Summer musings and mini race reports before Kettle 100

A long note before next week's Kettle 100: 

Overall fitness

I am going into this race likely at my best ultramarathon fitness ever - even topping the lead ups to the 2011 Superior 100 and 2012 Zumbro 100. Since re-starting running from the sprained ankle that prematurely ended last year's Superior 100, I will have put in over 1,400 miles and 210 hours of running in the past eight-or-so months. I've hit new highs for peak mileage in a week (outside of a race week) and in a month, and put in four quality marathon-length runs or longer. One of those runs was a PR for the 50K distance at Afton State Park on the race course, and that was now over two months ago. I've also put down some solid tempo runs, and I'm probably in sufficient shape to run a 3:10-3:15 marathon. Taper is going well (that is, I can feel myself losing fatigue as the training runs get less stressful). 

Zumbro Midnight 50

I went into this race coming off of that 50K PR at Afton. I thought that if conditions were right, I could run somewhere between nine and ten hours. I started out trying to set a nine-hour pace. It ended up being too fast, and my right ankle - the same one that I messed with at Superior last year - hurt again and I struggled through the second and third laps nightly. I finished in about 11:15, good enough for 23rd place of 100 finishers. Not too bad for being in 8th after the first lap and being injured. 

The race was planned to test my overnight running skills, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well it went. My headlamp only needed to hold out for about 5 hours, which is sufficient on its batteries (the 9ish hours at Superior is a little more of a challenge, but hey). 

I also went into the race trying to treat it like Superior in that I should play the aid stations in a similar position to where there are at Superior. Basically, Zumbro's aid stations are anywhere between three and four-ish miles apart, and if I could skip every other one, it would be a good simulation. The test did not go well. New rule: don't skip aid stations, even if you just breeze through and grab-and-go. 

Lost in the Woods 50K

This was a 29.4 mi jaunt in the woods near Mankato at Nicollet County's Seven Mile Creek Park. The host lived adjacent to the park, and he ran us up and down deer trails (marked by his pink flags, thankfully) in a Barkley-esque run where we ripped out pages, got them punched once per loop, and there was a single aid station. I ran with the lead group until that group splintered halfway through the second of two laps, and then fought like hell to not get dropped. 

I did, and pushed back in full-on #paincave mode. I moved from fourth to second when Ed Thomas and Farmer John Maas missed the third-to-last book and had to go back for it. I struggled to catch the leader but ended up losing time on him and only finishing up by about three minutes on John. He's fast on those dirt roads, he'll tell you. 

The major difference between Zumbro and Lost was that I went out evenly at a steady pace in the latter. I ran functionally even splits (losing just 90 or so seconds on lap two) and was on pace to run negative splits until I got turned around a little bit en route to the last book (needed to make sure I took the right trail). Pleased I was with the result. 

New shoes

New Balance has discontinued the 1010's, my go-to trail shoe. Its last season was this spring, and so it'll likely be unavailable (or from go-find-it outlet stores, a hassle I didn't want to deal with). 

There was a lot to like about the shoe: it had NB's minimus last (i.e. no insole), had a stiff rock plate, had plenty of tread and a reasonably high stack height for a minimalist shoe, and its upper was basically bombproof. I only had to retire my first paid because I wore slits on each side of the ball of my foot and the forefoot gave me too much play. 

Changing shoes is never a fun experience. We are experiments of one, whether we like it or not. And the 1010 worked for me. 

I considered most manufacturer's minimal options. I tried NB's re-issued 101 and didn't like it because of the narrow toe box and 10 mm drop. I tried their Leadville 1210's, and disapproved for similar reasons I didn't pick it up last time: 8 mm drop; medial post; and when trying them on, it was too cushy. 

I thought this would be a good time to consider Hoka's - their Challenger and Speedgoat look intriguing - but I thought it would be weird to run roads with a minimalist shoe and trails with a maximalist one. 

The leading contender turned out to be Altra's Superior 2.0. It had a lot going for it on paper: zero drop; rock plate, al beit removable (essentially it's a stiff and dense 0.5 mm thick insole) wide toe box; secure heal; designed by trail runners for trail runners; flat treaded bottom (i.e. no exposed holes that a rock had pierce you through) etc. I tried it on and it was cushier than I perhaps would have liked - but that will be worn down with use. I picked up a size 9 (I normally wear 8 to 8.5) to accommodate thick socks and swelling in 100 milers, and with the inserteable rock plate, it fit wonderfully with plenty of room in the toe. They'll be my backup shoes at the 100K mark at Kettle (or in case my 1010's blow out, etc.) and will likely be put into rotation following Kettle in prep for Superior, regardless of whether the 1010's survive Kettle. 

On the same note, that have continued my road shoe, the MT10. I've had two pairs each of versions one and two, and the v3 is the new iteration. We'll see if/how it is different. My current pair of v2's has just under 600 miles on them, and these things usually last about 700-800 miles, so we've got a probably less than a full month of training (meaning sometime into late July given the inevitable recovery post-Kettle).

Kettle

I don't know what to really think of this race. It has ~18K of cumulative altitude change on a relatively mellow course: for reference, Afton 50K has 9K and Superior has 42K. Lost in the woods had 14K over 29.4 miles.

I'd like to run it "fast," but I don't know what fast means. Matt Patten's  6th place finish in 19:30 a few years ago is sticking in my head as a "dream goal" time, and I think a good first tier time goal would be <24 hours, second tier <22 hours, third tier <20 hours. I think so long as I take the first 50K nice and easy (I have somewhere in the 5:45-6:15 range sticking in my head), the pacing for rest of the run will fall into place. 

But really I want to finish, run evenly, stay uninjured, and everything else is just gravy. 

Ultimate Direction Signature AK Vest, v2.0 - initial thoughts

I anticipation for next month's Zumbro Midnight 50 and June's Kettle 100, I added a new race vest to the family: Ultimate Direction's Signature AK Vest, v. 2.0. 

Why'd I buy this specific vest for these specific races?

I do not like carrying hand bottles during races. Long training runs, even on trails, OK, but during races with the frequent eating (formerly, gels every 30 minutes, now Clif blocks every 10 minutes /w gels every 30) meant that I only had a hand-and-a-half to do so, and gels in particular require two hands. 

And my current race vest, the venerable and trail-tested Nathan #020, isn't well suited to races where aid is so close together and I may need to carry much of my own gear. Yes, I can carry plenty in the pack, but because all of the weight is on the back - and 70-plus oz of water is nothing to sneeze at weight-wise - the pack can pull on you, expending extra energy. 

Hence the AK (now 2.0) comes into play. Bottles and some storage in front, gear in back. Simple.

Here's my initial thoughts after trying it on in-store and running on a treadmill with the pack empty, but bottles in, a 6.3 mi training run on roads, and a 17-plus mile trip around Afton. 

First, the bottles are surprisingly not in my way for running. They did not interfere with my arm swings while testing, but my left arm did occasionally strike the bottom of the left bottle when running on the short test run. I did not have this same problem while running at Afton. 

Second, the vest's hex mesh is surprisingly stiff - much stiffer than the hex-type mesh that is used on my Nathan #020. 

Third, the vest is very hard to initially size by yourself because the two side ladder lock buckles are small, the loose end points backward (meaning you need to chicken-wing your arm to pull it, and even then the stiffness of the strap doesn't feed smoothly at all. This is one feature that needs to be improved on if 3.0 arrives. It could fixed if the strap set was rotated so that the loose end points forward - just as it does on hip belts for hiking backpacks. It's simple to pull forward, very difficult to pull backward. 

This feature concerns because of the item number next. 

Fourth, the pack fits better and tighter when the backpack is fully loaded. It feels snug and less likely to bounce around. Whether the side buckles will require adjustment dependent on how full the backpack is will wait to be seen. If it doesn't, the issue with the buckles becomes a non-issue - one simply dials in the size initially and rarely if necessary, and goes from there. 

As the volume of water decreases, there is less weight in the vest to help keep it firmly on your chest. I could feel the vest getting looser as I ran - maybe that is just natural slippage - which was no issue on my 17 mile test run. But the bottles carry fantastically and firmly against my chest. They held solid in the pack, something that is unlike bladders. On a 50K, 50 miler, or 100 miler, we'll see if this becomes an issue. 

Fifth, I will need to adjust how I accustomed to carrying everything I need during a race. I really missed at Afton not having a pocket large enough to hold my Body Glide. On my Nathan #020, it say in a zippered pocket on the left. There is nothing on the front of the best which is large enough -  that also doesn't obstruct the bottles - to hold the BG. I guess I'll need to carry it in my shorts, or high in my pack so I can reach it. 

I can reach things that are high in my pack, for the most part. This is a pleasant surprise, as I needed to take off the #020 if I wanted to get anything from the back. I'll still need to take off the pack to get something that slips down, but hey, I'll take it. 

I also need to figure out where I am going to put empty gels. I normally put them on the outside of a mesh pocket on the front left of the #020, and I'm not there is a comparable pocket on the AK. Perhaps a pocket in my shorts? Not sure what to do here. 

---

Who knows if I'll use this pack at Superior. I'm a little concerned that its 40-oz capacity is too small for the several lengthy (and traditionally hot) sections of the trail, and I have consumed all of that 70 oz capacity on a couple of occasions through some of those longer sections. Who knows - maybe I'll be fast enough this year that 40 oz to take me from Crosby to Sugarloaf is sufficient. 

On being ill.

Being sick is no fun. Going from 60-plus miles per week to ten is even less fun. Running twice in a week and then stopping because the body needs time to heal is a decision only based on experience. 

I say this because I am in, hopefully, what is the last 24 hours of this year's annual head cold. It started last Tuesday, Jan. 27 with a sore throat and congestion. The sore throat left the following Thursday/Friday following a period of daytime when my voice was a full octave lower. And then the gunk sunk to my lungs and I started a nice productive cough that is still with me, nine-or-so days later. 

I've taken seven zero days in the past 12 days, almost equal to the nine I have taken from just before I got sick back to Oct. 19, 2014. Seven-day and three-week rolling averages are paltry. And I need to once again adjust my peak weekly base mileage, dropping out the two final weeks of base period - current set for 80 miles - and replace them with 70 mile weeks. I'll still probably keep the peak at 80 for in-season training - I see no worry to cycling up to that high mileage a small handful of times throughout out the year. 

The weirdest effect of being sick is that my motivation to run has been all-but nonexistent, like my body is telling me to not go run. For the most part I have listened to it. Morning runs are basically not happening. Evening runs are affected by how I managed through the day. And weekend long runs just didn't work. 

And so it goes. Adjust training goals on the fly without changing racing goals. Just adapt to meet those racing goals. 

Pronounce your goal. Plan for it. Work for it. Be accountable to it.

Every Sunday, without fail, I tweet to the world and my FB friends two things: what I did this week in runs, mileage, time, and year-to-date and season-to-date (i.e. since 10.19.14 re-start) stats. Second, I tell them what I'm going to do next week. If I didn't make last week's goal, I state why. 

At the end of every month, I tweet monthly totals: runs, running days, mileage and time - plus year-to-date stats. 

I keep elaborate spreadsheets to track my running progress (and I also use logyourrun.com in addition to Google Sheets). Most importantly, I track rolling averages for mileage and duration for the prior seven days and three weeks. My runs and quality workouts are planned for every day from basically November 2014 to the finish line at Lutsen for the 2015 Superior 100. 

Why?

I tell the world my weekly results and next week's goals to keep myself accountable, if only to myself.  No one save myself will every get on my back for failing to meet goals. No one save myself will ever make sure I don't overtrain. But being public with a goal lets the world know you stand for something, and posting your results shows them that you're being accountable to those goals, actively working toward those goals, and achieving those goals. 

Each day, I can look to my plan and see what I need to do. In the past, I simply set a weekly total for miles, picked a day for quality workouts, and let the rest sort it out. I ended up missing a lot of quality days and skimping on the daily runs and weekly mileages totals. I still ran well, but far from my peak potential. 

Now, the process is simple. It is planned ahead, perhaps months prior, and adjusted accordingly as the season progresses. I know what I must do, and I then execute on that objective. 

Results and excuses are mutually exclusive. 

Nothing is free, everything is earned, and everything earned must be worked for. And all work toward that which you earn is hard work. Whether it is slow work - easy running must be easy enough such that it is actually recovery - or fast work - it must be fast enough such that you are achieving your training goals - it is hard work. 

State your purpose. Go do the hard work. Be accountable. Achieve your results.

Book review: Hal Koerner's Field Guide to Ultrarunning

Hal Hoerner's Field Guide to Ultrarunning is what you would write if you had a beer with Hal, asked him to tell you everything a runner who is just getting into ultra marathons should know, and just listened and took dictation. The tone is conversational, approachable, heavy on anecdotes and substance but light on details. For example, you will find recommendations for speed work (hill repeats, tempo runs up to an hour duration, and fartleks are all recommended) and weights (light weight, lots of reps) are important, too. But you're not going to find VO2 max tables or detailed speed workouts here. This is not Lore of Running or Daniels's Running Formula - it is a casual, practical explainer of everything one would want to know before training for and toeing the line at their first ultramarathon. 

The relaxed vibe is the text's strength. Hal's matter-of-fact descriptions of topics and explainers what works and what doesn't sets out the basics with casual ease. For example, Hal himself idoes not follow any specific diet and is not burdened by any restrictions on his intake. His diet used to be burritos, bagels, and beer. He simply focuses on carbs before, during, and after runs. "If my meals aren't measuring up to my mileage, I know it from the first step, and this self-awareness helps me stay on top of deficiencies," he writes. As someone who credits his first 50 mile finish to a change in eating habits and has tried to run after eating something less-than-nutritionally optimal, I completely understand the statement. 

Should you get it? Yes.