Lake Geneva Half Marathon

After my blow-up in Pittsburgh, I needed to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Even before Pittsburgh, the Lake Geneva races – near my new condo – caught my attention. What better way to ring in my new Cheesehead address than by stealing a victory? I decided I would wait until after Pittsburgh before deciding whether to run, and if so, what event to run.

The event has a 5k, 10k, half marathon, cross country 22 miler, and a marathon. My parents were already coming up for the weekend for Mother’s Day, so this was nothing more than a low key event. I flirted with the idea of the marathon, but the combination of still feeling slightly beat up from Pitt, a very hilly course (for the Midwest, at least), and not having logged a 20 miler in 6 weeks steered me towards the half marathon.

I had no delusions of a PR, or frankly, even a particularly fast race. The course – consisting of a half loop around the lake on country roads – was net uphill by about 350 feet. And even that is misleading, because 150 of the downhill comes in a sharp downhill in the last half mile, so really the first 12.5 was about a 500 foot climb. My only goal was to win.

It’s a small event, so this was by no means a deep field, but warming up, there appeared to be a handful of fast guys. I had no idea, though, who was running which race. Because of this I let others set the pace. We hit mile 1 in 6:05 and no one seemed to want to take the lead. Fine. I ran the 2nd mile in 5:45 and never saw anyone again.

From mile 2 through 9 I was content to cruise between 5:50 and 6:00 pace. I wasn’t breathing hard, but muscularly, my legs were dead. The combination of Pittsburgh 6 days ago and the long gradual climbs curbed any temptation to drop the pace. I occasionally looked back to see if anyone was gaining ground on me, but I didn’t see anyone. My only goals for the last 5k were (a) don’t cramp up and (b) don’t get lost. I managed both and broke the tape in 1:19. After finishing, Britt commented, “this is the first time you haven’t looked like shit at the end of a race.” Thanks babe.

I have very mixed feelings about my spring season. My training never came together and except for the 6.4 mile “10k,” I never hit the paces I expected. On the other hand, I won 3 of the 5 races I entered, so I can’t mope around like a complete loser. I do know that right now I am mentally and physically tired and am looking forward to a month of low and easy mileage.

A win definitely feels good!

A win is definitely the right thing to go into a rest/build up period on! Nice job on the race and congrats! What are your plans for the fall? Are you running a marathon?

A condo in Wisconsin? When do you have time to use that? Did your folks sell the Michigan City place?

Not surprising the legs didn't feel fresh, but I'm glad you felt/looked good at the finish.

Winning is good. Not keeling over at the end is also good.

Enjoy your recovery running this summer.

WooHoo! winning is great - congrats!

Great job on the win Dave especially so soon after Pitt. Congrats. How do you think you would have placed if you did any of the other races there?

A win is a win. Take them and enjoy whenever you can!

Now if I was Dave-O...I would back my mileage down to 70'ish, start feeling good every run, run a summer of lower key races and I think you will find yourself throwing down some pretty fast times...You've got a huge base. Take advantage of it.

Gratz, Dave!

Now we can all put Lake Geneva on our racing schedules, since we can crash at the new condo!! What a guy.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:A win is definitely the right thing to go into a rest/build up period on! Nice job on the race and congrats! What are your plans for the fall? Are you running a marathon?

I am running a marathon in either the fall or winter, just not sure of the exact plans yet. First I need to decide if/who will coach me. And then we'll discuss where to go from here.

Alex Kubacki wrote:Great job on the win Dave especially so soon after Pitt. Congrats. How do you think you would have placed if you did any of the other races there?

The winning marathon time was 2:55, and the second half is considerably easier than the first. So while I think I would have won, I also am not sure my quads could have taken another 13.1 of pounding. It would have come down to whether or not I cramped.

Dave Bussard wrote:A win is a win. Take them and enjoy whenever you can!

Now if I was Dave-O...I would back my mileage down to 70'ish, start feeling good every run, run a summer of lower key races and I think you will find yourself throwing down some pretty fast times...You've got a huge base. Take advantage of it.

For some reason I've never run well on reduced mileage, at any distance. But again, I am looking to put my training in someone else's hands.

Martin VW wrote:A condo in Wisconsin? When do you have time to use that? Did your folks sell the Michigan City place?

No, they still have that place. Britt and I bought this condo on Lake Delavan (10 miles from Lake Geneva) last December. We're hoping to make it up there almost every other weekend this summer. And we wanted to buy it now before deciding to start a family.

As Friel says, when your training and performance isn't going the way you want, you're much wiser to cut back instead of start piling on more. Take a break and come back swinging.

Congrats on your win! Winning a race has to be at least of some encouragement to you hopefully.

Sounds to me like you put a lot of pressure on yourself to perform well. That is great, but at the same time it can be a double edged sword. Hopefully you'll be able to tell the difference.

Good luck coming up with a coach if that ultimately is the direction you head.

Dave Bussard wrote:A win is a win. Take them and enjoy whenever you can!

Now if I was Dave-O...I would back my mileage down to 70'ish, start feeling good every run, run a summer of lower key races and I think you will find yourself throwing down some pretty fast times...You've got a huge base. Take advantage of it.

Dave-O wrote:
For some reason I've never run well on reduced mileage, at any distance. But again, I am looking to put my training in someone else's hands.

With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

Dave Bussard wrote:

Dave Bussard wrote:A win is a win. Take them and enjoy whenever you can!

Now if I was Dave-O...I would back my mileage down to 70'ish, start feeling good every run, run a summer of lower key races and I think you will find yourself throwing down some pretty fast times...You've got a huge base. Take advantage of it.

Dave-O wrote:
For some reason I've never run well on reduced mileage, at any distance. But again, I am looking to put my training in someone else's hands.

With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

Like diminishing returns. I'm not Dave-O nor close to his ability, but I did experience burn out in my earlier running career. I re-grouped with my coach and dropped from 80 mile weeks back to 50-60. My 10K and 15K times peaked as expected. Hmm, you might be on to something, and I hope for Dave-O's psyche, that he gets it figured out and gets back on the upward swing. Too much talent to waste! Thanks DaveB for an important lesson for us all, and yeah Dave-O - no giving up!

Dave Bussard wrote: With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

I find this comment intriguing. Dave B., is that something you learned along the way or is it something running coaches have shared with you or something else?

I could see where there is validity to that, especially with those of us who are mere mortals that run for fun, longevity or to maximize our minimal talent. For the elite athletes, the risk is probably well worth it to go for it.

Good job Dave, and yes you have had a decent spring with 3 overall wins.

jon c wrote:

Dave Bussard wrote: With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

I find this comment intriguing. Dave B., is that something you learned along the way or is it something running coaches have shared with you or something else?

I could see where there is validity to that, especially with those of us who are mere mortals that run for fun, longevity or to maximize our minimal talent. For the elite athletes, the risk is probably well worth it to go for it.

I've heard similar numbers, and my training is pretty close to that percentage. On 70 miles per week I ran 2:48 and on 80 miles per week I ran 2:42. Increasing my mileage to 100 (and sometimes more) dropped my time to 2:34.

So 70 miles got me to 91% of my PR and 80 got me to 94% of my PR.

Dave Bussard wrote:
With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

That's a fair assessment. Like I said, I'm willing to hear what a coach has to say and follow his advice. Maybe I do need to cut out 20 miles per week to stay a little fresher.

To play Devil's Advocate, though, I was hitting the training times to run 1:10-1:11. It's not like I'm getting slower across the board. I'm just bombing races, which I suspect is due to a combination of not peaking right, too many training weeks, and being a bit of a basket case.

Dave-O wrote:To play Devil's Advocate, though, I was hitting the training times to run 1:10-1:11. It's not like I'm getting slower across the board. I'm just bombing races, which I suspect is due to a combination of not peaking right, too many training weeks, and being a bit of a basket case.

I'm sure this is part of it as well. In spite of your wins, I think you still have "defeat" in the back of your brain from the hot Chicago races. We need to get that erased from the memory banks. I think Kenny B suffers from a similar issue as he got worked up by the wind in Champaign. I'm not psychologist, but we all know there is something to PMA.

I also wonder if you tapered too much???? I must admit that the most taper that I have ever done for a half marathon is maybe 2-3 days even when I could routinely run in the low 1:20s.

Dave-O wrote:To play Devil's Advocate, though, I was hitting the training times to run 1:10-1:11. It's not like I'm getting slower across the board. I'm just bombing races, which I suspect is due to a combination of not peaking right, too many training weeks, and being a bit of a basket case.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:
I also wonder if you tapered too much???? I must admit that the most taper that I have ever done for a half marathon is maybe 2-3 days even when I could routinely run in the low 1:20s.

This is good stuff! Maybe it needs it's own subject rather than hijack Dave's race report....

Agree 100% with Michele. I strongly believe tapers are over rated. I change very little race week other than a slight decrease in miles and maybe move the workout from Wed to Tuesday.

On the 70 miles being optimal topic, here's an article with some pretty good stuff.

http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=10719

This stands out....

"The exact mileage at which this plateau occurs depends
on the individual, but beyond about 60 to 70 miles per week, there’s not
much change taking place."

And one case study I have seen personally. My training partner is 38. He usually runs about 55-60/wk then ramps it up to 70'ish the month or two before a marathon. Our times are comparable across the board. We run the same workouts except he adds a 20 mile long run when in marathon training. In the past 5 years, he has lowered his marathon time from 2:58 to 2:39.

Dave-O wrote:

jon c wrote:

Dave Bussard wrote: With all due respect, and again just my opinion...you haven't been running the times 100+/week guys should be running. I've always heard you get 95% of your abilities out of 70 miles per week. Anything more than that and you are risking injury, fatigue, burnout... Those extra 30-40 miles are a huge investment for a small return.

I find this comment intriguing. Dave B., is that something you learned along the way or is it something running coaches have shared with you or something else?

I could see where there is validity to that, especially with those of us who are mere mortals that run for fun, longevity or to maximize our minimal talent. For the elite athletes, the risk is probably well worth it to go for it.

I've heard similar numbers, and my training is pretty close to that percentage. On 70 miles per week I ran 2:48 and on 80 miles per week I ran 2:42. Increasing my mileage to 100 (and sometimes more) dropped my time to 2:34.

So 70 miles got me to 91% of my PR and 80 got me to 94% of my PR.

50 miles got me to 3:18 or 91% of my PR, 70 miles dropped me to 3:14 or 93% of my PR, and it took 90 miles to get me to 3:01. If not for family and work, I bet that those 2 more cycles of that mileage would have lowered that time 3-5 more minutes.

So, I'm not sure it was the mileage. I'm going with the brain, taper, and training plan. A coach should be able to solve all 3.

I also notice that folks who run with a certain guy from VA never seem to race well, lots of throwing up and stuff. Maybe he's a succubus?

Diego wrote: Maybe he's a succubus?

I believe you mean incubus... unless there is something about 'him' we don't know...

Mr MattM wrote:

Diego wrote: Maybe he's a succubus?

I believe you mean incubus... unless there is something about 'him' we don't know...

Hey, one of Dave's very best races (Cherry Blossom) was also run with me. And Kenny B killed it when we ran Philly Rock n Roll. KB Fitz and I have run a ton of races together and there have been a bunch of bad clunkers in there but a couple of nice ones in admist the crap too. I bat around the Mendoza Line for really good races and maybe the people I run with get pulled down to that kind of average.

Chris M wrote:

Mr MattM wrote:

Diego wrote: Maybe he's a succubus?

I believe you mean incubus... unless there is something about 'him' we don't know...

Hey, one of Dave's very best races (Cherry Blossom) was also run with me. And Kenny B killed it when we ran Philly Rock n Roll. KB Fitz and I have run a ton of races together and there have been a bunch of bad clunkers in there but a couple of nice ones in admist the crap too. I bat around the Mendoza Line for really good races and maybe the people I run with get pulled down to that kind of average.

All the races I've run with you have been fine even though they were HOT!