Moraghan Training - Stevie G

12,961 to 12,980 of 25,863 messages
16/10/2012 at 14:42

Definitely metatarsalgia Dean, the pea under the foot description confirms that.

Seconded for the icing and rolling - I use a beer bottle! You can pick up a foot pad that slips over your toe to hold it on and sits under the affected joint for a couple of quid from Superdrug. it's called "ball of foot pad" or something similar  - they are surprsingly effective, and mine stayed in place when running no problem. It can also be washed and re-used.

Stevie G . wrote (see)

Bus, stiles are massively hazardous always...you're lucky a wet one didn't cause too much more harm!

Definitely - not the first time for me, and I read in the fell runners mag about a guy who slipped on a stile in a race at speed, who slipped onto barbed wire which shredded him up so badly they had to call an air ambulance to evacuate him for stitching up. Typically for a fell runner though, he refused the air ambulance as he would have been taken to a hospital in a town on the wrong side of the Pennines that would have needed him to pay for a taxi fare home afterwards!

16/10/2012 at 16:51

Foot felt pretty much good to go yesterday, so I did a 6 miler last night.  Bad idea.  Foot was in pain all the way round.  Not severe pain, like I had to stop, but constant nonetheless.  I figured I might as well try 10K pace for the last 1km to see if I could still run fast on it despite the pain.  3:33 for that km, so it appears I can (allowing for a bit of post-marathon rustyness).  Didn't hurt any more to run fast than slowly.  But still hurt.

I am undecided on Cabbage Patch, but it's looking increasingly likely that I'm out.

Stupid marathons.

16/10/2012 at 16:57

Sometimes it can be weird like that Dachs, I've had stuff that aches at easy, but is fine at "quite fast" pace.

Be careful though fella, your marathon was your big one, and although I was looking forward to seeing you as well as some other forum faces, it's not worth you mashing yourself. 10miles isn't a shortie!

maybe just 3-4days pure rest/ice/strengthening type fare will get you through.

Edited: 16/10/2012 at 16:58
16/10/2012 at 17:09
Stevie G . wrote (see)

out of interest, how in blazes can anyone be higher than 100% age grading. Bearing in mind that 100% means you're the fastest in the world!

 

100% is the rating you get when you run the equivalent of the world best. Higher than that is when you become the world best.

 

16/10/2012 at 17:19

looking forward to seeing how people get on at CP 10 this weekend.

had a good 10k race on sunday to (35:25). within 57secs of the 10k pb was good to Stevie see aswell. well done matey. you need a pb soon though

16/10/2012 at 18:09
RicF wrote (see)
Stevie G . wrote (see)

out of interest, how in blazes can anyone be higher than 100% age grading. Bearing in mind that 100% means you're the fastest in the world!

 

100% is the rating you get when you run the equivalent of the world best. Higher than that is when you become the world best.

 

but then surely it instantly then becomes 100% again, as YOU are the best in the world. So it's a pretty short lived and impossible term.

it would be like saying that my 100% effort for 10miles is 58:24, yet if i do 58:20 at Cp i've run at 100.2% (or something before you anoraks get your calculators out)  ie, above my maximum.

andy the deestrider. wrote (see)

looking forward to seeing how people get on at CP 10 this weekend.

had a good 10k race on sunday to (35:25).


nice race pal. although they tell me you have to run 35:19 or quicker to count as a good runner

16/10/2012 at 19:00

The 100% age grading is based on fastest time for a particular age. If you beat that time you get 100% + on account of the new time being faster. That time now becomes the new 100% standard. Makes no odds. Look up Mike Hager on PO10. Its clear he's going to cane our arses at the CP. 

16/10/2012 at 19:07

His most recent race was a 76:39 at one of the fastest halfs in the country a couple of weeks ago.

You reckon you're going to run 57:30.

I took the liberty of whacking the 76:39 into McMillan to see what 10mile time it threw up

and guess what....57:28

So there could be an epic oldies battle going on

16/10/2012 at 19:16

ps ric, a little bit of sniffing through his results, led ,e t this random profile

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=885

this guy did a 47:51 10miler at 40 years old. That is just ridiculous

 

Edited: 16/10/2012 at 19:17
16/10/2012 at 19:35

SG, I detect some pre race adrenaline there, relax. I honestly don't know how I'll be on the day. I've been feeling like shit for several days now, its probably my calcium levels going out of sync. I have to control the levels myself (drugs for the rest of my life) as the glands that do it naturally were removed in a couple of nasty operations a few years back. Look up Para-Thyroidism. Its a miracle I can still move let alone run. Calcium levels are sort of important with muscles. 

Anyway, about the Cabbage Patch. Last year I started ahead of you by being near the front. I blasted off quite fast but as soon as I got around the first bend started backing off the pace until I reached a pace I thought I could sustain. I had to run in the gutter while this was going on as I was getting in the way of runners who still had their foot hard down. That was when you went by incidentally. Can be difficult not to get swept along with the masses. And since last year my first mile was 5:33. I don't think aiming at a 5:45 is being audacious.

 47:51! I don't think I can sprint that fast

Edited: 16/10/2012 at 19:40
16/10/2012 at 19:40
Stevie G . wrote (see)

out of interest, how in blazes can anyone be higher than 100% age grading. Bearing in mind that 100% means you're the fastest in the world!

WAVA is all about curve fitting, so you get a whole load of data and plot it and it looks like a 4 year old doing damage with a crayon. You then chuck it all into a statistics package and it throws out some best fit curves. This is a snapshot of static data so if the records change then the WAVA doesn't until it is updated. The factors most people use are from 2006 but there is a newer set from 2010. There is a spreadsheet you can download and play with to see what sort of nonsense it has so world record for 100m is 9.79 (so that is back in 1999, now Bolt is 9.58 so 102%) and something like marathon which has a realistic 2:04:55 for the open standard gives a factor of 0.2992 for a 96 year old and 0.1902 for a 100 year old so that equates to 6:57 for a 96 and 10:56 for a 100 year old. I'd say anyone who can manage 6:57 at the age of 96 stands a reasonable chance of not slowing by 4 hours in 4 years! Needless to say, the data for 100 year old marathon runners is thin on the ground unless your name happens to be Fauja Singh and you run in 8:25 so well over 125%

16/10/2012 at 19:44

You'll know what you're capable of, so every chance.

However, I'm personally never one to link a first mile to the average pace, as my first mile was a 5.25, when race average was 5.50, and Wokingham this year 5.28 with race average of 5.57

Probably something in those 2 examples for me to take from this

16/10/2012 at 19:46
Philip_M_Jones wrote (see)
Stevie G . wrote (see)

out of interest, how in blazes can anyone be higher than 100% age grading. Bearing in mind that 100% means you're the fastest in the world!

WAVA is all about curve fitting, so you get a whole load of data and plot it and it looks like a 4 year old doing damage with a crayon. You then chuck it all into a statistics package and it throws out some best fit curves. This is a snapshot of static data so if the records change then the WAVA doesn't until it is updated. The factors most people use are from 2006 but there is a newer set from 2010. There is a spreadsheet you can download and play with to see what sort of nonsense it has so world record for 100m is 9.79 (so that is back in 1999, now Bolt is 9.58 so 102%) and something like marathon which has a realistic 2:04:55 for the open standard gives a factor of 0.2992 for a 96 year old and 0.1902 for a 100 year old so that equates to 6:57 for a 96 and 10:56 for a 100 year old. I'd say anyone who can manage 6:57 at the age of 96 stands a reasonable chance of not slowing by 4 hours in 4 years! Needless to say, the data for 100 year old marathon runners is thin on the ground unless your name happens to be Fauja Singh and you run in 8:25 so well over 125%

I bet you tell people you put in 101% effort don't you. Admit it

16/10/2012 at 19:46

I'll have my lad check that out Phil. He's the one doing A level in Maths and Physics.

16/10/2012 at 20:10

SG, I'll avoid a fast start like the plague since I haven't the 'make up' of an 800m runner. From the gun I'm concentrating on nothing but getting into the appropriate tempo for the distance. Remembering to breath fast from the off is another thing. Get your lungs going before being forced too. Avoid the oxygen debt. Takes a few minutes before your heart gets going properly, so while beating slowly, the oxygen isn't getting to where you want it, so the start of the race isn't a great time to sprint and keep going. I completely ignore the pace of other runners for at least 10 mins. By that time the lactic acid will have reached optimum for those who keep pushing the pace and back they come. At seven or eight miles endurance plays its card. Last year for me the card was blank.

16/10/2012 at 20:18

I suppose the slightly tricky thing at CP is you can't go back too far to avoid the cavalry charge, as it's only gun timing isn't it?

Despite there being 2 different chips on the number and for the shoe. I think it's one of those wretched timings where you don't get your individual time mat to mat, but get your time in relation to the winner.

16/10/2012 at 20:29

I don't bother with all that standing back business. I stand near the front. And so should you SG, after all ,you're bigger than nearly everyone else so who's going to push you out the way. With me, its a game of chance in the early stages. I've an idea, why don't you follow me for a bit, that way I can avoid being shunted aside by unknown six footers at around half a mile.

16/10/2012 at 21:05

I do chuckle at the idea of you being shunted by the likes of me. Too strong a gust of wind and I'd be over! I'm guessing you're a gent of shorter stature are you? Lucky dastard, you have less bulk to carry around

3-4 rows from the front sounds about right for this one. Let the 50min men make their merry way off into the sunset, and we'll hob nob it with the sub 60 brigade.

IronCat5    pirate
16/10/2012 at 21:22

This thread continues to march on at the average pace of it's posters. As usual, I can't keep up.

Ankle seems to have cleared up, and after some easy pace running went back to the club last week, where a combination of small attendance and big egos meant that both easy runs turned in to a pace-fest.

16 km run in the bag tonight with a local running group here in Austria (away with work). Again, it got silly towards the end...

16/10/2012 at 21:31

haha, sounds like club running Iron. good to see you back pal. Just in time for xcs methinks...someone ought to get this year's thread up and running...

ps just checked the Oxford half results, and was shocked to see my ex clubmate pal do a 83, when 85 was her previous best. Fabian Downs also took his 69 down to a 68.

However, checking power of 10, it's down as HM NAD.

That can only mean short course right?

Must be bloody gutting!!

12,961 to 12,980 of 25,863 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums