The Yin Blog

Spring Challenge 5K race recap

Am I crazy?

That's what I was wondering when my alarm woke me up at 7:40 am today, and I could hear steady rainfall outside. I could either go back to sleep or I could get dressed, eat yogurt for breakfast, and then drive 30 minutes to go run a 5K race . . . in the rain.

I chose to get up, but it was a close call. Truth be told, if it weren't for the fact that I had set a March mini-goal of running a 5K in sub-22:30 -- which I failed to accomplish two weeks ago at the Luckython -- I might have gone back to sleep even though I'd already registered for this race.

Yea for setting motivational goals!

I wore a longsleeve tech shirt, with the Zombie Apocalypse race T-shirt over that, black tech shorts, white socks, and the lightweight Saucony Progrid Kinvaras. Then I drove 22 miles southwest to Champoeg Park. It was pouring during the drive, or at least it seemed that way, between the velocity of the rainfall and the backsplatter from trucks. I am crazy, I thought to myself.

Parts of the park were flooded, including one stretch of the path from the parking lot to the picnic area where the race organizers were set up. No problem, I just walked across the grass . . . oh, maybe it would be better to describe it as a swamp. One of the downsides of the Kinvaras is that they get soaked easily, apparently.

I picked up my bib (#1570) and shivered under the canopy. It wasn't actually that cold -- high 40s or so -- but the dreary weather and rain made it seem that way. Fortunately, it wasn't raining that hard.

Finally, we gathered to the starting line. Uberthons races tend to get anywhere from 100-500 runners, but this was a decidedly small event (only 36 5Kers and 28 10Kers). The organizers didn't even bother with starting us in waves, as they usually do. I was near the front, with a bunch of (as it turned out) really fast runners.

I had run 10 miles on Thursday, and one of my work colleagues who's a hardcore runner had suggested that I take it easy the first mile to see how my legs felt. I was planning on following that advice, and also trying to avoid the problem with the Luckython, where I ran positive splits. However, the combination of race adrenaline and positioning with fast runners led to a 6:49 first mile.

At least, that's going by the mileage markers, which I'm sure were off significantly, at least the mile 2 marker, anyway.

By that point, the runners I had started with had pretty much all sped ahead of me. I felt okay -- it wasn't an easy pace, but I wasn't gasping either. I had visions of a sub-22:00 finish at this pace.

But I did slow down a bit. Not intentionally, per se, or rather, not in a planned way. I didn't think I could keep up that 6:49 pace. Plus the course was getting a bit annoying, with big puddles of water in spots that you couldn't avoid without going a long way out of the way. Result: more soaked feet.

I hit the 5K turnaround at 11ish minutes and started to head back.

Going by my watch timer and the mile 2 marker, that second mile was 8:56(!). Now, I know I ran a slow second mile, but there was no way it was that slow. But I was fretting about it and now worried that I wouldn't even beat the time from my previous 5K. . . . (That have been not just demoralizing, but also embarrassing, since one of the race organizers was telling us that this would be a PR course.)

At this point, I was in a weird spot on the course. I saw walkers still headed out, but I could only see one runner ahead of me, and when I looked back, I couldn't see anyone following me. So basically, I was the slowest of the fast group. . . .

Anyway, the mile 3 marker popped up unexpectedly quickly. Per my watch timer, that third mile took me only 5:55(!!), which is obviously wrong. My fastest mile on a flat treadmill of late was 6:00, so it's safe to say that I wouldn't be running a sub-6:00 mile on mile 3 of an actual race. I'd guess that something like 1:15 of mile 2 should be in mile 3, which would make those splits a more reasonable 7:40 and 7:10. Maybe they were even more balanced.

Apparently, I stopped my watch timer at mile 3 instead of hitting the split button, because Icrossed the finish line in 22:24, but my watch claimed 21:40. The last split time on the watch was 5:55, which confirms this diagnosis of user error.

So, I'm pleased with the time. On the course, I didn't feel like I was holding back (well, maybe mile 2 a bit), but at the end, I didn't feel completedly drained either.

I finished 4th overall, 3d out of 3 (d'oh) for 40-44 year old males, and 3d out of 7 for 40-44 year olds. Kind of weird how I ran a minute faster than the Luckython, but finished last in my age/gender bracket here and won it in the earlier race. This was a faster course, and maybe the rain kept away more of the non-hardcore racers.

Next race is in a month. We'll see if I can get under 22 minutes.

Ugh . . . bad ratings news for ABC's "Missing"

The 2011-12 TV season has been pretty disappointing for new shows, at least as far as my TiVo is concerned. Looking back at a post from last year, I was excited about a bunch of upcoming shows, but most have crashed and burned.

"Terra Nova" was adequate,  but nothing to write home about, and it's been canceled.

"Alcatraz" has been so boring that I finally gave up on it in the middle of an episode and deleted my Season Pass. It's looking like it'll be canceled as well.

"Grimm" has been entertaining, but I'm not sure how much of my view of it is colored by its being filmed here in Portland, meaning that I get extra kicks from seeing in-town landmarks -- and knowing that it's helping our local economy.

"The River," I skipped altogether. It looks like it'll be canceled.

I watched the pilot of "Awake" and thought it was pretty well-done, but I never got around to watching any more, and haven't felt like I missed anything, and it too looks like a goner.

I've liked "Missing" a lot (Ashley Judd crossed with the movie Taken), but the ratings for last night's episode (#2) look pretty horrific.

Kiefer Sutherland's "Touch" is okay, but it's not "24" obviously. . . .

Which means, strangely enough, my clear favorite new show from this season is "Once Upon a Time," which wasn't even on my list of shows to watch when I looked over the networks' lists of new shows!

More on the FBI's pre-sting contact with Mohamed Mohamud

Yesterday's Oregonian had an interesting story about the FBI's pre-sting contact with Portland bomb sting defendant Mohamed Mohamud. Apparently, the contact was all via email, so the record is clear(?) as to the exact wording of the communications, though of course lawyers can always find things to argue about:

Mohamud's defense team contends in court papers that the emails show the FBI was trying to induce the Somali-American teen into committing a crime, a key element of their entrapment defense. But prosecutors argue that Mohamud didn't ignore or question what Smith wrote -- he offered advice on staying under the radar. 

"(I) would advise you move to a more populated Muslim area," Mohamud wrote. "For security be more careful, its a good thing you talked to me because you can get tricked into saying something that will get you into trouble for nothing ... But don't put yourself out there. There are lots of spies." 

Smith didn't listen. 

"It looks like there has been some action against the (W)est in the last few weeks," he wrote on Dec. 1, 2009. "(I) cant tell you how easy it should be to bring any community here in the (W)est to its knees." 

Mohamud responded, "(B)rother, i don't think you should talk about such issues, especially online."

 

Running shoes

Running shoes are good!:

When barefoot runners and shod runners carried the same weight on their feet, barefoot running used almost 4 percent more energy during every step than running in shoes.

To the surprise of the researchers, barefoot running, often touted by fans as more natural than wearing shoes, was actually less efficient.

Speaking of running shoes, I just got new shoes at Road Runner Sports. My regular pair of Asics have close to 400 miles on them, so it's about time to replace them.

This was a much different (and better) experience than what I've done in the past, which was basically to pick out a pair from the shelves, put it on, walk around a bit, and decide whether to get it. First, the saleswoman went through a list of questions about goals, weekly mileage, terrain, etc. Then she had me step on a pressure pad that measured my weight distribution, noting my high arches and heavy heel. Then she had me job on a treadmill so that a video camera could record my foot strike. Then she molded some special inserts for arch support.

After all that, she brought out three pairs of shoes for me to try: Asics, Nike, and Brooks. Quite surprisingly to her, the Asics were the easiest one for me to decide against. For some reason, this pair didn't feel right in the back of the foot. I had a lot of trouble telling the Nikes apart from the Brooks, even when she had me try putting one on my right foot and the other on my left foot. The nearest I could say was that the Nikes felt better from the bottom of my foot to the sole, while the Brooks seemed mildly better up top. I ended up going with the Nike Air Pegasus+ 28 Breathe (although my pair is . . . um . . . more colorful than the pair pictured on the site); she said to think of the bright green colors as a safety feature.

She also had me try a lighter pair of shoes (Saucony Progrid Kinva) for shorter distance runs, including races. I ended up liking that pair as well, so I went ahead and bought them too. I've been wanting to have a second pair of shoes to rotate, so that each pair gets a chance to recover from being used; apparently, that helps them last longer.

I have to say, although I am a big fan of Amazon, I've also felt guilty about shopping so much there instead of local stores. Unfortunately, many local stores simply don't offer any reason to shop them, apart from some vague notion of helping the local economy, to make up for the often giant price difference. However, the running shoe buying experience is something that I think local stores can, if done right, compete against Amazon on something other than price.

Joe Biden . . . exaggerates (no kidding!)

VP Biden says about the raid to get Osama bin Laden:

You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan. Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there.

As others have noted, the Navy SEAL team was pretty awesome, and no doubt, the plan carried some substantial risks, not just to the soldiers, but also to the Administration.

But the most audacious plan in 500 years???

I know Operation Eagle Claw (aka the Iran hostage rescue mission) ended in a fiasco, but if you read the account in Mark Bowden's Guests of the Ayatollah, you can't help but appreciate the scope and scale of that mission. The goal was even more complicated -- not killing a determined foe, but rescuing alive nearly 50 hostages held in different locations in a foreign metropolis teeming with enemies. I'm sure there are other missions that rate as audacious, or maybe more, but Eagle Claw is way up there. And the risks from Eagle Claw weren't just to the participating soldiers, or to the Carter Administration (which did pay the price), but potentially also to the hostages. . . .

I mean, Eagle Claw was so audacious, the Delta Force had to be created for the mission!

My 2012 fantasy baseball team (draft results)

Ah, spring is supposedly just around the corner, even if it's still frigid here in Oregon. And that means baseball is just around the corner. I signed up for a public league on ESPN, and here's the team I drafted (I had pick #10 in a 10-team league):

1 (10 overall) - Joey Votto 1b

2 (11) - Roy Halladay sp

3 (30) - Giancarlo (Mike) Stanton of

4 (31) - David Wright 3b

5 (50) - Zack Greinke sp

6 (51) - Ben Zobrist 2b/of

7 (70) - Brian McCann c

8 (71) - Stephen Strasburg sp

9 (90) - Ryan Madson rp

10 (91) - Adam Jones of

11 (110) - Matt Garza sp

12 (111) - Desmond Jennings of

13 (130) - Joel Hanrahan rp

14 (131) - Carlos Beltran of

15 (150) - Joakim Soria rp

16 (151) - Nick Swisher of

17 (170) - Stephen Drew ss

18 (171) - Ryan Howard 1b

19 (190) - Kelly Johnson 2b

20 (191) - Colby Rasmus of

21 (210) - Frank Francisco rp

22 (211) - Erik Bedard sp

23 (230) - Matt Thornton rp

24 (231) - Kenley Jansen rp

25 (250) - Roy Oswalt sp (FA)

I'm mostly happy with this team. 2012 projections are a bit of a crapshoot, but they suggest that my offense should do well on all categories except maybe batting average. But then again, that's the one that's subject to the most variation, so it's probably the best one to avoid relying on. Barring injury or disaster, my pitching staff should dominate. I think saves are a stupid stat and closers are overrated, but I've got 5.5 of them, and my starters are pretty much are high strikeout ones. Strasburg will be limited to about 160 innings, but they should 160 awesome innings. Bedard will also no doubt turn in not so many innings due to injury, but he's always effective when available. I'll have to check the waiver wire for spot starters . . . . Oswalt was just a flier; by then, I had checked out and let the computer draft for me, based on players I picked out.

Luckython 5K race recap

My alarm went off at 7:30 am this morning, and I listened for the sound of rain, but it was quiet. Yes! It was a dry morning. I got up, ate a container of cherry yogurt for breakfast, and got dressed for my 5K race, the Luckython: longsleeve tech shirt, with a white Oregon Zoo T-shirt over that; black tech shorts; new socks that I won in a contest by the race organizers; and my soon-to-be retired Asics shoes.

It was cold, but not intolerably so. I drove over to Cook Park in nearby Tigard and started warming up with some light jogging in the parking lot area. The 10K runners got to go first, and then it was our turn. I lined up closer to the front than the back, maybe about in the top quarter in terms of positioning.

This was the second time I've run this course, as it was used for last year's Turkeython, and I therefore knew what to expect. It starts with a flat stretch and then slight downward curve to a T-intersection. The course turns right at the T, going up and across a bridge, then a straightaway that ends in a U-turn. Back toward the bridge (1 mile marker), across it, and past the T-intersection. Then some gentle curves through semi-flooded paths, part of which into a forest, ending in a gentle turnaround (2 mile marker). The last mile heads back to the T-intersection and back toward the starting area, except it curves to the right for a last bulge. Back to the picnic area (3 mile marker) and a last stretch along part of the parking lot back to the starting point.

When it my wave's turn to go, I got off to a good start. I hit the 1 mile marker in 7:07, which was on pace for what I'd hoped to finish in. Unfortunately, I didn't run negative splits; the opposite, in fact. The second mile took 7:42, and the third took 7:48. I was not running at an easy, comfortable pace, so I don't think I left much, if anything, on the table, although better pacing might have cut a little bit of time. I was pretty gassed at the end and felt a brief moment of nausea, so I think I was running near max VO2.

I crossed the finish in 23:24, which was disappointing. I'd hoped for getting under 22:30, but I would've been satisfied with getting under 23:00 flat. However, I did have a pleasant surprise: when I checked the instant results. (Uberthons races are so awesome! Any kind of internet connection lets you check the results as they occur in real-time.) I was first in my age bracket (40-44 years). Of course, since I was closer to the front than the back, there could well be faster runners who started later who would be finishing soon. I hovered near the results table, where Uberthons had set up an iPad and three touchscreen monitors all connected wirelessly, and periodically checked to see if I was getting dethroned.

I prevailed! In the end, I finished 12th overall out of 180 runners, but first in my age group (out of 26) and therefore obviously first in my age/gender group (out of 13). I didn't win the blanket that went to the male and female winners of the 5K and 10K races, but I did get to go up during the extended awards ceremony for a picture, and I won a small bag of green-colored candy.

Even better, my two boys, N and J, ran in the kids' 1K race afterward. N paced himself, and while this race wasn't timed, I'm certain he ran a nice negative split. J ran too fast at first (he's more impatient in general) and then complained that he was tired. (I ran with him.) So I told him that was fine, he could walk until he felt like running again. He walked two stretches, but at the end, when I told him to run hard to the finish, he did! They each got to pick a kids' ribbon.

Then we went home and I took a nice long hot shower and scrubbed all the mud off my legs.

Gallup polled me yesterday!

Like probably most of you, I do not like getting calls from telemarketers at any time, especially near the end of dinner. However, there are two random callers that I do like to get called by -- political pollsters, and the Nielsen rating agency.

(I've never been one of the Nielsen raters with the device that automatically measures what you watch, but I have twice been asked to keep a written journal of what I watched for a week. It should be obvious why I'd instantly agree to help Nielsen -- can you imagine what primetime TV would look like if there were more Nielsen viewers like me? There would be lots of reality TV, yes, but none of that Bachelor crap; lots of serialized action-adventure/mystery/thriller/sci-fi; and basically no sit-coms.)

Well, Nielsen did not call me yesterday, but Gallup did. Often you can figure out what the pollster is getting at from the questions, but this one was interesting. There were quite a few questions about how satisfied I was in my job, my health, etc. More questions about how many days in the past week that I ate 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables, and how many days that I exercised at least 30 minutes (ha!). One question kind of stumped me -- whether health problems had kept me from doing what I wanted to do at any time in the past six months. There was the calf that I pulled during a 5K . . . and the bout of metatarsalgia in my right foot that I finally seem over . . . but both of those are running-related, so not seemingly within the spirit of the questions.

Then, there was a shift to questions about the direction of the economy, which you can imagine I had a field day answering. And finally, demographic questions. It was easy to answer that I belonged to neither party, but then when the pollster followed up with, do you lean toward one party or the other, I suggested that he could record it as lean Democrat on social issues, lean Republican on fiscal issues, but apparently the survey database wouldn't accept that, so I went with no leanings, which I suppose is true in a way, if you consider that my leanings cancel each other out.

Anyway, there you have it. I feel like my responses to a poll like this matter far more than my actual vote does, since the statistical sampling means that I am speaking for a larger number of people within the demographic category (ha ha, independent moderate -- the deciding group). I am a moderate, hear me roar!

Forbes' top ten cities for running. . .

. . . includes Portland:

If jogging alongside Olympians and marathon champions is all the motivation you need, take a jaunt around Portland. Not only does the area serve as home base for renowned racers such as Kara and Adam Goucher, Shalane Flanagan and Dathan Ritzenhein, the headquarters for Nike and Adidas are also here. While downtown Portland has a decent path by the Willamette River, the real appeal is the slew of forest trails, park paths and routes just outside of the city center.

(The other cities are Chicago, New York, Boulder, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Austin, Boston, and Atlanta.)

I certainly notice a lot of runners in the Portland area, although maybe that's just because I'm attuned to running now. I'm not that surprised that Los Angeles doesn't make the list, but I am a bit surprised that San Diego isn't. Carlsbad is probably too small to have merited consideration, but when we were there last winter break, I definitely saw a lot of runners (and bikers).

A small clue about our health care costs?

I took my older son to a dental check-up today, and it was a very efficient process. We checked in, didn't wait long to be called, and the attention was good.

Then I took a look at the full billing statement, which showed what services were provided, what they cost (rack rate), what amount the HMO covered, and what amount we owed/paid. The only amount in the last category was the $15 co-pay, which was certainly reasonable.

$77 for about 10 minutes of the dentist's time . . . probably inflated a bit to make it seem like the insurance coverage was a good deal, but I wouldn't call it unreasonable.

X-rays, fluoride treatment, etc. Fine, fine fine.

$60 for instructions on brushing teeth?!?

I know this doesn't really matter, since it's just an arbitrary amount that the HMO has decided it's going to claim that its services are worth (except that there is a cap on annual benefits), but is there any relation between that amount and reality? I was there, and it was about 2-3 minutes of a list of rules. $60???