UM 45 Ohio 23
It goes back to the fainting spell and vertigo I had in July. There were indications I was occasionally skipping a heart beat so I had a loop recorder implanted which confirmed that. The beginning of December I had that replaced with a pacemaker, then had some complications with blood clots. All seems well for now but all that cut into training and it looks like a slow road back.
Glad you got it diagnosed and are on the (slow) road back!
MM#5991
Take care of yourself George!
Lori
*it's Bertha or me. My money is on me.*
**"There is no growth in the comfort zone and no comfort in the growth zone".---- Sandy**
Hope all continues to go well with your recovery.
George - sorry to hear you've had heart issues. What do the doctor's say about continuing your running with the pacemaker?
Fred - take me off the list. My running has been on a downward slide and I don't feel at all motivated to change that right now.
Are we there, yet?
So far no restrictions. The pacemaker is primarily to correct the skipped heart beats and is set to not let my HR drop below 50. I had to shift to walking rather than running because of the blood clots, but that was my choice because of how uncomfortable it felt. I'm gradually easing back to run-walk now.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Waltons ThreadLord
Sorry to hear about all you've been through. I hope you're past the problems and can get back to what you enjoy.
5k 23:48.45 (3/22); 4M 31:26 (2/22); 5M 38:55 (11/23); 10k 49:24 (10/22); 10M 1:29:33 (2/24); Half 1:48:32 (10/22); Marathon 4:29:58 (11/23)Upcoming races: Scotch Plains 5k, 6/12; Firecracker 4-miler, 7/4
OK, here are week 1 results. Please take a look at your miles and let me know if anything seems off. We're in an 18-way tie for standard deviation lead since in week 1 everyone's week was exactly equal to their weekly average.
Dan hit the weekly maximum point level, which may be a recurring event given his target of 2 miles (based on average weekly performance over the last 3 years). Three runners haven't gotten started yet, which is fine, though I'll have to work out the division by zero impacts to the spreadsheet.
Thoughts? Comments? Questions?
Former Bad Ass
Yay, it's begun. Thanks!
Damaris
delicate flower
Fred, thanks for keeping the game going this year!
We might want to consider adding some kind of bare minimum miles one must hit to earn points regardless of their past three years' mileage. It makes sense to me that someone should have to run one mile to get one point. Using Dan as an example, he's basically got this year won already with his 2 mile minimum. Earning 20 points should be hard to do and somewhat rare. Just tossing out ideas.
<3
Fred, thanks for keeping the game going this year! We might want to consider adding some kind of bare minimum miles one must hit to earn points regardless of their past three years' mileage. It makes sense to me that someone should have to run one mile to get one point. Using Dan as an example, he's basically got this year won already with his 2 mile minimum. Earning 20 points should be hard to do and somewhat rare. Just tossing out ideas.
It's a dilemma. We don't want to exclude people, but how do we adjust for people making a renewed dedication to running?
I agree but we also need to balance what's fair to everyone who's been running lots of miles the past three years. Dave has to run 118 miles in a week to get 20 points. Dave is a dedicated runner who puts in a shitload of miles but he will most likely never hit 20 points in a week.
This is all for fun though and pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I'm fine with whatever.
I have an easy suggestion. You could easily "cap" the max points at 15 instead of 20. From 2021 data, times when consistent runners from the previous years have hit over 15 points are very few anyway, and that would level Dan's weekly points to something closer to what everyone is scoring.
He's still going to win, though.
I'm not sure we can. The game was designed to use prior 3 years of running history as baseline. If that does not exist, the numbers just don't really make a lot of sense. But whatevs.
Dave
There are 3 years of history, they just represent low mileage.
One week of results does not a year make.
I have mixed feelings on the last few posts. The goal of this all was to encourage regular consistent running within the group, and within each person's abilities, without the drama of the main page miles game.
We could consider adding some aspect of the game that relies on regular posting in the dailies to encourage more participation in the group's daily conversation. For example - maybe bonus points for each week where you post in the daily threads. That's something everyone has the ability to do, so it's not punitive for anybody, but it encourages regular check ins and participation. Though I don't know if there's a report to see who has been actively posting.
Or set a rule to recalculate total weekly mileage goals at the half way point, so it's evenly applied to everyone and takes into account current running levels, which would help account for any dramatic changes. Maybe an updated June to June 3 year average or a percentage increase/decrease applied to the 3 year average that is in proportion to Jan-June 2022 6 month running levels.
I don't want to see us making changes that penalize or discourage someone on a Beginner's forum for making progress and growing in the sport. That's the whole point of being here.