There has been a rather spirited discussion on the FastRunningBlog message boards recently, debating which downhill Utah race course is faster: the new Utah Valley Marathon route, or the St George Marathon route. I am of the opinion that nothing can touch St George. Its downhill simply special, and you can flat-out roll on that course, especially the second half. I don’t think any other course will ever touch it in terms of speed. Nothing personal against Utah Valley, or any other race, but facts are facts.

Other people, of course, disagreed with me (most notably the Utah Valley race director). They argued that the Utah Valley course has a better distribution of downhill. Although the drop is not as great, there is no Vejo hill and no Dammeron Valley hill, and the downhill is more even and mellow at UVM, thus granting less quad bashing and better times. Fair enough.

Still others pointed out the higher elevation of UVM in comparison to St George. The uphills at UVM would have a larger detriment than to those at St George. Fair enough.

After the UVM race concluded (June 12, 2010), the debate really didn’t resolve. Most people conceded that UVM might be just a little slower than St George, maybe a minute or two. I still held the opinion that it was 6-8 minutes slower, which brought on sharp disagreement. As with most running-related arguments (okay, all arguments), little progress was made over time.

This was all in good fun. I actually don’t care if I’m right or wrong, but it’s fun to talk about and fun to debate. Sorry if anyone took it personally. After all, being the fastest race doesn’t imply that it’s the best. But this whole discussion gave me enough motivation to update my Utah Marathon Comparison profile. I originally made this back in fall of 2007, right before the St George race. The chart compared the elevation profiles between 3 classic Utah marathons: Top of Utah, Ogden, and St George.  I found it interesting to look at, and it has actually helped me in race preparation. Other people have told me the same. I’ve been meaning to add other races to it, especially since more and more local marathons keep popping up.

So yesterday I finally digitized the Utah Valley course, extracted elevations, and added the profile. I made sure to zoom in very tightly to make sure I got the route exact on the road and not up on a cliff or anything (an issue with canyon races). I then pulled elevations at a 0.25-mile interval, and used a 5-meter elevation model as the data source. Most states do not have 5m models available, but we are very lucky to have them here in Utah for most of the state. This is a high enough resolution to avoid most errors due to canyon walls, plus Provo Canyon is relatively wide compared to other marathon routes (ie - Top of Utah). So the elevations should be pretty good for UVM, much better than anything you’d get off of Gmap, MapMyRun, or any other USGS-based elevation web service. I also did an extraction at 0.1-mile intervals, which gives a bit higher resolution, but I ended up settling on 0.25-mile intervals in order to match the other three profiles that I made back in 2007. Using 0.25-mile instead of 0.1 would potentially “chop” some of the hills and valleys, which actually leads to a more conservative, smoothed-out profile. But when comparing uphills between these races, perhaps conservative is good.

I also need to mention that digital elevation models are generally bare earth, meaning that things like highway overpasses do not show up in the model. After all, there is ground under the overpass, and that is what is included in the model. Road cuts, however, do show up in the model, and the road cut is obvious in Provo Canyon. Long story short, the infamous “overpass hill” during the last mile of UVM does not show up in the profile, which eliminates an entire hill. I could have fudged it in, but I left it out in order to pad UVM’s numbers against St George a little bit, and also to send a hint to get rid of that hill in real life.

Okay, enough technical gibber-jabber. The result is shown below. Click on the image for a higher-res PDF file. It’s easy to see that Utah Valley is indeed the highest elevation of all the marathons. It also has the most cumulative uphill (slightly more than St G). Again, these are conservative numbers. It has the second-highest total downhill and net downhill out of all the marathons. There are no hills as big as Vejo or as long as Dammeron at UVM, but its hills are still substantial in a few spots. Interestingly, if you compare the average finish times between all of the races on MarathonGuide.com, Utah Valley comes out as second fastest, behind St George.

The Utah Valley event is a great race, and there’s no doubt it’s a fast course. But how fast is hard to determine, and no amount of “stats” or elevation comparisons,  or time cross-references, or anecdotes can really quantify it. There are a lot of variables that go into course speed, and on top of that, every individual runner is different, and will respond differently to each course. My strength may be someone else’s weakness, and vice versa. So again, this is all in good fun.

Anyway, enjoy the new profile chart. They are fun to make, and I certainly find them useful. At some point I’ll add the Salt Lake City Marathon and Des News as well, but I think I’ve got the four biggest marathons on there for now.

Recently I had the pleasure of creating the event maps for the Cellcom Green Bay Marathon. This event, held in mid-May, consists of a marathon, half marathon, “mini” marathon (2.62 miles), and a marathon relay. The course is flat and fast, and good prize money brings in good competition year after year. Another distinctive about the race is that it starts and ends at Lambeau Field, and being a rabid Packer fan, I think that’s about the coolest race venue ever.

For this event, I created separate maps for the marathon, half marathon, and “mini” marathon, and also an “event-wide” map that shows all of the routes on one page. I included the marathon relay on the marathon map.  One of the challenges of mapping an urban marathon is getting the street annotation to be complete, and look good at the same time. For this task, I used the Maplex labeling engine, an ArcGIS extension. Maplex worked wonderfully for my first pass on the street labels, and although I still had to do my fair share of manual labeling and tweaking, Maplex definitely helped create a higher-quality product.

I’d love to run this race one of these years. If I can’t get a Trials Qualifier time at Chicago this fall, I’ll likely take another stab in Green Bay next May. Based on the elevation profile, the course should be a flier.

Well, since the new server is up and running, I can get back to blogging!

I’ve had a few weeks to mull over the USATF’s recent decision to revamp the OTQ standards for the men’s marathon. My initial blog posting was my knee-jerk reaction that I wrote a few hours after reading about the decision. Since then, I have heard many good (and bad) arguments opposing various aspects of the new standards. And it has given me a lot to chew on. Here are my current thoughts on the issue:

• Adding a Half Marathon qualifier: good. No change of opinion here, and most other people agree with this one too. Also, taking away the 5K qualifier: good. I don’t think anyone took up the offer this time around anyway. So what remains is a 10K qualifier at 28:30 and a Half Marathon qualifier at 1:05:00. A lot of people still dispute allowing runners to qualify with a 10K, but I think this year’s 10K runners (Browne, Rohatinsky, Carney, Gonzales) more than proved that they belonged (not that Browne had anything to prove, but he did qualify via 10K). Yeah, 10K times are not the best indicator of marathon times, but I do think they are a good indicator of marathon potential. Tim Noakes notes in Lore of Running that most elite marathoners are elite 10K runners as well. You need to have a good amount of leg speed to go under 2:10. And 28:30 is pretty darn fast. Sub-28:30 represents our top-tier runners. Encouraging our top-tier 10K runners to move up to the marathon should produce at least a couple top-tier marathon runners. I think this year is already proof of that with Rohatinsky and others making impressive debuts.
• Getting rid of “aided” (downhill) courses as qualifiers: good. I hold to my initial assessment of this as well, with a few concerns. Interestingly, this is the least debated of all the USATF decisions, as I have read very few voices of dissent on throwing out courses like St. George, Steamtown, and CIM. Although I’m fine with qualifying somewhere other than St. George, out of love for St. George and other local downhill races, I hope that they can find a way to stay relevant among top-tier runners around the state and region. Prize money is usually a good way to stay relevant. It would be a shame if all of the sub-elites that typically run St. George abandon the race for “legit” courses. Another concern brought up by others is that USATF may be playing “god” with what courses are legit, and what courses aren’t. At first I was not too concerned about this, but now it gives me bad vibes. Although I support Boston, New York, Twin Cities, and other point-to-point courses being exempt from the new rule, I would like to see some firm protocol or criteria being set in place for other exemptions. Just being a major marathon shouldn’t be the only way in. What about all the other small, local point-to-point courses that do not traditionally produce “aided” times? Do they get the shaft, while New York gets in because…well…it’s New York? I would like to see a way for smaller point-to-point races appeal their way in or get voted in by something more democratic.
• Getting rid of the “B” standard: good. I hold to my original position. I don’t think anyone should have to pay their own way to Trials, or that runners should be treated differently because of their qualifying time. Just pick one standard, and go with it. If you make it, great, if not, tough.
• Lowering the standard to 2:19: good. I hold to my original position that this will be a good thing for American running…with an asterisk. If we can qualify 200 people in 1984, we should be able to do the same in 2012. And most arguments stating, “so and so wouldn’t have qualified with this standard, and that would have ruined their careers” are garbage. For instance, Jason Lehmkuhle (of 2008) and Brian Sell (of 2004) would have qualified with their half marathon times. The most famous dark horse, Trent Briney, would have been within seconds of qualifying in 2004 with his half marathon time. However, after reading a lot of these counter arguments, I do have some concerns.
  • Runners need a reachable “carrot” hanging in front of them to keep motivated. The USATF just took away many peoples’ carrot and moved it far out of current reach. This would be a major blow to the motivation of many. I could go on a tangent about the “quitter mentality”, but in truth people need sets of intermediate goals to step to in order to establish themselves and move on to the next goal. Where is the “intermediate” goal for the 2:25-2:30 marathoners? How do we get a guy who ran 2:23 to keep going, when the “big carrot” is still 4 minutes off?
  • Marathon training takes extreme dedication and sacrifice; there needs to be some sort of incentive. In short, we need more “carrots”. I am totally fine with a 2:19 standard, and potentially fewer participants, if the incentive provided by the “B” standard can be replaced by other races and events. That way the USATF would meet their goals of making the Trials be a truly “elite” group that can push for medals, but still continue development of younger runners, sub-elites, and regional runners using proper, sustainable incentives. With more “carrots” to chase after, the Brian Sell’s, the Peter Gilmore’s, and the Trent Briney’s can continue their development from sub-elite to elite, and be able to make the push up front. Take away those carrots, and I am a little afraid of what could happen. Probably 4-8 more good years of American running, and then when Hall and Ritz get old, we may be back to 1996.

So the crux of the whole matter is replacing the incentive of Trials with new incentives that are reachable to 2:22+ runners. Easier said than done, right? But let’s think of it this way: the Trials occurs every four years, and it is the focus of many aspiring marathoners. This has been “taken away” for a lot of people. But if develop “big races” that occur every year, there could be a world of opportunity.

For instance, the US Marathon Championships occur every year. Well, this year it happened to be Trials, but every other year it is more accessible. “US Marathon Championships” sounds pretty cool, but the problem is that most people don’t even know about it! I think one potential solution is to market and make the US Champs into a “big deal”. Make it highly visible, give it more press, make prize money 20-deep. Make it something notable to put on your resume. Make a time standard of 2:30 to get in the race, and make that known to everyone. Perhaps make it a team event, like US XC Club Nationals, where the best USATF-sanctioned marathon teams can win bonus money with cross country-style scoring. I believe that adding prestige and innovating scoring to the existing US Championship race(s), including the Marathon, Half Marathon, 25K, 20K, and others, could provide the incentive to continue development for a lot of runners.

And what if the USATF doesn’t do anything to “replace” Trials? Do we just sit on our hands and complain? Do we wait for the “government” to help us out? Do we quit because it’s too hard? No way! During the mid-90’s when two brothers in eastern Michigan noticed that U.S. distance running was in a wretched state, they didn’t just complain and wait for the USATF to fix things! They took things into their own hands, started supporting, coaching, and developing young runners, and now the Hansons are sending a runner to the 2008 Olympics! I firmly believe the development of American runners will come from the bottom-up, not the top-down. In other words, it is up to us, the grassroots; it is not up to the USATF to trickle down money to the little guy. I think the Hansons program is a model of what can happen on the grassroots level, when people just decide they want to help with the development of distance runners. Brian Sell going to the Olympics is about the best thing that could happen for American distance running. He may not win a medal (although I won’t count him out), but the Hansons will grow stronger, and more “Hanson-clone” teams will spring up, because the model works.

So my final point is that we can either sit around on our hands moaning, complaining, and waiting for the USATF to do “right”, or we can get up and do right ourselves. Don’t like how races are administrated? Join a race committee or start a new race doing things how you see it. Want to develop runners? Join a club, mentor a runner, get into coaching, or financially sponsor a developing runner. Want to run fast yourself? Find other like-minded people, support each other, and train your butt off.

End of rant. As usual, discussion and dissent are welcome. That’s what keeps the wheel turning, right?

For those of us thinking we need to get under 2:22 to qualify for 2012 Olympic Trials, think again! And for those of us “borderline” runners thinking we can get an OTQ at St. George, think again! Race Results Weekly recently posted an article about the official new OTQ Marathon standards for 2012.

Here’s the kickers in a nutshell (or maybe a kick in the nuts, based on your opinion):

• No more “A” and “B” standards. One time fits all now.
• New time standard: 2:19.
  • Can also get in with 10K (28:30) and Half Marathon (1:05)
• “Aided” courses no longer acceptable
  • New “approved” list with all “acceptable” marathons (to be released shortly).
  • Elevation loss of no more than 1 meter per kilometer
  • Start and finish of point-to-point courses have to be separated by less than 30% of the race distance (ie - <7.9 miles for marathon)
  • Special provision to be made for Boston, New York, and other point-to-point or non-record eligible courses that do not traditionally produce fast times

I am sure this will be a controversial subject for many. My opinion? (this is a blog, after all) I think these are all good things. That may surprise my three readers, since I myself qualified at St. George this year, and am not currently capable of breaking 2:19. But here’s why I like the changes:

• It’s for the good of America. I’m a patriotic dude. Tougher time standards will challenge American runners and stimulate improvement. 2:19 is the new 2:22. 2:15 will become the new 2:18. 2:11 will become the new 2:15. And increasing the number of guys in the 2-teens will push the very top guys even more. As a result, I predict we will see more American runners under 2:10 and contending at major marathons.
• No more “B” qualifiers. This equals fair treatment for all runners that qualify. Everyone who makes it will receive comp travel. Everyone will receive elite fluid service. Everyone gets the same living and racing conditions.
• Half marathon qualifier standards equals more opportunities. Most people can only do a couple good marathons per year, so opening up half marathons as qualifying venues should open more doors. Halfs are easier to recover from, so they can be attempted more often, and if you get bad luck with your marathons for the year…well, better luck with the half!
• No more debates about downhill courses. They are a non-issue now. Forget about it. The writing was on the wall anyway. I love St. George and Top of Utah as much as anyone, but again, I think this is for our own good. This will also take tailwinds (or headwinds) out of the equation, since most true point-to-point courses will be “banned”.

What does this mean for those of us dreaming to break 2:22? Well…recalibrate those dreams to 2:19! I am basically a 2:20-2:21ish marathoner right now. Four years from now I sure better be 2:18 (or faster)! And that is what I train and dream for. The bar has been raised; let’s go after it and be part of the American resurgence of marathoning. See you on the roads.

Earlier this week the USATF published the complete set of splits for every runner for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials. Ordinarily splits would not be a big deal, and in fact they’ve had 5K splits available for quite some time now. What makes these splits unique is that there are 50 of them!! Due to the fact there was a timing mat every 5K (plus the finish line and half marathon mark), and that the marathon route was a 5-lap course, the 5K split mats picked up splits for all the other times each runner passed over them. Pretty nifty.

Being numbers geek, I naturally plunked all of my own split information into a spreadsheet and went to work. And being a map nerd, I naturally plunked in the elevation profile as well to see how the hills influence my splits.

The above chart shows a lot of what I already knew: I slowed down during the race. Duh. But due to the better resolution of the splits, I could see exactly where and by how much. It looks like someone flipped a switch in me right after 15 miles that said, “You run slow now!” Splits dropped abruptly from sub-5:20 to 5:30+. The good news is that I had nothing slower than 5:53-pace. There was a 5:48 in there, but then pretty much everything else was all faster than 5:40-pace. This is all helpful to me, since I did not wear a watch during the race.

I thought an interesting overlay would be to add the elevation profile, my previous split pace, and my overall pace to a graph. This would answer the question: how much did the uphills slow me down (and uphills speed me up) throughout the race?

My elevation profile isn’t quite calibrated with the USATF certification, so it is a little shifted in places. Plus, the pace graph is shifted a little forward, since it is the pace of the previous split. BUT, the relation between the two major hills of the course with my pace is quite obvious, and kind of cool to look at. You can see the same pace pattern for the last four laps of the race (the first lap we were all steadily accelerating due to the slow start).

From the graph, I can see that early in the race I was running 5:00-5:05 on the downhills and 5:20-5:25 on the uphills. Late in the race, I was managing ~5:15 on the bigger downhills, but 5:40-5:50 on the uphills. From training in Utah, I am a pretty good downhill runner, so it doesn’t surprise me that I could hold it together better on the downs, even late in the race. That is a result of training specifically for St. George, and I did notice during the race that I passed or made up ground on quite on few runners during the downhill sections.

Although I didn’t hit a real Wall during Trials, it is obvious that fatigue worked its way into my legs after Mile 15 or so, and the repetitious hills worked me over as the race progressed. Clearly, I have work to do on my strength and endurance.

But that’s it for thinking about Trials! It was a blast to run, but it is past, and now it is time to look forward to the future: more training and more big races!

I competed. I ran to my utmost. It’s over. I’m happy.

53rd place and a solid time of 2:22:34, I could not ask for much more. It’s hard to believe I was coming off injury and barely running 3 miles/day a full year ago. What a year. This year has made me a firm believer in what solid training and commitment can do. I spun my wheels and basically neglected my running for 5 years after college. Now at age 28, I feel like I am just getting started. What will next year hold?

I posted a complete, detailed race report on my training log HERE. But in a nutshell I’ll just say that this was one of the thrills of my life. Running with that thick of a pack, in that electric of an atmosphere was unmatchable. The closest I had experienced before was XC Nationals. But this was so much bigger, so many more spectators, and so much more on the line.

The USATF and NYRR did a great job and treated us like kings. Some people complained about certain things, but the way I see it, we are just running. We produce no tangible product. If someone wants to give me anything, I am grateful for it, and treat it like a gift. (that said, I’ll take all the “gifts” I can get!) So thanks again to all involved in making this weekend happen.

Everyone who participated has there own unique story to tell. I would find them all equally engrossing. I’ve seen so many highlight reels at this point, but yet remain glued to the screen while watching the NBC Sports replay coverage online.

Not all stories are good though. The story of Ryan Shay breaks my heart. I did not find out until about an hour after the race, while sitting on the bus before lunch. I was just shocked. I think all runners feel it, whether we were there or not, whether we ever met him or not. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife and family.

As a geographer and a runner, one of my pre-race rituals is to make my own map and profile for the course I am about to run. For me, making maps is enjoyable, soothing even, and it really helps me get a bearing on a course and form a strategy. Just as in school, where you learn more by writing down notes yourself, I learn more about the course by making by own map rather than just looking at the map supplied by the race website.

One of the course aspects strongly emphasized by all the mapping I do as Marathon GIS is elevation change. Creating a strong false-color elevation model as the backdrop of a route will show the location and magnitude of all hills, ridges, peaks, and valleys with a quick glance. And hills are probably the most important component of the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials race, which will be held in New York City on November 3, 2007.

The marathon trials course starts by looping through Times Square, and then circumvents the interior of Central Park 5 times. I have never been to New York City (a sure disadvantage for me), but word on the streets is that the Central Park loops are very hilly, and the constant barrage of rolling undulations will strongly influence the race, favoring runners with strength and the ability to accelerate on uphills. The existing course maps are very well-done, but do not show an elevation profile or indication of where the hills are.  I decided to put some work in to see for myself what I am up against, and compiled the course map shown below:

Judging by the false-color elevation (green = low, red = high), it is evident that the Central Park course is indeed quite hilly! How hilly? That can be quantified through the Elevation Profile, shown under the map. According to my elevation measurements, there is just under 2000 feet of total (cumulative) elevation gain and loss! However, the total relief of the course is only 80 feet. This means that none of the hills are particularly large…but there are lots of them! And since it is a 5-lap course, we will run the same battery of hills over and over…and over and over.

The map itself is 24″x36″, and its purpose it to plot out and hang on a wall. It is an ideal size for presentation at an expo or information meeting. The entire map was composed in ArcMap 9.2, and the final layout was done in InDesign CS2. Since this was a relatively “rough and dirty” map, I did not use Illustrator at any point.

The false-color elevation model is derived from a 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM), as are the elevation profile chart and statistics. The underlying aerial photography, which nicely shows all of the buildings of the city and trees of Central Park, is 1-meter NAIP. Water features are highlighted by using multiple-ring buffers and gradient fills. Something new I tried on this map was a cartographic trick presented by the ESRI Mapping Center Blog for creating “expressive” directional arrows as polygon features rather than simple line graphics. The arrows turned out nicely, and will be a technique that I will continue to use on future maps.

I did use Illustrator (CS2) for the elevation profile graphic, but in a new way. Rather than creating the raw profile in Microsoft Excel and then pasting into Illustrator, I experimented with creating the raw profile directly in ArcMap, using the improved graphing tools of v.9.2. I then exported the profile to a .jpg image, placed the .jpg into Illustrator, and tweaked the Live Trace feature until I got a satisfactory result. I then cleaned up and modified the profile artwork, added some effects, and dumped it into the InDesign layout. Quick, but effective. It is definitely a fresh look from my previous profiles, and I am pleased with it in that it does not look like it came straight out of Excel.

So enough of the nerdy technical details. It is unfortunate that I will not be able to tour the course until November 1, only two days before the race. Nothing beats gaining familiarity by actually running and racing on a course, but I hope to use this map and profile to at least get a sense of what I am in for. I will post my thoughts on how the course will actually impact my race and my strategy later this week, as well as my other miscellaneous thoughts on the trials race.

First off, just let me say: Yeeeaaahh!! 2:18!! NY here I come!!

There, that feels good. For anyone who missed it, the 2007 St. George Marathon was an absolute gem of a race, not just for me, but for the vast majority who participated. I can’t even count the number of PR’s of just the people I know. Unreal. And yes, a PR at St. George is a PR. Maybe not as impressive as a PR at Boston or New York, but 26.2 is 26.2, and a PR is a PR. There are different types of PR’s (downhill PR’s vs. flat PR’s; elevation PR’s vs. sea-level PR’s; young man PR’s vs. old man PR’s, etc.), but those who PR’ed at St. George should be proud. It was an amazing day to run.

Looking back at my earlier dilemma of whether to run St. George, Chicago, or Twin Cities, I get chills and cravings for an I.V. when I think about what would have happened if I had picked one of those big, sexy, mid-western marathons instead of my tried-and-true “local” race. One American qualifier at Chicago (who is stud of the world for doing that, by the way). No qualifiers at Twin Cities. If I had chosen one of those races, all I would have qualified for was a bummer.

Instead, I chose my local race, St. George. It was a no-brainer. The whole trip cost my wife and I a total of $175, thanks to having friends down there to stay with (thanks again, Clyde and Mik’l). And it yielded an 8-minute PR and an all-expense paid opportunity to toe the line with America’s best in New York City on November 3.

True, St. George gets no love, exemplified by the fine thread on LetsRun.com. Some of the criticisms are valid, other criticisms are elitist LetsRun.com drivel, typical for that site. But it probably provides a pretty valid cross section of what most people outside of Utah think of St. George. People who have never run the race exaggerate how “easy” it is. They describe it as “cheating” even. Run the race first, then criticize it. On the other end of the spectrum, Utah natives and long-time St. George participants exaggerate the difficulty of the first half of the course, and tend to play up the effects of altitude and downhill battering.

The truth of St. George lies somewhere in the middle. Most of the uphills do not show up the course profile, but there is over 400′ of climbing, mostly in the first half. The second half of the race…is ridiculous in its speed. If you are trained for hills (both up and down) you will fly. If you are not, you may not even finish. Flat-landers beware. I think the elevation has almost no effect on the downhills, and only moderate effect on the uphills. A well-trained Utahn will most assuredly run a huge PR at St. George. In my opinion, an elite runner will finish 2-4 minutes faster at St. George than at a flat, sea-level course, depending on their downhill aptitude.

By qualifying at St. George, I did not earn any respect, nor did I expect it or think I deserve it. I plan to go out and earn respect in three weeks at Olympic Trials, and in my subsequent racing over the next few years. I have a nice PR of a low 2:18, but for now I always have to follow it up with, “…at St. George“. It’s definitely a bit of an asterisk, as far as elite running circles are concerned. But I did not run St. George to earn the respect of LetsRun.com. I ran it because it made the most sense.

• It is the closest race to where I live (ie - I can drive there in a few hours).
• It is one of the top 20 largest marathons in America, ensuring great competition.
• They treat semi-elite runners very well (water bottle service, separate staging, etc.).
• The weather is virtually always excellent and reliable in the desert in early October.
• It is the fastest course in America. Who would not want to run the fastest course?
• It was my best shot at an “A” qualifier and a free trip to NYC.

So given its proximity and the speed of the course, why would I not run St. George? Why would I not want an “A” qualifier? If the USATF says it’s legit, then it is legit. Period. It would have been insanity to drop a couple grand to take myself and my wife out to some strange huge city and run a 2:40 in hot, humid conditions. I know this is retrospect, but I can’t help patting myself on the back, along with the other 16 people that qualified in the desert this weekend. St. George: 38 degrees at the start, 50 degrees at the finish. Slight tailwind most of the race. Even without the massive downhill, St. George had perfect conditions, and it was a PR day, the kind of day that makes runners salivate. Throw in the downhill, and it gets even more fun.

So yes, I am looking forward to “proving” myself on some flat and rolling sea level courses. Personally, I think I can run even faster if I hit a fast course like Chicago on the right day with the right pack. Right now, I am eyeballing Twin Cities for next year, which is the USATF Marathon Championships. I hope to make an impact. I’d also like to travel and do some big-time races such as the Fifth-Third Riverbank 25K in Grand Rapids (mid-May), as well as something like the Crim 10-miler or the Utica Boilermaker. I think one of the primary steps to becoming elite on a national scene is to travel to national races and mix it up with people better than me. Good butt-whippings make a person strong. Oh, and so does training like a mad-man, which I plan to do as well. I’ve got 100-mile weeks mastered; it is time to try 120 mpw in 2008.

Adjusting for the downhill speed of St. George, right now I consider 2:20-2:22 guys to be my peer group, and like all races, I hope to out-compete my peer group in NYC. And if I can knock off some 2:18 guys, that would be great too. I am certainly not content with 2:18, whether I ran it at St. George or at Boston. The reason we train and race is to perpetually get faster. St. George this year was an important step in my own journey, but certain not the end.

Part of the fun of being a marathoner is picking out your races each year. Another aspect of marathoning that is both fun and important is designing your strategy once you have registered for the race. Personally, I use elevation profiles to help me with both tasks.

An accurate elevation profile will show runners the nuances of gradient throughout a given course layout. Within 5 seconds, a viewer can answer the questions:

• Is the course hilly or flat? Is this course fast or slow?
• Does it give me a good challenge or is it too hilly?
• Can I achieve my goals on this course?
• How should I race this course?
• How should I train for this course?

When I create elevation profiles in support of my race course mapping, I aim to make them as clear and non-misleading as possible. After all, the profile can be one of the major factors that influences a runner to run the race. Every race has its own “personality” that should match up with the strengths and preferences of individual runners. Personally, I like downhill courses, but if the profile shows too steep of a downhill, I will not run it out of fear of injuries and diminishing returns on my finish time.

Three marathon courses in my fine state of Utah that offer fast, downhill layouts are the Ogden Marathon (May), Top of Utah Marathon (September), and the St. George Marathon (October). I have raced Ogden twice, Top of Utah four times, and St. George once, and they are all good P.R. courses — provided that you have trained for downhill!! If you have not engaged in a lot of downhill training, all three courses will eat you alive. I love these three races, though, and highly recommended them, especially St. George.

Since Top of Utah and St. George are both coming up within the next month, I decided to create a graphic that compares the profiles of the above three races.

Looking at the comparison, it is very clear that St. George should by far be the fastest course. Not only does it have the greatest elevation loss, but it is also at the lowest average elevation above sea level. Interestingly, St. George has the greatest elevation gain as well, as neither Ogden nor TOU have any hills even approaching the Vejo hill along Mile 8. The 400′ of total climbing at St. George is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and it really forces runners to train for both ups and downs.

However, it is NOT clear from this elevation comparison which is the faster course between Top of Utah and Ogden. Based on the total statistics and the profile line itself, it appears to be a complete wash. They both have virtually the same gain and loss, but are distributed differently. Personally, I like Ogden better, because much of the downhill is during the last 8 miles, whereas Top of Utah is rolling to flat during the last 8 miles. For me, this at least makes Ogden mentally easier. However, the top times at TOU tend to be faster than those at Ogden year after year. And if you poll 100 Utahns, most will tell you that TOU is faster. But when I look at the course profiles and evaluate my own experiences, I think they are almost identical in speed.

I wonder if TOU’s faster times are a result of simply being a fall race, whereas Ogden is a spring race? Training during Utah’s winters is often harsh, and perhaps most people do not get into peak shape until autumn. I think this could easily cause a “time bias” in favor of Top of Utah.

What do you think?

 Loading …

One final note of interest: The first 3.5 miles of all three races have identical elevation drops and gradients. Beyond being a cool coincidence, this fact is also useful in that you can uses your experience(s) in the other races to determine how fast to begin a race you have not run yet, or not run recently. First example, I ran 5:28/mile for the first four miles of the Ogden Marathon last May. Using estimates of fitness gains since May, and the fact of analogous gradients between courses for miles 0-4, I have determined that I should run the first four miles at St. George at 5:20/mile pace.

Well, it’s official, I’m running the St. George Marathon as my fall OTQ attempt. I contacted the good people at St. George Leisure Services on Tuesday, and they were happy to let me in, especially since I had to cancel my registration last year due to injury.

So why did I choose St. George over Chicago and Twin Cities? Simple, the benefits far outweighed the costs. Not to mention a nearly 2:1 majority vote for St. George in my poll. One of my favorite proverbs is “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17), and I received a lot of good advice and feedback from my running peers that I valued while making the decision.

In the end, it came down to teammates. If I run St. George, I knew I would be shoulder-to-shoulder with several Wasatch Running Center teammates, as well as with several other friends that I consider “teammates” even though they happen to wear another singlet.

Two horses working together can pull a heavier load than the sum of the loads pulled by individuals. Similarly, teammates working together can accomplish much greater things than individuals. At my NCAA cross country championships, I noticed that people who qualified as part of a team tended to perform better than people who qualified as individuals. The individual qualifiers almost always had fewer allies, less support, and less motivation. Team qualifiers, on the other hand, were supported by each other, ran for a greater cause, and benefitted from pack running. I look forward to doing some pack running with my WRC teammates and others at St. George, and helping pull that OTQ load.

And its not just the people running in the same pack as me, but those running at all speeds. Thanks to the FastRunningBlog community and other contacts I’ve made, I will likely know well over 25 people running St. George. I want to be there with them before the race, to see them finish, and to celebrate their races with them.

Finally, if I travelled to Chicago or Minneapolis, it’s unknown whether my wife would be able to go with me or not. That’s no good for either of us. By running St. George, I know that she will be there with me.

I’m already pumped for the race. 2:20 or bust!!

Wow, the Ogden Marathon went unbelievably well for me! Between setting a PR and course record (2:26:24) and winning the race, it was a thrilling experience. Now I’ve got a new training cycle ahead of me, and after running some 5K and 10K races, it’s back to marathon-specific training. After my Ogden performance, I firmly believe that I can meet the “B” Standard for Olympic Trials, and potentially even the “A” standard. Ogden, after all, is not known as a blazing course, due to its topographic layout and average elevation of 5000′ above sea level. In addition, fighting warm temperatures and running solo nearly the entire race indicated to me that I can go faster with better conditions.

The question therein lies: which fall marathon should I do to qualify? Seeing as to how I want to train as long as possible, and the end of the qualifying window is October 7, my options are three: St. George (Oct 6), Chicago (Oct 7), or Twin Cities (Oct 7). I’m at a bit of loss of which one to do, so have compiled a list of pro’s and con’s.

St. George Marathon - Pro’s

• Probably the fastest of the three courses; highest probability of hitting the “A” standard here
• I’ve ran it before and am familiar with the course
• Many of my friends are running it, and I will have support and potential carpooling options
• Thanks to new friends made from the FastRunningBlog, I can likely get free lodging
• Closest race, least travel = least stress
• Saturday race = preferred

St. George Marathon - Cons

• No prize money. Yes, I’m that shallow.
• Course is fast, too fast even. Feels like cheating. I’ll doubt my ability to run well at NY if I scrape by with a qualifier here.
• Weakest field of the three races. Yes, there is strong competition, but not nearly as thick and bloody as Chicago or TCM. Highest probability of getting stuck by myself here.
• Higher elevation than the other courses.

Chicago Marathon - Pros

• Sea level (well, close enough)
• One of the fastest courses in the world - flat. I’m a rhythm runner, and I can get in a great rhythm here.
• Thick, thick, bloody competition. Top 30 would be a brilliant effort. Lot of advantages to working with a pack.
• I’ve got a lot of old teammates in Michigan who run this race. Potential lodging and team running opportunities.
• Big marathons are sexy.

Chicago Marathon - cons

• Potential expenses. I don’t see anything on their website about Olympic development. I’d be a very small fish here and would probably have to pay most of my own way.
• Long travel = stress
• Virtually no chance of winning any sort of prize money. Yes, I’m that shallow.
• Risk - it would be shameful to travel that far and spend that much money, and then have bad weather or a bad race and not qualify.
• I hate the Bears.

Twin Cities - Pros

• Like Chicago, very close to sea level
• They appear to have some sort of Olympic Development program…potential expenses paid?? (need to inquire)
• Bigger than St. George, but smaller than Chicago - the best of both worlds. There will be excellent competition here, and yet I’ll still have a shot at Top 10.
• Good prize money here. They give bonuses for hitting “A” and “B” standards, but achieveable prize money for Top 10. Yes, I’m that shallow.
• I have some family in the Twin Cities, so potential lodging

Twin Cities - Cons

• Looking at the profile, this is the slowest course of my three options. This is a big con.
• Long travel = stress
• Potential expenses.
• I hate the Vikings.

So what do I do? In any case, I figure I should contact Chicago and Twin Cities and see if I can get any expenses paid. If not, it’s a no-brainer: St. George. But even without considering expenses, my brain is telling me “St. George”. It has the fastest course, surest qualifier bet, least travel impact, and most friends and loved ones in vincinity. It’s just not as sexy as Chicago, is all. There’s just something about the idea of running 5:15-pace with a pack of twenty people, all clawing after the same thing, surrounded by hordes of cheering spectators, that appeals to me.

Obviously, I can think myself into circles here. Fortunately, I have a little while to decide. In the meantime, your comments and insights are appreciated in this decision-making. Perhaps I’m missing something?

 Loading …

Due to the facts that it’s two days before the Ogden Marathon and that I’m rather bored right now, it seems appropriate to post a map, profile, and discussion of the upcoming race. Only this time I’m going retro: rather than creating a nice, new, shiny map and profile, I’m electing to post some of the earliest work I’ve done.

I made the map below back in winter of 2004 for “personal use”, and then modified it when Ogden changed their course in 2005. My race course mapping business, Marathon GIS, was just an idea that point, and the sole purpose of this map was to make something more informative for myself than what was on the website at the time. The map was created using Manifold Systems v6.0. No Adobe Illustrator, no Photoshop, no ArcGIS, just 100% Manifold. The map looks very crude to me now (embarassing even), but at the time I thought it was pretty cool. Fortunately, my hardware, software, and cartography/graphic arts skills have increased quite a bit over the past three years.

Likewise, the profile I made for the Ogden Marathon was not “prettied up” in Illustrator, but was a 100% product of Manifold + Microsoft Excel. However, even this crude profile effectively shows the layout of the race course and its unique characteristics.

The couse can be broken out into any number of distinct segments, depending on whether you are a “lumper” or a “splitter”. Today, I’m feeling more like a splitter, so I’m dividing it into 5 topographic segments.

1. Mile 0 to Mile 8.25 - South Fork. Virtually all downhill, at a nice, mellow average gradient of -1.16%. The race gets off to a fast start on this segment, especially since weather is always nice and cool early in the morning up the canyon. Resist the tempatation to get out too fast. Instead stay comfortable, enjoy the downhill, and preserve your glycogen.
2. Mile 8.25 to Mile 14.5 - Pineview Part 1. Regretfully, the downhill dissipates into rolling hills as the course starts to circumnavigate Pineview Reservoir in Ogden Valley. Most of the hills are not steep or long, with the exception of a sharp climb around Mile 14. Quite enough to slow you down though. The key here is to stay relaxed, get the most out of aid stations, and recover whenever you get a downhill. Average gradient for the segment is +0.21%.
3. Mile 14.5 to Mile 17.25 - Pineview Part 2. After the large hill around Mile 14, the course flattens out again, and you even get a slight downhill for awhile. This is a good portion of the race to recover from the rollers and get your rhythm again. It’s the “calm before the storm” (-0.25% average gradient), as the next segment will be a downhill quad-burner.
4. Mile 17.25 to Mile 24 - Ogden Canyon. Downhill quad-burner, with St. George-like gradients in places. You know you are in for a ride when you look down from the top of Pineview Reservoir dam. Pretend you are a drop of water and let gravity flow you into Ogden. This segment is where most people find out how well-trained they are, but it is a good opportunity to fly. Around Mile 23, Ogden Canyon burps out the runners into the valley, and resumes a more gentle downhill along the Ogden River Parkway. Average gradient for the entire segment is -1.8%.
5. Mile 24 to Mile 26.2 - Ogden City. With glycogen depleted, quads mashed into a pulp, and running in more “gravity-neutral” conditions, many runners struggle to hang on to the finish. Plus the heat kicks during this part of the race. Mile 25 is still a very slight downhill, and then the remainder of the course to the finish is essentially flat. Thankfully, no uphill finish in this race. Average gradient for this segment is -0.16%. Be resilient, douse yourself with water at aid stations, and finish strong!

The Ogden Marathon has potential to be a fast course, but has to be run “just right”. If you run a poor strategy, or are not trained for hills, the course can turn into a big hurt. I negative-split this course by about 20 seconds back in 2005, and still believe that an even or slightly negative split is the best way to approach Ogden. This means being conservative during the first 8 downhill miles, and then maintaining effort around Pineview. If your legs aren’t trashed by Mile 17, you can throw down some serious splits through Ogden Canyon, which is where you can get back all of the time lost in Ogden Valley, and then some.

It should be great field at Ogden this year, not just upfront, but deep into the ranks as well. This will be my 10th marathon, and marks my first marathon back from injury, so it will be especially meaningful to me. Good luck everyone!!

TOU Marathon fans may be interested in checking out their new website, launched just yesterday. TOU’s old site was content-rich, but style-poor. The new site retains all of the content, but is much more attractive and easier to navigate. And thankfully it doesn’t waste our time with glitzy, content-poor Flash pages, like many other new websites.

New features to the TOU site are a message board (almost essential for any marathon these days!), and an ongoing series of podcasts. The podcasts in general are a great idea and will serve to provide extra information, tips, and stories to TOU web visitors.

It will be interesting to see the growth and competition at the 2007 TOU Marathon. Four factors should cause both the race to grow and for the competition to improve:

1. Meseret Defar running the TOU 5k last year gained world-wide attention for the event.
2. Last year two runners broke the U.S. Olympic Qualifying “B” standard (2:22). One was from Kenya, but more importantly, the other was a U.S. runner from Colorado. The “seal” has been broken!
3. This year is an Olympic Qualifying year, and TOU is one of the last eligible races to do so.
4. The race is well-organized, and the new, modern website should attract a larger volume of runners.

It should be a great year for TOU!

This is the second and final installment in “Scaling the infamous Wall”. Make sure you also go back and read “Part I: Marathon preparation”.

The big day is finally here and its time to run the epic marathon! You have prepared and trained hard for last several months, weeks, and days, setting yourself up for success by training with a plan, tapering effectively, living healthily, carbo-loading, and calculating your true pace. You are ready…SO DON’T BLOW IT!!…

Read the full article at The Final Sprint!

I vividly remember my first marathon. I can still visualize the preparation, the excitement and anticipation, the effortlessness of the first half of the race … and the pain and agony of the last eight miles!…

Read the full article at The Final Sprint!

The Marathon GIS map of the week is of the Carlsbad Marathon, which is being held today, January 21. This event is hosted in Carlsbad, CA, just west of the San Diego. In fact, before 2005, it was called the “San Diego Marathon.” The event also consists of a large half marathon, which sold out for the first time in 17 years, with an entry total of 7000 runners. The total number of participants in the event (Marathon + Half Marathon + kid’s mile) is over 10,000 runners and walkers. Congrats to InMotion Events!

Needless to say, I was excited when InMotion contracted me (Marathon GIS) to update their maps and profiles. Despite never visiting the course, simply making the maps made me want to go out there one of these years and run the race. Both half and full marathon courses primarily hug the coastline and offer splendid views of the Pacific Ocean. The marathon course, although containing a noticeable hill near the middle, is considered a good Boston qualifier, and running at sea level will only serve to help.

The half marathon course looks to be flat-out blazing, with only a few very small rolling hills. Someday I would like to run the half, if nothing else just to get out of northern Utah in January! But it is a definite PR course as well, as demonstrated by very fast men’s and women’s course records of 1:02:06 and 1:11:23, respectively.

Making any course map is a challenge, but my progress was greatly helped my InMotion supplying me with GPS coordinates of the start, finish, mile markers, and u-turns. This ensured that both the maps and profiles were calibrated with the USATF certification, accommodating very accurate maps and profiles.

Others factors that helped me with the mapping was an abundance of high-quality GIS data available publically for the greater San Diego area. Good, attributed street data was key, and was complemented by the availability of 2005 color aerial photography and 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM) data. All these contributed to help with not only the accuracy of the maps and profiles, but also the aesthetics of the finished products.

What is the mathematical limits of human speed? That question was addressed in an interesting article yesterday on The Final Sprint website.

John Einmahl, a Dutch mathematician and professor at Tilberg University in Germany, claims to have recently discovered that the world record in the 100m sprint can be lowered by another half-second. Einmahl claims that Asafa Powell’s current record of 9.77 seconds mark can be reduced to 9.29 now, and Paul Tergat’s record of 2:04:55 can only be improved by 49 seconds…

…Paula Radcliffe’s current marathon mark of 2:15.25 could drop by 8:50…

…He stated that in his field the unbelievable can be accepted; but the impossible is not recognized. Despite his results, the mathematician acknowledged that extraordinary performances may come along, contradicting his findings.

This is interesting to me. The article does not go into detail into how exactly he computed this, and the link to more information and sources was broken. Bummer to math and running geeks alike. Oh well.

Personally, I’ve always been optimistic that the men’s marathon record would be improved by several minutes still. It would seem that given enough training improvements, enough time, and enough prize incentive, that eventually someone would come along and break the 2:00:00 marathon barrier. Adeel speculates similarly on the Complete Running Network. For the record, 2-hour pace comes out to about 4:34/mile, but hey, didn’t people once say that the 4-minute mile was beyond human limits? And if a million moneys could type Hamlet over enough time, surely someone will break 2:00:00 at some point.

Okay, but let’s say for fun that John Einmahl the mathematician is correct, and that someday a runner, let’s call him “Super-Tegat” reaches the human genetic potential of running and busts out a 2:04:06 on a flat, sea-level course. End of story, he can go no faster right? Nonsense, Super-Tergat sold himself short. He should have ran the St. George Marathon. Not to speculate too much, but St. George is most likely the fastest certified course on earth, as long as you are trained for downhill and altitude. And Super-Tergat is all of that. No, St. George is not record-eligible (has a downhill gradient greater than 1%), but let’s just speculate here. The idea is no worse than the Steroid Olympics.

So let’s assume that Super-Tergat spent a good year training in Salt Lake City at elevation, running up and down the Cottonwood Canyons to calibrate his legs to the hills. He is ready to race in Utah. Weather conditions at St. George are perfect, 45 deg F at the start with no wind. My course profile calculations indicate that the course has a cumulative elevation gain of 410 feet and cumulative elevation loss of 2976 feet. Over the marathon distance (138375 feet), this equates to 0.296% uphill gradient and 2.151% downhill gradient.

Tim Noakes in the Lore of Running summarized a study that indicated that energy savings of running downhill was about half of the energy cost of running uphill at the equivalent gradient. For each 1% increase in gradient, running speed would decrease by 0.65 km/hr; for each 1% decrease in gradient, running speed would increase by about 0.35 km/hr. Given the total uphill and downhill gradients of St. George, how much faster will Super-Tergat run? The time of 2:04:06 converts to 20.4 km/hr. His net energy savings due to the given gain and loss converts to an increase in speed of 0.56 km/hr, increasing his overall speed to 20.96 km/hr. This equates to just over 4:36/mile and an overall time of about 2:00:40. Rats, just missed it! I’m assuming no effects on altitude either for the sake of this fun. Runworks.com has a great running calculator that uses the Noakes formula and comes up with results that confirm my own math (which is reassuring). Sasha’s Utah Race Predictor is based more on empirical data and observation, as I understand it, but is known to be uncannily accurate. Sasha’s calculator comes up with a time of 2:02:03, so is a bit more conservative, but may indirectly factor in the effects of altitude.

If St. George offered a huge purse to break 2:00:00, I imagine it would happen sooner rather than later, despite the fact that the course isn’t record eligible. Super-Tergat will come some day.

The Stride Racing winter NUTS series in Ogden has been a winter tradition for several years now. However, this year, there had been no mention of the 2007 series on the Stride Racing website, but in the meantime Striders Running Store announced the “Striders Series“, which looked like the same thing. I assumed that the Striders Series was replacing the NUTS series, but was still curious about the fate of NUTS. Well, today I checked the old Stride Racing website, and they have posted an update very recently:

The Stride Racing catalog of races have been sold to Strider’s Running Store. Because of this, there will not be a Northern Utah Training Series (N.U.T.S.). There will, however, be a Strider’s Winter Racing Circuit to replace the N.U.T.S. races. You can get more information by visiting Strider’s web site.

Thank you to everyone who has run N.U.T.S. in the past. We had a blast putting it on and hope that you enjoyed yourselves in the bitter cold as much as we did. Who knew that frostbite could be so much fun. Thanks again and we’ll see you at the races.

Well thank YOU, Mark and Kurt, for putting on the NUTS series! Myself and several running buddies from Logan did it last year and had a great time. More than anything, it was an excuse climb out of the murky netherworlds of Cache Valley, but it also featured pretty good competition, a laid-back, mellow atmosphere, lots of comraderie, ample donuts, and yes, plenty of frostbite. The 15K in Eden was amazingly cold! I talked to Mark several times, and he’s a heck of nice guy and did a great job managing the races. Kudos.

I’m planning on running the new Striders Series this year, and quite looking forward to it. By being managed by Striders Running Store, it may have increased exposure, but more importantly the entire series is part of the USATF LDR Circuit. This will bring in prize money, more competition, certified courses, and other benefits. It may also encourage more people who live north of Salt Lake City to do the LDR circuit, as driving to SLC every Saturday gets a little old if you are coming from Logan or Ogden. It also expands the duration of the LDR Circuit, which could help people to get in more races and make the circuit feasible to those who were doubting they wanted to race that often. Finally, the already-growing Ogden Marathon will further benefit from this. The main change between the NUTS Series and the new Striders Series is the addition of a 30K race (18.6 miles). By the time people have completed the entire series, including the 30K, they will be very tempted to go ahead and run a marathon, if they haven’t already signed up. And those who do run the entire training series will be very fit and have a better chance of running a good race at Ogden.

The series schedule is below. Pre-registration costs for the entire series is $60, which is a great deal for Circuit races.

February 10th 5k
February 24th 10k
March 10th 10 miler
April 7th 1/2 marathon
April 28th 30k

Well, it’s that time of year again. As winter continues to advance, we runners pass our time by speculating on our spring and summer racing season. For many, winter is a time of base-building, but it is essential to during this time to plan ahead for key races in the future, as the races that we aim for will influence the upcoming training plan.

As for me, I thought I had everything figured out: build base over the winter, then start incorporating speedwork specifically designed for success in 5-k and 10-k races, run 5k’s and 10k’s over the summer for the LDR Circuit, and then, if all is going well, gear up for a fall marathon, either Top of Utah or St. George. For one thing, I’d like to get my speed back, but also after my year-long bout with injuries I’m wary about exposing my body to the type of training needed to run a marathon (not to mention the marathon race itself). All those 20-milers can beat the tar out me, compared to the training volume needed to race well in 5k/10k distances.

Well, I’m second-guessing myself now. The Ogden Marathon is calling me. It’s not just their new website design either. The longer I stay healthy, the more I think I can handle a spring marathon. I’ve decided to break it down into Pros and Cons.

Cons (against running a spring marathon, no particular order)

• Marathons are hard
• Still afraid of what 20-mile training runs every week will do to my knees, back, and foot.
• Desire to focus on redeveloping my speed and running a fast 5k; marathons make you slow
• Delaying return to marathoning could make a fall marathon better due to developing other systems

Pros (for running a spring marathon, particularly Ogden)

• The marathon is my best distance, why avoid it?
• All signs indicate that I’ve fixed whatever biomechanical issue that has been hindering me, and I can sustain marathon training without injury
• The Ogden Marathon is the logical finale to the Striders Series; I will be fit enough to do it and will have a huge amount of base under my belt
• Ogden Marathon is a lot closer to Logan than Salt Lake; it’s advantageous to do any LDR Circuit race that is in Ogden
• Ogden Marathon has good prize money and a pretty good chance to actually win some cash. I can always use cash.
• My long-term goal is to qualify for Olympic Trials. Running a spring marathon may help me to qualify this fall.
• I like the Ogden Marathon. I like the course, the organization, and have had success there.

Do these pros outweigh the cons? I’m not sure yet. I don’t have to make this decision anytime soon, but by March I will need to start gearing my training to whatever course I choose. It’s either focusing on a spring marathon, then 5k’s and 10k’s, and then a fall marathon, or focusing in 5k’s and 10’s all spring and summer, and then a fall marathon. Obviously a big difference between a 5k and a marathon. I believe that training should be specialized to fit a particular type of race. Generalists are kind of good at everything but really good at nothing. It’s either 5k/10k or marathon, but not both.

Over yesterday and today I transfered my Polar training for 2005 to the training Blog. 2005 was a breakthrough year for me, in that I finally utilized smart training, and finally figured out how to run a marathon properly. Both of those accomplishments were greatly influenced by me reading “Advanced Marathoning” by Pfitzinger and Douglas. The ideas in the book help me formulate a good training plan that employed a lot more tempo and marathon-pace running, and less VO2Max. It also helped me with proper tapering, hydrating, and fueling, which are crucial (and often underestimated) for the marathon.

This was also the year I ran the Grand Slam. Why did I do the Slam? I was so jaded from the TOU Marathon in 2004, when I put all my marbles in the one race and lost big. So I decided to do the opposite in 2005: run a bunch of marathons until I got it right. Also, there would be no pressure on me (from myself) to perform really well at any of them, which would allow me to loosen up and RUN MY OWN RACE. Well, to make a long story short, I ended up doing really well in ALL of them, and came out with some nice PR’s, and a lot of valuable experience. So in order to run fast, I had to try to run slow. What this meant was that in all my previous marathons, I tried to run a pace beyond my training, and ended up running slower than I should have because of those improper race-day tactics.

The downside of doing the Slam was that I got injured (knee and lower back). I chose to abuse ibuprofin and just run through it, and did so “sucessfully”, but I ended up taking October-December completely off in order to rehab and recover. And when I started running again in January, I developed similar injuries again. Either my biomechanics changed or my body’s ability to heal and/or absorb shock had been compromised. I hadn’t had an injury before the Slam for the previous 10 years of competitive running. I do not blame the Slam itself, but rather me running it too hard with TOO LITTLE BASE.

People often ask me about the Slam and for tips. Here are my tips, ideas that I did use or SHOULD HAVE used.

1) Build a big base during the 4 months preceding the first race (Ogden). 70+ miles/week for at least couple months is optimal. Once the Slam starts, you will be forced to drop mileage due to constant recovery.

2) Pick 1 or 2 races as your focus races. Run the others as “workouts” — ie do not “race” them. For me, my focus races were Des News and St. George.

3)Negative or even-split every race. Do not hit the wall. I found that races that I negative or even-splitted, my recovery was an order of magnitude faster than races where I hit the wall and ran a slower 2nd half.

4) How do you not hit the wall? Run your race, not someone else’s race. Ignore “the pack” and run a pace that seems too slow at first. You have 26 miles to get your PR. Going out hard the first few miles can ruin the last half of your race. But going out easy can make the last half a dream. I ended up passing a lot of people that are normally faster than me in the last miles of races using this strategy, and even unintentially won money by winning the “war of attrition”. Pfitzinger says that running a negative split means that you could have ran faster, but that’s what we want in the non-focus Grand Slam races.

5) Run for “active recovery”. Hydrate and fuel EVERY aid station, even if you are not thirsty or tired. Walk through, if needed. I actually walk through aid stations now to get more fluid, and I don’t believe it nets me any loss in time, because I “get it back” later. Take liquid and fuel after Mile 20, even though it will not help you for the current race, it will help you recover from the race faster, which is key for the Slam.

6) Do not taper heavily for your non-focus marathons. Since you just did a marathon a few weeks ago, your mileage will probably not be that high to begin with, and your fitness can not afford a big taper. One week with 20% reduction should do it, and then the marathon itself will add 26 miles for the week, so on paper, there will not be any drop in mileage at all!

7) Monitor your body, and think long-term rather than short term. If you are injured, suck it up and drop out of the circuit. Some injuries will go away on there own, but others will not, and continuing to run will make things worse and have long-term consequences. I’ve had a rough year since the Slam because I did not listen to my body and tried to mask my pain with NSAIDs. Don’t do it!

Enjoy it! Running the Slam takes you to a lot of great courses and beautiful areas in Utah. Relax and admire the scenery during your race. Be inspired.

I think that the Grand Slam in 2007 will “only” consist of 4 races rather than 5. This should make the circuit more achievable, and allow for faster times.

I found that despite relatively low mileage, I built a tremendous amount of fitness through doing the Grand Slam. Why is that? Well, my theory is that Slammers do tons of marathon-specific workouts…what is a better marathon workout than 26.2 miles at MP pace? Fewer long training runs are needed, as the marathons themselves build a lot of fitness and train the body to burn fuel efficiently. Even my general speed was pretty good by September, as demonstrated by a strong Peruvian Dash 8k finish. Finishers of the 2006 Slam had a lot of PR’s and remarkable performances as well. This leads me to believe that multiple marathons can be a good way to go. Of course, doing 5 in 6 months is extreme, but if you train for months and months and do your marathon…why not do one other in a month or two? You’ve worked very hard over several months to build your marathon fitness, and if your recovery from the first marahon goes well, why not jump in another? You have already done the work, so the second marathon is “free”, and I believe the probability of a PR in a second marathon (if spaced far enough apart) is good.

Those are my Sunday Blog thoughts. As usual, other people’s experiences and comments are welcome.