xkcd

by **JudeMorrigan** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:26 pm UTC

5332 + 3.1 + 6.2 + 2.25 = 5343.55

Bleah, that 2.25 was supposed to be rather more. I was going to do intervals this morning, and I got my paces all sorts of screwed up and got crushed.

by **Samik** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:43 pm UTC

5343.55 + 1.9 = 5345.45

Going to wait until I get below 7 min/mile this time before starting to add on distance. Hit a wall at about 7:30/mile last time (for 5k) that didn't seem to want to budge.

Going to try to get used to the quicker pace before adding distance this time, instead of the other way around. Who knows. Worst that can happen is it doesn't work.

On the plus side, finally got a watch with stopwatch functionality. Seeing those seconds staring back at you and ticking off one by one is much more motivating that trying to guess approximately what your pace is based on the playlist you're listening to and your rough guesses at how long the songs are. Went from 7:25/mile on Friday to 7:14/mile today, largely because of this (though this is still only barely better than my best 5k (7:18/mile) back in December).

Of course, this doesn't actually reflect improved fitness - just a willingness today, for some reason (new watch), to freaking murder myself. Will be interesting to see if there's any regression next time out.

by **Save Point** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:27 am UTC

5345.45 + 8 + 8 = 5361.45

Sick (feeling better) and leg hurt for the past two weeks so, so bad. I finally grabbed new running shoes, though. I went against full barefoot and opted for another minimalist shoe. The colors are ugly but it felt great when I put it on. We'll see tomorrow how it feels on a run.

by **JudeMorrigan** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:12 pm UTC

5361.45 + 5 = 5366.45

First run I've done in a while that wasn't metric. Miles seems like an excessively long distance after getting used to thinking in km.

by **Samik** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

5366.45 + 1.9 = 5368.35

Slight regression. Still better than two runs ago.

I wish real life had ghost runners, like in Mario Kart, so you know exactly where you need to be to at least beat your last run, even if your pace wasn't consistent throughout the length of the run. I mean, I'm using my fancy new watch to mark splits at the major intersections on my route, but the last stretch is pretty long, straight and featureless, and it would just be a whole different story to have that ghost runner right next to you, or a few paces in front, or breathing right down your neck.

by **diabolo** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:43 am UTC

Samik wrote:I wish real life had ghost runners, like in Mario Kart, so you know exactly where you need to be to at least beat your last run, even if your pace wasn't consistent throughout the length of the run. I mean, I'm using my fancy new watch to mark splits at the major intersections on my route, but the last stretch is pretty long, straight and featureless, and it would just be a whole different story to have that ghost runner right next to you, or a few paces in front, or breathing right down your neck.

Not quite Mario Kart yet but some fancier watches (using GPS or footpods) can tell you how far ahead/behind (time and distance) you are compared to a recorded run or with regards to a constant speed/pace.

Spoiler:

by **Samik** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:30 pm UTC

diabolo wrote:Not quite Mario Kart yet but some fancier watches (using GPS or footpods) can tell you how far ahead/behind (time and distance) you are compared to a recorded run or with regards to a constant speed/pace.

Definitely a start.

As soon as I started thinking about it, I remembered reading about some little app games that would overlay badguys/objectives/whatever over the real world while looking through your phone's camera. It seems like it might be doable (if not yet reasonably cost effective) to come up with a pair of goggles/glasses that do the same thing, and utilize GPS and a small drive to store a few of your runs and project a target for you.

Aaanyway.

5368.35 + 1.9 = 5370.25

Made up what I lost last time, plus a little more. 7:12/mile. Aiming for <7:10/mile next time. Going to be below 7:00 in no time (if my shins hold up). Then I'll start creeping up the distance again.

by **webby** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:52 am UTC

5370.25+3.1 = 5373.35

Does anyone else here do parkrun? One just started near me (St Peters, Sydney) so I've been going the last few Saturdays. I think it's mainly a British thing, but they're starting up all round the world now. Free timed 5km runs each week.

by **VectorZero** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:44 am UTC

No, but I've been wanting to. Maybe next weekend once the grand prix clears out.

5373.35 + 6.25 = 5379.6

by **sfwc** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

5379.6 + 8.2 = 5387.8

by **JudeMorrigan** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:02 pm UTC

5387.8 + 6 + 6.2 = 5400

The 10k I did today included 5x800m intervals. Jesus, that hurt.

by **Samik** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:29 pm UTC

5400 + 2 = 5402

Great, great run for me. Holy cow. Whenever I'm feeling awful and wondering why the hell I'm doing this to myself, I need to remember runs like today.

by **Jumble** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:26 pm UTC

5402 + 7 + 4 + 6.8 + 6.2 = 5426

Sorry all. Been too busy to post but I've at least been running to work & back!

by **sfwc** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

5426 + 4.2 = 5430.2

by **JudeMorrigan** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

5430.2 + 7 = 5437.2

First time I've hit 6.2 mi and kept going. Also the first time I've gone over an hour without any walking. That said, dear Lord am I happy that I plan on actually sticking to the 10% rule after this week. My body is somewhat less than completely delighted by my shenanigans.

by **Odd_nonposter** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:27 pm UTC

5437.2 + 5 + 7 = 5450

Got home for spring break and started running the county roads. For some reason, they're a lot tougher than the trail at uni.

And this damn internet at home doesn't play nice with this board's login system.

by **Samik** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:08 pm UTC

Odd_nonposter wrote:5437.2 + 5 + 7 = 5450

If you're gonna round, rounding down 0.2 is probably better than rounding up 0.8, no?

No offense, I'm just going to anal retentively undue the round. (I mean, I'm sure I've introduced far more error than that over the course of the thread, especially with some of my guestimated runs in unfamiliar territory this past winter - trail runs and whatnot. I just... can't get it out of my head once it's in there. Like when you see a scrap of paper on the floor and want to pick it up and throw it away, but you say, "No Samik, don't be OCD", and keep walking, but the further away you walk the more the sensation nags at you until you're about 50 feet away and you lose it and turn back around and pick it up and throw it in a trash can.)

Okaay. Anyway:

5449.2 + 2 = 5451.2

by **gaurwraith** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:56 pm UTC

5451.2 + 7.1 + 6.8 = 5465,1

by **sfwc** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:38 pm UTC

5465.1 + 6.2 = 5471.3

by **Samik** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

5471.3 + 2 = 5473.3

I know it's only two miles, but damn are things starting to feel good. I'm finally getting back into that zone where running feels rewarding instead of miserable.

I do want to start adding distance, but also am very curious to see how far I can drive my time down at this distance. My current trajectory suggests some personal bests are going to fall shortly. And I'm just enjoying it so much more since I scaled back from 5ks.

by **sfwc** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:49 pm UTC

5473.3 + 8.2 = 5481.5

by **Azo** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:37 am UTC

5481.5 + 1.7 = 5483.2

Putting in my (almost) 2 cents worth!

by **Cathy** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:24 am UTC

The hubby is being good! He's running the track they have at work! Woohoo!

5481.5 + 2.5 = 5484

by **Jumble** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:38 pm UTC

Back from a conference, but I tried to keep running to counteract the over-eating and drinking, so:

5484 + 3.4 + 3.6 + 3.5 + 3.4 + 6.1 = 5504

55% there...

by **Samik** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:24 am UTC

5504 + 2 = 5506

by **JudeMorrigan** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

5506 + 7 + 5.7 = 5518.7

by **Save Point** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:15 am UTC

5518.7 + 8 + 7.5 + 10 + 6.5 + 7.5 + 8 + 7.5 + 7.5 + 10 + 7 = 5598.2

All caught up. If I don't update after my run tomorrow, yell at me.

by **JudeMorrigan** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

5598.2 + 6 = 5604.2

by **Samik** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

5604.2 + 2 = 5606.2

12:58

by **JudeMorrigan** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:56 pm UTC

5606.2 + 5 = 5611.2

For a slow, easy run, that sure was hard. I do believe that yesterday's tempo run combined with a couple of hours of fairly hard dancing in the evening kinda kicked my butt.

by **gaurwraith** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

5611.2 + 15.8 + 3.1 = 5630.1

( a long run along the river.. got the heroic half marathon quest

)

by **sfwc** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:35 pm UTC

5630.1 + 4.2 + 6.2 = 5640.5

by **Samik** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

5640.5 + 2 = 5642.5

Increasing your speed by 0.1mph each run always seems like a great idea at first. And then I always try to stick to it way, way too long.

guarwraith wrote:15.8

Sigh. I can count on one hand the number of times I have hiked more miles than that in a day.

Themis, on 27MAR, wrote:If I don't update after my run tomorrow, yell at me.

I think you've exceeded your grace period. Not much of a yeller though. So I'll just use shame instead.

...What, there's no :Judgmental: emoticon? Rubbish!

by **Samsoneffect** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

5642.5 + 1.4 = 5643.9

Been sitting around being lazy for a few weeks, gotta get back into the habit.

by **Odd_nonposter** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:30 pm UTC

5643.9 + 2.5 +7.0 = 5653.4

Back into running at uni. Nice weather. Today, though, I had some severe gas, so there were quite a few stops along that 7.0.

A runner's worst enemy is his stomach.

by **sfwc** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

5653.4 + 8.2 = 5661.6

by **Save Point** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

5653.4 + 7.5 + 6 + 10 = 5676.9

by **JudeMorrigan** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:29 pm UTC

5676.9 + 8 + 6 = 5690.9

Today's six miles included 4x1000m intervals. It was amazing how quickly it went from "hey, this isn't too bad" to "Gee Willikers, dying!" during the last interval.

by **Samik** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:51 am UTC

5690.9 + 2 = 5692.9

Safe to say that 2 miles in 12:46 (6:23/mi) is better than 1.5 miles in 9:28* (6:19/mi)? Or, at worst, about equal?
*A personal best from my last real fitness fit a couple years ago.

by **JudeMorrigan** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:35 pm UTC

5692.9 + 6 = 5698.9

Who is online