Forums  > Racing  > OC Half Marathon Race Report (longish)

1

OC Half Marathon Race Report (longish) (Read 357 times)

redrunner view log OC HM posted: 1/6/2008 at 7:36 PM Everyone I spoke with that wore a garmin said the course was long: I had 13.29, others had it as high as 13.5. I'm going to stick with 13.29. The weather turned out pretty much perfect-it looked like it might rain a bit at the starting line, but it never did. I wore my runningahead.com tshirt, compression shirt, shorts, and gloves. I had to take the gloves off after a few miles and my shirt was soaked with sweat. I think it was probably around 50ish, maybe more, maybe less. I had 3 water stops, and took in one power gel. Next time I'd probably take in two power gels, as I didn't have any issues with it and I think I got a boost from it. I'd take the 2nd one around 9-10 miles next time. This one was around 6-8, I can't remember exactly. The course was more undulating than I remember it-really not a lot of flat ground and a lot of long up or downhills (nothing too severe though). The last up hill at the end was a killer. I run a lot of hills as much normal running routine, but need to actually add some hill workouts (haven't done any yet). Despite the really uneven splits, I was pretty happy with my pacing. My first mile was too slow as I wasn't properly warmed up and started too far back, but it worked out well. The hills really made it difficult to run even splits. I wish I'd been able to keep closer to 7 mins for the last 3 miles, though. I should note that even if my garmin was wrong, this was a PR by 1:13, and was nearly 5 minutes faster than the long beach HM, which was just three months ago, so I'm very happy with the time. If the garmin was right, then I was even faster (7:07 vs 7:13 pace). My training has been way better and I'm quite a bit lighter than I was for LB. Splits: 7:16 6:39 7:01 7:10 6:54 7:07 7:11 6:58 7:05 7:07 7:14 7:12 7:22 2:05 (last .29 miles)=7:09 pace finish: 1:34:29 Did anyone else run? Goals for 2009: 1000 miles running, 1000 miles biking/spinning, 100 miles swimming, 100 strength workouts PR in 5k, 10k, HM Several Tri/Aquathlons Los Angeles | Run Bike Swim

rvelich view log Will it hold up in '09? posted: 1/6/2008 at 10:05 PM Nicely done, Redrunner! Great (long) race. Rick "The will to win means nothing without the will to prepare." - Juma Ikangaa "I wanna go fast." Ricky Bobby runningforcassy.blogspot.com

Mr R posted: 1/7/2008 at 4:51 AM This is the course that the USATF certified for last year. Elevation changes can screw with a GPS a bit. Sounds like a pretty good race. I was looking at the times of my training buddies and they were all a bit slower than I would have expected, so I'm sure the hills had an effect. Nothing like a PR to get you motivated to keep putting in the miles. Incidentally, I ran for the first time in a week today, and while it took a while for the stiffness to work its way out, I'm not feeling any pain after the fact--a very good sign. Maybe I'll be hammering again by February. What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heart-rending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottoms of his training shoes. The Trial of Miles, Miles of Trials. How could they be expected to understand that? -John Parker

arc918 view log posted: 1/7/2008 at 6:01 AM Good race and congrats on the PR! FWIW - I'd be shocked if the course were long - if the Garmin said 13.1 I'd guess the course were short, as it is all but impossible to run every single tangent - add to that the elevation changes and the cloudy/rainy morning and the GPS is only screwed up more

redrunner view log OC HM posted: 1/7/2008 at 7:06 AM thanks. I'll just assume it was 13.1. Still a PR, but not as fast as I was hoping. Very happy though-beat my first goal for the year. Now it is onto the 10k, which I have quite a bit of work to do (but have more natural speed than endurance). Goals for 2009: 1000 miles running, 1000 miles biking/spinning, 100 miles swimming, 100 strength workouts PR in 5k, 10k, HM Several Tri/Aquathlons Los Angeles | Run Bike Swim

Bonkin view log Reboot posted: 1/7/2008 at 1:05 PM Nice job, Peter! Congrats on the PR! It's always nice to get one of those. Your monkey gives me the creeps. - andahuff

redrunner view log OC HM posted: 1/7/2008 at 4:56 PM modified: 1/7/2008 at 5:01 PM I guess you're right! I haven't had a PR in anything for 3 years! Though I haven't been at all consistent. I credit this site and the new garmin for keeping me motivated. I'll post a pic of the RA.com shirt in action when I can get one. redfern-congrats on the pain free post run. I'm not pain free, but I should be hammering before february. Pool opens tomorrow, so I hope to get in and start back up cross training, which I haven't been doing for months. Goals for 2009: 1000 miles running, 1000 miles biking/spinning, 100 miles swimming, 100 strength workouts PR in 5k, 10k, HM Several Tri/Aquathlons Los Angeles | Run Bike Swim

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project posted: 1/7/2008 at 8:09 PM modified: 1/7/2008 at 8:15 PM Nice race. I'd also stick with 13.1. GPS will almost always measure slightly long on a race course. The reason is that when you run on a race course, you invariably swing a little wide on the turns, wheras the course measurement is based on the extreme inside of all turns, and the shortest straight-line distance between turns. You also add distance if you move around someone to pass. You can't help but run a little longer than the course. Look at that course map between mile 7 and 9. It's really winding, but the official measurement line is as straight as it can be under those circumstances. That's an extreme example of a segment where a runner's GPS will measure longer, due to the runner following the road rather than running the shortest possible distance. You could also think of it this way -- when they're racing the 1500m on the track, the only way to run 1500m is to stay in lane 1 the whole time. Get stuck on the outside, pass people, and eveyone in the race invariably runs more than 1500m. But no one gets to say they ran 1512m when it's done. 20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

huskydon view log posted: 1/7/2008 at 9:23 PM Nice job, and congrats on the PR! Thanks for the report, I would like to run this race sometime and appreciate your info. huskydon

Black Hurting on a bridge! posted: 1/8/2008 at 12:30 AM I agree with Jeffgoblue. The protocol for measuring is shortes possible distance while still on the course. On the track for example it's like 15cm or 6 inches from the rail. On a course with a lot of turns like Boston for example it always amazes me how many people I pass just by running the tangents. In a race I'm way too lazy to run any extra. Garmins are fairly accurate but the guys I run with on sunday's who have them are always a bit off from each other; often a quarter mile over 10 miles. A race is probably a good time to ditch the garmin; the course is certified and you waste too much time comparing! I've heard clouds can mess them up as well.

redrunner view log OC HM posted: 1/8/2008 at 12:34 AM I agree with all of you and have accepted that it wasn't the longer run I'd hoped. But, I do believe the garmin helped me pace in ways I've never had before. Maybe it wasn't 100% accurate, but I could look at it and know that I was too slow or too fast (both of which happened, a lot). Next time I'll use the mile markers for splits, but still use the garmin for keeping track of pace. Goals for 2009: 1000 miles running, 1000 miles biking/spinning, 100 miles swimming, 100 strength workouts PR in 5k, 10k, HM Several Tri/Aquathlons Los Angeles | Run Bike Swim

Black Hurting on a bridge! posted: 1/8/2008 at 12:49 AM Sounds like a great idea redrunner. JUst remember that when you hit the mile mark the pace you may be running at that point may not be your split time. For example, your goal could be 7 min pace, you go out a bit quick for most of the first mile which you hit in 6:30 and ease off a bit but you are actually running 7 min pace at the time you hit the mile; you didn't have to back off. I've seen a lot of guys do this and I used to do it myself. The easiest way to run a half is to get in a group running close to your goal pace, of course not always easy.

arc918 view log posted: 1/8/2008 at 1:52 AM I put together a dumb little spreadsheet to create the proper fudge factor in pacing from a Garmin. I assume the course will measure about 26.6 over the 26.2 miles. I then figure the adjustment per mile. At a 3:20 pace, you need to run about 7 seconds faster than the Garmin pace. So if I want to run at ~ 7:39 per mile, my Garmin needs to read about 7:32 per mile on the average pace.

redrunner view log OC HM posted: 1/8/2008 at 2:34 AM wow, that's really interesting. Goals for 2009: 1000 miles running, 1000 miles biking/spinning, 100 miles swimming, 100 strength workouts PR in 5k, 10k, HM Several Tri/Aquathlons Los Angeles | Run Bike Swim

arc918 view log posted: 1/10/2008 at 5:35 PM Earlier in the year at Long Beach I got stung (a bit) by the following the GPS pace. My GPS read ~ 26.55 at the end of the race. I ended up falling off pace at mile 17 anyway, so it was really a moot point. I decided to leave the GPS at home for CIM, but knowing my pace over the last few miles could have been helpful. Hence the creation of the "GPS fudge factor" spreadsheet.

1

Forums  > Racing  > OC Half Marathon Race Report (longish)