"Achieving one’s qualifying standard does not guarantee entry"

That's according to the 2017 Boston Marathon Registration. But, it does earn one the right to submit a registration! The BAA provides a handy calculator for when is one's time to register. Here's my calculator result, based on the 3:55 time from the Pocono Marathon. The first week (of September 12) is for those who qualified by five minutes or more. Starting the second week (of September 19), all qualifiers may submit a registration. That's me!

In the past couple years, to be guaranteed an entry to the Boston Marathon, one has to have qualified with a time that's faster than the required standard--by about a minute in 2015 and by about 2.5 minutes this year (2016). Given my qualifying time of 3:55 is at the threshold for my age group, the chance of my registration actually becoming an entry is probably next to nil. So, why bother? Because it's like playing the lottery? Because maybe, in my age group, there won't be more submissions than space allows? Yeah, there is probably a little bit of that. :)

But, much more the reason is, if I do get to run Boston 2017, that would be the last one in my current age group. It has taken me more than five years and more than 50 minutes to finally qualify. I began with a finish time at close to five hours; now, when I head out from the start line, I expect to finish under four. For Harrisburg in November, my goal will be under 3:50. This is why I really want to run Boston 2017, before I "age" up to the next group. The latter's qualifying standard is 15 minutes slower, which means I'll almost definitely achieve my qualifying standard--and be guaranteed an entry--for Boston 2018. Where is the challenge in that!

Besides, it's not my fault if there is not enough space in my age group to accommodate every qualifier. It's BAA's fault! :)

Patience is key

Easier said than done, that's for sure. Cabin fever, itchy feet, ... I wanna run!

OK, let me back up. In May, after I finally BQ'ed at the Pocono Marathon, I took about a week-long rest, followed by a slow ramp-up with short, easy runs. Usually, I'd then gradually sync up with the 16-week training cycle for my next marathon. This year, because I decided to skip the early fall marathon, I had some extra time before starting the training for Harrisburg in November: For some extra rest; some speed work ... or, some shorter distance racing! For the six weeks after Pocono, at two-week intervals, I ran the Nitro Trail Half in Point Pinole Regional Park, San Pablo, CA and couple 5K's near home. The possible significance didn't really register at the time, but, during that 6-week period, my left heel was feeling more and more stiff, especially in the morning, right after getting up from bed. Each time, after some movement, the stiffness would lessen somewhat--enough to feel as I could still run.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running.

Two weeks later, after the Saturday easy 4-mile run, hill sprints, and a set of plyometrics (using the front yard curb), the left heel felt decidedly stiff and painful, even to walk. I took the next week off; and, I was not going to run the following week as well. But, the pain went away; only the stiffness remained, a stiffness that lessened with movement.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running.

Then, four Saturdays ago, during my usual easy 4-miler, at just around two miles, I felt a sharp pain in my left heel. I debated whether to continue. Many a times in the past, I had run through these twinges until they had gone away. This time, the pain likewise gradually decreased.

And so, not being patient, I kept on running (at a pace faster than my goal marathon pace for Boston).

Of course, the damage had already been done; I just felt it with a time delay. I could hardly walk shortly after I finished the run. It has been almost four weeks now without running, the longest off period going back to at least 2010. All I've done are some core exercises, plus some for stabilizing the "foot core." (See Alex Hutchinson's 2015 article, based on a paper in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, "The foot core system: a new paradigm for understanding intrinsic foot muscle function.") ... I wanna run!

Again, how does one know when to stop and when to run through pain. I'd asked the same question about the twinge I'd felt during that 2012 Paris morning run. I just re-read that post and noticed that the twinge referenced there was also in the left heel. Hmm ... Maybe the next time I feel something not quite normal, I should just stop and not keep on running--and, be patient! See The 25 Golden Rules of Running (Rule 5). As Jack Foster, the "Ancient Marathoner," said, "if it hurts, don't run on it." But, easier said than done ...

Likewise, in resuming running after an injury, patience is key. According to the latter article, at around four weeks off now, I've lost about 10% of my VO2max, along with the related loss in conditioning in my musculoskeletal system. So, I need to remind myself to be patient, as I ease back into running. The general strategy is the same in resuming running after a break in training due to other reasons (e.g., schedule conflicts). "Start from where you are instead of ... where you 'should be.'" I "should be" nearing the end of week 4 of my 16-week cycle for Harrisburg in November. But, instead, I'm probably at more like week -2!

I kind of feel I could have run last weekend. But, I decided to take another week off. I may do a short test run this weekend. Be patient, be patient, be patient, ...

Rethinking Noakes

Having watched Mara Abbott's heartbreaking fourth-place finish in the women's cycling road race at the Rio Olympics, I'm rethinking Noakes' hypothesis regarding second place and lower finishers--that, in those cases, "physiology does not determine who wins. Rather somewhere in the final section of the race, the brains of the second, and lower placed finishers accept their respective finishing positions and no longer choose to challenge for a higher finish." Abbott had a 39-second lead, coming off the hills, after passing the Vista Chinesa, with about 4 miles to the finish but being chased by a three-person pack. The latter three were taking turns leading and, thus, had the advantage over Abbott. With about 200 meters left to the finish, they caught up with Abbott and sprinted to the finish for gold, silver, and bronze. Abbott did not respond to their move. Or, Abbott could not respond. With the finish line clearly in sight and Olympic gold at stake, does it make sense that she "accepted" not being first? At a post-race interview, Abbott said she gave it her all and left nothing on the course. From what I could see, I agree. In Abbott's case, at least, she didn't "choose" to not challenge for first. She couldn't challenge. The women's finish was very similar to the men's yesterday, where the solo rider at the front was similarly caught and passed by a small chase pack, not too far from the finish. So, in cycling, more than running, it could be more a matter of racing strategy, i.e., breaking from the pack and riding solo in front is risky, unless the lead is big enough. Cycling is not my sport; so, I'm just speculating here. Abbott was really impressive in the interview. Really classy.