Thursday, June 19, 2008

Monday 50 Miles

A Pirate Ship along the Course

50.21 miles; 11:34:00.  We started at 6am and finished around 5:30 in the evening.

Miles 0-23: felt great for the first 17 miles.  We ran the Afton course backward for about 8 miles, then hoped on pavement and ran into Afton.  The pavement section was about 7 miles. Back in the park, we retraced our steps to the car.  The last three miles were rough because we had planned to be back at the car a little sooner.  Bonking at mile 18 of a 50 miler?!

At the Car: Coke, trail mix, new socks, new water and more Infinit.

Miles 23-39: We ran the Afton 25k loop but...dropped the campground section and added an extra down and up the mile long gravel road hill.  I needed to take salt tablets about every 30 minutes.  We maintained an 11:30 min/mile pace.

At the Car: Coke, trail mix, new water and more Infinit.

Miles 39-50: Painful. Longer than 11 miles. Slow. False summits around every corner. Salt tablets every 20 minutes.

I learned two important lessons on this run.
1. Put your head down, don't look up, and keep moving.  This will come in handy on Sugarloaf and Hope Pass at Leadville.  Last year, I kept looking up hoping to see the top.
2. Switch to a flat foot running form occasionally, especially when running up hills.  I've been a die-hard heel-to-toe striker all my running life.  This form has done me well, and enabled me to run relaxed and avoid a lot of injury.  But Anton runs flat-footed.  

Now, I don't accept the idea that this is the ideal way to run because our prehistoric ancestors ran this way.  This seems too difficult to substantiate.  I think it's sufficient to say it works because it simply works for some people.  I've been experimenting with it the last few runs.  A lot on this run.  It takes some strain off the calves, seems very efficient and uses some different muscles.  My only problem was that I stubbed a few roots because the foot doesn't lift very high.

Check out the real thing:


keith said...

Congrats on finishing the 50 miler!

Most of that footage of Krupicka running was on flat surfaces, which I think the flat footed "shuffle" would work fine for. I'll bet he picks his feet up a lot more on rugged trails.

As much as I've actually seen them run, Wynn Davis and Patrick Russel both run very efficiently as well.

SteveQ said...

I was just off camera (left) at the Fish Hatchery out shot. I coulda been on YouTube without getting punched in the groin!

That 50 miler sounds like it was tougher on you than it was on Pete. Way to hang in there.


I've seen Anton running on the steepest part of LT100 course and he did pick up his feet but he still lands pretty flat footed.
As for whether it's the ideal way to run...if you're barefoot as our ancestors were it would be the ideal way. Is it still or has technology allowed us to evolve to where we need our cushioned shoes?
Hmmm...there's a whole blog just waiting to be written.

Unknown said...

you're opening a door that only gets wider.
An evolutionist on MPR today conjectured that the glow worm developed its infinitisimally-unlikely-evolved pattern of enzymes to produce the glow by having an infinitisimally large number of offspring. I consider that as scientific (observation, replicability, refutability, simplicity [remember Occam's Razor?]) as saying that we now own a Mercedes C63 AMG because I found one in the garage after looking in the garage an infinitisimally significant number of times.


She was an evolutionary biologist and she made a point of saying she's not an evolutionist. According to her evolution is a theological discussion and she's a scientist looking at the details of nature and how things evolve over time in order to survive.
Why does there always have to be either one or the other? Why is it so difficult to believe in creation and the fact that every living creature will evolve/adapt over time. One doesn't need to negate the other.
Your argument regarding a car in your garage is saying that, poof, it just appeared. That has nothing to do with adaptation or evolution. Your saying something was created from nothing...hmmm....sounds like creation.
I think science and religion have created an argument where there doesn't need to be one.
Give God credit...if God can create all this then why not create it with the ability to evolve in order to survive in a world with an ever-changing environment? Us included.
And yes, I knew it would open the door. More fun than a barrel of primates!

SteveQ said...

Ockham's razor is pretty neatlt refuted by any biochemical process. The simplest explanation that fits the data is invariably incorrect, because there's always important data one does not know.

Just thought I'd throw a curveball into the discussion.