that I was way ahead of the pack would have clued me in. Duh. Checked my watch – 8:09.

EIGHT-OH-NINE! Jeez, only about 45 seconds faster than I should have run it.

Well, you know the rest. My splits increased at roughly the same rate as the national debt. I negotiated the nasty hills well enough, and I still had a respectable 50:20 at mile 6, when I picked up a side stitch. Then the walls came tumbling down. I finished with average splits of 8:50, which don’t really indicate how awful I felt.

I’ve even got extra evidence that I shouldn’t go out too fast. My half-marathon PR came in a race where my first mile was 8:46 and my last mile was 7:18.

Well, the great thing about running is there’s always tomorrow. Tomorrow I’ve got an 8-miler to do and only one thing to remember.

Don’t go out too fast.

Biggest Loser Contestant Pulls a Rosie Ruiz

It isn’t often you get both the reality-TV and running worlds angered about the same thing, but the scandal involves Dane Patterson, who was voted off this week’s episode of The Biggest Loser. Each episode ends with an update of how the eliminated contestant has fared since leaving the show. Patterson, who set a show record by losing 100 pounds in eight weeks, was shown completing the Arizona Desert Classic marathon with his wife on January 31. A caption read that Patterson ran the marathon in 3:53.

I watched the show and thought it was strange, because the televised footage didn’t seem to show them traveling at a sub-9 minute mile pace. It certainly seemed to be an amazing feat, considering Patterson was still in the 300 lb. range.

As it turned out, it was too good to be true. Race participants revealed on various web sites and blogs that the Pattersons actually completed the marathon in 5:53, but only after being driven in an NBC van over an extended stretch of the course so that they could cross the finish line under six hours. Race directors were notified the same day and the Pattersons were disqualified. None of this was mentioned on the NBC broadcast.

NBC issued a statement, and is conducting an investigation. Meanwhile, the press is starting to run with the story, and the NBC Biggest Loser message board already has a couple hundred comments under the heading, “The Great Marathon Debacle.”

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times weighs in with the latest version of what happened.

A “Button” Who Can Run You Down

Track and Field Videos on Flotrack

Yesterday’s New York Times has a story by Gina Kolata about how far women’s running has come in just the last few decades, overcoming a patronizing attitude of male runners.

It’s a timely article, because the same day it appeared, Runner’s World Daily showed us that we still have some work to do when it comes to patronizing female runners.

RW Daily highlighted the story of Gabrielle Jennings, who at the age of 10, won the 3,200 meter race at the Louisiana State High School Indoor Championships with a time of 11:58.9.

The Runner’s World headline? “10-Year-Old Is Cutest Champ Ever“. We’re also told she “that not only has a fantastic attitude, but is also cute as a button.” Acompanying the blog post is a four-minute interview with Jennings conducted by a complete amateur.

I agree that Jennings is cute, and her attitude is commendable, but her accomplishment would be just as amazing if she were plain and grouchy. I’ve posted the Flotrack video of her race so you can see her in action. The first half is hardly riveting, but you should pay attention because Jennings is a distant fifth until she starts to make her move about 4:30 into the race. By the 6 minute mark, she’s in second, and still well behind the leader, but you can tell from her superior form it’s only a matter of time before she makes up the ground.

She takes the lead with three laps to go (about 9:45 on the video), and with a lap to go the PA announcer informs the crowd that she’s 10 years old. She wins going away and looks like she could have covered another two miles at the same pace.

The Carnival of Running #18

Welcome to the 18th edition of The Carnival of Running!

I know you’ve been waiting many years for the opportunity to… evaluate Steven Seagal’s running form!

The track and field typo of the week goes to the Australian newspaper with the headline, “Asafa Powell to ruin 400m in Sydney”.

A newspaper columnist completed his first marathon and learned the universal truth: “The expression, ‘You’re almost done,’ is highly subjective”, while another columnist discovered the best part of an early morning run is the guilt-free afternoon nap.

Running companions were a big news item this week. There was a woman who runs with Siberian huskies, others who ran with polar bears, the running of the brides, and running with strangers.

If those aren’t odd enough for you, you could try the April Fools Backward Mile and 5k.

Looks like the city of San Francisco may compromise on those new Bay-to-Breaker rules.

In this week’s science news, we learned that runners have better eyesight, that our toes are designed for running and not hanging from trees, and that runners crave fruit and not biscuits.

Well, maybe. But Paula Radcliffe craves chocolate, and other British runners crave pancakes so much they race with them. We even learn that bears love pancakes and running (see video).

We also know that bears love to go in the woods. Running into the Sun lists the possible side-effects of running, such as “confusion about what constitutes an acceptable toilet.” joyRuN apparently accepts side-effects and coins new terms for them, like “popping a squat in the forest.”

Jeanne at Not Born to Run explains why bagging it is sometimes your best option.

Xenia at Diggin’ It shows off a hairy coo. Once again, get your mind out of the gutter.

Who’s In First lists five fun things to do on a treadmill. Tellingly, running is not one of them. Walrus to Warrior sets out to find a core.

Non-runners shopping at race expos? Sacrilege!

Want to use Nike+ iPod technology but don’t like Nike running shoes? The Bean Pod might be for you.

The Runner Inside tries out a few running one-liners, including “if you are going to try cross-country, start with a small country.”

I’ve come to expect hash house harriers everywhere, but was still shocked to find they’re in Phnom Penh.

That’s all for this time, friends. You can run. You can be funny. But don’t be runny. Remember to submit your posts to carnival@runningisfunny.com. Now run away!

New Way to Impress Your Friends

Ever tell your non-running friends about your new 5k PR or the number of miles in your long run, only to be greeted by blank stares because of no frame of reference (or maybe because of utter boredom)?

Skip all that technical jargon and tell them your latest blood pressure reading. New research in the journal of the American College of Sports Medicine reveals regular long-distance running leads to lower incidence of metabolic syndrome – a package of conditions that includes high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.

“All forms of regular exercise provide important health benefits,” said Dr. Paul Williams, author of the study. “But these data suggest there may be heightened benefits for those who make the exceptional effort and commitment.”

My blood pressure PR is 101/59 and I’m not the calmest individual in the world. I have no doubt it is due to running.

Making a Pass

During a group training long run on Saturday, I stumbled upon a problem in running etiquette. And I think it’s an interesting one to share here because it’s a problem that arose trying to avoid a different running etiquette problem.

Here’s the situation: The fastest runner in our training group is a woman. About 100 of us were out for a 12-miler. She surged to the front almost immediately. I settled into my pace and established myself about 25 yards behind her. For the full 12 miles we ran nearly identical paces. I never caught up to her, and she never got beyond about 40 yards.

In the last mile, I was feeling pretty good, and maintaining my pace, but she slowly began to fade back to me. Without about a quarter-mile left, I was on her heels. That’s when the problem hit.

Should I pass her? After running behind her for 11 and 3/4 miles? Wouldn’t she think I was being a jerk, trying to avoid ”getting chicked” even though it was just a training run? So I slowed down, and finished right behind her.

I thought about it afterwards, and decided I probably would have done the same thing in the same situation even in a race. If you’re in the middle-of-the-pack what difference does it make if you finish 354th or 355th? Then I thought I probably would have done the same thing if it were a kid or an older runner in front of me, but I would have sprinted if I determined the runner was in my age group.

It also would have been different had we been jockeying back and forth the entire way. In that case, passing her at the end would not have stood out. Yes, there are a million different permutations for an uncommon situation, but after 12 miles I wasn’t prepared to think it all through to its logical conclusion.

I would be interested to hear what you think. Was it smart to avoid a negative impression, or was it condescending? Is a race different from a training run? Does it make a difference if it’s a “chick” or a “geezer“?

Comeuppance

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I had signed up for the Buzz Oates RunSac Race Series, which ranks runners (for prizes) who race in specified events during 2009. I’m one of about a dozen people who entered as independents; the rest come from local racing teams and running groups.

The Valentine Run was the first race in the series, and I finally got the age-graded results.

Ouch.

Of the 78 enrolled guys who ran the four-miler last Saturday, I came in 64th. The age-grading was actually a wash for me. Five older, slower guys got ranked above me, while five younger, faster guys slid below me.

Disappointing, but a fairly accurate gauge of where I fall among the area’s best runners. Work still to do.