|
Hi,
I am currently training for the marathon in cologne, which is on the 4th of octobre, in precisely 8 weeks and 3 days from today on. Ever since I started doing sports, after quitting World of Warcraft about 3 years ago, I loved running the most. I did do Triathlon, but training for Triathlon takes up so much more time, and I don't find biking as much fun. Because of that its just running currently, with an occasional swimming session for cross training purposes.
I am in fear of slacking with my training, so I need a place to keep track of it. Keeping track of it in public increases the motivation, thats why I blogged it. And of course the bragging rights if I get my time  .
The training plan (link, if you know German) I use is one from a German website, http://www.runnersworld.de. It promises a time below 3:30, which I think is, with 5 minutes/kilometre, a good goal. Challenging, but doable. Every week has 5 training units, 4 different ones over the course of the week, and a long run on sunday. So far the training was good, and my body didn't have any problems adapting to the training, except some minor foot injuries.
Today the program is a slow steady run for 40 minutes, easy . Saturday will be an 8km run in the desired tempo, somewhere at 4 minutes 50 seconds per kilometre, and sunday a long run of 30 kilometres.
Now for something completely different. Through long years of research, I can finally present my result, the correlation between skill involved in a game and the manliness of it.
|
lol@ graph, it's pretty random in a funny way
I'm also in triathlon training and my plan is to do a Ironman at some point in my life; maybe next year or the year after. I really like running, biking and swimming so it's kinda hard sometimes to divide your attention to all three disciplines.
Currently I run 10K once a week, and do some spinning classes and stuff. I'm having issues with my back so I'm chilling atm.
|
|
|
On August 06 2009 23:46 Foucault wrote:
lol@ graph, it's pretty random in a funny way
I'm also in triathlon training and my plan is to do a Ironman at some point in my life; maybe next year or the year after. I really like running, biking and swimming so it's kinda hard sometimes to divide your attention to all three disciplines.
Currently I run 10K once a week, and do some spinning classes and stuff. I'm having issues with my back so I'm chilling atm.
I plan on doing an ironman too, but if I do it I want to have a decent time, <11 hours would be neat. Training for that would take up so much time though. But since endurance athletes peak at an age of around 30 years and me being 23, I still have time to improve .
|
|
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
LOL minesweeper haha
so true lollll
|
you forgot to add solitaire between wc3 and quake
gl on the marathon tho
|
On August 07 2009 00:01 icystorage wrote:you forgot to add solitaire between wc3 and quake gl on the marathon tho
Solitaire is a lot of luck in getting a good deck in order to quickly clear it and get a high time bonus.
Minesweeper needs logic thinking when learning it, and then a high amount of mouse mechanic. Solitaire can't be below minesweeper.
|
On August 06 2009 23:51 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 23:46 Foucault wrote:
lol@ graph, it's pretty random in a funny way
I'm also in triathlon training and my plan is to do a Ironman at some point in my life; maybe next year or the year after. I really like running, biking and swimming so it's kinda hard sometimes to divide your attention to all three disciplines.
Currently I run 10K once a week, and do some spinning classes and stuff. I'm having issues with my back so I'm chilling atm. I plan on doing an ironman too, but if I do it I want to have a decent time, <11 hours would be neat. Training for that would take up so much time though. But since endurance athletes peak at an age of around 30 years and me being 23, I still have time to improve .
Really, they peak around 30? Haha I'm 30. Oh well, I feel like I'm constantly improving. Besides there are many older tri-athletes around that do very well
Yeah, <11 hours would be neat. It's hard to say exactly how brutal IM will be also, I guess you'll never know until you do it.
|
On August 07 2009 00:06 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 23:51 h3r1n6 wrote:On August 06 2009 23:46 Foucault wrote:
lol@ graph, it's pretty random in a funny way
I'm also in triathlon training and my plan is to do a Ironman at some point in my life; maybe next year or the year after. I really like running, biking and swimming so it's kinda hard sometimes to divide your attention to all three disciplines.
Currently I run 10K once a week, and do some spinning classes and stuff. I'm having issues with my back so I'm chilling atm. I plan on doing an ironman too, but if I do it I want to have a decent time, <11 hours would be neat. Training for that would take up so much time though. But since endurance athletes peak at an age of around 30 years and me being 23, I still have time to improve . Really, they peak around 30? Haha I'm 30. Oh well, I feel like I'm constantly improving. Besides there are many older tri-athletes around that do very well Yeah, <11 hours would be neat. It's hard to say exactly how brutal IM will be also, I guess you'll never know until you do it.
At around, I guess you won't decrease in form until 35 and not by that much until 40. This however is at the top level. You can probably do a <11 time until 50 if in good form or maybe even older.
So there is still time
|
Don't worry h3r1n6, we won't let you slack off. :D
|
you forgot to put this
after WoW
|
Hey, don't diss minesweeper! Well, at least you put it above WoW =D
|
On August 07 2009 00:13 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2009 00:06 Foucault wrote:On August 06 2009 23:51 h3r1n6 wrote:On August 06 2009 23:46 Foucault wrote:
lol@ graph, it's pretty random in a funny way
I'm also in triathlon training and my plan is to do a Ironman at some point in my life; maybe next year or the year after. I really like running, biking and swimming so it's kinda hard sometimes to divide your attention to all three disciplines.
Currently I run 10K once a week, and do some spinning classes and stuff. I'm having issues with my back so I'm chilling atm. I plan on doing an ironman too, but if I do it I want to have a decent time, <11 hours would be neat. Training for that would take up so much time though. But since endurance athletes peak at an age of around 30 years and me being 23, I still have time to improve . Really, they peak around 30? Haha I'm 30. Oh well, I feel like I'm constantly improving. Besides there are many older tri-athletes around that do very well Yeah, <11 hours would be neat. It's hard to say exactly how brutal IM will be also, I guess you'll never know until you do it. http://ironman.com/mediacenter/history/ironman-triathlon-world-championship Robert McKeague becomes the oldest athlete to cross an Ironman finish line. At 80-years-old, McKeague from Villa Park, IL, finishes with a time of 16:21:55. So there is still time
That is simply awesome, and inspiring.
|
if you had starcraft at anywhere but the highest of manliness people would be like "wtfbbqban"
but as it stands, graph is awesome and true 
|
On August 07 2009 03:51 B1nary wrote:
Hey, don't diss minesweeper! Well, at least you put it above WoW =D
My best times are 13/119/308 and I am confident that the more you play minesweeper the less you think about it and are instead just reflexively clicking based on pattern recognition. That graph isn't a diss; it's entirely accurate.
|
mh Minesweeper <3 (beat easy in 2 and 3 secs lolz) when the only games available are the ones that are on every computer and you want to prove your smarter than those WoW players playing solitaire.
And awww, Q3 the good old days of railgunning goodness...bounching off walls and owning an entire team of players with a series of accurate shots like a one man army Rambo, team freeze tag anyone?
|
On August 07 2009 05:28 Crunchums wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2009 03:51 B1nary wrote:
Hey, don't diss minesweeper! Well, at least you put it above WoW =D My best times are 13/119/308 and I am confident that the more you play minesweeper the less you think about it and are instead just reflexively clicking based on pattern recognition. That graph isn't a diss; it's entirely accurate.
3 second/31 seconds/109 seconds. As I said already, some logical thinking at first, and then pure mouse mechanic.
Also, the graph is not absolute, since there is no real measurement for skill and manliness. I guess expressing it in % of Jaedong for skill and % of Reach for manliness would work, but as it stands it is just a relative standing of the games.
If I would have brought other games in, such as hello kitty online, Minesweeper would be higher
|
bestrunninglog.com
log it in there, then you can be held accountable as you can leave the profile public :-)
out of curiosity do you have any official times? for a HM or an 8miler perhaps?
|
3 km 11:23, not really relevant here though
10 km 43:30
Do the math yourself . I can give you a HM time in two weeks.
I want to get that 10 km below 40. In fact, the next goal after the marathon will probably be the local easter run, which is 10,5km on a course with some light hills, below 40 minutes.
The problem with all these training logs is, that I can't fill in everything. I don't know the exact length if I go for 40 minutes, which is the required field though. I could look up the track on a route planer, but thats bothersome everytime, since I mix it up a lot, and some of the ways through the forest aren't even in there. Guessing the actual length of the course doesn't really work well either.
|
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
I love minesweeper - good luck with the marathon!
|
On August 07 2009 09:11 h3r1n6 wrote:3 km 11:23, not really relevant here though 10 km 43:30 Do the math yourself . I can give you a HM time in two weeks. I want to get that 10 km below 40. In fact, the next goal after the marathon will probably be the local easter run, which is 10,5km on a course with some light hills, below 40 minutes. The problem with all these training logs is, that I can't fill in everything. I don't know the exact length if I go for 40 minutes, which is the required field though. I could look up the track on a route planer, but thats bothersome everytime, since I mix it up a lot, and some of the ways through the forest aren't even in there. Guessing the actual length of the course doesn't really work well either.
about logs..
actually i don't use that log at all :p
personally i use mapmyrun.com where (if i am doing a new route) i map out and get the distance (b/c i run by time exclusively), then plug it into my custom excel sheet which i've made as easy as can be:
it looks like this,
+ Show Spoiler [screenshot] +
no fields are mandatory really, just will have some missing points in the graphs
im actually pretty proud of it haha, although there's still a lot i want to fix. .but all i have to do is enter the values, click a button and graphs are auto updated, auto-warns me if my shoes are close to worn out, etc.
as for math..
+ Show Spoiler [math] +
i'll take that math remark as an invitation :p theory's always fun especially since i like to think that my approach is a bit more accurate than plugging in numbers into mcmilllan
HM time would be much more useful but i can make do with a 10k ^^
note: the following relies on assumptions about your training which can likely be wrong aaaand i had to use babelfish for that german program haha
first lets calculate your general miles per week:
(i picked week 5 as a moderate week from that training program)
55km and 100 minutes of running at like.. easy pace, which ill just go ahead and assume is 5:30/km, giving another 18km for a total of 73km = 45mpw, which (courtesy of BrianW) makes your 10k factor around 5.2, thus.. 43.5*5.2=3:46 assuming good conditions (like 50*/50%) and pacing on race day.
since you're aiming for a 10k below 40 i shall also assume that's an old 10k time thus rendering my math pretty useless (as that's no indication of your current condition!) xD
so i dont even know why i put this at all lol
|
i'm currently training for cross country, been running every day. It's a great sport to take up, and really helps you get healthier. Good luck with the Marathon - I hope to one day attempt one myself!
|
On August 07 2009 10:19 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2009 09:11 h3r1n6 wrote:3 km 11:23, not really relevant here though 10 km 43:30 Do the math yourself . I can give you a HM time in two weeks. I want to get that 10 km below 40. In fact, the next goal after the marathon will probably be the local easter run, which is 10,5km on a course with some light hills, below 40 minutes. The problem with all these training logs is, that I can't fill in everything. I don't know the exact length if I go for 40 minutes, which is the required field though. I could look up the track on a route planer, but thats bothersome everytime, since I mix it up a lot, and some of the ways through the forest aren't even in there. Guessing the actual length of the course doesn't really work well either. about logs.. actually i don't use that log at all :p personally i use mapmyrun.com where (if i am doing a new route) i map out and get the distance (b/c i run by time exclusively), then plug it into my custom excel sheet which i've made as easy as can be: it looks like this, + Show Spoiler [screenshot] +no fields are mandatory really, just will have some missing points in the graphs im actually pretty proud of it haha, although there's still a lot i want to fix. .but all i have to do is enter the values, click a button and graphs are auto updated, auto-warns me if my shoes are close to worn out, etc. as for math.. + Show Spoiler [math] +
i'll take that math remark as an invitation :p theory's always fun especially since i like to think that my approach is a bit more accurate than plugging in numbers into mcmilllan
HM time would be much more useful but i can make do with a 10k ^^
note: the following relies on assumptions about your training which can likely be wrong aaaand i had to use babelfish for that german program haha
first lets calculate your general miles per week:
(i picked week 5 as a moderate week from that training program)
55km and 100 minutes of running at like.. easy pace, which ill just go ahead and assume is 5:30/km, giving another 18km for a total of 73km = 45mpw, which (courtesy of BrianW) makes your 10k factor around 5.2, thus.. 43.5*5.2=3:46 assuming good conditions (like 50*/50%) and pacing on race day.
since you're aiming for a 10k below 40 i shall also assume that's an old 10k time thus rendering my math pretty useless (as that's no indication of your current condition!) xD
so i dont even know why i put this at all lol
So that translates to a marathon time of 3:46 according to your calculations?
That German page has an online calculator, which says 43:30 would be a 3:23 time for Marathon. I don't know how either calculation works, nor the process of thought behind it, but I don't really think they are of much use, other than a rough estimate.
I don't really bother taking training times and my pulse watch is broken, so I am kind of running in the dark. I'll have a hm time after week 6, that means sunday in two weeks
|
10k is a good predictor for marathon performance. One way to predict marathon is to equate 27:00 on 10k to 2:06 on marathon and then just work out by adding/substracting(o_O) percentages. However, since you are so slow over that distance there is a huge chance that you will have problems, leading to dnf or dragging yourself to the line... Do not underestimate the effort of just hanging in there, the dehidration, the overheating, the low blood sugar, and the joint damage. As counter-intuitive as it seems, it is easier to finish the marathon in 2:30 than in 3:00!
My advice to you would be to try and break 38 minutes for 10k, and if you fail to do so, then quit! You are a sunday jogger, not an athlete, by the look of things so far. You have no business running marathons.
|
Sunday jogger? No, I am not a professional athlete, but I don't think running 5 times a week, plus swimming about once a week qualifies as sunday jogger. I'll just ignore your advice.
|
On August 07 2009 21:07 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2009 10:19 JeeJee wrote:On August 07 2009 09:11 h3r1n6 wrote:3 km 11:23, not really relevant here though 10 km 43:30 Do the math yourself . I can give you a HM time in two weeks. I want to get that 10 km below 40. In fact, the next goal after the marathon will probably be the local easter run, which is 10,5km on a course with some light hills, below 40 minutes. The problem with all these training logs is, that I can't fill in everything. I don't know the exact length if I go for 40 minutes, which is the required field though. I could look up the track on a route planer, but thats bothersome everytime, since I mix it up a lot, and some of the ways through the forest aren't even in there. Guessing the actual length of the course doesn't really work well either. about logs.. actually i don't use that log at all :p personally i use mapmyrun.com where (if i am doing a new route) i map out and get the distance (b/c i run by time exclusively), then plug it into my custom excel sheet which i've made as easy as can be: it looks like this, + Show Spoiler [screenshot] +no fields are mandatory really, just will have some missing points in the graphs im actually pretty proud of it haha, although there's still a lot i want to fix. .but all i have to do is enter the values, click a button and graphs are auto updated, auto-warns me if my shoes are close to worn out, etc. as for math.. + Show Spoiler [math] +
i'll take that math remark as an invitation :p theory's always fun especially since i like to think that my approach is a bit more accurate than plugging in numbers into mcmilllan
HM time would be much more useful but i can make do with a 10k ^^
note: the following relies on assumptions about your training which can likely be wrong aaaand i had to use babelfish for that german program haha
first lets calculate your general miles per week:
(i picked week 5 as a moderate week from that training program)
55km and 100 minutes of running at like.. easy pace, which ill just go ahead and assume is 5:30/km, giving another 18km for a total of 73km = 45mpw, which (courtesy of BrianW) makes your 10k factor around 5.2, thus.. 43.5*5.2=3:46 assuming good conditions (like 50*/50%) and pacing on race day.
since you're aiming for a 10k below 40 i shall also assume that's an old 10k time thus rendering my math pretty useless (as that's no indication of your current condition!) xD
so i dont even know why i put this at all lol
So that translates to a marathon time of 3:46 according to your calculations? That German page has an online calculator, which says 43:30 would be a 3:23 time for Marathon. I don't know how either calculation works, nor the process of thought behind it, but I don't really think they are of much use, other than a rough estimate. I don't really bother taking training times and my pulse watch is broken, so I am kind of running in the dark. I'll have a hm time after week 6, that means sunday in two weeks
yes, if you trained roughly the same intensity as you did for the 10k and ran it under similarly stressful conditions, at the time when you ran a 43:30 you'd run about 3:46. if it was a while ago, this would not be representative of your current (hopefully improved) condition, meaning you are likely to run faster.
a 43:30 equated to a 3:23 is using a fairly common multiplier in online calculators, which is 4.67 (i.e. 43.5 * 4.67 = 3:23). there is a problem with this -- it assumes a highly trained runner.
the post quoted below is the method i currently use (and it seems to be more accurate, by all accounts, than simply using online calculators. ymmv of course)
I think a race provides a more reliable measure than trying to compare training (although this can be done too). The longer the race the better. And using the RW calculator blindly is probably not a great thing, unless the race is longer than 10 miles. 5k's are unreliable, but I'd convert it to a 10k time then use a factor based on what the person mileage is. I never posted the results of my survey on marathon to 10k ratio versus mileage. Of course, there are variations among people, but considering the mileage helps reduce the variation. Here's what I came up with based on the survey:
30-35mpw: 5.5
40mpw: 5.0-5.3
55 mpw: 4.9
60 mpw: 4.75-4.85
70 mpw: 4.70-4.80
80-100 mpw: 4.55-4.65
Depending on how long a person has been running and how many marathons they've run, you can choose the slightly higher or lower values for a given mileage. The RW calculator gives 4.67, the world class runners varied for 4.55-4.8. But the 4.55 people never really tried to excel in the 10k, and the 4.8 people only gave the marathon one to two shots. A RW survey of 2,000 readers gave a number closer to 5.0. I would guess the average mileage of these readers was about 45 mpw. I wonder if they even thought to include that in their survey? I don't have that article.
edit: also
it is easier to finish the marathon in 2:30 than in 3:00!
lol.
|
Hmm, makes sense. That time is from when I did Triathlon. I did do the same amount of training, but seperated to the 3 disciplines. That means running got a lot less time than it gets now. I am in better shape now, so I am feeling confident that I can do it.
|
yeah, it's quite likely
either way, the HM time will be far more telling, just use a standard 2.11 multiplier to convert to a full marathon time, HM is long enough where that should be fairly accurate
good luck on your HM, keep up with your training ^_^
wait a minute, i'm missing something here
you're not racing the HM are you? you're running it at marathon pace?
or are you actually planning to go all out
|
All out, because the plan says so. I didn't find a contest that weekend anywhere near where I live, so I'll test it on the HM course of a local run here.
|
under 3:30 is a solid time. Good luck.
|
I agree with the graph. Quake 3 is hard man, I played it for years. God I love that game, luckily I was a lot better at it than I 'll ever be at SC1. ^_^
|
Too lazy to write a new blog, I'll bump my old one.
I just did the all out test on half marathon distance, in a time of 1:39:52.
Now taking the 2.11 multiplier from JeeJee, this would equal a marathon time of 3:30:43. That is a bit above my goal. I've got to keep pushing myself.
|
ah good stuff
i wouldn't be too worried, looks like (assuming proper pacing and good conditions on raceday) you'll hit your sub-3:30, since a time-trial, while better than nothing, is not as good as the effort you can put in on raceday (ymmv of course, but for me solo timetrials definitely produce worse results than actual races.. can't really replicate the atmosphere ).
either way, keep up with your training, follow through with a proper taper in the last ~3 weeks or whatever the plan has you doing, and you'll be fine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img23.imageshack.us/i/skillmanly.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Ob9HI.jpg)
