Running metric (2)

Back in 2012, I wrote about using the location of the trend line of my race results relative to the percentiles as a metric for my running progress. Another, simpler metric is the pace of easy training runs.

Many years ago in grad school, when I wasn't really training, my easy pace was about 8:00. A few decades later, that has become my tempo pace (!). I've run all my life (since high school), but it wasn't until around 2008 that I began to regularly race and routinely train. By then, my easy pace had slowed to around 10:00-10:30. Over the next 4-5 years, I managed to only bring that pace down to about 10:00. Then, at the end of 2012, I signed up for the Winter Marathon Program (WMP) offered by my local running club, which was when I began to "seriously" train for races, especially marathons. During 2013-14, I ran a total of eight marathons, and my easy pace dropped to around 9:20-9:30, within 30 seconds of my Boston qualifying (BQ) pace or goal marathon pace (GMP) of 8:58. Currently, I'm on an out-season schedule, in between Harrisburg last November and Pocono coming up in May. My most recent two long runs (first two of 2015) perhaps showed that my easy pace is now within 10-15 seconds of my GMP. Of course, these were just medium long runs. Jan. 4 was a recovery week run of only 10 miles, and Jan. 11 was 14 miles. Whether I can sustain this pace, as the long runs lengthen towards 22 miles is uncertain. But, I do feel quite good about where I am in my training, two weeks out from the start of the 16-week cycle for Pocono, especially the 14-miler. Aside from the annotated slower miles in the pace chart, there was only one mile (M8) that was not either within 10 seconds of GMP (6 of the miles) or faster than GMP (4 of the miles).

How slow should the easy pace be? Generally, it's about 1-2 minutes slower than one's goal race pace. For the 2012 WMP, I was in the 10-10:30 group. For the Wineglass Marathon, my pace for most of the training long runs was between 10:00 and 11:00. And, as I found out the hard way, that wasn't fast enough! Or, more accurately, it wasn't that the pace didn't adequately prepare me, but rather the level of fitness of which that pace was a metric was not high enough for me to have run Wineglass at my GMP. In Jeff Gaudette's article on the pace of easy long runs, he recommends an optimal easy long run pace of 55-75% of one's 5K pace. For my 5K PR pace of 7:23, that works out to be between 9:14 and 10:42. That 5K PR was run in the spring of 2013, and Wineglass was in the fall of that year. The obvious conclusion at Wineglass was that I wasn't ready, but now I better understand why. My training long run pace was at the slow end of the range of pace--and the low end of the level of fitness--as indicated by my 5K PR. In the 15 months since Wineglass, my easy training pace has improved to the fast end of the recommended range of pace, and beyond!

As a metric for running progress, my easy training pace shows an increase in the level of fitness of about 1:20 (from an average of 10:30 to 9:10) and perhaps presages a realistic shot at BQ in May!

Wait, did I miss a turn? (Walnut Creek Half Marathon race report)

About three weeks ago, I finished not the most elegant but a quite interesting race in the Walnut Creek Half Marathon. This was the fourth year of the race, part of the California Half & Full Marathon Series, and my third year running it. I have a work-related week-long conference each year in San Francisco, and, so far, this race has been on the weekend either before or after the conference. Walnut Creek is a small town (of about 70,000) east of, and a convenient BART ride from, San Francisco. The race course loops out on Treat Boulevard from, and loops back on Ygnacio Valley Road to, downtown's Civic Park (start/finish). Miles 5-7 are hilly but are followed by a scenic downhill stretch (Miles 8-10, especially M8).

This being the third time for me, I was confidently warming up nearby and didn’t get to the start line until almost 7 am (start time). I didn’t know it at the time, but, among the usual pre-start announcements and reminders that I figured I already knew, there was one key announcement that I did not know, and the lack of knowledge of which would later make this race a most memorable one for me. In fact, the race organizers themselves did not know until very close to start time. Here's the story as related in a letter that was sent to all the runners after the race (excerpted):

“To our Half Marathon Runners this morning. Our event staff was informed shortly after 5:30am that a drunk driver had crashed into a pole on Treat Blvd above Oak Grove in Concord causing the entire east and southbound traffic to be brought to a complete halt because of downed electrical lines and poles. … process of opening the lane would be at least another 6 hours. … Cancel the event altogether, or go to plan B, which was rerouting the course on to Oak Grove, … were able to get everything ready to go with the new course by 6:35am. … The new course was just short of 10 miles.”

And, here's the race course map, with my annotations. The official distance was later announced as 9.6 miles.

Not realizing the race had been shortened by 3.5 miles, when I was approaching what I was expecting to be Mile 6 and saw instead the Mile 9 sign, I immediately thought I'd missed a turn, perhaps back at the relay exchange point. Now, in hindsight, I should have realized that I couldn’t have missed any turns. For one thing, I didn’t remember seeing a mass of runners veering off along the way. All the runners whom I asked, when I ran back to check, said they were running the half. But, even then, I was still thinking that perhaps they were the faster runners who had already done the hilly section that I missed (!). It was about 1.2 miles back to the relay exchange point, and it was there I finally found out, from some runners who had finished their leg of the relay, about the road closure and the shortened course. Because I wasn't running at race speed, that backward Mile 7 was about a minute slower than the first six, as shown in the pace chart.

Exasperated with myself for going back to check, I turned around and ran to catch up, at close to my tempo pace for the 5+ miles to the finish. The result was a pronounced negative-split run, which actually is something I’ve been doing in my training long runs. My GPS watch showed just over 12 miles and a time of 1:41:29 at the finish. I ended up 12 out of 18 in my age group--not too bad for running 2.4 extra miles!

So, why did I not continue when I saw that Mile 9 sign? Why did I not realize the obvious, as everyone else seemed to have? In part, it was because I was waiting for those hills at Miles 5-7 that would never show up. But, mostly, it was because I was just so, so afraid of crossing the finish line and finding out I had missed a turn and, thus, getting disqualified. I’d rather make sure by going back, even if it turned out to be costly. Perhaps the trauma that was the DNF at the Abebe Bikila Day International Peace Marathon still lingers …

I definitely agree with the decision made by the race organizers. They did a superb job in responding to something over which they had no control, with very little time available before the start of the race, and thus enabled the race to still be held (albeit at a shortened distance). The only additional action I think they could have taken was to have someone stationed at the Mile 9 sign to tell/remind runners about the shortened course. Kudos also to all the police and other traffic control personnel, for working with the race organizers and thus avoiding a lot of disappointed runners and others.

Lesson learned? Get to the start line earlier and listen to those announcements!

Here’s the not quite Half Marathon finisher medal. :) I’m looking forward to a “Full Half Marathon” in December of this year (2015), not just because there will be a reduced registration rate for all the 2014 runners. The Walnut Creek Half is one of my favorite races!