What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ran a 10k - Official Thread (22 Viewers)

Juxtatarot said:
My main purpose in that response was to call the metric system silly.  I didn't really think through the rest of it.
Click to expand...
You don't have to justify yourself.  The metric system deserves bashing!  You know what makes a great unit of measurement?  The distance from the Equator to the North Pole!  That'll be nice and intuitive for people, and not hard to measure accurately at all!  Leave it to the French...

 
Dr_Zaius said:
You don't have to justify yourself.  The metric system deserves bashing!  You know what makes a great unit of measurement?  The distance from the Equator to the North Pole!  That'll be nice and intuitive for people, and not hard to measure accurately at all!  Leave it to the French...
Click to expand...
@Harris says "whoa, whoa, whoa ...don't drag me into this metric battle!"

And @Zasada, why not just run your warm-up and, when ready, start your watch at the start of your 5K?  Sure, you'll miss out on recording 6/10ths of a mile in your Strava total, but it's not like you'll be missing an entire marathon or anything...

Seriously, in terms of a 5K race, I agree with the thought of treating it that way.  Run a warm-up, stop, get yourself mentally acclimated, then run the 5K.  

eta: I'm shifting my planned 5K until Friday morning.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So here's another device question. I never run with Strava activated on my phone.

My watch records it and then uploads to strava when I plug it in. Every once in awhile I'll stop the watch at say 3.1 miles and it will upload as 3.08 or somesuch. Is this acceptable for you guys?

I really don't want to have to start a watch AND strava on the phone and then try to put the armband on properly after starting strava and trying to bust my ### out of the gate. And then try and stop both at the end while I'm lying prone on the sidewalk sucking my thumb ala @gianmarco.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChiefD said:
So here's another device question. I never run with Strava activated on my phone.

My watch records it and then uploads to strava when I plug it in. Every once in awhile I'll stop the watch at say 3.1 miles and it will upload as 3.08 or somesuch. Is this acceptable for you guys?

I really don't want to have to start a watch AND strava on the phone and then try to put the armband on properly after starting strava and trying to bust my ### out of the gate. And then try and stop both at the end while I'm lying prone on the sidewalk sucking my thumb ala @gianmarco.
Click to expand...
No problem, but maybe run 3.11 or 3.12 just in case.

 
Speaking of Harris, I hope he's got a government approved route that won't be too annoying to race.  Hopefully he'll have a few more options for the 10K.

 
Wow, the beatdown has been merciless!  More negative comments on the administration of my time than to those running downhills or on tracks.

And to all you metric-haters out there, it really is the better system.  I've lived both.  Metric is logical.  How many feet in a mile again?  How many yards in a mile?  At what temperature does water freeze?  Boil?  Imperial is so random.  Metric just makes sense.

I know this will get just as much traction as my proposed 5K timing method, but for you guys worried about stopping your watch at 5K, you could always just set your watch to metric for this one race and stop when it beeps at 5K.  But nooooo, we want to stick with the system based on the length of some dude's foot in 1240AD...

And the less-objectively logical reason I like metric is just that KMs roll off faster than miles do.  Provides more frequent in-run feedback about pace than miles.  Miles just take so long to tick-by.  There are mile markers on the river trail I run from time to time and it just seems so long between them.  I like the more timely feedback of KMs.  

But you guys win.  I'll start/stop my Strava to exclusively record the 5K.  :finger:

 
Dr_Zaius said:
Speaking of Harris, I hope he's got a government approved route that won't be too annoying to race.  Hopefully he'll have a few more options for the 10K.
Click to expand...
I know he has a route that keeps him within their stated guidelines.  I do, though, picture a kind of Keystone Kops visual where the local gendarmes are chasing him down the rue, blowing their whistles while he flies along.

 
tri-man 47 said:
I know he has a route that keeps him within their stated guidelines.  I do, though, picture a kind of Keystone Kops visual where the local gendarmes are chasing him down the rue, blowing their whistles while he flies along.
Click to expand...
I run so slow that Dennis Franz from Hill St Blues would still catch me.

 
@Zasada, honest-engine, I just saw something the other day about how the U.S. is the outlier by not being on the metric system, and I thought, that was a dumb decision on our part. 

Vive le metric!

 
Zasada said:
When I run my mile, I'm going to have to do that, but with Strava auto-lapping each KM for me, I can save the hassle of having to stop my watch after the first km, save the activity, and then restart the watch and get running again.  

This way, I know to just up my pace after the first km beeps, and then run hard until the 6th km beeps.  Same precision, if not better!
Click to expand...
Gotta not have a rolling start in there for the 5k bit. 

 
Zasada said:
Wow, the beatdown has been merciless!  More negative comments on the administration of my time than to those running downhills or on tracks.

And to all you metric-haters out there, it really is the better system.  I've lived both.  Metric is logical.  How many feet in a mile again?  How many yards in a mile?  At what temperature does water freeze?  Boil?  Imperial is so random.  Metric just makes sense.

I know this will get just as much traction as my proposed 5K timing method, but for you guys worried about stopping your watch at 5K, you could always just set your watch to metric for this one race and stop when it beeps at 5K.  But nooooo, we want to stick with the system based on the length of some dude's foot in 1240AD...

And the less-objectively logical reason I like metric is just that KMs roll off faster than miles do.  Provides more frequent in-run feedback about pace than miles.  Miles just take so long to tick-by.  There are mile markers on the river trail I run from time to time and it just seems so long between them.  I like the more timely feedback of KMs.  

But you guys win.  I'll start/stop my Strava to exclusively record the 5K.  :finger:
Click to expand...
We don’t call it imperial. It just is. 

 
Zasada said:
Wow, the beatdown has been merciless!  More negative comments on the administration of my time than to those running downhills or on tracks.

And to all you metric-haters out there, it really is the better system.  I've lived both.  Metric is logical.  How many feet in a mile again?  How many yards in a mile?  At what temperature does water freeze?  Boil?  Imperial is so random.  Metric just makes sense.

I know this will get just as much traction as my proposed 5K timing method, but for you guys worried about stopping your watch at 5K, you could always just set your watch to metric for this one race and stop when it beeps at 5K.  But nooooo, we want to stick with the system based on the length of some dude's foot in 1240AD...

And the less-objectively logical reason I like metric is just that KMs roll off faster than miles do.  Provides more frequent in-run feedback about pace than miles.  Miles just take so long to tick-by.  There are mile markers on the river trail I run from time to time and it just seems so long between them.  I like the more timely feedback of KMs.  

But you guys win.  I'll start/stop my Strava to exclusively record the 5K.  :finger:
Click to expand...
5280, 5280/3, 32, 212. 

 
Reading an article in The Athletic right now. This quote in the article is gold:

“Running is something you just do. You don’t need a goal. You don’t need a race. You don’t need the hype of a so-called fitness craze. All you need is a cheap pair of shoes and some time. The rest will follow.”

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Zasada said:
And to all you metric-haters out there, it really is the better system.  I've lived both.  Metric is logical.  How many feet in a mile again?  How many yards in a mile?  At what temperature does water freeze?  Boil?  Imperial is so random.  Metric just makes sense.
Click to expand...
For the record, while I was giving you a hard time I'm actually not a metric hater either.  I think it's a mixed bag.  When working with tiny things, microns are a much better unit than thousandths of inches.  lbf=lbm leads to so much confusion, but on the other hand I prefer pounds to kgs for human weight.  I'm kind of agnostic on the km vs. mile, although I will say that for trips on the highway, being able to estimate 1 mile/minute is handy.

The one area that I will not be swayed to the dark side is temperature.  Sure, it's nice to have boiling and freezing at round numbers, but for general every day use it's ridiculously course.  F makes sense for people - 0 is pretty cold, 100 is pretty hot.  50 is good running weather.  In C, 0 is meh, 40 is super hot, 50 will kill you, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 will also kill you, etc.

 
ChiefD said:
So here's another device question. I never run with Strava activated on my phone.

My watch records it and then uploads to strava when I plug it in. Every once in awhile I'll stop the watch at say 3.1 miles and it will upload as 3.08 or somesuch. Is this acceptable for you guys?

I really don't want to have to start a watch AND strava on the phone and then try to put the armband on properly after starting strava and trying to bust my ### out of the gate. And then try and stop both at the end while I'm lying prone on the sidewalk sucking my thumb ala @gianmarco.
Click to expand...
This isn't the point of your post, but it did remind me of something I've been mulling over.

There is one massive positive to the Strava app vs watch. Real time updates. @Zasada mentioned one of the reasons he's devoted to that savage metric system is more frequent updates. Well, the app will always tell you where you are. You can peak at your watch at mile 1.2 and see 6:45, at mile 1.4 and see 6:55, and mile 1.7 and see 6:40. And sure, that gives you a range of what to expect when your watch buzzes at mile 2. But it's just that - a range. On the app if you peak at mile 1.2...at mile 1.4...and mile 1.7 it will tell you exactly your pace for that mile. Not based on your current speed - it's based on your progress to that point in the mile. More information sooner yields better decisions.

I didn't mention any of this in my DQ 10K write up last month because the focus of that write up was just that - the DQ. But that was my first experience running partially blind during each mile of a race. And while I think the watch > app during training I am considering going back to phone-in-hand for racing. At least in the 5K-10K range anyway. I don't think I ran an efficient race in March - and while I'm not sure how much time I left out there I think I left some. Mile 1 was ideal, but mile 2 was 15 seconds slower. Had I known at a mile 1.5 peak I'd have ramped it up then. Mile 3 was better as I took the lead, but then I went backwards 9 seconds mile 4. And while a hill with a half mile to go played the biggest role my last mile was the slowest of all. When my watch buzzed at the end of each of those slower miles it was a smack in the face, but had I known a half mile sooner it'd have happened then instead. And in shorter races especially, every second matters.

Now, how does this relate to your specific issue (besides 'it doesn't')? For this event's purpose you also need to know when to stop. You aren't running to a line. So I will start my watch before I begin. Because there is one weakness to the app in these circumstances. You're not notified when a mile is over. I want my watch buzzing so I know exactly when I get to mile 3. About 20 seconds later give the phone a swipe and keep moving until the moment you see that 0 flip to 1 then hit that big circle at the bottom of the app. By doing this instead you're not considering running an extra .02 miles (costly seconds!) to be safe. You're being given pacing info in a more timely manner. And sure, there's an extra step with the watch, but it's only being used to measure distance. If you take 15 seconds between starting the watch and the app at the beginning it doesn't matter. If you finish and instantly curl up into the fetal position on the side of the road and forget to stop your watch it similarly doesn't matter. The time on the watch doesn't matter. Only the app.

But all of that is moot if you intend to shove your phone in an arm band. Any seconds saved going over 3.1 will just be lost messing around with that thing. This is a hand held only option. I implore all on Team Juxt to strongly consider this suggestion - it's really not complicated. But I invite the few remaining on Team Grue to mock me relentlessly.

 
MAC_32 said:
You can peak at your watch at mile 1.2 and see 6:45, at mile 1.4 and see 6:55, and mile 1.7 and see 6:40. And sure, that gives you a range of what to expect when your watch buzzes at mile 2. But it's just that - a range. On the app if you peak at mile 1.2...at mile 1.4...and mile 1.7 it will tell you exactly your pace for that mile.
Click to expand...
Your watch can do that too, just set it to display lap pace.

 
MAC_32 said:
This isn't the point of your post, but it did remind me of something I've been mulling over.

There is one massive positive to the Strava app vs watch. Real time updates. @Zasada mentioned one of the reasons he's devoted to that savage metric system is more frequent updates. Well, the app will always tell you where you are. You can peak at your watch at mile 1.2 and see 6:45, at mile 1.4 and see 6:55, and mile 1.7 and see 6:40. And sure, that gives you a range of what to expect when your watch buzzes at mile 2. But it's just that - a range. On the app if you peak at mile 1.2...at mile 1.4...and mile 1.7 it will tell you exactly your pace for that mile. Not based on your current speed - it's based on your progress to that point in the mile. More information sooner yields better decisions.

I didn't mention any of this in my DQ 10K write up last month because the focus of that write up was just that - the DQ. But that was my first experience running partially blind during each mile of a race. And while I think the watch > app during training I am considering going back to phone-in-hand for racing. At least in the 5K-10K range anyway. I don't think I ran an efficient race in March - and while I'm not sure how much time I left out there I think I left some. Mile 1 was ideal, but mile 2 was 15 seconds slower. Had I known at a mile 1.5 peak I'd have ramped it up then. Mile 3 was better as I took the lead, but then I went backwards 9 seconds mile 4. And while a hill with a half mile to go played the biggest role my last mile was the slowest of all. When my watch buzzed at the end of each of those slower miles it was a smack in the face, but had I known a half mile sooner it'd have happened then instead. And in shorter races especially, every second matters.

Now, how does this relate to your specific issue (besides 'it doesn't')? For this event's purpose you also need to know when to stop. You aren't running to a line. So I will start my watch before I begin. Because there is one weakness to the app in these circumstances. You're not notified when a mile is over. I want my watch buzzing so I know exactly when I get to mile 3. About 20 seconds later give the phone a swipe and keep moving until the moment you see that 0 flip to 1 then hit that big circle at the bottom of the app. By doing this instead you're not considering running an extra .02 miles (costly seconds!) to be safe. You're being given pacing info in a more timely manner. And sure, there's an extra step with the watch, but it's only being used to measure distance. If you take 15 seconds between starting the watch and the app at the beginning it doesn't matter. If you finish and instantly curl up into the fetal position on the side of the road and forget to stop your watch it similarly doesn't matter. The time on the watch doesn't matter. Only the app.

But all of that is moot if you intend to shove your phone in an arm band. Any seconds saved going over 3.1 will just be lost messing around with that thing. This is a hand held only option. I implore all on Team Juxt to strongly consider this suggestion - it's really not complicated. But I invite the few remaining on Team Grue to mock me relentlessly.
Click to expand...
Thanks?

 
MAC_32 said:
My watch is set to pace and doesn't do that  <_<
Click to expand...
It does. You just need to look through it and see how it works. It's a Garmin. You can add up to 4 fields on the screen and adjust what those are. Then, while running, you can flip through screens that have different fields pretty easily.

 
pbm107 said:
You can customize data fields based on your training goals or optional accessories. For example, you can customize data fields to display your lap pace and heart rate zone.

Select , and select an activity profile.

Select Options > Data Fields.

Select a page.

Select a data field to change it.
Click to expand...
So there is a pace and a lap pace option. Clear as mud. But thank you @pbm107. If I did this right you successfully killed racing w/phone-in-hand MAC from returning.

 
MAC_32 said:
So there is a pace and a lap pace option. Clear as mud. But thank you @pbm107. If I did this right you successfully killed racing w/phone-in-hand MAC from returning.
Click to expand...
If you want your mind blown even more, you can also adjust your current pace.

Meaning, there are settings and downloads from the Garmin IQ store that allow you to change the time period of your current pace. Anywhere from like the 3 second average to a 45 second average. The longer the time, the more accurate but the longer it takes to adjust to immediate changes and vice versa. I like 10-15 seconds, personally, which is the default.

 
I have 4 data fields displaying on my watch.  Time, distance, lap pace, heart rate.  However, if I could only have one, it would be lap pace.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Max Power
Different sized feet people
Replies
10
Views
478
Senor Schmutzig
Senor Schmutzig
T
Introducing The Cut: A Twist on NFL Survivor
Replies
6
Views
281
thecutnfl
T
Judge Smails
Official 2025 Kentucky Derby thread - Sovereignty 1, Journalism 1 - on to the Belmont!
6 7 8
Replies
396
Views
11K
Cowboysfan8
Cowboysfan8

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)
Back
Top