![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hit points
Aug. 17th, 2008 11:21 pmI neglected to note specifics of soreness in the previous:
- blisters strike once again. I've had various recommendations made to me but the most promising was probably before the race when I took a spin on the Adidas footscan system to find out how messed up my gait is. The verdict - overpronation - is actually pretty obvious from where I get the blisters and from the way my shoes wear, and since I'm about due a new pair of runners I'll be looking out for the ones with bits to counter overpronation.
- The usual post-race creaks are starting to bite, but obviously exacerbated somewhat by the five-a-side where I did a fair amount of sprinting (I apologised to one of the opposition for a somewhat uptempo challenge by saying what I lacked in skill I was trying to make up for in enthusiasm). So in addition to the expected stressed calves I've also got a bit of soreness about the quads and hamstrings.
- I took an awkward shouldering during the soccer also; I'm not entirely clear on what happened, but it hurt, and it hurt the following morning, too. I think I just managed to bend my shoulder in one of the directions it's not supposed to go in, but not seriously so - just enough to make it OUCHY.
the lesser-seen active waider
Aug. 17th, 2008 03:31 pmDistance: ten miles
Target time: (a) beat last year's (1:13:52) (b) 70 minutes
Condition: VICTORY!
After a completely overcooked 6:10 on the first mile, I dropped my pace somewhat and stuck more-or-less to plan for the rest of the race, passing the half-way mark at about 34:00 and crossing the finish line a full minute and a half ahead of target at 01:08:27.
Having done that, I then drove from Dublin to Galway (a little over 200km) to participate in an informal game of five-a-side soccer as part of a stag party (3-3 draw until we decided that the stag should get a few goals), and then off to the dog track for a bit of gambling (over €30 profit, thank you doggies) and finally a few beers with the lads.
Needless to say I'm pretty tired and sore at this point, but delighted with the run.
Target time: (a) beat last year's (1:13:52) (b) 70 minutes
Condition: VICTORY!
After a completely overcooked 6:10 on the first mile, I dropped my pace somewhat and stuck more-or-less to plan for the rest of the race, passing the half-way mark at about 34:00 and crossing the finish line a full minute and a half ahead of target at 01:08:27.
Having done that, I then drove from Dublin to Galway (a little over 200km) to participate in an informal game of five-a-side soccer as part of a stag party (3-3 draw until we decided that the stag should get a few goals), and then off to the dog track for a bit of gambling (over €30 profit, thank you doggies) and finally a few beers with the lads.
Needless to say I'm pretty tired and sore at this point, but delighted with the run.
thursday running: tempo
Jul. 17th, 2008 09:49 pm5 miles, 38:40. A bit faster than my intended pace, but it was a comfortable run - I didn't feel like I was pushing myself. HRM says I averaged 160bpm, but also claims I hit a peak of 217, so I'm not wholly sure what to make of that; the few times I glanced at it while running it was below 160.
and today's run was...
Jul. 12th, 2008 02:25 pm5 mile race in the Phoenix Park; looks like I clocked in just under 33 minutes. This in the face of rain and wind, too. Official time when it becomes available.
updated: Overall place: 198, Place in category (M35): 44, Race time: 00:33:04, Chip time: 00:32:46
updated: Overall place: 198, Place in category (M35): 44, Race time: 00:33:04, Chip time: 00:32:46
other running toys
Jul. 6th, 2008 11:42 pmI was poking around at pedometers also, and in particular looking at the Nike doodad that plugs into your iPod. I won't be getting one (I'd need to buy another iPod, it appears), but despite much suggestion to the contrary, you don't actually need the Nike footwear to go with it. The only benefit of the special footwear (beyond any actual athletic benefit) is that the pedometer fits right into the shoe itself. You can pay your €30 for the doodad and hang it off a pair of flip-flops if you like. Of course, you might not be happy that people know you're out running.
be still my beating heart
Jul. 6th, 2008 06:46 pmGot some new running goodies this weekend: a heart-rate monitor, a new pair of running shorts, and some decent running socks - still trying to find that perfect pair that'll save me from the blisters at mile 3. The HRM wasn't quite what I wanted; I'd been looking at the entry-level Polar kit, but none of the places I tried had it - Elverys, who advertise it on their website, had no HRMs in stock, Champion Sports (or was it Lifestyle?) had nothing either, and the only other likely spot, Argos, didn't have any of the Polar kit in stock, so I opted instead for their bottom-of-the-range offering given that worst case, I'd be out €22. Back home, I read the piece of paper with the HRM to find out how to use it, then went out for a run.
The plan: 5 miles, 40 minutes; I'm doing a 5-mile next weekend, and I didn't want to do the sort of hard burn I did last weekend. Aside from that, Sunday's supposed to be my day off exercising in general, just that my schedule got shunted slightly this week.
The reality: I can't, apparently, run a kilometre in five minutes, unless I've got someone else pacing me. It just seems too slow to me. I would up doing 4:15's or thereabouts, ultimately finishing the 5 miles in 35 minutes.
The socks: no blisters! there was a very mild chafing towards the end of the last kilometre, but I sailed past the three-mile mark without a twinge. Hurrah!
The HRM: functional. It can be used as a stopwatch - which I needed - as long as you bear in mind that there's a few-second lag between pressing the BIG RED BUTTON and the stopwatch actually starting. My resting heart rate is about 41 - which I knew, and which apparently means I'm either quite fit or verging on death - but I was quite surprised at how quickly it went up; within a couple of hundred metres of my front door, my heart rate had tripled to over 120bpm, and ultimately sat somewhere around 170 for the bulk of the running, peaking at just over 180. Hurrah for numbers! Ultimately, it's not a great HRM (the entry-level Polar has a real stopwatch, for example; the Polars have the added benefit that they'd talk to the stuff I use in the gym) but it'll do me for now.
The plan: 5 miles, 40 minutes; I'm doing a 5-mile next weekend, and I didn't want to do the sort of hard burn I did last weekend. Aside from that, Sunday's supposed to be my day off exercising in general, just that my schedule got shunted slightly this week.
The reality: I can't, apparently, run a kilometre in five minutes, unless I've got someone else pacing me. It just seems too slow to me. I would up doing 4:15's or thereabouts, ultimately finishing the 5 miles in 35 minutes.
The socks: no blisters! there was a very mild chafing towards the end of the last kilometre, but I sailed past the three-mile mark without a twinge. Hurrah!
The HRM: functional. It can be used as a stopwatch - which I needed - as long as you bear in mind that there's a few-second lag between pressing the BIG RED BUTTON and the stopwatch actually starting. My resting heart rate is about 41 - which I knew, and which apparently means I'm either quite fit or verging on death - but I was quite surprised at how quickly it went up; within a couple of hundred metres of my front door, my heart rate had tripled to over 120bpm, and ultimately sat somewhere around 170 for the bulk of the running, peaking at just over 180. Hurrah for numbers! Ultimately, it's not a great HRM (the entry-level Polar has a real stopwatch, for example; the Polars have the added benefit that they'd talk to the stuff I use in the gym) but it'll do me for now.
still running (repeat to fade)
Jun. 28th, 2008 02:49 pmI did an impromptu 5k today, and since I haven't yet replaced the stopwatch that got washed after the 5-mile in May, I used my regular watch instead. Looks like I clocked about 20:20, and a good portion of that pesky 20 seconds was taken up waiting at a traffic signal - I figure I could probably have been within my current best time (20:11) otherwise. Nice to know I can turn in a time like that with no real prep, though.
math is HARD (even with computers)
Jun. 27th, 2008 10:46 pmThe telemetry was busted in the gym last night, so I figured I'd enter in what I could manually tonight. It's all FitLinxx kit, oddly configured in that some machines are in metric while some are in imperial, and the user interface is all in imperial. That aside, though, entering cardio details manually includes a "rate on a scale of one to ten how hard you went at this" box, which alters your calorie burn. It's all fairly meaningless, I'm sure, but I figured I'd try and get it to match what the machine said. So I punched in distance, converting - poorly - in my head from km to miles, added weight and time, and looked at the calorie box. 10 calories? Hmm, must have one of my numbers wrong, since I know the warm-up run is usually 60 or 70 calories. So I figure I'll tweak the distance and see what happens...
Long story short, the user interface apparently sees a difference between (for example) 0.4 miles and 0.40 miles. I'm trying not to think too hard about how badly you'd have to code to mess this up.
(updated to add: I poked around on the Fitlinxx site, and came across their Pace Calculator. Which asks you to enter your one-mile pace and then select one of 4 race distances, two of which are in kilometres...)
Long story short, the user interface apparently sees a difference between (for example) 0.4 miles and 0.40 miles. I'm trying not to think too hard about how badly you'd have to code to mess this up.
(updated to add: I poked around on the Fitlinxx site, and came across their Pace Calculator. Which asks you to enter your one-mile pace and then select one of 4 race distances, two of which are in kilometres...)
my timing, it sucks
Jun. 5th, 2008 11:02 pmLast month, I attended a wedding on the far side of the country, requiring me to drive for over five hours to get there and the same to get home; I drove down on Friday, back on Saturday, and on Sunday ran a five-mile race that I'd entered without checking what else I was doing on the weekend.
I've just now realised that the ten-mile race I'm running in August occurs on the same day as a stag party I'd agreed to attend, said stag party being again on the opposite coast, albeit slightly less of a drive and on better roads so there's a good chance I can start the race at 10, finish at about 11:15, get back to my car by 12, and get to Galway some time after 3pm.
Thankfully, the half-marathon in September occurs the weekend before the associated wedding.
I've just now realised that the ten-mile race I'm running in August occurs on the same day as a stag party I'd agreed to attend, said stag party being again on the opposite coast, albeit slightly less of a drive and on better roads so there's a good chance I can start the race at 10, finish at about 11:15, get back to my car by 12, and get to Galway some time after 3pm.
Thankfully, the half-marathon in September occurs the weekend before the associated wedding.
math is HARD! let's go running!
May. 27th, 2008 09:37 pmTried doing some speed training tonight. After consulting some websites I learned that I should basically try a bunch of 400m sprints. For pacing, I found, I should take my 10k per-kilometre time and subtract 45 to 60 seconds depending on how lucky I felt. So I fed my 5-mile time into the McMillan Running Calculator, read off my 10k pace, then did a little fiddling with Map My Run to find some running distances, and then I went out running with no further thoughts.
Stop trying to point out my mistake just yet, I'll get to it.
I ran the first 400m pretty hard, and failed to get the time, mainly because I still hadn't figured out my per-400m time, and also because I was reading off my regular watch - analogue - instead of my stopwatch, which had a misadventure with the washing machine after the recent 5-miler. The second run clocked in at somewhere over a minute and a half, and by this point I was working on mental arithmetic to figure out what my pace should be, and not doing very well. See, not only do I have difficulty reading analogue watches at a glance, I also can't do math in my head particularly easily - I have to think about it rather hard, and lose my place if I don't concentrate. And I'm trying to do this while running, so it's not exactly working. Long story short, when I eventually figured out what times I should have been running, I'd clocked in a few around 1:15 and finished up with a 1:10, which, multiplying back the other way, made for a pretty hot 1k except I'd never keep that pace up for a full kilometre.
And here is the mistake you were trying to point out to me: the calculator link above, if you enter your time into it (try 32:59 for 5 miles to get my times) gives you the 400m speed training time. Gah. Well, at least I know I can put in a fast 400m if the situation demands it.
Stop trying to point out my mistake just yet, I'll get to it.
I ran the first 400m pretty hard, and failed to get the time, mainly because I still hadn't figured out my per-400m time, and also because I was reading off my regular watch - analogue - instead of my stopwatch, which had a misadventure with the washing machine after the recent 5-miler. The second run clocked in at somewhere over a minute and a half, and by this point I was working on mental arithmetic to figure out what my pace should be, and not doing very well. See, not only do I have difficulty reading analogue watches at a glance, I also can't do math in my head particularly easily - I have to think about it rather hard, and lose my place if I don't concentrate. And I'm trying to do this while running, so it's not exactly working. Long story short, when I eventually figured out what times I should have been running, I'd clocked in a few around 1:15 and finished up with a 1:10, which, multiplying back the other way, made for a pretty hot 1k except I'd never keep that pace up for a full kilometre.
And here is the mistake you were trying to point out to me: the calculator link above, if you enter your time into it (try 32:59 for 5 miles to get my times) gives you the 400m speed training time. Gah. Well, at least I know I can put in a fast 400m if the situation demands it.
see waider run (2008 edition)
May. 18th, 2008 02:09 pmSo, my first run in 2008, and my first run in the over 35 category: 5 miles around southside Dublin in just a shade under 33 minutes. Go me, etc. I was most pleased to note that my half-way split time was bang on 16 minutes, which bodes well for clocking a 20-minute 5k next time I try one.
Blisters: again, yes. Dammit. I really need to sort that out, because it's annoying as much as it's painful.
Blisters: again, yes. Dammit. I really need to sort that out, because it's annoying as much as it's painful.
running, or the lack thereof
Apr. 2nd, 2008 11:00 pmThe weather so far this year would best be classed as "broken". As such, given my membership of a nice, warm gym, I've been sticking mainly to that as my source of exercise. And when I've the chance to do a more balanced workout on an assortment of hardware instead of pounding my knees to pieces in the bitter cold, I know which I'll opt for. However, there's a suggestion of a rise in temperature, so I've registered for a 5 mile race on May 18th. I'm thinking of doing the Adidas Race Series again this year, but that doesn't kick in until mid-July, and I'd like to get a little running done before then.
nothing new under the sun
Mar. 29th, 2008 12:55 pmNoting the awkwardness of fiddling with the speed control on a treadmill to adapt to my pace, I pondered how you could modify the treadmill itself to adapt its speed automatically. I came up with an idea not unlike this one - filed in 1992, patent granted in 1994 - although rather than ultrasonic rangefinding my idea was to use pressure on the treadmill loop itself to determine the runner's location. Oh well. I guess I'll have to come up with something else for my Get-Rich-Quick scheme.
official race results
Dec. 2nd, 2007 08:22 pmThe official results are up, and as predicted there was an amount of fudging due to the time taken to actually note down the finishers, but at least it wasn't much. My official time is 20 minutes 34 seconds, finisher #159 of 904. Go me, etc.!
