Today is the official opening of hurricane season in the US, at least for Atlantic hurricanes. NOAA's seasonal outlook (note that the term is 'outlook', not 'forecast') is for more hurricanes than usual. But do read down in to the discussion of the science behind the outlook.
Also, of course be prepared if you live anywhere in the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico (east or west coast), Gulf Coast, or US East Coast. As folks got reminded last fall with Sandy, this means all the way up the coast, not just southerly places.
Do read through the full information there, and follow up for more information. If you've got kids, perhaps ready.gov/kids will be helpful.
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
01 June 2013
06 September 2012
The Relativity of Wrong
Recent political comment brings me back to a point I'd written about before, under the label of Successive Approximation. The better title, unsurprisingly, is Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.
I first became aware of Paul Ryan's lie when my wife asked me, having mentioned nothing about context, whether a runner could conceivably mis-remember his marathon of somewhat over 4 hours as having been somewhat under 3 hours. As has been reported in many places, and some reporters having done some experiments, the answer is no. It is completely implausible that someone, especially someone with only one marathon, could make that mistake as an honest mistake. Confusing a little over 4 for a little under ... maybe. You would likely have trained for some time under 4 and that number could have stayed with you longer than your disappointment in not making your goal.
But confusing your over-4 hours, a perfectly respectable time to cover a marathon if nothing to brag about for an open class man, for sub-3 -- a time that entitles you to some bragging (as a friend worked to earn the right to) and is achievable only with some serious training and talent -- is not an accident.
The political side of this, well, not so very interesting. Except for the fact, perhaps, that Ryan is supposed to be a leading light for Republican number-crunching. Number types are even less likely to make a mistake like that. At least as a mistake.
More interesting, and perhaps useful, to the local purpose is to look some at how to assess the relativity of wrong. The route I took in the successive approximation post was quantitative. Some articles have taken something like that, observing that his claimed time was about 70% of his actual time, or, conversely, that he lied by about 30%. That's actually much too generous to his lie. The problem with that is that if he had claimed the world record time (a bit less than 2 hours faster than he ran, as opposed to the somewhat more than 1 hour of his actual lie), it would only be scored as 50% wrong. You can't run faster than the world record, or you'd be the record holder, which even Ryan didn't claim. So, the most he could have lied by is about 2 hours (iirc his actual time was 4:01, and the world record back then was about 2:07, so 114 minutes). His actual lie is about 65 minutes (taking 2:50-something as 2:56) wrong, so 57%, more than half, of the span that he could possibly have lied by. That could be refined some by comparison against, say, the race winner's time, or the Olympic qualifying time. But you get the idea. And the 57% is about double what the other approach shows. Compare how wrong something is with how wrong it could be.
But some things, and this is where I'll especially invite comments, don't lend themselves to that kind of quantification. For instance, I'm comfortable with saying that it is more wrong to say that the earth has no greenhouse effect than it is to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But how can we assess this comparative wrongness with the error in saying that CO2 levels have not risen over the past 200 years?
So I'll invite description of approaches to assessing relative errors, preferably with examples. Note, too, that it's best to have them be objective examples -- so which candidate is better kinds of things are not going to work. Marathon times and the radiative properties of the earth's atmosphere aren't partisan matters.
I first became aware of Paul Ryan's lie when my wife asked me, having mentioned nothing about context, whether a runner could conceivably mis-remember his marathon of somewhat over 4 hours as having been somewhat under 3 hours. As has been reported in many places, and some reporters having done some experiments, the answer is no. It is completely implausible that someone, especially someone with only one marathon, could make that mistake as an honest mistake. Confusing a little over 4 for a little under ... maybe. You would likely have trained for some time under 4 and that number could have stayed with you longer than your disappointment in not making your goal.
But confusing your over-4 hours, a perfectly respectable time to cover a marathon if nothing to brag about for an open class man, for sub-3 -- a time that entitles you to some bragging (as a friend worked to earn the right to) and is achievable only with some serious training and talent -- is not an accident.
The political side of this, well, not so very interesting. Except for the fact, perhaps, that Ryan is supposed to be a leading light for Republican number-crunching. Number types are even less likely to make a mistake like that. At least as a mistake.
More interesting, and perhaps useful, to the local purpose is to look some at how to assess the relativity of wrong. The route I took in the successive approximation post was quantitative. Some articles have taken something like that, observing that his claimed time was about 70% of his actual time, or, conversely, that he lied by about 30%. That's actually much too generous to his lie. The problem with that is that if he had claimed the world record time (a bit less than 2 hours faster than he ran, as opposed to the somewhat more than 1 hour of his actual lie), it would only be scored as 50% wrong. You can't run faster than the world record, or you'd be the record holder, which even Ryan didn't claim. So, the most he could have lied by is about 2 hours (iirc his actual time was 4:01, and the world record back then was about 2:07, so 114 minutes). His actual lie is about 65 minutes (taking 2:50-something as 2:56) wrong, so 57%, more than half, of the span that he could possibly have lied by. That could be refined some by comparison against, say, the race winner's time, or the Olympic qualifying time. But you get the idea. And the 57% is about double what the other approach shows. Compare how wrong something is with how wrong it could be.
But some things, and this is where I'll especially invite comments, don't lend themselves to that kind of quantification. For instance, I'm comfortable with saying that it is more wrong to say that the earth has no greenhouse effect than it is to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But how can we assess this comparative wrongness with the error in saying that CO2 levels have not risen over the past 200 years?
So I'll invite description of approaches to assessing relative errors, preferably with examples. Note, too, that it's best to have them be objective examples -- so which candidate is better kinds of things are not going to work. Marathon times and the radiative properties of the earth's atmosphere aren't partisan matters.
25 May 2011
Setting Goals in Running
One of the things I've been doing while on hiatus (which will, barring a couple of exceptions, continue for a while yet) is getting back to my running. (Yes, yet again I am getting back to running.)
Now that, knock wood, I am in reasonable health, it's time to be improving on that by getting active. Running is my prime way of getting active. Even though there's no logical or physical requirement, if I'm not running some, I also don't do other good things like lift some weights, do some rehabilitation exercises, do some core strengthening, and so on. So it's more important for me to run than if I were otherwise more virtuous.
At the end of April, my youngest son gave me an excuse that will help me with my goal setting process. Some people do fine with 'just do it'. Many people, and I'm one, do better with having a goal. My major goal is to complete that half marathon race next year the same day as my son. I'd say with him, but with little training he ran a time that I'll probably need a couple years of steady training to reach! So that's a nice goal itself, but how to get from here -- almost no running or other aerobic exercise in the previous 6 months -- to there -- running 13.1 miles (21.1 km) straight through?
Now that, knock wood, I am in reasonable health, it's time to be improving on that by getting active. Running is my prime way of getting active. Even though there's no logical or physical requirement, if I'm not running some, I also don't do other good things like lift some weights, do some rehabilitation exercises, do some core strengthening, and so on. So it's more important for me to run than if I were otherwise more virtuous.
At the end of April, my youngest son gave me an excuse that will help me with my goal setting process. Some people do fine with 'just do it'. Many people, and I'm one, do better with having a goal. My major goal is to complete that half marathon race next year the same day as my son. I'd say with him, but with little training he ran a time that I'll probably need a couple years of steady training to reach! So that's a nice goal itself, but how to get from here -- almost no running or other aerobic exercise in the previous 6 months -- to there -- running 13.1 miles (21.1 km) straight through?
14 March 2011
Running in the rain
It was raining, of course, this past Sunday when I went to the track for my second run since breaking my wrist while running last fall. (First having been Thursday.) I've previously talked about running with lightning (i.e., don't!). But my negativity about being electrocuted* should not be taken to apply against running in the rain. A number of my favorite runs have been in the rain. Probably a higher fraction than in 'nice' weather.
Running in the rain becomes pleasant once you make some attitude adjustments, and perhaps do some physical preparations. Bonuses are that you can congratulate yourself for your tremendous virtue in being out in spite of the unpleasant weather. And if you race, it's a plus because even though you could arrange to do all your training in nice weather, you cannot ensure that all races will have nice weather.
The main attitude adjustment is one suggested by a fellow trail runner. We were going to run on trails during moderately heavy rain, after 2 days of steady, heavy rain. Our path was all dirt except for a stream crossing. In other words, after all that rain, no question that we were going to be soaked, and muddy, and soaked again (by the stream). As he said, it was time to let our inner child out to play -- splash through the puddles (which were numerous) and enjoy the mud. I won the contest for having the mud highest on my body (up near the shoulder blades) without having fallen.
Physical preparation starts with the fact that you are going to get soaked. So relax about that part. During the run, get wet and don't worry about it -- assuming that you're not running with too little clothing on, and temperatures are low enough to make hypothermia an issue. (If that sort of thing is a consideration, get out of the rain immediately.) But a spring rain, like I had Sunday, with a warm house or car nearby, and adequate clothing ... enjoy. The thing is, have two sets of clothes. One for running in, and one for immediately after you finish running.
Running in the rain becomes pleasant once you make some attitude adjustments, and perhaps do some physical preparations. Bonuses are that you can congratulate yourself for your tremendous virtue in being out in spite of the unpleasant weather. And if you race, it's a plus because even though you could arrange to do all your training in nice weather, you cannot ensure that all races will have nice weather.
The main attitude adjustment is one suggested by a fellow trail runner. We were going to run on trails during moderately heavy rain, after 2 days of steady, heavy rain. Our path was all dirt except for a stream crossing. In other words, after all that rain, no question that we were going to be soaked, and muddy, and soaked again (by the stream). As he said, it was time to let our inner child out to play -- splash through the puddles (which were numerous) and enjoy the mud. I won the contest for having the mud highest on my body (up near the shoulder blades) without having fallen.
Physical preparation starts with the fact that you are going to get soaked. So relax about that part. During the run, get wet and don't worry about it -- assuming that you're not running with too little clothing on, and temperatures are low enough to make hypothermia an issue. (If that sort of thing is a consideration, get out of the rain immediately.) But a spring rain, like I had Sunday, with a warm house or car nearby, and adequate clothing ... enjoy. The thing is, have two sets of clothes. One for running in, and one for immediately after you finish running.
11 January 2010
Fitness blogging
ERV (Abbie Smith) has suggested blogging about our fitness activities, and with it being the new year and folks having made resolutions about health and fitness, it seems like a good idea.
This is distinctly aimed at the adults and parents, rather than the middle school or jr. high students I try to write to. Of course, parents, it's an excellent thing for your kids to be active starting yesterday, if not sooner. Doesn't make a lot of difference what it is they do. If it's pick up soccer/football, that's fine. Basketball is great. Running around the yard/track/field is also just fine. If the kids run fast for a little, then walk, then run fast again, that's great, too. No need for the under 13s to worry about extending how long they run at one time.
But, parents, you do really need to be getting activity yourself, and you need to be more particular about what you do. As many of the beginning runners I've coached over the years have said, they want to be running around with their children and grandchildren -- not essentially stuck in a chair for the last 30 years of their life as some of their parents had been. The books* Younger Next Year by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge, M.D. illustrate the point nicely. Imagine a curve representing your fitness/health/capacity for doing stuff, versus your age. It climbs rapidly in your childhood and then works more slowly towards a peak in your 20s or 30s. What happens next is very much in your hands. You can do no exercise, and see a steady decline from that peak towards death over the rest of your life -- spending your last 30 years perhaps below the level at which you could go for walks with your children or grandchildren. Or you can exercise routinely and spend almost the entire rest of your life up at a high level, able to walk with your grandchildren and even run with them. Age does have its say -- you won't be able to run the 20 minute 5k of your 20s and 30s when you're 60. But you'll be able to go cover that 5k in comfort into your 70s.
This is distinctly aimed at the adults and parents, rather than the middle school or jr. high students I try to write to. Of course, parents, it's an excellent thing for your kids to be active starting yesterday, if not sooner. Doesn't make a lot of difference what it is they do. If it's pick up soccer/football, that's fine. Basketball is great. Running around the yard/track/field is also just fine. If the kids run fast for a little, then walk, then run fast again, that's great, too. No need for the under 13s to worry about extending how long they run at one time.
But, parents, you do really need to be getting activity yourself, and you need to be more particular about what you do. As many of the beginning runners I've coached over the years have said, they want to be running around with their children and grandchildren -- not essentially stuck in a chair for the last 30 years of their life as some of their parents had been. The books* Younger Next Year by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge, M.D. illustrate the point nicely. Imagine a curve representing your fitness/health/capacity for doing stuff, versus your age. It climbs rapidly in your childhood and then works more slowly towards a peak in your 20s or 30s. What happens next is very much in your hands. You can do no exercise, and see a steady decline from that peak towards death over the rest of your life -- spending your last 30 years perhaps below the level at which you could go for walks with your children or grandchildren. Or you can exercise routinely and spend almost the entire rest of your life up at a high level, able to walk with your grandchildren and even run with them. Age does have its say -- you won't be able to run the 20 minute 5k of your 20s and 30s when you're 60. But you'll be able to go cover that 5k in comfort into your 70s.
09 November 2009
Racing again
Saturday I got to meet a barn owl and a red shouldered hawk. Both were amazingly calm for all the runners who were milling around. The owl was looking around at all the dogs, deciding whether they were snack sized or not. (Concluded 'not', though I think a couple of dogs caused some serious calculation.) Fun to watch an owl look around. They were out as part of the parks and planning commission entertainment for the Jug Bay 10k (and 5k, and 3k walk).
I and a fellow club member were out for the 10k, with our plan being to run 1 minute, walk 1 minute. This being a much flatter course than last week's cross-country, I was able to follow the plan pretty well. Passed the mile 5 marker in 49:45, vs. last week's 8k (a touch shorter) in 54:25. My rule of thumb for the cross country course worked out pretty well -- about 10% slower than a flat course. Finished the 10k in 61:23, which also satisfied my check list for the conservative goal at my February 10 miler. Needed 72 minutes to be in line with the 2:00 goal; this time also meets the more aggressive notion of a 1:45 10 mile, having needed 63 minutes for that.
Bad news, good news being that my calf/achilles acted up again. Bad news being that it did so. The good news being that I've now got a better line on what, exactly, is the problem child. The major muscle in the calf area is the gastrocnemius. That is the one I had been focusing on when doing my stretching and Alfredson exercises. Day after the race with the calf complaining as I started to walk, I stretched (as my doctor had advised) the calf -- the gastroc. Didn't feel any response, no complaint, no difficulty. So finally I stretched the other muscle down there -- the soleus. That is where the problem is (now). I may well have just rehabilitated the gastroc earlier. Either way, the soleus is what needs the work now. It's a little harder to stretch, and a little harder to do the Alfredson exercise for. Not a lot, but enough that I'd been slack about doing it.
To go back to the more typical theme of this blog, I'll observe that probably a fair number of the people running with me were scientists. In particular, in earth sciences (lumping geology, oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, paleontology, ...) it seems very much the norm that scientists are physically active in one way or another. Running is not the only sport. We also have tennis players, swimmers, basketball players, bikers, .... Team sports are harder to manage later in life, so most people are doing individual sports, even where we like team sports. But, whatever it is, we get out and do something. And this is true whether the person does field work (which would require a degree of physical fitness, just to carry out the job) or sits in an office (as I and my coworkers do). It might be that scientists in other fields don't do as much sport as earth science types do. I don't know of any research on it. But we folks interested in the earth also seem to like to run/walk/bike/swim/... around it.
To turn back for a minute to the running .... In terms of final race times, this 10k was very slow for me. When walking, I averaged 16-17 minutes/mile (10-11 minutes per km), which is normal for my walking. In running, I was around 7 minutes/mile (4.5 minutes per km). If I were in good shape, which is the goal, I'd have run the whole 10k at about that pace. For my current training level, with the current goal (that 10 miler, 16.1 km) run/walk is the way to get to the finish of a workout or race in best health. Best health then means I can get out for the next workout, and the ones after that. It's getting out consistently that is the key for training. Given the achilles/calf issues, the next workout is tonight -- swimming. Rest the calf and work the lungs. The lungs (cardiovascular system) have a long way to go as well.
Plus, one of these years I'll be doing a sprint triathlon. My plan being: don't drown in the swim, don't fall off the bike, and then pass a lot of people in the 5k.
I and a fellow club member were out for the 10k, with our plan being to run 1 minute, walk 1 minute. This being a much flatter course than last week's cross-country, I was able to follow the plan pretty well. Passed the mile 5 marker in 49:45, vs. last week's 8k (a touch shorter) in 54:25. My rule of thumb for the cross country course worked out pretty well -- about 10% slower than a flat course. Finished the 10k in 61:23, which also satisfied my check list for the conservative goal at my February 10 miler. Needed 72 minutes to be in line with the 2:00 goal; this time also meets the more aggressive notion of a 1:45 10 mile, having needed 63 minutes for that.
Bad news, good news being that my calf/achilles acted up again. Bad news being that it did so. The good news being that I've now got a better line on what, exactly, is the problem child. The major muscle in the calf area is the gastrocnemius. That is the one I had been focusing on when doing my stretching and Alfredson exercises. Day after the race with the calf complaining as I started to walk, I stretched (as my doctor had advised) the calf -- the gastroc. Didn't feel any response, no complaint, no difficulty. So finally I stretched the other muscle down there -- the soleus. That is where the problem is (now). I may well have just rehabilitated the gastroc earlier. Either way, the soleus is what needs the work now. It's a little harder to stretch, and a little harder to do the Alfredson exercise for. Not a lot, but enough that I'd been slack about doing it.
To go back to the more typical theme of this blog, I'll observe that probably a fair number of the people running with me were scientists. In particular, in earth sciences (lumping geology, oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, paleontology, ...) it seems very much the norm that scientists are physically active in one way or another. Running is not the only sport. We also have tennis players, swimmers, basketball players, bikers, .... Team sports are harder to manage later in life, so most people are doing individual sports, even where we like team sports. But, whatever it is, we get out and do something. And this is true whether the person does field work (which would require a degree of physical fitness, just to carry out the job) or sits in an office (as I and my coworkers do). It might be that scientists in other fields don't do as much sport as earth science types do. I don't know of any research on it. But we folks interested in the earth also seem to like to run/walk/bike/swim/... around it.
To turn back for a minute to the running .... In terms of final race times, this 10k was very slow for me. When walking, I averaged 16-17 minutes/mile (10-11 minutes per km), which is normal for my walking. In running, I was around 7 minutes/mile (4.5 minutes per km). If I were in good shape, which is the goal, I'd have run the whole 10k at about that pace. For my current training level, with the current goal (that 10 miler, 16.1 km) run/walk is the way to get to the finish of a workout or race in best health. Best health then means I can get out for the next workout, and the ones after that. It's getting out consistently that is the key for training. Given the achilles/calf issues, the next workout is tonight -- swimming. Rest the calf and work the lungs. The lungs (cardiovascular system) have a long way to go as well.
Plus, one of these years I'll be doing a sprint triathlon. My plan being: don't drown in the swim, don't fall off the bike, and then pass a lot of people in the 5k.
06 April 2009
Running in Thunderstorms, longer
Last summer I posted a short note about running in thunderstorms (don't), but just a quickie. A little more length in case someone is thinking that I'm just chicken and a Real Runner would go out anyhow. As I mentioned last time, I've run in snow, rain, sleet, well below freezing temperatures, high heat and humidity, and so on. It is only the thunderstorms that stop me.
The reasoning of the folks who have argued that it's ok to run in thunderstorms is that 'well, very few people are hit by lightning, so I'll take that tiny risk'. They're banking on arithmetic like this: 300 people per year are hit by lightning in the US, and there are 300 million people in the US, so their 'odds' are 1 in a million of being hit. Unfortunately, this is numerology rather than sound statistics.
The problem with that approach is, almost none of those 300 million are in a place where they could be hit by lightning. Most people, most of the time, are indoors or inside a car -- places you should go to avoid getting hit by lightning. So, with no effort or attention, most people could not be hit even if there were a thunderstorm in the area.
Once there is a thunderstorm in the area, almost everybody heads for safety -- and everybody should. Go inside your house (and stay away from the pipes); if you are away from homes, go to your car; if that's too far or you didn't drive, head for low ground; if you're in Flatlandia (which is where I grew up) head away from anything tall -- away from trees, telephone poles, and especially away from metal towers. These steps are easy and almost everybody takes them.
The right statistical question is "Of the people who are in a position where they could be hit, what fraction do get hit." This figure is more like 1 in 3000, rather than 1 in 1,000,000. Almost everybody does, intentionally or accidentally, take suitable precautions. Be one of them.
Since most of us who run, do so for our health, I'll point out that being hit by lightning is not good for your health. A high fraction of people hit, are killed. Of those who do not die, a high fraction have permanent health problems.
Beyond the fact that it's bad for your health and easy to take appropriate precautions, is the fact that shifting your schedule a little will let you get your run in easily. You need to give a thunderstorm about a 30 minute clearance, wait for 30 minutes after the last thunder you hear. But, an individual thunderstorm is not a long-lived event. 90 minutes is long. Moving your run 2 hours only means go out at 7 instead of 5, or vice versa. If it's very important to get the run in, then moving it a couple of hours is easy enough, and enormously safer. If you're looking at a line of thunderstorms, or a supercell, it's a longer window and you may well have to miss the run. On the other hand, such systems also produce tornadoes and large hail and have severe winds such that it'd be hard to do a workout anyhow.
For more information about thunderstorm and lightning safety:
Red Cross on Thunderstorm and lightning preparedness
NWS Lightning Safety
NWS home page -- with current watch and warning areas
Added: from Hank Roberts' September 21, 2010 comment:
The reasoning of the folks who have argued that it's ok to run in thunderstorms is that 'well, very few people are hit by lightning, so I'll take that tiny risk'. They're banking on arithmetic like this: 300 people per year are hit by lightning in the US, and there are 300 million people in the US, so their 'odds' are 1 in a million of being hit. Unfortunately, this is numerology rather than sound statistics.
The problem with that approach is, almost none of those 300 million are in a place where they could be hit by lightning. Most people, most of the time, are indoors or inside a car -- places you should go to avoid getting hit by lightning. So, with no effort or attention, most people could not be hit even if there were a thunderstorm in the area.
Once there is a thunderstorm in the area, almost everybody heads for safety -- and everybody should. Go inside your house (and stay away from the pipes); if you are away from homes, go to your car; if that's too far or you didn't drive, head for low ground; if you're in Flatlandia (which is where I grew up) head away from anything tall -- away from trees, telephone poles, and especially away from metal towers. These steps are easy and almost everybody takes them.
The right statistical question is "Of the people who are in a position where they could be hit, what fraction do get hit." This figure is more like 1 in 3000, rather than 1 in 1,000,000. Almost everybody does, intentionally or accidentally, take suitable precautions. Be one of them.
Since most of us who run, do so for our health, I'll point out that being hit by lightning is not good for your health. A high fraction of people hit, are killed. Of those who do not die, a high fraction have permanent health problems.
Beyond the fact that it's bad for your health and easy to take appropriate precautions, is the fact that shifting your schedule a little will let you get your run in easily. You need to give a thunderstorm about a 30 minute clearance, wait for 30 minutes after the last thunder you hear. But, an individual thunderstorm is not a long-lived event. 90 minutes is long. Moving your run 2 hours only means go out at 7 instead of 5, or vice versa. If it's very important to get the run in, then moving it a couple of hours is easy enough, and enormously safer. If you're looking at a line of thunderstorms, or a supercell, it's a longer window and you may well have to miss the run. On the other hand, such systems also produce tornadoes and large hail and have severe winds such that it'd be hard to do a workout anyhow.
For more information about thunderstorm and lightning safety:
Red Cross on Thunderstorm and lightning preparedness
NWS Lightning Safety
NWS home page -- with current watch and warning areas
Added: from Hank Roberts' September 21, 2010 comment:
03 January 2009
A running start on the new year
For someone who calls himself a runner, I didn't do much running in 2008. So for 2009, I made sure to get a running start on the year, and ran my club's Great Lengths race -- 2009 fathoms. (There was also a 2009 rods race, but that's more than I can do for a while yet.) The 2009 fathoms is a bit less than 4 km, (1 fathom = 6 feet, 1 rod = 16.5 feet). But I got out and enjoyed the race and nice, if chilly (near freezing) day.
The Great Lengths race is one I started with the club (Prince George's Running Club) back in 2002 or 2003. A chance to run an unusual distance and to get a start on resolutions, or just get a fitness check (the rods race is almost exactly 10 km). It has since been passed on to Bill Radcliffe and Don Proctor, who organize an extremely good, fun race regardless of the weather (downpour one year, near freezing this year, rather pleasant once, ...)
Alas, my post back in August was near a then-peak in my running. November I came down with a bad cold and that toasted my running 'til the end of December.
Still, those of you looking at New Year's resolutions can take a look at that old post for a guide on how to get in to running. It has worked for people who are 40-50 years out from their last time exercising. Do, of course, clear these ideas with your doctor, particularly if you're older (than 40), and weigh more (than 10% over a healthy weight for you).
The Great Lengths race is one I started with the club (Prince George's Running Club) back in 2002 or 2003. A chance to run an unusual distance and to get a start on resolutions, or just get a fitness check (the rods race is almost exactly 10 km). It has since been passed on to Bill Radcliffe and Don Proctor, who organize an extremely good, fun race regardless of the weather (downpour one year, near freezing this year, rather pleasant once, ...)
Alas, my post back in August was near a then-peak in my running. November I came down with a bad cold and that toasted my running 'til the end of December.
Still, those of you looking at New Year's resolutions can take a look at that old post for a guide on how to get in to running. It has worked for people who are 40-50 years out from their last time exercising. Do, of course, clear these ideas with your doctor, particularly if you're older (than 40), and weigh more (than 10% over a healthy weight for you).
30 August 2008
Back over a mile
I've whined a little here about my stress fracture; they're no fun. Past the problem itself, I was off enough, and had been at a low enough running base, that after getting the cast off I was basically starting over from scratch. Again.
This morning, I ran my first continuous mile. Yay! I'm doing run/walk for 30 minutes at the moment. With the progress, I've gone from 1 minute running : 1 minute walking to, now, averaging 6:30 to 1. I'm working on being positive about this, and not think too much about how fast I used to run, or how far. (50 km on trails is my longest (31 miles) Really don't need that thought in mind when I'm doing a tenth of that. Oops. Thought about it.)
The main thing is, aerobic activity is good for your health, improving or preserving physical and mental condition. It doesn't seem to matter much which aerobic activity you do* but quite important to do something. I like running, especially on trails, so that's my main aerobic activity. My wife prefers sculling, a coworker prefers tennis, another person likes hiking, someone else bikes, another swims, ... you get the idea. Doesn't matter much what it is, but important to find one you like.
*The exception here is that for prevention of osteoporosis, you need to be doing weight-bearing exercise. This includes walking, running, and weights, but not biking or swimming.
In terms of running, a lot of people tell me "I'm just not a runner. When I run a quarter mile, I get out of breath." There are problems with that. Most importantly is, almost everybody starts out by running too fast when they run. If you run a hard quarter mile (or block), you'll get out of breath regardless of how good your condition is. Most people run hard when the run at all. When you're getting started, you want to be running at a conversational effort level (makes it great for buddy-starting, more fun to talk with a friend). The next major problem is assuming that you have to start with some long distance. I started, after a 15 year layoff, with 50 yards/meters at a time of running. In time, I got to the 50 km trail race. Doesn't matter where you start. It does matter that you start.
Below is the current version of my progression table for going from being able to walk 30 minutes comfortably to running 30 minutes comfortably. Do check your health status with respect to running before starting, of course! It is also a good idea to look for running clubs near you. In the US, the RRCA is the national organization, which also has information on local clubs and more general notes about running. A good book for getting started is Alberto Salazar's Guide to Running. He's even more conservative than I am in some respects, as he allows a year for the progression. Most sources are less conservative than me, the RRCA included.
The run:walk column is the proportion of running to walking to do, in minutes:seconds. Stage 1 is to run 0:30 (30 seconds) and walk 7:00, then repeat this 4 times (giving a total of 30 minutes exercise, 2 minutes running).
The stages with a/b versions are fundamentally similar effort levels, but some people prefer the longer walk, or the shorter run. Try both and go with whichever version words best for you.
Stage 0: Walk 30 minutes straight, 4 or more times per week
For the following, do 3-4 times per week, with 36-48 hours between workouts.
Note that some of these weeks have larger apparent jumps than others. The experience seems to work out, however, that they're about even in difficulty. I've based this in the early stages on Jim Fixx's Complete Book of Running, which is old but one of the few to address true beginning from the couch. The later stages are based on the RRCA's beginning runner programs. I've also made some adjustments based on feedback from runners over the years and my own experiences in re-beginning.
Irrespective of the apparent finely tuned mathematical precision of the list, the important parts are
* to run and walk at conversational effort level
* to get out consistently, 3-4 times per week
* to give yourself sufficient recovery time
As you do these things, you'll be able to run farther, faster, and more comfortably. The progression list is a guide, not a straightjacket.
This all leads to:
Stage I: 30 minutes running 3-4 times per week
This is a major milestone in your running. Once you're here, you can comfortably and confidently go out to area 5k races and have fun with running the whole distance (you can have fun with run/walk as well!). It is also a major plateau in running for health.
~
This morning, I ran my first continuous mile. Yay! I'm doing run/walk for 30 minutes at the moment. With the progress, I've gone from 1 minute running : 1 minute walking to, now, averaging 6:30 to 1. I'm working on being positive about this, and not think too much about how fast I used to run, or how far. (50 km on trails is my longest (31 miles) Really don't need that thought in mind when I'm doing a tenth of that. Oops. Thought about it.)
The main thing is, aerobic activity is good for your health, improving or preserving physical and mental condition. It doesn't seem to matter much which aerobic activity you do* but quite important to do something. I like running, especially on trails, so that's my main aerobic activity. My wife prefers sculling, a coworker prefers tennis, another person likes hiking, someone else bikes, another swims, ... you get the idea. Doesn't matter much what it is, but important to find one you like.
*The exception here is that for prevention of osteoporosis, you need to be doing weight-bearing exercise. This includes walking, running, and weights, but not biking or swimming.
In terms of running, a lot of people tell me "I'm just not a runner. When I run a quarter mile, I get out of breath." There are problems with that. Most importantly is, almost everybody starts out by running too fast when they run. If you run a hard quarter mile (or block), you'll get out of breath regardless of how good your condition is. Most people run hard when the run at all. When you're getting started, you want to be running at a conversational effort level (makes it great for buddy-starting, more fun to talk with a friend). The next major problem is assuming that you have to start with some long distance. I started, after a 15 year layoff, with 50 yards/meters at a time of running. In time, I got to the 50 km trail race. Doesn't matter where you start. It does matter that you start.
Below is the current version of my progression table for going from being able to walk 30 minutes comfortably to running 30 minutes comfortably. Do check your health status with respect to running before starting, of course! It is also a good idea to look for running clubs near you. In the US, the RRCA is the national organization, which also has information on local clubs and more general notes about running. A good book for getting started is Alberto Salazar's Guide to Running. He's even more conservative than I am in some respects, as he allows a year for the progression. Most sources are less conservative than me, the RRCA included.
The run:walk column is the proportion of running to walking to do, in minutes:seconds. Stage 1 is to run 0:30 (30 seconds) and walk 7:00, then repeat this 4 times (giving a total of 30 minutes exercise, 2 minutes running).
The stages with a/b versions are fundamentally similar effort levels, but some people prefer the longer walk, or the shorter run. Try both and go with whichever version words best for you.
Stage 0: Walk 30 minutes straight, 4 or more times per week
For the following, do 3-4 times per week, with 36-48 hours between workouts.
- stage Run-walk Repetitions Running time
- 1 0:30-7:00 4 2:00
- 2 0:30-5:30 5 2:30
- 3 0:30-4:30 6 3:00
- 4 0:30-4:00 7 3:30
- 5 1 - 5 5 5:00
- 6 1:30-4:30 5 7:30
- 7a 1 - 2 10 10
- b 2 - 4 5
- 8 2 - 3 6 12
- 9a 2:30-2:30 6 15
- b 1 - 1 15
- 10a 2 - 1 10 20
- b 4 - 2 5
- 11 4 - 1 6 24
- 12 5 - 1 5 25
- 13 9 - 1 3 27
- 14 14 - 1 2 28
- 15 30 minutes running
Note that some of these weeks have larger apparent jumps than others. The experience seems to work out, however, that they're about even in difficulty. I've based this in the early stages on Jim Fixx's Complete Book of Running, which is old but one of the few to address true beginning from the couch. The later stages are based on the RRCA's beginning runner programs. I've also made some adjustments based on feedback from runners over the years and my own experiences in re-beginning.
Irrespective of the apparent finely tuned mathematical precision of the list, the important parts are
* to run and walk at conversational effort level
* to get out consistently, 3-4 times per week
* to give yourself sufficient recovery time
As you do these things, you'll be able to run farther, faster, and more comfortably. The progression list is a guide, not a straightjacket.
This all leads to:
Stage I: 30 minutes running 3-4 times per week
This is a major milestone in your running. Once you're here, you can comfortably and confidently go out to area 5k races and have fun with running the whole distance (you can have fun with run/walk as well!). It is also a major plateau in running for health.
~
17 August 2008
Women's Olympic Marathon
Watching the Women's Olympic Marathon last night was a particularly interesting experience for me. I like watching the distance races because I understand them better than sprints or other events like swimming. This time was the first that an Olympic Marathon was held on a course that I knew a fair part of. Earlier this summer I was in China, including Beijing, Tian'anmen Square, the Temple of Heaven, and Forbidden City, all of which figured in the course. I don't normally get to say 'I was there' in watching Olympics.
Understanding the race, and an injury, also changed part of my viewing this time. Paula Radcliffe was running the marathon with a recent (8 weeks ago) stress fracture to her femur. I got a stress fracture in my second metatarsal (base of second toe) at the end of April. Three months later, I was cleared by my podiatrist to start back running at 80%. 2 months after stress fracturing her femur -- the biggest, heaviest, hardest to fracture bone in the leg -- she was out running a marathon at Olympic speed, not one of my leisurely 5k jogs. I was watching in astonishment that she was still in the race and in the lead pack for most of it, while every time she landed on the bad leg and took off for her next step had to have been starting at painful and gotten worse for every one of the 12,000 or so steps she did it. If you start a marathon in perfect health and well-trained, you're still going to be hurting by the end if you race it. She took on all that ordinary pain plus the fact that she didn't start the race in perfect health or training.
As the race neared the end, and had resolved to the race for second between Catherine Ndereba and Chunxiu Zhou, I had some sort-of inside information that let me pick the winner of the duel. That is, I've raced Ndereba before. At least for a very loose sense of the word 'raced'. I ran in the Beach to Beacon (Cape Elizabeth, ME) 10k in 2000. Ndereba raced there too, on her way to the Sydney Olympics. Aside from at the awards ceremony, of course, I never saw her. Her race was to win, my race was to run hard. We both succeeded, just that her success was to be close to 30 minutes and mine was around 45. Since then, though, I'd kept an ear out for her career. That included her later world record in the marathon, and the fact that among an extremely competitive group (elite marathoners are not casual folks!) she was considered extremely tough. So, come to the end of a marathon ... Chunxiu Zhou was a former 1500 m racer, which means plenty of speed. But the end of the marathon is much less about speed than sheer mental toughness. So my guess, which held up, was Ndereba.
Understanding the race, and an injury, also changed part of my viewing this time. Paula Radcliffe was running the marathon with a recent (8 weeks ago) stress fracture to her femur. I got a stress fracture in my second metatarsal (base of second toe) at the end of April. Three months later, I was cleared by my podiatrist to start back running at 80%. 2 months after stress fracturing her femur -- the biggest, heaviest, hardest to fracture bone in the leg -- she was out running a marathon at Olympic speed, not one of my leisurely 5k jogs. I was watching in astonishment that she was still in the race and in the lead pack for most of it, while every time she landed on the bad leg and took off for her next step had to have been starting at painful and gotten worse for every one of the 12,000 or so steps she did it. If you start a marathon in perfect health and well-trained, you're still going to be hurting by the end if you race it. She took on all that ordinary pain plus the fact that she didn't start the race in perfect health or training.
As the race neared the end, and had resolved to the race for second between Catherine Ndereba and Chunxiu Zhou, I had some sort-of inside information that let me pick the winner of the duel. That is, I've raced Ndereba before. At least for a very loose sense of the word 'raced'. I ran in the Beach to Beacon (Cape Elizabeth, ME) 10k in 2000. Ndereba raced there too, on her way to the Sydney Olympics. Aside from at the awards ceremony, of course, I never saw her. Her race was to win, my race was to run hard. We both succeeded, just that her success was to be close to 30 minutes and mine was around 45. Since then, though, I'd kept an ear out for her career. That included her later world record in the marathon, and the fact that among an extremely competitive group (elite marathoners are not casual folks!) she was considered extremely tough. So, come to the end of a marathon ... Chunxiu Zhou was a former 1500 m racer, which means plenty of speed. But the end of the marathon is much less about speed than sheer mental toughness. So my guess, which held up, was Ndereba.
08 August 2008
Olympic Connection
I almost have a connection to the Olympics. While riding in a train, I started talking to the guy on the seat opposite. It turned out he (Simon Ayeko) was on his way to a track meet to try to qualify for the Ugandan Olympic team. He didn't make it, which I don't understand since he's run fast enough to meet the 'A' standard in his event -- the 3000 m steeple chase -- this year. They're sending nobody in that event. Also surprising since he only has the second best time from Uganda. Oh well. He's a young guy, so I hope he makes it to the 2012 games.
In a different way, I do have a connection to the Olympics. My wife and I went to Greece for our honeymoon. While there, we visited Delphi. One part of the site at Delphi was the stadium in which the Pythian Games were held. The games at Olympus were not the only ones. So I ran full out for the 1 stade (178 meters) race, starting from where the racers would have 2500 years ago. Didn't succeed in getting some high school students who were posing at the start to join in a race. But I ran my best, while thinking of the competitors representing their cities those centuries ago.
In a different way, I do have a connection to the Olympics. My wife and I went to Greece for our honeymoon. While there, we visited Delphi. One part of the site at Delphi was the stadium in which the Pythian Games were held. The games at Olympus were not the only ones. So I ran full out for the 1 stade (178 meters) race, starting from where the racers would have 2500 years ago. Didn't succeed in getting some high school students who were posing at the start to join in a race. But I ran my best, while thinking of the competitors representing their cities those centuries ago.
20 April 2008
No running in thunderstorms
Blogging instead of running right now. I run through almost all weather, including rain, snow, sleet, -10 F temperature, -30 F wind chill, temperatures over 100 F, etc. The one type of weather I won't run in is thunderstorms. It isn't strong now, but I'm still hearing occasional thunder.
Thunder means lightning, and lightning is bad for my health. Plus, I can't outrun lightning.
Thunder means lightning, and lightning is bad for my health. Plus, I can't outrun lightning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
