General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane Rss Feed  
Moderators: jmk-brooklyn, Ron Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
2013-08-28 6:42 PM
in reply to: switch

User image

Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by switch
Originally posted by Jason N

St. George this year seemed about average.  Winning times in the low 3:50's with a stacked pro field.  But I think the winds weren't blowing like they were at IMSG in 2012.  Sort of like Honu/Kona I suppose.  When the winds aren't blowing, winners at Honu/Kona can go 3:52/8:10 respectively.  But when the winds do blow, winnning times can be 4:02/8:28 respectively.

Adding 10/20 minutes of course difficulty for a pro due to weather is like adding 15/35 minutes for a AGer looking to shoot for sub 5 or sub 11.

There are some who like to make this as brutally painful as possible, but I am not one of them   I'll be finding a less demanding course.

Is that why St. George has so many Worlds spots?

St. George is the US 70.3 championships (for now).  In addition to more WC spots for AGers, it's a bigger Kona points race for pros. 

It makes sense in both ways.  If you're going to have a championship race like this, you want to have it on a tough course where draft packs are less likely (such as when the 70.3 WC was in Florida).  And if you have a tough course that most typical AGers may be scared of, you need to entice the faster athletes to come by offering more Kona spots, or simply attract the typical AGer knowing he'll get to race with or meet 40-50 of the top pro men and women. 

If St. George was a typical 70.3 that offered a standard number of WC spots, and standard P500 pro race...the attendence would likely suffer.



2013-08-28 7:20 PM
in reply to: RedCorvette

User image

Pro
6203
50001000100100
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by RedCorvette
Originally posted by tuwood

 

My PR open marathon time is a 1:36, but I end up cooking to death and finish with a 2:12 run...  uggh

 

That's pretty fast...Wink

Mark

Oh, haha.  I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.  

<cough>  Half Marathon </cough>

2013-08-29 8:16 AM
in reply to: Fred D

User image

Master
1672
10005001002525
Rural Ontario
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by Fred D

Average course : Tremblant, Timberman Hard course : Mallorca, Muskoka, Ste-Croix

 

http://www.runtri.com/2010/08/toughesthardest-vs-easiestfastest-half.html

 




That list is not a good indicator of easiest to hardest course. Its only an average finish time. I've done Muskoka and I've done Singapore. Singapore is pankacke flat. Sure, its hot and muggy, but the reason its so slow is becasue its in a major urban centre and there are tons of 'bucket-listers' just trying to finish. Muskoka is tough. Brazil is fairly easy but no easier than Miami - the difference is that at teh Brazil starting line you have more fit, competative young men lining up. Regular races, like Miami, have a more eclectic mix of competitors - from middle aged chubbies trying to get back in shape, mommies trying to lose baby weight, etc. - nothing wrong with any of those racing - its just that they are a bit slower.
2013-08-29 9:26 AM
in reply to: mgalanter

User image

Champion
6822
50001000500100100100
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
I could float from start to finish of the swim at Augusta in 35 minutes...
2013-08-29 9:57 AM
in reply to: mgalanter

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by mgalanter
Originally posted by Fred D

Average course : Tremblant, Timberman Hard course : Mallorca, Muskoka, Ste-Croix

 

http://www.runtri.com/2010/08/toughesthardest-vs-easiestfastest-half.html

 

That list is not a good indicator of easiest to hardest course. Its only an average finish time. I've done Muskoka and I've done Singapore. Singapore is pankacke flat. Sure, its hot and muggy, but the reason its so slow is becasue its in a major urban centre and there are tons of 'bucket-listers' just trying to finish. Muskoka is tough. Brazil is fairly easy but no easier than Miami - the difference is that at teh Brazil starting line you have more fit, competative young men lining up. Regular races, like Miami, have a more eclectic mix of competitors - from middle aged chubbies trying to get back in shape, mommies trying to lose baby weight, etc. - nothing wrong with any of those racing - its just that they are a bit slower.

This made me laugh, though true in some contexts, many pro and very competitive women have come back from having kids in short order and raced smokin fast times, just sayin.  Nothing makes me smile more than to see a woman up on the podium holding a young babe:)

2013-08-29 10:00 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Not a Coach
11129
50005000100010025
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by switch

Originally posted by mgalanter
Originally posted by Fred D

Average course : Tremblant, Timberman Hard course : Mallorca, Muskoka, Ste-Croix

 

http://www.runtri.com/2010/08/toughesthardest-vs-easiestfastest-half.html

 

That list is not a good indicator of easiest to hardest course. Its only an average finish time. I've done Muskoka and I've done Singapore. Singapore is pankacke flat. Sure, its hot and muggy, but the reason its so slow is becasue its in a major urban centre and there are tons of 'bucket-listers' just trying to finish. Muskoka is tough. Brazil is fairly easy but no easier than Miami - the difference is that at teh Brazil starting line you have more fit, competative young men lining up. Regular races, like Miami, have a more eclectic mix of competitors - from middle aged chubbies trying to get back in shape, mommies trying to lose baby weight, etc. - nothing wrong with any of those racing - its just that they are a bit slower.

This made me laugh, though true in some contexts, many pro and very competitive women have come back from having kids in short order and raced smokin fast times, just sayin.  Nothing makes me smile more than to see a woman up on the podium holding a young babe




There is a BT'er who just KQ'd at Tremblant after giving birth to her first child back in Feb.


2013-08-29 10:16 AM
in reply to: JohnnyKay

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by JohnnyKay
Originally posted by switch
Originally posted by mgalanter
Originally posted by Fred D

Average course : Tremblant, Timberman Hard course : Mallorca, Muskoka, Ste-Croix

 

http://www.runtri.com/2010/08/toughesthardest-vs-easiestfastest-half.html

 

That list is not a good indicator of easiest to hardest course. Its only an average finish time. I've done Muskoka and I've done Singapore. Singapore is pankacke flat. Sure, its hot and muggy, but the reason its so slow is becasue its in a major urban centre and there are tons of 'bucket-listers' just trying to finish. Muskoka is tough. Brazil is fairly easy but no easier than Miami - the difference is that at teh Brazil starting line you have more fit, competative young men lining up. Regular races, like Miami, have a more eclectic mix of competitors - from middle aged chubbies trying to get back in shape, mommies trying to lose baby weight, etc. - nothing wrong with any of those racing - its just that they are a bit slower.

This made me laugh, though true in some contexts, many pro and very competitive women have come back from having kids in short order and raced smokin fast times, just sayin.  Nothing makes me smile more than to see a woman up on the podium holding a young babe

There is a BT'er who just KQ'd at Tremblant after giving birth to her first child back in Feb.
Major props! Go get em Mama
2013-08-29 10:20 AM
in reply to: Jason N

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by Jason N
Originally posted by switch
Originally posted by Jason N

St. George this year seemed about average.  Winning times in the low 3:50's with a stacked pro field.  But I think the winds weren't blowing like they were at IMSG in 2012.  Sort of like Honu/Kona I suppose.  When the winds aren't blowing, winners at Honu/Kona can go 3:52/8:10 respectively.  But when the winds do blow, winnning times can be 4:02/8:28 respectively.

Adding 10/20 minutes of course difficulty for a pro due to weather is like adding 15/35 minutes for a AGer looking to shoot for sub 5 or sub 11.

There are some who like to make this as brutally painful as possible, but I am not one of them :)  I'll be finding a less demanding course.

Is that why St. George has so many Worlds spots?

St. George is the US 70.3 championships (for now).  In addition to more WC spots for AGers, it's a bigger Kona points race for pros. 

It makes sense in both ways.  If you're going to have a championship race like this, you want to have it on a tough course where draft packs are less likely (such as when the 70.3 WC was in Florida).  And if you have a tough course that most typical AGers may be scared of, you need to entice the faster athletes to come by offering more Kona spots, or simply attract the typical AGer knowing he'll get to race with or meet 40-50 of the top pro men and women. 

If St. George was a typical 70.3 that offered a standard number of WC spots, and standard P500 pro race...the attendence would likely suffer.

OK, that does make sense. 

Do you have to qualify for St. George to race it (looked ont he website but didn't see that)? 

Is it "just" the wind that makes the course tough?  That hill at the end of the bike doesn't look particularly fun, especially when paired with a climb with for the first four miles of the run, but I haven't developed a good sense of elevation map/course difficulty reading.

2013-08-29 10:36 AM
in reply to: switch

User image

Master
1854
10005001001001002525
Salt Lake City
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
You don't have to qualify for IMSG.

The course is tough because its prone to weather extremes and the bike has a lot of climbing.
2013-08-29 10:57 AM
in reply to: JZig

User image

Veteran
2140
200010025
Austin, Texas
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane

So Timberman's an easy course.  THERE's some perspective for me...

Ugh - looks like I'm a soft triathlete, then!  Tongue out

Matt

**drinking a tall glass of HTFU now**

2013-08-29 11:14 AM
in reply to: thebigb

User image

Master
3397
20001000100100100252525
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Don't be a wuss, do Branson!


2013-08-29 11:18 AM
in reply to: reecealan

User image

Veteran
2140
200010025
Austin, Texas
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane

Originally posted by reecealan Don't be a wuss, do Branson!

Well, at least the swim there looks to be more downhill than Tman.

2013-08-29 12:09 PM
in reply to: mgalanter

User image

Champion
16016
5000500050001000
Happy Valley
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by mgalanter
Originally posted by Fred D

Average course : Tremblant, Timberman Hard course : Mallorca, Muskoka, Ste-Croix

 

http://www.runtri.com/2010/08/toughesthardest-vs-easiestfastest-half.html

 

That list is not a good indicator of easiest to hardest course. Its only an average finish time. I've done Muskoka and I've done Singapore. Singapore is pankacke flat. Sure, its hot and muggy, but the reason its so slow is becasue its in a major urban centre and there are tons of 'bucket-listers' just trying to finish. Muskoka is tough. Brazil is fairly easy but no easier than Miami - the difference is that at teh Brazil starting line you have more fit, competative young men lining up. Regular races, like Miami, have a more eclectic mix of competitors - from middle aged chubbies trying to get back in shape, mommies trying to lose baby weight, etc. - nothing wrong with any of those racing - its just that they are a bit slower.
. As was discussed there are some huge confounders here, but I'm not sure that this list is any better or worse than anyone else's. ie; you have a list of what's a 'harder' one and an 'easier' one, but none of this is overly scientific or even accurate. Just opinion.
2013-08-29 12:11 PM
in reply to: reecealan

User image

Champion
16016
5000500050001000
Happy Valley
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by reecealanDon't be a wuss, do Branson!
. Branson is downright flat compared to Savageman....
2013-08-29 12:47 PM
in reply to: Fred D

User image

Master
3397
20001000100100100252525
Overland Park, KS
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by Fred D

Originally posted by reecealanDon't be a wuss, do Branson!
. Branson is downright flat compared to Savageman....


That's why Savageman is on my bucket list
2013-08-29 1:26 PM
in reply to: switch

User image

Extreme Veteran
632
50010025
Ajo
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Originally posted by switch

Originally posted by Jason N
Originally posted by switch
Originally posted by Jason N

St. George this year seemed about average.  Winning times in the low 3:50's with a stacked pro field.  But I think the winds weren't blowing like they were at IMSG in 2012.  Sort of like Honu/Kona I suppose.  When the winds aren't blowing, winners at Honu/Kona can go 3:52/8:10 respectively.  But when the winds do blow, winnning times can be 4:02/8:28 respectively.

Adding 10/20 minutes of course difficulty for a pro due to weather is like adding 15/35 minutes for a AGer looking to shoot for sub 5 or sub 11.

There are some who like to make this as brutally painful as possible, but I am not one of them   I'll be finding a less demanding course.

Is that why St. George has so many Worlds spots?

St. George is the US 70.3 championships (for now).  In addition to more WC spots for AGers, it's a bigger Kona points race for pros. 

It makes sense in both ways.  If you're going to have a championship race like this, you want to have it on a tough course where draft packs are less likely (such as when the 70.3 WC was in Florida).  And if you have a tough course that most typical AGers may be scared of, you need to entice the faster athletes to come by offering more Kona spots, or simply attract the typical AGer knowing he'll get to race with or meet 40-50 of the top pro men and women. 

If St. George was a typical 70.3 that offered a standard number of WC spots, and standard P500 pro race...the attendence would likely suffer.

OK, that does make sense. 

Do you have to qualify for St. George to race it (looked ont he website but didn't see that)? 

Is it "just" the wind that makes the course tough?  That hill at the end of the bike doesn't look particularly fun, especially when paired with a climb with for the first four miles of the run, but I haven't developed a good sense of elevation map/course difficulty reading.




I did St. George and it has a pretty challenging course... yes, the pros make it look easy... but the top 2 spots went to guys who just came off the Olympics and are ITU champions, further... they got to St. George a month early and trained on the course... Andy Potts got 3rd I think, a former ITU / Olympics connection, but those guys blew the rest away. Most of the regular big star pros were above 4 hours. Jordan Rapp turned in a 4:20, but I think it was just a points race for him.

We had good weather, very little wind, just some puffs here and there. The bike is tough, off the bat you've got to climb out of the resevoir and hit a spot that's about 8% grade before cresting... then the next section to mile 38 is up and down but a net zero on gain/loss, but the climbs get you at around an avg of 5% albeit brief. Then you encounter 8 miles of snow canyon, it starts out simple with a 2% grade then gradually and slowly grinds the out you until it peaks at like 15% before the crest, you're wore out by the time that you get to that last mile. Furthermore, personally I went in overgeared with a 54/42 and 11/25 combo... it's fine for me mostly, but I ran out of gears about 2 miles from the top... as you get ground down and trying to prevent from going anaerobic on the ascent... for the last 1.5 miles... I was grinding in the 42/25 at a nice 30 to 40 rpm and my power dropped dramatically, I just didn't have the ability to go any more than that... I think that I was going like 5 mph, it sucked... I was on pace for a 2:30 split, but ended up at 2:35... it took forever on that last part. The course has 4,000 to 4,500 elevation gain for the 56 miles.

The run was tough for me.. the elevation gain was around 1,200 ft. You come off T2 and start at about 1% for the first 2 miles, then turn a corner and whammo a 3 to 4% grade for the next 4 miles, at least coming back you do the opposite but that first 10k you up. Everyone that I know was around 10 to 15 minutes slower on the course than a sane or easier course.


2013-08-29 2:28 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
632
50010025
Ajo
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
BTW, I did 5 hrs 00 min 31 secs, 14th ag 45-49, as I said the 1.5 miles of the last 8 miles of snow canyon slowed me down, the first 10k run didn't help either.. I was expecting a 4:45. No excuses, higher elevation by 2500 to 3000 ft., happy with the effort, just came up short or underprepared (gearing) or undertrained (run with high grades) on a couple of sections... otherwise... I didn't give in, kept plugging away... it felt like a 4:45 to 4:50 effort.

I did well at the next one based on this experience and did a 4:58 at 7,200 ft elevation (about a 4:35 corrected to my 1500 ft elevation), a slightly easier bike and run course... since St. George was in my thoughts, I new that I had the balls to tough out the rough spots and get the bad memories of the rough sections out of my head. I won the 45-49 ag. My first win... finally busted through after almost 2 years.

Edited by tomspharmacy 2013-08-29 2:36 PM
2013-08-29 2:49 PM
in reply to: tomspharmacy

User image

Regular
5477
5000100100100100252525
LHOTP
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane

Originally posted by tomspharmacy BTW, I did 5 hrs 00 min 31 secs, 14th ag 45-49, as I said the 1.5 miles of the last 8 miles of snow canyon slowed me down, the first 10k run didn't help either.. I was expecting a 4:45. :( No excuses, higher elevation by 2500 to 3000 ft., happy with the effort, just came up short or underprepared (gearing) or undertrained (run with high grades) on a couple of sections... otherwise... I didn't give in, kept plugging away... it felt like a 4:45 to 4:50 effort. I did well at the next one based on this experience and did a 4:58 at 7,200 ft elevation (about a 4:35 corrected to my 1500 ft elevation), a slightly easier bike and run course... since St. George was in my thoughts, I new that I had the balls to tough out the rough spots and get the bad memories of the rough sections out of my head. I won the 45-49 ag. My first win... finally busted through after almost 2 years.

Thanks so much for such a detailed explanation of the course and its challenges.  That's really helpful! The gearing/bike grind sounds horrible.  Ugh. 

If you were going to do St. George again, what would you do differently (training or race day), aside from running different gears and getting out there a month early?

What course did you do at 7,200'?

 

 

2013-08-29 4:08 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
632
50010025
Ajo
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
I did a race called Mountain Man - billed as the toughest race you'll ever love... in Flagstaff, AZ

I haven't decided to do St. George again, I most likely will. I wanted Vegas Slot...missed by the amount I underestimated on the bike. Next time, I will go in with the 11/28 (did this for Mountain Man since it has steepish, but short climbs), and I'll be better versed in the run course and be prepared mentally and physically to tackle the first 10k... I had some cramping on the hills in my lower quads where I had to walk a little bit, going downhill was ok. I'll know to bring salt tabs too... I think with more specific prep I could easily knock off 5 to 10 min., it'll be the next 5 minutes that'll take some intestinal fortitude... but a 4:45 to 4:50 most likely will give me a Vegas slot next time, if they're handing out 100 slots again, we got 8 in our age group, and roll down went to 9th place, 9th was at 4:54, so there were a tightly packed group for the next 5 spots to my 14th.

As someone mentioned somewhere, the amount of slots given out brought out some fast folks... all of the top ten, except one guy (I placed the highest spot for someone from the lowest altitude... I can at least feel better saying that... LOL), in my ag were from places with altitude like Colorado or Utah. The guy who got 4th was Bryan Dunn (from a lower altitude) from the forums here, and he is a phenomenal athlete and wins practically everything. In fact he won last year at IMSG in those brutal conditions. He was surprised of the stacked talent, he knows a lot of folks across the country but had never seen these guys before... popped up out of nowhere... LOL. Bryan ripped out a 2:24 bike split, I was flabergasted, on that couse that is freakiin' flyin'. He said he had to work hard on it b/c the others that he saw weren't relenting either. It kind of affected his run, he's a sub 1:20 half marathon runner, and can do a 1:30, but at this course got a 1:38, bested by other great runners doing as low as 1:28??!!!! WTF!!! Great stuff to hear!!!



Anyways, to answer your question about a sub-5 hr... it's a great goal, it's always been my goal... but while I had no competitive swimming, running background, some cylcing until 27... I hadn't done much from the age of about 30 to 42 yo. I exercised maybe 3 days a week, some gym, some running and that's it. I guess what I had done fitness and sports fun wise from the age of 10 to 27 prepared me better for this, but I hadn't ever swum before and at my first tri a sprint, did a nice 21 minute 750m... but I biked my arse off into contention and ran decently to finish 4th. At my first Oly's I did alright, but got my head handed to me... at my first HIM (a sub-5 goal)... I swam well (after lessons and practice), bike great and was on target for about a 5 hour finish, but fell apart on the run after the first 3 miles, to finish at 5:19. So, that being said... if you have a good fitness background AND some decent genes... you can get a sub-5 hour... but it's not the easiest thing to do (unless your Bryan Dunn then it's easy ) ... unless, you pace yourself appropriately and have solid training under your belt. Do be disappointed if it doesn't happen the first time.


Edited by tomspharmacy 2013-08-29 4:29 PM
2013-08-29 4:32 PM
in reply to: tomspharmacy

User image

Extreme Veteran
878
500100100100252525
Connecticut
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane
Agreed, don't be disappointed if it doesn't happen the first time. The first time at any distance shouldn't have too many expectations attached to it, regardless of how many tris of shorter distances you've done. Things change, nutrition management being the biggest. Mentally, it's different. Physically, it's different. You learn a mountain of information the first time, that informs how you will train, how you will adapt, and how you will execute your second. If you do really well your first time, hey hey great, chapeau! But there is only two ways out of it - either you do great, or you do it. If you do it, you did great, and you learned a lot, so either way, you did great! Part of the allure of this sport has to be the number of years it takes...the process is a huge part of the enjoyment!
2013-08-29 4:57 PM
in reply to: fisherman76

User image


353
1001001002525
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane

I'm surprised NOLA is so far up that list.  The only "difficult" part of the course is the fact that by 10:30AM it may be close to 80 degrees on race day.  Otherwise it's completely flat for both the bike and run.

 

If it's going strictly off average finishing times, well, let's just say we're not the leanest around here.



2013-08-29 5:23 PM
in reply to: RussTKD

User image

Extreme Veteran
3326
2000100010010010025
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane


By their logic, Vegas 70.3 WC is probably the easiest course since guys like Bryan Dunn bring the average finish time down :-)
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Sub 5:00 for first HIM, realistic or insane Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Realistic expectations for first HIM time...

Started by PeteDin206
Views: 868 Posts: 11

2012-02-07 9:29 AM KathyG

realistic 800m swim time for first tri

Started by haley913
Views: 5567 Posts: 8

2011-03-21 9:12 PM pistuo

My first sub 2 minute 100 yards! Pages: 1 2

Started by atostig
Views: 1220 Posts: 29

2010-02-10 7:31 AM MKAH

It's 5am and I have my first tri in 2 hours

Started by macr6
Views: 665 Posts: 15

2009-07-13 9:42 AM macr6

5:00 mile possible? Pages: 1 2

Started by jcdenton2000
Views: 1327 Posts: 34

2007-06-06 9:25 AM Daremo
RELATED ARTICLES
date : September 27, 2012
author : davey m
comments : 3
Deciding on an Ironman as my first venture into triathlon was greeted with incredulity and astonishment combined with a hint of, "well, you're full of yourself aren't you?" and, "a bit ambitious?"
 
date : July 18, 2012
author : Khorwohock
comments : 14
I have always wanted to do a triathlon to keep myself fit, and now I had my chance.
date : August 31, 2011
author : gracetaBitha
comments : 2
What could've gone wrong did not go wrong. Everything that couldn't go right, went right. Result: The most wonderful, perfect, first triathlon for yours truly.
 
date : October 9, 2007
author : She-Ra
comments : 12
I never imagined that 350 yards broken down into 7 REALLY long lanes would be so big! I gasped out loud and told Grady that maybe I had underestimated the swim.
date : February 7, 2007
author : Angie M
comments : 4
In the past 18 months, I have delivered two babies, had meningitis, broken my pelvis, had two surgeries, worked full time, AND completed my first triathlon!
 
date : November 27, 2005
author : spetremears
comments : 0
9 weeks after my first bike ride, 5 months after my first swim and 13 months after my surgery I entered the Nelson week Tri a Tri !
date : October 2, 2005
author : acbadger
comments : 1
I too was a beginner triathlete...and in many ways, I still am! 6 years ago, I was an overweight woman who considered herself relatively fit until I was told I should start running.
 
date : September 3, 2005
author : aloufan
comments : 0
I couldn't believe that my splits kept getting lower! I started to run harder after I passed the "5 km" sign and picked a few people that I wanted to pass.